Misplaced Pages

Talk:Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevo327 (talk | contribs) at 16:27, 16 October 2023 (→Use of the word indigenous: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:27, 16 October 2023 by Kevo327 (talk | contribs) (→Use of the word indigenous: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2022Articles for deletionKept
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 7, 2023.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
[REDACTED] Current events
[REDACTED] This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArmenia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconBlockade of Nagorno-Karabakh is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArtsakh Top‑importance
WikiProject iconBlockade of Nagorno-Karabakh is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAzerbaijan Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijanWikiProject icon
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

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

This article contains a translation of Արցախի շրջափակում (2022) from hy.wikipedia. (1127275264 et seq.)

On 7 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Nagorno-Karabakh blockade. The result of the discussion was Moved to Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Ethnic cleansing

No, no. I just stumbled on this article and I was impressed by the sources and their placement. It is done in a way that does not distract from the reading. Impressive article so far.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.167.196.62 (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie

Thanks for your feedback on my user page.

I agree that there is citation overkill. Part of that was from a structural edit, but also because a lot of articles in the Armenia/Azerbaijan topics are subject to contentious editing so generally if anything isn't cited it's often removed.


Let's start with definitions regarding your edit where you added "(alleged)" to one of the goals of the blockade.


Ethnic cleansing

Although "ethnic cleansing" does not have a strict legal definition, it usually includes intentional forced migration (either direct or indirect) through coercion, intimidation, and/or genocide. These characteristics are mentioned by United Nations entities, including the UNSC. Two other characteristics listed by the UNSC include "arbitrary arrest and detention ... confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas."

Genocide

The intentional destruction of a people based on their perceived membership in a group. Also some genocide scholars and advocacy groups criticize the distinction, many media and scholars consider genocide to be a form of ethnic cleansing but not all ethnic cleansing is genocide.


In the context of the blockade

Numerous reliable sources describe the blockade as aimed at ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.

Numerous reliable sources also characterize the blockade as a form of "intimidation", "coercion," and state that there is "intention" to "expel" or cause an "outflow" of the Armenian population.

Given this, I'm struggling to see why you added "alleged" to the infobox. Looking forward to hearing you feedback on this!

  • The founding prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, describes the blockade as a genocide, under Article II, (c) of the Genocide Convention: "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction," adding that "... President Aliyev has Genocidal intentions: he has knowingly, willingly and voluntarily blockaded the Lachin Corridor even after having been placed on notice regarding the consequences of his actions by the ICJ’s provisional orders."
  • Another group of genocide scholars at the 2022 Global Forum Against the Crime of Genocide declared: "we believe that the actions of the Azerbaijani government pose a threat of genocide to Armenians in the region."
  • "Khachatryan’s detention confirms the fears of many Karabakh Armenians that, if Azerbaijan assumes control over Karabakh, it will detain (and torture) them arbitrarily, using their participation in one or more of the wars as justification. This criteria extends to nearly every male resident of the small enclave."
  • The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect issued an "atrocity alert" in which it says Azerbaijan's "intentional and unlawful denial of humanitarian assistance may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity."
  • The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention: "These events are not isolated events; they are, instead, being committed within a larger genocidal pattern against Armenia and Armenians by the Azerbaijani regime." The group also wrote "The genocidal intent of Baku has never been clearer and the actions carried out up to the moment highly predict this outcome."The group wrote Azerbaijan's "intentions are clear: to wipe out all traces of Armenian life and of an Armenian presence in this region. Azerbaijani President, Ilham Aliyev, has consistently and repeatedly stated that he intends to eradicate the indigenous Armenians dwelling in Artsakh."
  • International Association of Genocide Scholars – condemned the blockade and Azerbaijan's "deliberate attacks on ... ...critical infrastructure." The group noted "significant genocide risk factors exist in the Nagorno-Karabakh situation concerning the Armenian population." The government of Azerbaijan...has issued repeated threats to empty the region of its indigenous Armenian population."
  • Genocide Watch – issued an alert stating "Due to its unprovoked attacks and genocidal rhetoric against ethnic Armenians, Genocide Watch considers Azerbaijan's assault on Armenia and Artsakh to be at Stage 4: Dehumanization, Stage 7: Preparation, Stage 8: Persecution, and Stage 10: Denial." The group described the blockade as "a clear attempt by the Azerbaijani government to starve, freeze, and ultimately expel Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh."
  • "The humanitarian catastrophe we are now witnessing—or, more accurately, the world is refusing to witness—is a textbook enactment of ethnic cleansing. More than a dozen nongovernmental organisations, including Genocide Watch, have issued a stark warning that Azerbaijan’s blockade is “designed to, in the words of the Genocide Convention, deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the end of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group in whole or in part. All 14 risk factors for atrocity crimes identified by the UN Secretary-General’s Office on Genocide Prevention are now present.”
  • "This tactic is meant to bring about an outflow of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh through the creation of a humanitarian crisis."
  • "Here, a deadly brew of armed aggression and ethnic cleansing against the majority population of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh"
  • "The blockade...has as its aim the takeover of historic Armenian lands in the Republic of Artsakh and in the Republic of Armenia along with the forced displacement (“ethnic cleansing”) of the Armenian populations in Azeri-acquired territory."
  • "This time, Armenians are being ethnically cleansed by Azerbaijan..."

R.Lemkin (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Lemkin Institute,It is an institution founded in 2017 that works as a complete Armenian propaganda device. does not have an impartial perspective. 31.223.59.158 (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. Hayden, Robert M. (1996) "Schindler's Fate: Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing, and Population Transfers" Archived April 11, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Slavic Review 55 (4), 727–48.
  2. "Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)" (PDF). United Nations Security Council. May 27, 1994. p. 33. Archived from the original on May 14, 2011. Retrieved May 25, 2020. Paragraph 129
  3. Ռ/Կ, «Ազատություն» (2023-08-09). "Top International Lawyer Calls Azerbaijani Blockade Of Nagorno-Karabakh Genocide". «Ազատ Եվրոպա/Ազատություն» ռադիոկայան (in Armenian). Retrieved 2023-08-11.
  4. "Armenians face genocide in Azerbaijan, former International Criminal Court prosecutor warns". AP News. 2023-08-09. Retrieved 2023-08-11.
  5. "Statement on the Goris-Stepanakert Corridor Closure – Global Forum Against the Crime of Genocide". Retrieved 2023-05-03.
  6. Papazian, Mary; Sahakian, Vatche (2023-01-31). "Op-Ed: We can't let history repeat itself with the siege of Nagorno-Karabakh". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2023-05-03.
  7. Nazarian, Ara (February 17, 2023). "Azerbaijan must end Lachin corridor blockade". BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 2023-05-04.
  8. Hauer, Neil (2023-07-31). "Karabakh blockade reaches critical point as food supplies run low". www.intellinews.com. Retrieved 2023-08-01. Khachatryan's detention confirms the fears of many Karabakh Armenians that, if Azerbaijan assumes control over Karabakh, it will detain (and torture) them arbitrarily, using their participation in one or more of the wars as justification. This criteria extends to nearly every male resident of the small enclave. "Arrests with linkages to the past wars, local army or the government …would quality almost all local men for detentions," wrote Olesya Vartanyan, International Crisis Group's senior analyst for the South Caucasus. The detainees can expect torture or worse, as the Armenian prisoners of war following the 2020 war conflict experienced.
  9. "Atrocity Alert No. 358: El Salvador, Nagorno-Karabakh and UN peacekeeping". Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Retrieved 2023-08-08.
  10. "Red Flag Alert for Genocide – Azerbaijan – Update 5". Lemkin Institute. Retrieved 2022-12-22.
  11. "Red Flag Alert for Genocide – Azerbaijan Update 4". Lemkin Institute. Retrieved 2022-12-22.
  12. von Joeden-Forgey, Elisa; Victoria Massimino, Irene (2022-05-15). "Open Letter to Charles Michel, President of the European Council, Regarding Complicity in Genocide" (PDF).
  13. "@LemkinInstitute". Twitter. Retrieved 2023-05-15.
  14. "International Association of Genocide Scholars issues statement condemning the Azerbaijani blockade of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh)". The Armenian Weekly. 2023-02-02. Retrieved 2023-02-06.
  15. "Genocide Warning: Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh", Genocide Watch, 23 September 2022, retrieved 3 January 2023
  16. Hill, Nathaniel (2023-02-24). "Genocide Emergency: Azerbaijan's Blockade of Artsakh". genocidewatch. Retrieved 2023-05-03.
  17. Oltramonti, Giulia Prelz (2023-03-13). "Nagorno-Karabakh: slowly but surely, Baku is weaponising the green movement to cut off the region's supplies". The Conversation. Retrieved 2023-08-12.
  18. Korah, Susan (2023-05-18). "Time for Canada to step up in the South Caucasus". Open Canada. Retrieved 2023-08-12.
  19. "A Serious Risk of Genocide: Recent Developments in Nagorno-Karabakh | City, University of London". www.city.ac.uk. 2023-06-07. Retrieved 2023-08-12.
@R.Lemkin: TL;DR. Learn to be WP:CONCISE, please. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
As stated above, reliable sources are present in the article and everything is fairly sourced. Random removal of sourced content with extremely vague "POV" rationale isn't helpful and isn't productive at all, for example: supposed "scare quotes" that were recently removed are literally added in the source itself , and alot of the content that was removed/reworded was sourced or already discussed if you check the archives , . None of these recent changes make sense as they're unhelpful, in contrary to sources, and extremely vaguely rationalized. I reverted to the stable edit and am asking for editor(s) to show their SPECIFIC well rationalized concerns on the talk page FIRST before making edits (minor maintenance edits were also undone unfortunately, but they were collateral and because it was part of overall recent edits, it can be restored anytime). - Kevo (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I have left a message on your talk page, Kevo327. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie Replied to you there, comment further here please if you have anything to say, for convenience purposes. - Kevo (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie
Forgive me for my lengthy reply, I thought you would appreciate it given that in your edit summary you wrote "This is a serious accusation, and citing it as a goal must be supported by more than speculation."
There are many reliable sources (see above) that describe the blockade as "ethnic cleansing," including many of the criteria (intention, outflow/expelling of a population, arbitrary detention of people, genocide). Many of these same sources also describe the population of Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh as "indigenous" in contrast to your removal of the term with the edit summary "this is not the right word" . Please take a look at the sources that do support this in the article or above in the Talk. I agree with user Kevo327 that if there any specific issue, it should be discussed and replied first (if you have a good rationale) and please be specific without vagueness, like I am with my comments, so I can answer more if need be.
thanks!! R.Lemkin (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2023

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 Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. There is consensus that Nagorno-Karabakh is the common name in this situation, also consensus on the alternate proposed name. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) → Nagorno-Karabakh blockade – Most common name in sources, no need for parenthetic disambiguation.  —Michael Z. 20:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Lightoil (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Some news items do say “what locals call Artsakh” by way of explanation, but very few use the name. In the results page of a Google News search for “blockade Armenia Azerbaijan,” Artsakh appears 5 times, Nagorno-Karabakh 36 times, and Karabakh 45 times.  —Michael Z. 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
For those who say that Artsakh, and not Nagorno-Karabakh, has been blockaded, Art. 1, Para. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Artsakh says “The names ‘Republic of Artsakh’ and ‘Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh’ are identical.” (If you want to continue the argument, then your next point would be that the constitution of Artsakh is not a source on what is Artsakh, and some citations of better sources.)  —Michael Z. 17:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
It is very unorthodox to use proper names different than the one used in the subject's article in titles. I think that if we can't keep "Republic of Artsakh" we shouldn't name the entity's official name in any way. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
So the constitution of Artsakh says "The names 'Republic of Artsakh' and 'Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh' are identical" . I personally don't see a problem with either "Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh" or "Blockade of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh" / "Blockade of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic". - Kevo (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Like I stated above, Misplaced Pages is not based on what any user believes to be "truth", "false", or "misleading" based on their personal WP:OR. Per WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV, Misplaced Pages publishes and gives due weight to significant views published in RS based on their respective prominence. For article titles, this means the most common descriptors and terms used by English-language RS win out per WP:COMMONAME. Since "Artsakh" and "republic" are not commonly used by English-language RS, none of your suggestion is acceptable. StellarHalo (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
You don't have an official name. It is the name of an informal structure. 31.223.59.158 (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  • How would the users here feel about the proposal Blockade of Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh? This uses the most common name for the region in English-language sources while also keeping the precision that the current title has. It is quite long but that didn't stop us from titling Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that way (also wanted to mention this article to show that it is not POV to call Nagorno-Karabakh as Armenian-occupied). I was actually thinking of opposing this proposal as I'd rather have the current precise title but it already had three supports so I was discouraged, I also believe this proposal might get the best of both titles. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    Regarding precision, is the territory controlled by local forces and Russian forces exactly the same as the claimed borders of Artsakh, and guaranteed to be the same in the future? I think the use of “Nagorno-Karabakh” is nominal, and not equivalent to a detailed map.  —Michael Z. 21:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    The article Republic of Artsakh has a map of “Territory controlled by Artsakh shown in dark green; territory claimed but not controlled shown in light green.” The lighter green appears to be closer to, but not the same as the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh (which article’s lead says is “also referred to as Artsakh by Armenians”).
    I don’t believe using either name is meaningfully more or less precise enough to override using the COMMONNAME.  —Michael Z. 21:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    I would argue against use of the "Blockade of Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh":
    A) it's wordy, not concise and also not recognizable. No one talks about this blockade in WP:RS like that.
    B) Many countries do not necessarily categorize Nagorno-Karabakh itself as "occupied territory" in the same way they do with the surrounding districts. The majority of diplomatic statements on this issue do not mention the alleged "occupation" of NKR itself, so it's simply inappropriate in this context. And of course the lack of its usage in WP:RS covering the blockade, as I said already. - Kevo (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    If we're talking about commonality, I'd go for "Blockade of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", which is correct in sense of what is actually being blockaded and by Artsakh's own constitution too, and it is common. This provides Precision, Recognizability, and Consistency within the larger subject of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. Keeping "Republic" clarifies (disambiguates) that the area blockaded by Azerbaijan is distinct from the remaining 33% of Nagorno-Karabakh that it captured in 2020. Multiple sources (including Misplaced Pages articles) specifically mention Nagorno-Karabakh. Republic is still needed though to describe the fact that this is not internationally perceived as just a road closure. - Kevo (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    In the page of Google News search results I mentioned in the second post above, “republic” does not occur even once. In the text of the first five results, republic of Artsakh is mentioned in two. Some mention that Artsakh is the Armenian name for Nagorno-Karabakh, but none mentions republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.  —Michael Z. 22:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh refers to the blockade of the government that represents a group of people, which is an accurate description of the situation at hand. Conversely, Nagorno-Karabakh blockade is ambiguous and it may be referring to the entire Nagorno-Karabakh, however only the Armenian-controlled parts are being blockaded. Moreover, it implies that a territory is being blockaded, not a group of people who are being restricted from basic human necessities. The status quo is definitive as it implies that a group of people represented by a government are being blockaded, the latter vaguely implies that a vast swath of territory (which is controlled by multiple parties) is being blockaded (what does this even mean without any additional context?). Henceforth, the status quo is a better option to keep. Ultimately, I won/t object to "Blockade of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic" though as it's also a name for the republic. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  • All this talk about needing to make it clear from the title that not all of Nagorno-Karabakh is under blockade is very unnecessary. It's widely understood that Azerbaijan isn't blockading the parts of Nagorno-Karabakh under its control. The logic of some of the commenters implies that we should change the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" to "Second Parts-of-Nagorno-Karabakh-and-occupied-regions-surrounding-it war" since most of Nagorno-Karabakh remained untouched during the war. The term "Artsakh/NKR" covers more than just the areas currently under its control, according to its own constitution, so using "Republic" doesn’t disambiguate anything. NMW03 (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    It’s not just an area (as Azerbaijan’s government wants it) we’re discussing, it’s a specific political entity and ethnic group blockaded, and not making it clear would mislead the reader. There’s nothing “widely/well understood” in NK conflict - a complex tangled confrontation in a less-known area of the world, we should be as specific as possible.
    I see that these kinds of arguments were brought forward in the previous name change discussion without consensus. And nothing has changed since then. - Kevo (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    This discussion thread, about the semantics of historical details regarding boundaries and organizations, doesn’t relate to our guidelines or to naming in reliable sources.  —Michael Z. 14:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    I’d argue that focusing on territory / geography only is wrong - have a look at all the content of most serious articles referenced here - all of them focus on the fact that the local Armenians as a self-organised group are blockaded, not just some vague area with arbitrary borders. Look at the alerts about genocide. Why focus on geo (less essential) and ignore the ethnic / political entity (the key factor)? - Kevo (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Focus on naming of the article’s subject in reliable sources as per WP:TITLE, not on either local Armenian organizations nor on geography.  —Michael Z. 21:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    One of the article naming rules is precision and disambiguation, and disambiguating the current blockade from early 1990s blockade, disambiguating the blockaded ethnic group from vague territorial name with imprecise borders is what the proponents of move tend to ignore. Quoting - "Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." Vanezi (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
    The previous discussion got a bad close that should have been challenged in a move review. The side supporting the move use arguments based on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines while the opposing side do not meaning your and their opinions hold little, if any, weight. StellarHalo (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    That’s also an opinion, and one that doesn’t comply well with Misplaced Pages standards - it reduces the discussion to “sides” as if this was some kind of battleground or election voting, instead of focusing on the editorial content, detail and precision. - Kevo (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    What standards? The people opposing this move request have not advanced any argument that is based on any of Misplaced Pages's policy or guideline. StellarHalo (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nagorno-Karabakh is a term with multiple different meanings - it is first of all a geographical area with vague borders, for international sources it short version of "former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous oblast" based on Soviet-time oblast, it is used as a synonym of "Republic of Artsakh" in Armenian sources. What is blockaded is precisely the Republic of Artsakh (aka Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh) - the Armenian populated 2/3 of the Nagorno-Karabakh region - areas under Azerbaijan's control (Shushi, Hadrut) are not blockaded.
I prefer "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (2022–present)" if there will be any move at all. We have to make it clear it is a specific ethno-political entity (2/3 of the NK region) that is blockaded, not the entire Nagorno-Karabakh region. We should have a properly disambiguated title that does not mislead the reader due to ambiguity. Also this move proposal doesn’t include the ”2022-present” part in the title, which is important to keep as it’s not the first time Azerbaijan blocks isolated Artsakh / Nagorno-Karabakh, see starting two paragraphs of Lachin corridor#History. Vanezi (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: As others have stated, the current title more precisely (WP:PRECISE) describes the subject of the current blockade TheThighren (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Support: Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh per Dromaeosaurus. Obvious and concise. Also, complies with WP:COMMONNAME — Toghrul R (t) 12:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Support: Almost all the main sources used it as "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade".--Qızılbaş (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Current events has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Armenia has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Azerbaijan has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support since the NKR occupies most parts of the region which is known as "Nagorno-Karabakh". Also (2022-present) is simply redunant. Beshogur (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support While it could be argued that Azerbaijan can't blockade its own region, calling it the Republic of Artsakh adds redundant legitimacy to the internationally unrecognized breakaway area. My own proposal was "blockade of the Lachin corridor" to address both concerns, but it didn't gain traction. Brandmeister 20:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    Calling it the "Republic of Artsakh" / "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh" does not imply a position on its status. Rather, it provides clarity and ease to the reader. Numerous reliable sources indicate that this blockade is about more than a mere "road closure" and instead is about one entity (Azerbaijan) trying to achieve de facto control over another entity (the Republic of Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh). - Kevo (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
    FYI
    Beshogur (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. The present title is not used by any reliable source. According to WP:COMMONNAME, we must use commonly recognizable names, and the most common used by reliable sources are "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" or "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh", and also "Blockade of Lachin corridor". I support the use of any of those 3 commonly used titles. Grandmaster 08:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Only the Republic of Artsakh is being blockaded, not the whole Nagorno-Karabakh region. —Trilletrollet 16:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah because Azerbaijan controls part of the former NKAO. "Nagorno-Karabakh" is a loose definition. Beshogur (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh", not "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade", because the latter is as if blockade is done by NKR. Wikisaurus (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
    That is a good point and I would endorse this option just as well.  —Michael Z. 13:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, I sympathize with other editors as the 'more' correct term would be Artsakh but the overwhelming use of Nagorno-Karabakh in sources leads to an obvious support based on WP:COMMONNAME. Less sure on the removal of the dates as I could see events during the conflict being reasonably interpreted as a blockade. Yeoutie (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (or Artsakh Republic) officially declared that it ceased to exist. If we consider this event to be ongoing, the present title makes no sense now, in addition to not being used by any reliable source. Grandmaster 08:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support After checking the sources mentioned in the discussion above, it really does seem like most of the sources refer to it as "Nagorno-Karabakh" rather than "Artsakh". It just makes more sense to implement the name change. - Creffel (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong support for moving to Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. This is clearly the COMMONNAME in sources. Nagorno-Karabakh blockade also works, but it just sounds off. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:58, 30 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.

Blockade of the Lachin corridor

It is incorrect to talk about the blockade of the "Republic of Artsakh" when humanitarian supplies are expected in Aghdam and Barda towards the Armenian-populated region of Karabakh. I think the title of the article is misleading (although the sources write mainly about the "blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh", especially not "Artsakh"), because in fact there is a blockade of the Lachin corridor for cargo transportation. The Armenian residents of Karabakh block any possible humanitarian routes from Azerbaijan. Accordingly, it would be logical to call the article "blockade of the Lachin corridor". Moreover, there are many sources that call it that. Or to introduce a clarification in the text that the blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh is both on the part of Azerbaijan and on the part of the unrecognized NKR. Thanks Khan Afshar (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would rather prefer that option, having proposed it sometime ago. Brandmeister 20:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The timeline section needs to get updated

The "Blockade timeline" section doesn't list any events after August 1. That section needs to get updated, and such a disclaimer should be added. I don't have extended-confirmed account status, so I can't add it myself. IkiEneng (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Lemkin Institute

It seems that the Lemkin Institute is an institution that shares completely biased and propaganda purposes.

https://twitter.com/LemkinInstitute/status/1704869173648592937 They are openly sharing the posts of the Armenian lobby in America. https://twitter.com/LemkinInstitute/status/1704694675070709817 Additionally, they share many false claims and accusations. I demand the removal of all texts based on this source that contradict its impartial point of view. 31.223.58.117 (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it still ongoing?

As seen in the Aftermath section of the Azerbaijani offensive article, supplies are now pouring into Nagorno-Karabakh, from the Russians, the Red Cross, and, according to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan. It doesn't appear that Azerbaijan is restricting the movement of humanitarian supplies at this point, nor does it appear that it's trying to block deliveries of supplies or evacuations of Armenians - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 14:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's still blockaded with public utilities disrupted. - Kevo (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Lemkin Institute, I see that you are very interested in this subject. What is your opinion? 31.223.59.158 (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
And now? Beshogur (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2023

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

The 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh should be put in the resulted in section. Napalm Guy (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Andumé (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Verification and removal of redundant references

I'm going to go through the article a bit now. Because this is already WP:REFBOMBING.

  • Merging equal references (580 -> 497) ✅
  • Solving reference technical errors ✅
  • Removal of redundant references ✅
  • Excessive citations tag removed ✅

If you disagree with my specific actions, please write here so we can discuss. Thanks. Colaheed777 (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word indigenous

Kevo327; I understand that you are an Armenian, but it's important to put our biases aside here. You've constantly been reverting what I've been doing which improves this (and other) articles related to this topic, and it's starting to feel like you just want to control every edit made here. There's no ownership of this page, please remember that.
Next, the usage of the word indigenous. It's inaccurate, since it implies that Armenians are the absolute first and only native inhabitants of the region, while there have been other civilizations in the area across milleniums. Many groups are native to the region and to describe Armenians as the only indigenous from Nagorno-Karabakh is not acknowledging NPOV. Additionally, I could only find R.Lemkin, a now-blocked user (and probably biased too), promoting the usage of this word on this article. It doesn't even seem to have a widespread usage across Misplaced Pages, but just here.
Ethnic Armenians is a perfectly respectable and neutral way to refer to the (now-departed) Armenian population of the region/breakaway state. It doesn't remove from the understanding of the understanding of the article. In fact, it adds to the understanding of the goals of the blockade, since many Armenians who are not originally from Nagorno-Karabakh but who moved from Armenia into NKR were also ethnically cleansed from the region. If it was just a campaign against "indigenous" Armenians, then the non-indigenous ones would surely have not been targeted, right? It doesn't add up. Ethnic Armenians is perfectly respectable and follows WP:NPOV. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that the word "indigenous" isn't mentioned once on Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. It's really a localized, POINTy inclusion by former editor R.Lemkin. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, I will add that it is completely irrelevant to add the word "indigenous" in the infobox & whatnot. This is because "ethnic Armenians" is a term in itself to refer to people who are ethnically Armenian. "Indigenous Armenians" is a term hyperfixated on the fact that they are from there, while the true purpose of including the word "ethnic" should be to specify that they are ethnically Armenian (in contrary to simply the word Armenian, of which people don't have to be ethnically Armenian, just have citizenship of the country.) Essentially, the point is that according to the article, Azerbaijan has ethnically cleansed the region of ethnic Armenians, which is a single noun. Indigenous is not needed here-- it's like outside information at this point. Ethnic Armenians is written to specify that it is specifically ethnic Armenians who are the subject of ethnic cleansing. That they are indigenous or not is irrelevant to this part of the article. I hope that makes sense. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: Sorry for being so angry at you. The last few weeks have been a mental trainwreck for me (and many others), and I just felt a need to vent somehow. You seem like a nice person, so you don't deserve to have accusations of denialism thrown at you. —Trilletrollet 00:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
@Trilletrollet: Hello, I appreciate the message. Sorry for getting worked up on your talk page as well. Happy editing! Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, I suggest you avoid and strike your personal attacks such as the first sentence of your statment; comment on content not the contributor.
Secondly, Armenians are indigenous to Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh. The word "indigenous" has been used in various reputable sources that discuss the Armenians that are affected by the blockade. The sources that discuss this are in peer-reviewed academic journals as well (see the one on Genocide Studies International). Nowhere in the Misplaced Pages article does it imply or state that Armenians are the only indigenous people of the region. However, worth mentioning that Artsakh’s indigenous population has been overwhelmingly Armenian for millennia and the Armenian population has had de facto autonomy from Azerbaijan up until now. This source specifically mentions that Artsakh's indigenous population has predominantly been Armenian for millennia. This suggests that mentioning other indigenous peoples of Artsakh is WP:UNDUE.
You cannot change what multiple sources say based on your own WP:OR 'analysis', again please avoid doing this. I'll present the sources:
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention
International Association of Genocide Scholars
Genocide Studies International: Nagorno-Karabakh and the Lachin Corridor Crisis
Rolling Stone Magazine
The Progressive Magazine
The Markaz Review
Time.com
Modern Diplomacy
AEI
Geopolitical Monitor -- opinion piece
Newsweek.com -- opinion
I repeat once again, do not modify sourced content, your behavior is becoming increasingly disruptive - you may be sanctioned if it continues this way. - Kevo (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I've just had enough with these antics. "Ethnic" is the proper word, period. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
You would think Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians would reference the word "indigenous", right? It's not mentioned on the page once. Instead, over there, the proper wording "ethnic Armenians" is correctly used. It's irrelevant to put "indigenous" in the infobox on this article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The word "ethnic" provides actual value. Mentioning "indigenous" is outside information. "Ethnic Armenians" is a single term. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
If you want to start citing sources, it's best worth mentioning that "indigenous Armenians" is not even the majority usage of the term. "Ethnic Armenians" is way more widespread. But that's beside what I'm saying. I'm saying that "ethnic Armenians" is quite simply the proper term to refer to inhabitants of NKR who are Armenian. We call them ethnic Armenians. We don't call them indigenous Armenians. That's because we're talking about their ethnicity when saying that, not their history. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
History is relevant in this case. If you look at the sources above, you will see they mention specifically that the Azerbaijani government has launched a campaign of disinformation (historical falsification/revisionism/denialism) that denies the indigeneity of the Armenian population , . As such, "indigenous" is not only 1) how reliable sources describe NKR's population, but 2) is relevant to the topic.
Misplaced Pages articles, themselves, cannot be used as reliable sources. They are used as examples of editorial style and for consistency but not as sources to adjudicate the content itself. But you can see that the very Misplaced Pages article you shared on Indigenous peoples lists Armenian people as indigenous to the region under the subsection "West Asia." - Kevo (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh Add topic