Talk:2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes/Archive 1

Requested move 19 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. (non-admin closure) Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

Feedback from New Page Review process

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

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

Requested move 19 September 2023 (2)

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

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

---

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

---

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

Depends. It's too early to call it. Beshogur (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Seeing that Azerbaijan has announced this will continue until "surrender" and they will fight to "the end", this is clearly more than clashes.

BBC Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66851975 Craig VG (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin

Indeed:

"it was clear from the Azerbaijani ultimatum that Baku's aim was to complete its conquest of the mountainous enclave."

Unfortunately, this is a war. Craig VG (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin

Support: At this point the clashes are intense to te point that we can call it a war, it will be a matter of time until sources call this a war Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin

WP:CRYSTALBALLing here. At the moment, it's an offensive per sources in the discussion above, but if Artsakh or Armenia launches counter-operations and sources call it a war, then it can be called one. Jebiguess (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: It is still too early to refer to it as a war. However, I would support renaming the article if the circumstances would justify such a move (example: 1,000+ deaths etc.). --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Support: It's obvious this is a invasion of nagorno-karabakh, although its in its infancy right now, its only been a few hours, its 100% gonna evolve into a full scale war --ManU9827 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin

Support: Unfortunately it seems we're getting there... Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait until further developments lead sources to settle on a name. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This entire situation is tragic. Too short maybe to be called a war, but how else do we call something that ends in the full capitulation of one side? I don't even have words for what happened. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

To be more on-point for the current debate, there is precedent for very short wars ending in immediate capitulation and still being called "wars" (e.g. the Anglo-Zanzibar War), so changing my vote back to Support given recent developments. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Azerbaijan's presidential advisor claimed that their forces moved to "smaller, surgical operations" implying that this isn't a full-scale invasion yet. Later he said they were conducting "local but limited counter-terrorism measures". Of course, Azerbaijan is known for lying but I'd argue that until Azerbaijan's full intentions are known (not just what comes out of mouths), we should hold back. Azerbaijan's intentions so far seem to be to intimidate Artsakh to surrender. However, if they do actively resists, then Azerbaijan may up the ante. 134.41.97.116 (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin

Support it's gone beyond mere border clashes at this point. Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Support: Scale of military operations is great to be referred as clash. I will recommend to change it when official verification of land operations come. To this momment, there are only unofficial statements about capture of areas by Azerbaijani forces. Orxan Hacızadə (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin

Partial Support:^{bolded portion struck by user} Pretty much all of us admit this is pretty close to becoming a war, but it still isn't clear yet whether or not a full-scale invasion has occurred. Likewise, many of us remain unconvinced that the current title, describing the series of events as "clashes" is inaccurate, as these are nowhere near minor border skirmishes anymore, and, in my opinion, pretty much any other descriptor like "offensive", "war", "invasion", and "attacks", would likely suit better. However, given the current sphere of information we have, with sources not yet describing it as a "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War", I remain more inclined to go with the alternative "2023 Nagorno-Karabakh offensive" for now or we wait and see how events transpire in the subsequent hours or day(s) before coming to a consensus of describing it as another war, although that seems almost inevitable at this point. RedMethyst (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin

Wait, until it is frequently referred to as such. It is way too early now to speak of a Third War. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ^{(chat | contribs)} 21:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait', Strongly agree we should wait, but I support the change once we get better sources. In the grand scheme of things, we are probably seeing the Third Nagorno-Karabakh War starting, but until something more reliable comes up we shouldn't jump the gun. Citogenesis is a very real thing to consider. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unless there are sources calling it "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War", then obviously we can't use that title. We don't make stuff up at Wikipedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, even if it is unfortunately likely to end up that way, it's better to wait for the sources first. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support I agree that, in theory, we ought to wait until some source calls it the Third Karabakh War. However, we don't have sources on "Nagorno-Karabakh clashes" either; and clashes no longer properly describes what is going on. Thus, this proposal has us going from one bad name to another potentially bad name. As such, I support the move, with the understanding that we can quickly change it to whatever the name ends up being once the sources agree on what to call it--a process that may take some time. However, if this proposal is unacceptable, then I'd also suggest "2023 invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh". NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose wait for sources to call it such; I see no(!) sources calling this a war, just attack/offensive/escalation. Yeoutie (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose not what's being reported by WP:RS, not common in RS. See the discussion above for what majority RS state [1], which is either an attack or offensive on Nagorno Karabakh. Also how is this a "Third Karabakh war" when Armenia isn't even a belligerent as they don't have forces stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh? No RS reports this as third karabakh war, it's a made up title - this is a one sided attack/offensive per majority RS and should be described as such, my proposal was and is 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh or 2023 Azerbaijani attack against Nagorno-Karabakh per majority available WP:RS. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded: You know what, you're right about that. Us as Wikipedians shouldn't be manifesting this as what it presently isn't (a third war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh), while we also have a responsibility to avert citogenesis as Etrius previously mentioned. I'm most partial to labelling this as an "offensive", but I also see a plethora of news articles referring to it either as an "attack" or a "military operation", so those options remain fairly open for consideration. RedMethyst (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin

  Support alternative proposal: While no one has called this the Third Nagorno-Karabakh War, most news sources I’ve seen aren’t calling this a "clash" either. They either call it an "offensive" or an "operation" (with offensive being the less vague of the two). Per WP:COMMONNAME I think the title should reflect that. XTheBedrockX (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  @XTheBedrockX I already tried opening a different Move but it was collapsed because there can be a single Move at one time. I showed sources for attack/offensive above [2] and some users commented there agreeing. When this closes, I'll nominate for a Move again with what's being reported majority WP:RS. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Wait we don't even know what's going on yet, to put it simply. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait. If the death toll is not big enough by the time it ends, then no. But it would be interesting to see this article name. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin

Wait. It could end soon, unlikely but possible. We should wait at least a week or more before deciding on any name change.--Garmin21 (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait, I haven't slept since this article was created and there have been no changes to my sleep schedule. The conflict is very new and a lot could happen over the next week or so that prevents it from escalating into a third war. It may not even be a day old atp. A move here is too quick - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 23:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title with "clashes" isn't great for the reasons mentioned above. The proposed title "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War" seems premature because it has not yet been used in news media. At least as a temporary measure, I support either of Kevo's proposed titles, with a preference for "offensive" instead of "attack" because of the broader scope. To put this in quantitative perspective, searching on Google for "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War" and restricting to the past 24 hours yields merely 8 results. Meanwhile, "offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh" yields over 2000, "Azerbaijan offensive" yields over 1000, etc. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of inventing catchy names for events. Once the name "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War" becomes the common name, then I would support a move to that title. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin

Support: this is very clearly a war and changing it won’t add any fuel to the fire from the what Azerbaijan has already said and done. Affiliating (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin

I don't deny that the prospects of diplomacy seem grim and that Armenia and Azerbaijan seem to be headed toward war, but do you have a reliable source saying that it already is a war at this moment? Currently, searching for "Artsakh" and "war" online brings up a lot of news articles saying this may herald the start of a war -- but it's not Wikipedia's job to be a crystal ball and we need to wait for the war to actually start before declaring it one. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin

•  Administrator note All are reminded that requested moves are not exempt from extended confirmed restrictions, and thus per the Armenia–Azerbaijan restriction users who lack the extendedconfirmed user right may not participate in this discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Amakuru and Kevo327 Nemoralis (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I've just posted this to the main page. WP:MPNOREDIRECT stipulates that this article should not be moved unless the redirect on the main page gets fixed at the same time. I will therefore fully move-protect the article so that only admins can move this page. Schwede66 09:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. It is too early to call this a war. There was no declaration, only an offensive. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 09:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

So undeclared wars don't count as wars? Also not sure how "too early" it can be as one side already surrendered. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait – This conflict began less than 24 hours ago, it is too soon to call it a war. – Treetoes023 (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Support If an offensive results in surrender, its a war. Lukt64 (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait per Super Dro Flalf^Talk 14:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose It already ended after 1 day, and Artsakh barely defended itself, so I guess we should not change the title.

UkraineFella (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support There was an invasion, there was a war, and Artsakh surrendered. The length of the war being short (assuming the ceasefire holds) does not make it not a war. See Anglo-Zanzibar War. Furthermore the war was a clear continuation of the issues at stake in the previous two wars, and the title should reflect that continuity. --TocMan (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. With the exception of some Armenian-language news outlets dubbing it "Third Artsakh War", at present no large and/or well-established news outlets are calling this conflict a war. Perhaps this will change in the future, in which case the article's title may be reconsidered, but at present, to change the article title would be to severely editorialize WIkipedia's coverage of events.

Thereppy (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Requested move, 19 September 2023 - declined (3)

Only one move request at a time on any given talk page

2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes → 2023 Azerbaijani offensive of Nagorno-Karabakh – Per majority WP:RS and commonality, see comment for multiple sources + more. A number of reliable sources describe Azerbaijan's military operations as a premeditated "launched" "operation", and/or use the words "offensive" or "attack." To be consistent with this, I propose we rename the article to "2023 Azerbaijani offensive of Nagorno-Karabakh" - Kevo327 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Support as nominator. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC) It is already mentioned that it's an offensive. However I don't think those titles are proper names. I think it's best to wait the outcome. Beshogur (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC) The current title isn't even close to common. What I'm suggesting is what's being reported by majority sources currently, Azerbaijani offensive or attack. We can change the title later if it changes in WP:RS, but now, we should use what is being reported by majority sources. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) It's not about comonname. 2023 x clashes is what we generally use in wikipedia. It shouldn't have comonname for now. We don't even know if this will end tomorrow or will continue as full scale war. Beshogur (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Id say "of" should be "in" because proper grammar. Lukt64 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC) "Against" could also be a possibility, but yes. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Weak agree: I like the above proposal "2023 Nagorno Karabakh offensive" more. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Oppose, pedantic, should be classified as "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War" Scu ba (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone please do something with RMCD bot

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

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

Add alleged military gains in text

Armenian sources claim Amaras Monastery has been captured by Azerbaijan

• https://news.am/eng/news/781917.html

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

• https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230919-azerbaijan-launches-operation-in-karabakh-vows-to-go-until-the-end (French source)
• https://en.trend.az/azerbaijan/politics/3799663.html (Azeri source)
• https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/diplomacy/azerbaijan-captures-over-60-armenian-positions-in-karabakh (Turkish source)

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

• https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1119944.html (Armenian source)

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

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

Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

Russian peacekeepers KIA

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

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

Added Nemoralis (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

New Artsakh Causalities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding India into the reactions' section

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

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

Can we use this map for the infobox image?

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

• Mild support (see reason below) generally I am against twitter on wikipedia, but twitter was used for Syrian civil war maps as well.

Beshogur (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Also this map is way Armenia centered. Must focus on NK. Beshogur (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, the topographical map is extremely distracting and impedes readability. Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support, we have sources in the article verifying most of those settlements having been taken, so if it's inaccurate it's only minor and fixable. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Rr016, Karkijahan is not under Azerbaijani control, Russian peacekeeping forces established a post in the suburb, check the paragraph and the sources about it I added to the article. Also, since our article about the village is titled Charektar, we should use that name instead of Charakdar.

I would also advice against including dates for the Azerbaijani advance, that information is extremely speculative and not present in reliable sources that we would use in Wikipedia. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't have sources for Azerbaijani presence in Giziloba and Verin Sznek either. We have for Amaras Monastery but not for a village called Amaras, it doesn't even appear in Google Maps and I can't find any sources reporting on a village called like that being captured either. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support, as per above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think the topography is too distracting. Even if it was, it wouldn't be a good reason to reject the image entirely. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above Nemoralis (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems like it's done! I guess we can close and archive the discussion now (and on second thought the topographical map isn't too hard on the eyes) Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Vatican City should be changed to the Holy See

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

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

Typo

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

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

How about 1-day war

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

---

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

As per WP:RS, no one is calling it a 1-day war, and it's not editors' jobs to make WP:OR and make up names. Borgenland (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Borgenland, there's no source calling it a 1-day war and it's not our job to invent it. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Nemoralis (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• Can the user who placed a bold subsection please identify themselves? Borgenland (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

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