Please add under International Reactions > Humanitarian Organizations
Please add under International Reactions > Humanitarian Organizations
On 27 of October 2020, the
International Rescue Committee claimed that more than half of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh has been displaced by the conflict (
source)
Moved to the civilian causalities. It ain't a reaction. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Result: Azerbaijan victory
Let's write the winner in the conclusion section. Like the whole war wiki pages.
Result: Azerbaijan victory
Ceasefire Agreement
Significant territorial gains for Azerbaijan--
45.135.206.230 (
talk) 22:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
You need to present reliable sources for such a change. I've seen nothing indicating a cessation in hostilities. --
OuroborosCobra (
talk) 22:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
We need a RS. This is too prematurely.
Beshogur (
talk) 22:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
A treaty was signed at 1 AM, 10 November. Moscow time. It's over. --
Governor Sheng (
talk) 23:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
It looks like the fighting is indeed over
[1][2], but the exact terms of the deal (ceasefire? Truce? Peace treaty?) remain unclear. We should mention that a deal to halt hostilities was signed by representatives of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia, but hold off on assessment of the conflict until reliable sources weigh in. I think that the current text in the article does a good job given the currently available sources. signed, Rosguilltalk 23:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Rosguill:, Aliyev just confirmed the agreement.
Beshogur (
talk) 23:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
We should wait until news reports on what the agreement is - full annexation of N-K? Azerbaijan keeps all territories it captured but returns Lachin? Withdrawal to status quo? Once we know that, news outlets are likely to call the war's winner anyway. I just saw the terms, now we just need news outlets to say Azerbaijan won the war. Shouldn't be too long.
Juxlos (
talk) 23:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
How does Azerbaijan annex Karabakh?
Beshogur (
talk) 11:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, not annex. "Retake control" I guess since no national borders officialy shifted.
Juxlos (
talk) 12:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I also do believe that we still need to wait the official agreement to be published. So far there are some points communicated to both community. Note: "Significant territorial gains for Azerbaijan" word is not correct. It was internationally recognized Azerbaijan territories and such words needs to be avoided in order not to lead to misinterpretation/understanding by readers.
Mirhasanov (
talk) 07:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Infobox map of territorial concessions
From current sources, it appears as if Artsakh/Armenia will revert control over the seven Azeri districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, plus anything else currently under Azeri control. The map seems to show a huge chunk of northern N-K Autonomous Oblast not currently under Azeri control being ceded, though.
Juxlos (
talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The original file has been restored.
CMD (
talk) 08:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I see a lot of ghost towns taken back by the Azeri army (e.g.
Füzuli,
Jabrayil). If possible, it would be very informative to see which towns are/were populated by Armenian/Azeri residents.
DrkazmerJust tell me... 12:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Post ceasefire
Hostilities are over for now. Can we have a section about the reaction to pashinyan signing the agreement, includes parliament speaker?
2A02:2A57:173D:0:94C:8AD0:C456:3178 (
talk) 09:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The Aftermath section is an appropriate place for this content. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Separate article for the ceasefire talks
I noticed that the "peace agreement" text in the infobox links to
this separate article. I've tagged the article for notability and left a talk page entry where I briefly describe the problems, and I wonder if you guys would be interested in responding there as well. My chief concern is that this does not warrant a separate article.
Eik Corell (
talk) 12:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Is there a precedent for notability on negotiations?
FlalfTalk 14:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020
"Remove Hamza Division and Sultan Murad Division on Units Involved Section on the right side of the webpage" Adding terrorist organizations have solely propaganda purposes aimed at creating stereotypes against Azerbaijan.
185.41.200.71 (
talk) 13:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Not Done We have covered this before, there is enough reliable information supporting their involvement, so we will not remove it. Please see prior discussions.
FlalfTalk 14:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Victory reactions
Another section for victory reactions?
Beshogur (
talk) 18:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Kind of confused what this is asking. Are you asking if we should add another section for victory reactions? I don't think so. Aftermath needs to be expanded so just put it there.
FlalfTalk 19:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I believe that "victory" reactions leans toward a bias. I would support what is suggested by
User:flalf and simply list it under "Aftermath". Arguably, under the same logic, one could include "defeat" reactions which does little to convey information without bias.
Jurisdicta (
talk) 15:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)reply
infobox is incorrect
Armenia will not be ceding the annexed Yukhari Askipara and Barxudarlı enclaves of Qazakh rayon to Azerbaijan.
Done – I've removed these territories as they were unsourced and don't appear in the
English translation of the peace agreement published on the Kremlin website. Cheers,
Jr8825 •
Talk 22:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)reply
This page has an extreme pro-Armenian bias.
It has a bit of misinformation and videos only show Azerbaijani use of cluster munitions. Nowhere does it show the vice versa. —
Nar 2608 (
talk) 10:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Nar 2608, agree on
WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but we don't have free-use footage of Armenia using cluster munitions. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree with
User:Solavirum, in order to correct what is perceived as misinformation, we need to be able to document any assertions. If you have a citation that can support this, please feel free to include it and we can edit the article as we want it to be accurate and up-to-date.
Jurisdicta (
talk) 15:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)reply
"supported by" is wrong
Israel didn't support Azerbijan directly. They sold arms for money. This is not "support", this is just a commercial transaction. —
188.120.129.22 (
talk) 10:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I've separated arms suppliers from supporters but kept them on their respective sides. —
Zeex.rice (
talk) 12:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)reply
UPDATE MAP
Russian ministry of defence as posted maps of where the front lines have stoped since the 10th and what the peace keeping mission is going to look like.
https://t.me/SputnikArmenia/1013786.21.8.177 (
talk) 19:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Sputnik is not a reliable source please provide a different source.
FlalfTalk 19:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)reply
i have found the same Russian MOD maps on different news websites also. please check them and I hope they help.
A separate 'Timeline of military engagements' section seems a bit redundant when we have a section called 'Course of the conflict' - can we merge these?
Jr8825 •
Talk 01:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Support: The two sections in question cover the same general subject so a merger is feasible. ➤
Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)reply
To-do – note to self, unless anyone wants to pick this up.
Jr8825 •
Talk 07:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I was having a look at the exact same issue a couple of days ago, so I've taken a go. Some text is sourced to live news feeds and so are tricky to verify given they have substantially changed in the weeks since they were used here, but that was a minor issue and I'm sure better sources can be found going forwards.
CMD (
talk) 07:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020
This was not a Russia Turkey proxy conflict. Requesting removal of label.
Requesting update of map to the resulting surrender agreement. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
KY-Acc (
talk •
contribs) 18:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The request regarding Russia-Turkey proxy conflict is Not done, as there have been sources provided that describe the conflict this way the onus is on you to provide sources disputing this perspective or to find a basis to dismiss the existing sources (cited primarily in the Analysis section) that support this perspective. The map has been updated to better reflect the post-peace deal status. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020 (2)
Hi,
There is no absolute proof that Syrian mercenaries have been fighting in this war.
I kindly request you to delete that in full or at least mention it as "It is claimed but not confirmed that any foreign mercenaries fought on Azeri side"
Furthermore Armenians recruited PKK, Abkhaz and other Kurdish militants to fight on their side and that has to be included.
Hoping you will amend and delete Syrian mercenaries involvement on Azeri side.
Best Regards
Concerned Citizen — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.101.2.246 (
talk) 19:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)reply
This has been addressed before and has been the subject of much discussion. Please review earlier discussions on this page and its archives. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2020
Neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia won. I suggest removing the misinformation and stating it ended in a peace contract.
2600:1700:9BD0:7FE0:40D8:CE07:C03:ECDA (
talk) 06:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
We currently have citations to
BBC and Financial Times calling it a victory for Azerbaijan (
[3][4]). In order for your proposed change to be considered, you would need to provide sources that are at least as strong as these two that dispute this interpretation, or provide some sort of justification for why the existing sources should not be considered reliable. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Change
Recaptured should be liberated. Please make necessary corrections
1elvinn (
talk) 12:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Any Syrian paramilitary group did not fight near Azerbaijani forces. Additionally sources about that claim is single sided and insufficient. Moreover those claims is falsified by Azerbaijan. Hence any information about Syrian paramilitary troops has to be removed from the column about Azerbaijan or at least phrases like "claimed", "allegedly" have to be used.
Ceyhunyor (
talk) 06:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Not done This has been examined many times and there are multiple
reliable sources to support it. Please see previous discussions and provide reliable sources to support your claim if you'd like to revisit this.
Jr8825 •
Talk 08:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020
Aftermath section → Armenia: Armenians set fire to their houses before leaving their settlements in Nagorno-Karabakh.
source94.25.95.62 (
talk) 16:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Currently the war crime section of Armenia has a few repetitions, most notably on the use of cluster bombs in Barda. The same item is repeated and same source used. Here goes (I put on bold the repetition):
The use of cluster munitions was also confirmed by The New York Times.[308] Armenia denied any responsibility for the attack[309] but Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch stated that it was Armenia who had carried out the attack[310][311] while the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh admitted responsibility, but said they were targeting military facilities.[312] The New York Times reporting team was caught in an Armenian rocket attack driving along the main street of Barda.[313]
On 30 October 2020, Human Rights Watch reported that Armenia or Artsakh forces used cluster munition and called that Armenia should immediately cease using cluster munitions or supplying them to Nagorno-Karabakh forces
I suggest the removal of the last phrase and including the key information in the first paragraph as follows (changes in italic):
The use of cluster munitions was also confirmed by The New York Times.[308] Armenia denied any responsibility for the attack[309] but Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch stated that it was Armenia or Artsakh who had carried out the attack and called for an immediate stop on the use of cluster munitions[310][311] while the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh admitted responsibility, but said they were targeting military facilities.[312] The New York Times reporting team was caught in an Armenian rocket attack driving along the main street of Barda.[313]--
Sataralynd (
talk) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Sataralynd: Done yep, looks like a case of redundancy.
Jr8825 •
Talk 19:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Eco-terrorism or scorched earth policy conducted by Armenians while leaving Kalbajar.
Armenians that illegally settled in Kalbajar and now leaving it conducting scorched earth policy. There are many videos in youtube and articles issued by international media:
We should start add this as a section and give more information about echo terror conducted by Armenians illegally settled in there occupied region.
Mirhasanov (
talk) 20:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Done Added a sentence on this to the Aftermath section.
Jr8825 •
Talk 20:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Actually, this was already in the article and I was accidentally duplicating part of the Ceasefire section. Thanks for correcting this
Solavirum.
Jr8825 •
Talk 22:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't this be added to the war crimes section of the Armenians?
Isn't it a serious enough event?--
45.135.206.230 (
talk) 17:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Not done As you've just pointed out, Twitter isn't a reliable source and cannot be used for an extraordinary claim like this under our policies. The compensation demand is from 2013.
Jr8825 •
Talk 19:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Proposal: Rename to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War"
MOVED
Rough consensus to use (1) "2020" over "Second", (2) "war" over "conflict", and (3) "war" over "War". Should usage in reliable, independent, secondary sources change then these points may be reconsidered in a subsequent move request. An extended summary prefaces the move request. —
Wug·a·po·des 00:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
There is a rough consensus for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. While opposition was numerically in the minority, they largely pointed to policies such as
WP:OR and
WP:N to support their points which I weighed heavily per
WP:CONLEVEL. That said, support for some version of "war" was numerically overwhelming, and it is obvious that the current page title does not have consensus. To determine the consensus title, I looked to find the title that has the most support while still taking into account the legitimate concerns of the opposition.
The title Second Nagorno-Karabakh War had a lot of support, but per
WP:NOTAVOTE we must weigh the opinions according to policy. Few rationales in support of that title cited relevant policies, while opposition to the title did. Editors point out that no reliable, independent, secondary sources use the proper noun "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" and so the proposed title is unacceptable
original research by synthesis. As such there is a consensus against describing this conflict as the "Second" war.
The title 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War had some support and retained the "war" characterization that many supporters of "Second" supported. This title, and the characterization as a "war" were challenged on the grounds of
WP:COMMONNAME. Participants provided a number of sources which show reliable sources using both "conflict" and "war", and there is no consensus that either is overwhelmingly or predominently used. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of participants seem to agree that "war" is a better title than what some consider the most common name. As such, there is rough consensus that "conflict" is not sufficiently precise to describe the subject.
The final point of contention is whether to capitalize "war" or not. While a large number supported the capitalized version, few supporters gave an explanation for why the capitalization should be used. Those opposed generally gave policy-based rationales for the non-capitalized variant. In general, proponents of lowercase-"war" raised concerns about
WP:OR since it could be seen as coining a proper noun (especially in combination with "Second") rather than a description of the subject. Even among those entirely opposed to the move, there was weaker opposition to the use of lowercase-"war" than to uppercase-"war".
So at this time there is a rough consensus to use (1) "war" over "conflict", (2) "war" over "War", and (3) "2020" over "Second". Should usage in reliable, independent, secondary sources change then these points may be reconsidered in a subsequent move request. —
Wug·a·po·des 00:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)reply
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict → 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War
The last rename proposal failed to gain consensus, but from the comments of most of the editors who responded it appears that there is strong support if not a consensus to rename the article to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, which is a neutral but accurate title in conformance with the manual of style. The majority of major media outlets are now referring to this as a war see
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9] and combined arms conventional warfare is in fact taking place on the ground.
XavierGreen (
talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support. This is really a war. The word "conflict" is used generally for a small war.
Fullscaledx (
talk) 11:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per above reasons.
Mgasparin (
talk) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per above. but i too think it should be called"second Nagorno Karabakh War" because these are the heaviest clashes since 1991
Grimaldilines —Preceding
undated comment added 08:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support but Change to Second Nagorno-Kabarakh War This is war has been going on for a few weeks and casualties may surpass the First Karabakh War at this rate. Plus I've seen many sources on both sides calling this the 'Second War' due to its scale.
User178198273998166172 (
talk) 18:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
While I agree that its likely sources will use that title in the long run, as things stand right now only a handful of them appear to be actually using "Second Nagorno-Karabak War". As such, its not the "common name" for the war at the present time. Given that, we must use the standard conventions from the manual of style for naming wars (ie: the geographic area in which the war is taking place or the names of the belligerents).
XavierGreen (
talk) 17:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment:, who is the nominator? + it is wrong way to request a move.
Beshogur (
talk) 16:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I clearly stated above that I am the nominator. I am auto-confirmed and have move privileges, as I stated above from the last move request there appears to be a clear consensus to rename the article to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. However, because this is a high profile and controversial page, rather than moving this page without any further discussion I elected to open this discussion to make sure prior to moving the page (that way people can see in the talk page archives why the title was changed). In the event this proposal proves controversial (which so far it does not), i'll open a formal move request.
XavierGreen (
talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Didn't see it. Ok it's fine.
Beshogur (
talk) 17:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per above reasons. Furthermore, we should consider renaming the
Nagorno-Karabakh War article as "First Nagorno-Karabakh War" and this article as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" if this goes on for a long time.--
RM (
Be my friend) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support - I agree, although I don't understand why this wasn't done as a
WP:RM.--
Staberinde (
talk) 18:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Because
WP:RM says only controversial moves should be done via a
WP:RM, a prior move discussion related to a different proposed name showed a consensus to change the title to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, hence the proposed title change here is not actually controversial. However since that discussion didn't actually propose using that title i figured it best to just open up this confirming discussion here before being bold and making the move to confirm that the consensus that was apparant actually affirmatively existed.
XavierGreen (
talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per above reasons.
Wowzers122 (
talk) 18:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I think we may still be jumping the gun a bit although some sources are clearly calling this a war; we should not be calling anything "War" in upper case until sources actually use that as a name for the conflict. "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" may be justifiable. Oppose "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" as no sources appear to be referring to it that way, although it may be appropriate to create redirects from
First Nagorno-Karabakh War and
Second Nagorno-Karabakh War pointing to
Nagorno-Karabakh War and here respectively as they are likely search terms. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC) 16:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Only
perennial reliable sources (PRS) count at this stage. This is my analysis of some (not all; I am officially busy) as of 14/10/2020 21:30GMT (note: Jerusalem Post is not a PRS and is discounted):
BBC: War.
NYT: Only one mention of "what would seem to be a local war" is not a strong endorsement for a name change. Moreover, the byline reads "extended conflict". So, Neutral.
Analysis: No consensus for a name change in the PRS. Note: you can do this search and update this list with timechecks yourself:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. In other words, this is essentially an automated process. No opinions are, or should be, involved.
Johncdraper (
talk) 20:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Al Jazeera is also referring to it as a war, see here
[10]. NPR refers to it as a "hot war" here
[11].
XavierGreen (
talk) 21:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support and again please fix the timeline, the ceasefire hasn't done anything.
RBolton123 (
talk) 23:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose For now. A lot of the information is tentative at this point and it doesn't hurt to wait for sources to unanimously refer and analyze it as such.
Gotitbro (
talk) 01:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)]reply
What information is tentative? Major news outlets (as i cited above) are referring to the subject matter of this article as a war and actual conventional warfare is occurring and has occurred on the ground.
XavierGreen (
talk) 02:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Johncdraper Has done a good job of highlighting that there is still no consensus among sources regarding the description of this conflict. That is why its tentative unless unanimity emerges among them.
Gotitbro (
talk) 06:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support For 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. Almost every major news organization and think-tank is referring to it as a war and leaders of both countries openly declare about capturing or attacking pieces of enemy territory, nothing short of an open declaration. Even the death tolls clearly indicate a war-like situation. Striking my previous oppose.
Gotitbro (
talk) 15:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per above. --
Jujuy88 (
talk) 02:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Is this still oppose?
Albertaont (
talk) 17:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Support. Armenia and Azerbaijan dont trade blows outside NK so the name fit. If fighting take place outside NK. The name should be changed to Armenian Azerbaijan war.
Mr.User200 (
talk) 02:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, with the number of casualties, sustained military engagements, and rocket strikes at cities far from the front, it is hard to call this anything else.
Vici Vidi (
talk) 06:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Clarification. To clarify my position, I am proposing a daily semi-automated search of every green checked non-paywalled
WP:RPS, with a GMT 19:00 Timestamp, reported here. When they change, we change.
Johncdraper (
talk) 09:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support: This is doubtlessly a war by now. For the record, I voted against the previous proposal.
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk) 16:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Analysis: As of Time stamp, not yet War. Reason may be because in addition to the problem that the War has never really ended, War could obligate triggering the Armenian-Russian defense pact. Apologies for the late arrival of this status check. I have been busy with some very complex geopolitics.
Johncdraper (
talk) 00:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War if we are going to move the article, this is the most adequate title.
SuperΨDro 13:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Super Dromaeosaurus: I will certainly consider your opinion. Would you mind doing this evening's Report of Time Checked Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources yourself? I am officially busy.
Johncdraper (
talk) 13:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Johncdraper, what? Just so you know, I didn't respond to your message. I have only stated my preference.
SuperΨDro 18:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (but mainly replacing conflict with war), as this is already probably the most intense conventional war of the last decade. The amount of units eliminated by drone strikes, artillery and ambushes really speaks for itself.--
Ermanarich (
talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Not even close. The military action against ISIS alone makes the current conflict in N-K look like a park picnic in comparison, sorry. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
104.169.21.247 (
talk) 07:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Procedural question - shouldn't this be an
WP:RM, tagged with {{rm}}?
Lev!vich 20:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, it could be. But, it would still have to overcome the 'Report of Time Checked Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources'.
Johncdraper (
talk) 09:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Clearly a coordinated invasion that has almost certainly left +1000 people dead (going just off the self-reported Armenian casualties). Please just call it what it is. We have like thousands of articles that are just titled [Year] [Location] clashes/conflict. I get why we want to stick to strict guidelines given that we literally are a website that anyone can edit, but I feel like we are just obsessing over checking and rechecking all the technicalities to a point where it isn't helpful.
ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (
talk) 22:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Many press are reporting it as war. In conflict people would not be fighting for weeks and so many die. It's more than a conflict.
Expertwikiguy (
talk) 02:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support The article on the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict even refers to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as a "Full-scale war".
Pisiu369 (
talk) 16:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support I believe the term "war" is more apt in this scenario than "conflict."
R. J. Dockery (
talk) 20:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support This conflict has been going for some time already with many casualties, use of advanced weapons, many displaced persons, international actors, high coverage in the Media. I believe that the term "war" is better for this.
Elserbio00 (
talk) 23:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War I think ‘Second Nagorno-Karabakh War’ is the most fitting name.
FlalfTalk 00:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Launching Time-Stamped Name Check Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources. Please hold. Johncdraper (
talk) 07:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Report of Time-Stamped (10:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.
Analysis: No change, as per above, and see below. Add: I am now officially busy.
Johncdraper (
talk) 09:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
(Sigh) Frankly, it's absurd to argue that this is not a war.
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk) 09:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Johncdraper, BBC appears to be using "war" and "conflict" interchangeably, see
[12],
[13].
One thing that I think should be considered as well is that if RS's descriptions start including "war", our naming should be "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war", not "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War", as the title is not yet a proper noun but rather a description. At this time, arguments for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", (as well as some of the arguments for the 2020 variation) are totally at odds with our policy against original research. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
As indicated above, reliable sources are calling this a "war", most without using any sort of specific name for it. Right now, war is being used interchangeably with "conflict". Since there is clearly overwhelming support to change the title to war as indicated above. I ask you as an administrator
User:Rosguill to make the move, since the page is now extended-protected and I can not do so.
XavierGreen (
talk) 15:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
XavierGreen: That is a factually incorrect statement. As of the Timestamp, one is.
Johncdraper (
talk) 15:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I have posted several sources above, and even more below.
XavierGreen (
talk) 16:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
XavierGreen, I'm not going to do that. Right now, while I think that a case can be made for "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" as described in my comment above, the vast majority of arguments here are original research, such that I think it would be a grave error to close in favor of them. As I am currently the only editor to be taking this specific position (although it is largely reconcilable with the blanket oppose !votes), I'm going to have to consider myself involved here and ask that this be closed by a third party. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Rosguill: i would not be opposed to having the w in "war" lower-case if thats what the manual of style dictates. The issue as to whether or not the w should be capitalized or lower case has not really been addressed here. I will ping additional administrators (from Wiki:MilHistory since this is in their scope) and ask that they make the move based on the clear consensus established here.
Peacemaker67ParsecboyEddie891XavierGreen (
talk) 17:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Note that RM discussions are generally left open for at least a week unless there is unanimous consensus; this discussion has only been open for 5 days. I think you're rushing this close more than is appropriate. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Rosguill, it has now been more than a week with support strengthening even further for the proposed move, with one of the handful of opponents changing his mind to support, as the Wiki:MilitaryHistory coordinators failed to respond to my request. I have opened a request to effectuate the move on the Admin noticeboard here
[14].
XavierGreen (
talk) 13:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Rosguill: The BBC stabilized their coverage under the heading "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". I think someone mentioned the implications of the alternative to them.
Johncdraper (
talk) 15:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
The BBC called this a war in a piece they did 2 days ago, see here
[15]. There are also a myriad of other reliable sources using "war". The New York Times
[16], Radio Free Europe
[17],Politico
[18], Newsweek
[19],
XavierGreen (
talk) 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
XavierGreen:Newsweek is no longer a PRS and is discounted. The BBC was an op-ed based piece; the BBC present category heading is very specific. The New York Times piece is an op ed, by Anton Troianovski. Per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: " WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns". More importantly, the op ed is filed under the NY Times category "The Conflict Over Nagorno-Karabakh". For Politico, "Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source." For Politico, I quote:
POMPEO TO HOST ARMENIAN, AZERBAIJANI FOREIGN MINISTERS AMID DEADLY CLASHES. The visits offer the Trump administration a chance to showcase an attempt at global leadership just days before President Donald Trump faces reelection. What’s happening: The foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, two countries at war with each other, are scheduled to separately meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington on Friday.
What I find curious is that war does not appear to be in the title. Now, weigh all that up against the Report of Time-Stamped (10:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows. Analysis: still no consensus as per WP:PRS. Add: From a purely semantic perspective, note that "at war" lacks a definitive article. Perhaps we could provide the latter ourselves, on a collegiate basis...
Johncdraper (
talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Conflict started in 1988, but this now is full-scale war, like it was in 1991-1993.--
HCPUNXKID 16:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and Oppose for Second Nagorno-Karabakh War as the 1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War finished with the Armenian victory but with ceasefire. Also, the second war was the
April War, not this.
Գարիկ Ավագյան (
talk) 16:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Just to comment: I know this is kinda irrelevant, but aren't the Crusades listed without including the minor ones? Like between the First and Second Crusade, we had the Crusade of 1101, the Norwegian Crusade, the Venetian Crusade, and the Crusade of 1129. I know the format is different for a modern war, but still.
ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (
talk) 23:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment no way lmao. Only Yerevan calls that a war and they have their governmental reasons for it. That ain't a war though. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Agreed, this has been formally classified as a war and is the most intense conflict since the original 1988 war.
Greglawl (
talk) 20:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I would like to point out that "war" and "conflict" are not mutually exclusive. The media uses them interchangibly about almost every war, even though a "conflict" can be completely bloodless. The real issue isn't which term is most commonly used in the media, but the fact that this is objectively a war. It's been less than a month, the number of deaths have already eclipsed those of the
Falklands War, and Azerbaijan has taken over a large chunk of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is absurd to insist that this is not a war.
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk) 07:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Hundreds of people are dying, and we're wasting time debating whether or not this is a war. Jesus Christ. This is Wikipedia at its worst.
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk) 12:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
This. Completely support and not sure why it is even an argument any more.
Muchclag (
talk) 19:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support as I believe there is ample sources to show that this should be renamed from "conflict" to a "war". Technically, war is defined as "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations." (see
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war) As reputable news organizations have labeled this action as a "war" and it fits the definition of a war, I support changing the the title to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War".
Jurisdicta (
talk) 00:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As Rosguill said above, suggestions such as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and Second Nagorno-Karabakh War are not acceptable because they are not being used by any reliable sources. Article titles on Wikipedia should not be coining proper nouns. As for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, based on Johncdraper's analysis above I don't think enough sources are using "war" right now, so we should default to the more neutral "conflict". —
Goszei (
talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Goszei: Azerbaijan's president referred to the war as the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war.
FlalfTalk 12:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Flalf: A proclamation from Azerbaijan's president has no relation to the
WP:COMMONNAME. —
Goszei (
talk) 20:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Goszei: This has been discussed before (see "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" below.) As of right now there isn't a major consensus on name so if a policy is getting in the way of a more suitable name, then this is an example of
WP:IGNORE. 'Second Nagorno-Karabakh War' is a name that is not only more relevant than the current name, but it has also been used by a major participant in the war, it is more than fitting to become the new name of the article.
FlalfTalk 21:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Flalf: COMMONNAME should not be brushed aside so easily here, because it helps avoid violations of
WP:OR, a core content policy. This particular case illustrates it well -- the proposal of "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" is based on a single primary source, and "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" is evidently a synthesis, both of which are clearly at odds with
WP:OR. And for good reason: Wikipedia should not be coining proper nouns. —
Goszei (
talk) 21:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Goszei: In general yes COMMONNAME helps with
WP:OR, but your use of this in this context just isn't correct. It's quite simple: if it has been established by sources that others use the term, then it is not OR and since Aliyev referred to it as 'İkinci Qarabağ Müharibəsi' as seen here
[20] it doesn't qualify as original research. Not only that but some third party sources such as here
[21] have also used it.
FlalfTalk 00:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Flalf:WP:COMMONNAME does not simply stipulate that "sources use the term", it requires a "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". I was more referring to
WP:PRIMARY section of
WP:OR with regards to "Second..." — naming an article after a translation (!) of a foreign-language term used by one side (!) of a multi-party war is a shaky rationale, IMO. —
Goszei (
talk) 01:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Goszei: I was referring to it not being original research because other sources use the term, not common name. My argument for common name is that there isn't consistent and common term used to describe the war. Also, yes, primary sources are generally shaky, but, in some cases (such as here) a primary source can be used carefully as it is an example of a better and more descriptive term already being used by a party that is directly involved in the war.
FlalfTalk 12:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Conflict to War, as even if not officially declared, it is still a war due to its scale.
Armatura (
talk) 19:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Report of Time-Stamped (14:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.
Still no consensus re War: "frozen war"?
Johncdraper (
talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War".
Oranjelo100 (
talk) 11:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Johncdraper's summaries of what the RS are currently saying. I agree with Rosguill's view, we should wait for there to be a clear weight of RS using this term. Strong oppose a change to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War or 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, per Rosguill. If there is a consensus for renaming, it should be to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. A quick Google search shows very few uses of the term as a proper noun and none whatsoever in RS. It would therefore be a violation of
WP:OR, and possibly also
WP:DUE.
Jr8825 •
Talk 18:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)reply
"2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War"?
People who support the move seem to be divided between which title to use, so I think it would be better to clarify as soon as possible what the name of the article would be in case it is moved to avoid possible posterior problems. I personally support "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", I don't see the point in specifying the year, we don't say "1939–1945 World War" or "1998–2003 Congo War" for example.
SuperΨDro 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
While there are ample sources to support usage of the term "war", there are at present only a handful of sources which use "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War".
XavierGreen (
talk) 13:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Major sources, like for
Al Jazeera, still call this a conflict that can escalate to a war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Solavirum: That article says that it could escalate into an all-out war; it does not say that this is not "yet" a war. And even if every single media outlet on planet Earth refused to call this a war, hundreds of deaths and large-scale destruction would speak otherwise. Frankly, this reminds me of how diplomats avoided using the word "genocide" about
the events in Rwanda long past the point where there was no ground for doubt.
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk) 15:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Mikrobølgeovn, on what ground you can prove that calling an armed conflict a "war" by its causalities is correct? We have guidelines here, which follows the media's
WP:COMMONNAME of the topic. And last time I checked, I wasn't a diplomat that wants to keep good relations with a certain government. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Solavirum: Well we aren't calling it 'Azerbaijani Aggression' or 'Operation for peace enforcement of Armenia' I think in the early stages of a conflict like this there isn't a super well defined name. For now I think 'Second Nagorno-Karabakh' war is fitting.
FlalfTalk 15:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Solavirum: This is not really a matter of "name", as there is no commonly accepted name for this war yet. Rather, the question is which title is the most suitable in the meantime. Since this is no doubt a war, the title should reflect that. (And if
WP:COMMONNAME keeps us from calling a war a war, this case seems like a clear candidate for
WP:IGNORE.)
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk) 15:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
A lot of previous conflicts/skirmishes after the major war in the 1990s have been termed as wars by many sources and there were wars in the area even prior to that. Terming this as second is clearly problematic, the year is the default choice unless clearly noted otherwise (not the case here).
Gotitbro (
talk) 16:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Usually, in unconventional circumstances war is only used when deaths exceed 1,000; since Azerbaijan hasn’t released their casualty figures, I believe we should wait for the Armenia/Artsakh death toll to hit that before we rename the conflict.
8889stanzaexcel (
talk) 22:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
That definition is nonsense. Countless wars had fewer than 1,000 deaths, including the
Falklands War.
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk) 00:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Per Mikrobølgeovn it's ridiculous that this is even an argument, hundreds of people are dying in an armed conflict between two states, yes this is a war.
FlalfTalk 12:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I would also note that the "1000" deaths threshold argument is moot, as looking at reliable sources, more than 1000 deaths have already occured.
XavierGreen (
talk) 00:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I had support the name of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War as if we called it the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War it just would not work. Plus this is the second major war of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (Though you can argue that the
Four-Day War is the second one but its not a major conflict as it only last for four days.)
CrusaderToonamiUK (
talk) 17:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Note only Yerevan dubs the 2016 clashes as "April War" or "Four-Day War", Azerbaijanis call it clashes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Your wrong there, various sources in a variety of countries use the term "Four Day War", including Azeri ones. See here
[22]XavierGreen (
talk) 22:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support: per nom.
Beshogur (
talk) 22:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support the renaming to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War--
RicardoNixon97 (
talk) 14:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Conditional support, the word "war" should start with a lowercase letter, as currently it's not a
proper name (in the same way as
Hundred Years' War,
Punic Wars, etc), but a descriptive title.
Brandmeistertalk 14:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)reply
If the manual of style says that the "w" in "war" should not be capitalized, i'm fine with that.
XavierGreen (
talk) 15:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Agreed with XavierGreen; this is a temporary title until a proper name emerges. I'm guessing that this war will eventually become known as the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", but for now, this is what we've got to go with. There seems to be sufficient support to go ahead and move the article.
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support renaming to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War or a similar alternative. I'm seeing reliable sources describing the events as war in places like the
NYTimes,
South China Morning Post, and
Forbes. Article title should reflect the reality of the situation.
Ganesha811 (
talk) 00:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Call it an undeclared war like the Falklands conflict, seems apt.
DannyDouble (
talk) 12:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support I think this it'd probably make sense to call it the Second Karabakh War: the 2020 Karabakh War feels a bit too premature, and given how the second Libyan Civil War was called that... it's almost definitely a second Karabakh War. I don't think it can be a mere "conflict" anymore.
2604:3D09:E27E:A800:F5A4:BAA1:E63D:2E8F (
talk) 19:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, rather than "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", as the 2016 conflict
/info/en/?search=2016_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict was also percieved by some (at least Armenian side) as (second) war.
Armatura (
talk) 18:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Renaming it to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, Nagorno-Karabakh War (2020), or something along those lines. Also perhaps rename the 1992 war to include mention of the year it happened in.
Alfred the Lesser (
talk) 19:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Aliyev just called today this conflict as "İkinci Qarabağ Müharibəsi" - Second Karabakh War. --
HCPUNXKID 22:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I think time is ripe to skip any temporary title and name this article "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". It appears to be the most accepted name.
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk) 01:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Naming it 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War or Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. The war has been very intense, enough people have been slaughtered to call it a war for goodness sake.
2601:85:C101:BA30:41F8:1862:FBC2:3F37 (
talk) 03:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Slight Support Scale is clearly a full war, but while I hope neither Erdogan nor Putin bases their political decisions on titles of Wikipedia articles, a proper war would mean a declaration of war between the two countries. However, based on precedent such as the
Russo-Georgian War, or the
War in Donbass, it should be fine. I feel like "conflict" still is in the majority of international sources (BBC, AP, Reuters at a glance), but as the countries involved call it a war I'm willing to call it a war a little earlier than usual.
Juxlos (
talk) 09:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support This has gone far beyond a mere 'conflict' now.
TheEpicGhosty (
talk) 11:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Second Nagorno-Karabakh War ----
Երևանցիtalk 13:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Report of Time-Stamped (14:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.
Still no consensus re War: "frozen war"?
Johncdraper (
talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
There are additional sources referring to it as a war such as The Hill here
[23], additionally various sources such as the BBC and Al Jazeera have referred to it as a war in previous articles as indicated above.
XavierGreen (
talk) 15:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support & Comment Seems like a big majority is in support to change the title to war. I think it's too early to assign an official name to the war so we should leave the name 'second' out right now. Lets name it 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. We can discuss on wether we should replace 2020 with second after moving it.
TheGroninger (
talk) 15:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
We've seem to have come to a consensus about renaming this article but we haven't really decided what to, per Super Dromaeosaurus, we should probably choose between the two options sooner rather than later because otherwise we are stuck with a name the majority of users are unhappy with.
FlalfTalk 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I think it's more likely that "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" will be the name, later we can discuss whether to use "Second Nagorno-Karabakh" or not, but for now the priority is to say it's a war.
SuperΨDro 10:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, per above.
VZkN9 (
talk) 21:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support rename to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War.--
RM (
Be my friend) 23:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, rename to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War
Elserbio00 (
talk) 09:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, per above, or alternatively 2020 Armenia Azerbaijan War / 2020 Armeno Azerbaijani War. However it's phrased, war.
TheMightyGeneral (
talk) 10:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War".
Oranjelo100 (
talk) 11:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, but I think "war" shouldn't be capitalized. It is a description, not a proper name.
Blah 18:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd prefer "2020", but if "second" is used, the word should be left uncapitalized. There is no proper mame for the war, and we should not be creating one.
Blah 18:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, it's a good time to change the article's name now. It's clear that this is a war. --
Governor Sheng (
talk) 15:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, its now being regularly described as a war. Even if the fighting were to stop today, the activities of the last month were most definitely a war, not a generic conflict. I think we should use "Second Nagorno-Karabakh", rather than try to date the article with "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War".
Albertaont (
talk) 17:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Agree, time to SNOW-rename it i think
CoronaOneLove (
talk) 19:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment What's going on here? Why hasn't the page been moved after two full weeks of consensus?
ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (
talk) 20:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I am also aware that these types of discussions are not a vote, but to leave a better perspective, I clarify that 8 people (including myself) have expressed support for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" and 4 people have expressed support for "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War". It must be noted that I've only counted people on this subsection.
SuperΨDro 20:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
User:Super Dromaeosaurus so far i've only seen a very small number of sources use the term "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", what supporting sources do you have using that name? Also, If you look at this monagve discussion as a whole, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" (with or without the w capitalized), has far more support than Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and also conforms with wikipedia naming conventions for unnamed wars. I would also note that only a small minority of editors oppose changing the title to include the term "war" or prefer the current "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" title.
XavierGreen (
talk) 00:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I am aware of those who continue to oppose it, but I believe that the consensus achieved by most users is that the article should be moved. And I don't see how "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" is more supported.
SuperΨDro 10:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, as I have previously stated in this discussion.
ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (
talk) 21:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war unless reliable sources refer to it as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War".
VZkN9 (
talk) 20:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, with lowercase "w" per my vote above and related agreement from XavierGreen and Mikrobølgeovn. Until clear
WP:COMMONNAME emerges, I think this is the safest option so far.
Brandmeistertalk 20:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Second Nagorno-Karabakh WarDannyDouble (
talk) 22:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Overall after reading everything and considering it, I have no clue how you can not support the change, it is a war. Please also keep in mind Wikipedia is a place of debate and understanding, if you don't disscuss and simply think this is a place to vote and not to discuss you're not understanding Wikipedia and how to do things. If you are unwilling to change your position and think this a place to post things you support you're not on Wikipedia for the right reasons. 00:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Support for "war", weak oppose for "War".
Ronan.Iroha (
talk) 09:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
The vast majority of users support "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", but honestly, the arguments against this name are more valid and make more sense. I'm going to request the move of this article shortly to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" at
WP:RMT, this is the name that implies a less "radical" change and once Wikipedia begins to call this a war, the term will begin to be more used everywhere, which can give more support in the future for possible new moves to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". I believe there are not many people who will disagree with this, but still, just in case, I will wait a few hours in case someone wants to say something else.
SuperΨDro 10:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Hours have passed and no one has shown any opposition, so I have requested a move as "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" and a closure of the move request here for the change to be applied.
SuperΨDro 14:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. even
List of ongoing armed conflicts refers it as a "War". Considering the casualties (which is higher than 5,000 people[35]) and the progress made by Azerbaijani Armed Forces (about 5 kilometers left to Shusha, the second largest city of Karabakh[36][37]), the situation is better being called as "War".
Tulparus (
talk) 18:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Second Nagorno-Karabakh War per reasons given by other users and
WP:COMMONNAME (lots of the sources has been mentioned as "war") .
Ahmetlii (
talk) 08:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)reply
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.