Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 60 days

Armenia

	Armenian-occupied territories surrounding 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Artsakh Mid‑importance

	Armenian-occupied territories surrounding 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan Mid‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. 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 AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 21 October 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. The result of the discussion was Moved.

Status

Could you please show where exactly this source mentions NK status: [1]? On the other hand, UN Security Council resolutions mention "Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan Republic". So unless NK is internationally recognized as an independent state or a part of another country, it remains de-jure a part of Azerbaijan. There is a countless number of reliable sources that say that NK is de-jure or officially part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 19:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. SPA edits. Beshogur (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Can you stop edit warring and your WP:OR comments? Your edit description [2] about territorial integrity isn't even in the written text and doesn't make sense. Also, the edit lists major countries from the 100 which are listed in the source itself, and which abstained from the vote. This is the relevance. Please stop edit-warring and removing sourced information. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: The whole sentence is WP:OR, Nnot my comment. So asking you to remove Germany etc. We could say, x country voted yes. This doesn't make any sense. Beshogur (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beshogur Finally regarding this. I was tired and didn't think this was something controversial, so I didn't reply yesterday evening. I think you should restore the sourced content which you removed recently. If your only concern were to not to list "Germany, etc." separately, I have no problem with it. Here's my proposal and I'll ping El C as involved admin:

"...while the vast majority of UN member countries, 100 in total, abstained from the vote.[3]

It's this simple. You could've waited at least a day for me to reply. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imo while the vast majority of UN member countries, 100 in total, abstained from the vote. is still not correct. "while the vast majority" may have some else meaning. There is no mention about 39 countries voting yes. We're not trying to make a race if who voted yes or no or abstaining. Is it adopted? It is. Perhaps we could change the whole sentence that's taken from United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62/243, wich I recently found, to which was adopted by a recorded vote of 39 in favour to 7 against (including OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs), with 100 abstentions. which is more neutral, and doesn't imply anything else. For my ANI report, it's not about the content dispute, but you trying to revert me mady by an user with 3 edits. Beshogur (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

39 to 7 is already mentioned in the article Armenian-occupied_territories_surrounding_Nagorno-Karabakh#Legal_status and it's already mentioned in lead that the resolution has passed. What isn't mentioned however is the abstained part which I tried to restore and which you removed repeatedly.

"while the vast majority" may have some else meaning - what else meaning? It paraphrases the source correctly, the vast majority of countries indeed abstained. We aren't suppose the copy-paste what's exactly written in the source, and I didn't see a quote template either. That wording is fine and in paraphrased in accordance to sourced content.

For my ANI report, it's not about the content dispute, but you trying to revert me mady by an user with 3 edits. - If it's not about content dispute (which should be resolved in talk and if you waited at least a day for me to reply, I would have), then what is it? I only made a single revert of that new account and didn't attempt to restore it per the discussion above this one. I only restored the abstained part 2 days later, which I'm still in favor of being included in the article as it is sourced and completely valid info. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wait one day is not an excuse for your reverts. You've been active and editing after I pinged you. Well, if it's mentioned below, you could add it below, instead reverting me. Anyway, the lead would still contain missing and misleading information like (Germany, Israel and UK). I could also say "x country voted yes". This doesn't matter. WP:OR. My final solution is, we either add all (yes, no, abstain) to the lead + OSCE co-chairs, or remove the whole sentence about OSCE co-chairs, and add it alongside all (yes, no abstain + OSCE co-chairs) to the legal status section. Beshogur (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My view here is that the information is undue and risks synth/OR/WP:PRIMARY. UN resolutions need a bit of interpretation at the best of times, and even then it is usually only useful to see who voted for a resolution. Voting against, or abstaining, can happen for a huge number of reasons which may or may not have anything to do with the core content of the resolution in question. (I would in fact not oppose anything that is being cited to UN resolutions, or to a basic news piece reporting on such a resolution, to be simply removed from the article.) CMD (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a simple mention that a UN GA resolution said so and so is sufficient. Grandmaster 17:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]