Hosta

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Current events 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 articles Armenia Start‑class Low‑importance Blockade 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan Start‑class Low‑importance 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The cited sources are 100 % in Armenian. Are any sources in other languages available? 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:1D6E:A6DA:421D:D782 (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, at least some English-language sources are needed per WP:NOENG. I've tagged the article as unbalanced in that regard. Brandmeister^talk 18:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable English sources have been added, can we remove the banner? - Indefensible (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template, thanks for adding 3rd party sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a translation from the Armenian Wikipedia. Sources in other languages are welcome PLATEL (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch online, I'm adding a few more sources in english. Afina10K (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be titled "Nagorno-Karabakh" rather than "Artsakh"? That's the Armenian name of the region, so I assume there'd be NPOV concerns. However, Nagorno-Karabakh is now split under Azerbaijani and Armenian control, and obviously the Azerbaijani part is not blockaded, so it makes sense to refer to the separatist republic in the title (but also adding "Republic of", so as in 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh). What should we do? Super Ψ Dro 09:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All these terms are all synonyms - Artsakh, the Republic of Artsakh or the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. I agree with 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh per official name. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that is your own point of view. Reliable third party sources usually prefer "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh" https://eurasianet.org/blockade-of-nagorno-karabakh-enters-second-day 5.134.59.72 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Official name is Republic of Artsakh, that's not an opinion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that is blocked is the Lachin corridor. The region is called Nagorno-Karabakh as a neutral term. Republic of Artsakh is an unrecognized entity and is supervised by the Russian peacekeepers. 5.134.59.72 (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Artsakh is the republic's official name and the article name. Also consider logging in and creating an account if you're not a sockpuppet. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the state/country being blockaded is officially known as the "Republic of Artsakh", not simply "Nagorno-Karabakh", the article title should reflect that unless there's an existing and widely used WP:COMMONNAME to refer to this event. – Olympian ^loquere 05:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. https://eurasianet.org[1]; [2] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

2. https://www.france24.com [3] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

3. https://www.reuters.com [4] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

4. https://www.euronews.com [5] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

5. https://oc-media.org/ [6] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

6. https://www.bloomberg.com/ [7] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

7. https://www.armenpress.am/ [8] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

8. https://hetq.am [9] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

9. https://artsakhpress.am/ [10] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

10. https://news.am [11] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

11. https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr [12] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

12. https://www.intellinews.com [13] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

13. https://www.rferl.org [14] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

This article was translated from the Armenian Wikipedia, and contains many issues, one of which is title. It is clear as day and night that title of article shall be "2022 Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" as most reliable sources (and not only) describe events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. Title "2022 Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" is also in line with other articles on the topic, such as Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement, Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Allegations of third-party involvement in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, and so on. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dromaeosaurus Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is fine as well, and as long it is made clear that it is the area currently inhabited by Armenians that is under blockade it matters very little which synonym to choose. Nagorno-Karabakh is a geographical region, and some parts of it are no longer inhabited by Armenians and not under blockade, as you mentioned, hence we should make clear it is the politico-ethnic entity that is blockaded. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia rules, we must use the commonly accepted name for the event. As Abrvagl demonstrated, "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" is the most commonly accepted name for the event. Therefore, that is the name that we should use, in accordance with the rules. Grandmaster 17:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Nagorno-Karabakh republic blockade" is almost the same thing but actually makes it clear that the area currently inhabited by Armenians is under blockade. Just "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" would be misleading as some parts of it are no longer inhabited by Armenians and not under blockade. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole region of Nagorno-Karabakh is not blockaded, only that under the Republic of Artsakh is. I am going to do a bold move as the current situation is clearly further from NPOV than my proposed title. If other editors wish to defend the use of Nagorno-Karabakh in the title, I believe a formal RM would be better. Super Ψ Dro 18:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though another option would be to follow Commons' example [15]: 2022 blockade of the Lachin corridor. But it will be harder for readers to find. I prefer the "republic" option. Super Ψ Dro 18:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole region is not called Nagorno-Karabakh, it is called Karabakh, however all other articles use term “Nagorno-Karabakh” because the most reliable sources use term “Nagorno Karabakh” i.e. Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement, Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, and so on. Thus, article shall be named 2020 Nagorno Karabakh blockade. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 03:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty unconvincing. The region is called Nagorno-Karabakh in English. Still, it is not appropriate in this context as the whole region is not under a blockade. Super Ψ Dro 15:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Blockade of Lachin corridor" could work too. It is the most precise description of what is happening, and is used by sources too. If the article is moved to that title, I won't object, as it is the most NPOV and accurate description. But the most commonly used name is "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade", so per Wikipedia rules that is the name that we should use. Putting republic there makes little sense, it is not republic that is blockaded, it is the region, and most reliable sources do not refer to self-proclaimed entity. Grandmaster 10:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is not republic that is blockaded, it is the region it's the exact opposite. The article itself says so. Why would Azerbaijani-held areas suffer from a blockade disrupting the connection between the region and Armenia? Super Ψ Dro 15:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that not the whole Nagorno-Karabakh is blockaded, only the Republic of Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh. Whether "Nagorno-Karabakh republic blockade" or "Republic of Artsakh blockade" makes little to no difference as long as it's clarified that the part where Armenians are living is under blockade, which is the republic. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the unrecognized state is "Republic of Artsakh", not "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh", so if we stick to the republic version it should have "Artsakh". Super Ψ Dro 15:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both names are official, "Republic of Artsakh" and "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh". But the sources do not talk about republic. For example, BBC Russian talks about Karabakh being blockaded, not even Nagorno-Karabakh. [16] Grandmaster 16:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a formal move request could be filed at this stage, as enough evidence has been collected for the move rationale. Brandmeister^talk 16:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the case when COMMON name rules should be followed, otherwise, if we will act on the personal opinion of the editors, then article should be named Azerbaijani Protests on the Lachin Corridor or Partial Blockade of Lachin corridor, because number of reports suggest [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] that Lachin corridor is not blocked, and that protesters arranged a pass (and even provided emergency contacts) for humanitarian aid, supplies and others who can freely pass though, thus calling what is happening a blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh and humanitarian crisis is a very strong exaggeration. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 17:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That self-declared republic claims huge territories, including 7 surrounding districts of Azerbaijan. Not all of those claimed territories are blockaded. And once again, the vast majority of sources mention Nagorno-Karabakh, not republic. And almost none mentions Artsakh. Per rules, we must use the commonly accepted name. Grandmaster 16:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the exact disagreement here? BBC is pretty clear and casts alot of doubt on the so-called environmental activists [22]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. You changed "On December 13, Artsakh officials reported that Azerbaijan had cut off" to "On December 13, Azerbaijan had cut off the gas supply from Armenia to Artsakh.". The only reports about gas being cut was from Artsakh officials, and so do state all of the reliable sources, which means that information about the gas being cut should be attributed to the Artsakh officials.
2. who consider themselves environmentalists blocked is not neutral and UNDUE considering that sources such as eurasianet provided better description "group of Azerbaijanis from government-linked environmental organizations"
3. On the evening of 13 December, Azerbaijan moved internal troops and police forces to the closed section of the road. - is UNDUE. Source states "The Azerbaijani media reported that soldiers of the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan and police forces arrived in the territory of Lachin Corridor to "ensure the safety of the participants of the protest action"", however material paraphrased such as completely distorts what source says and wrongly implies that police and soldiers are there to block the road. I replaced it with information from Azerbaijani media, to which initial source was referring, and portrayed information according to the source. So there is no need to keep infocom-am.
4. "Whether these are real eco-activists or not is still an open question. Judging by the video from the scene, among the protestors there are employees of state-owned companies and even, as the BBC Azerbaijan Service reports, workers from Turkish companies. Outwardly, the action looks more political than environmental. For example, the participants carried a large flag of Azerbaijan, many of them wrapped in the national flag. Several women wear fur coats at the protests, which gives additional reason to doubt that the participants are related to the eco-movement." - This should be shortened, you are giving to much weight to it. Should be shortened to something like "Whether these are real eco-activists or not is still an open question. Judging by the video the scene the action looks more political than environmental. For example, the participants carried a large flag of Azerbaijan, many of them wrapped in the national flag. " The fact that they are employees of state owned companies was mentioned in the first paragraph, which you reverted, but I will put it back "group of Azerbaijanis from government-linked environmental organizations", so there no need to repeat that second time. Including bullshit claims that eco-activists should not wear fur coat would be very big UNDUE.
5. Not sure why you removed "denied the blockade", it was sourced.

A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 17:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) At the same time, gas disappeared there - presumably due to the fact that Azerbaijan blocked the gas pipeline. BBC

2) who consider themselves environmentalists blocked is not neutral and UNDUE considering that sources such as eurasianet provided better description - Not undue as the entire BBC source casts alot of doubt on these "activists" and basically suggests them being illegitimate and not "eco-activists" (see source), even stating that this whole thing is just a negotiation tactic by Azerbaijan:

• Experts have previously told the BBC that a new round of confrontation may be associated with the desire of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to push Armenia to resolve disputes as soon as possible and achieve the signing of a peace treaty on favorable terms for Azerbaijan.
• After the end of the war in Karabakh, there were regular escalations and armed clashes. Azerbaijan was mainly blamed for the escalation, whose military over the past year even managed to take control of one settlement and a height in the conflict zone.
• As for the environment, there are other equally serious problems in Azerbaijan than the state of the Karabakh deposits. They are mainly associated with oil production. In addition, well-known eco-activists regularly draw the attention of the Ministry of Ecology to deforestation and the destruction of rare animals. And last year, safari tourism made a splash : it turned out that residents of rich Arab countries, with the inaction of the authorities, come to Azerbaijan to hunt birds from the Red Book.''
• Shahin Rzayev, a well-known Azerbaijani journalist and a regular participant in non-state projects in which Azerbaijanis and Armenians maintain dialogue, said: "I would show these environmentalists what is happening in my home village of Surakhani, where oil is extracted. There is enough material for five years."

3) Quite literally what the source says [23] and the Azerbaijani media reported reason which you highlighted is explained in the next sentence.

4) This isn't "too much weight" especially coming from WP:RS like BBC. Actually, there was alot more which I didn't add like the above highlighted bullet points.

5) This is what actual WP:UNDUE looks like. A partisan source's claim of "denied the blockade" when we have multiple WP:RS stating the opposite is quite literally WP:UNDUE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) Heading and sub headings of the articles are not best sources for information, the body of the article states: "The Armenian side also says that Azerbaijan cut off the gas, Azerbaijan denies this.", and that in line with other sources [24], [25], [26]

2) BBC.RU does provides vague definition of activists: "On Monday, people calling themselves ecologists began to gather on the road.", where euroasianet, provides precise definition "group of Azerbaijanis from government-affiliated environmental organizations" [27],[28]. You still can cast doubt about the aim of protest being not ecology or environment, rather political, which you actually did with point "4)". So I would agree on that: "group of Azerbaijanis from government-affiliated environmental organizations presenting themselves as environmental activists."

3) Not quite at all, but I see your point and I will fix that by merging those two sentences. Otherwise, as I said, it creates impression that police and soldiers mover in order to block the road. which is not true.

4) As I said article already casts doubt on the activists, so from BBC we should summarize information about the potential aims of the protests: "Whether these are real eco-activists or not is still an open question. Judging by the video from the scene, among the protestors there are employees of state-owned companies and even, as the BBC Azerbaijan Service reports, workers from Turkish companies. Outwardly, the action looks more political than environmental. For example, the participants carried a large flag of Azerbaijan, many of them wrapped in the national flag." Ludicrous claims that eco activists can not wear fur coats are undue.

5). "Partisan source" is reliable as hell to pass the words of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, who in fact denied the blockage. Especially considering that information is attributed. I updating that information with additional source. [29] A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just noted that you added """ to the According to Azerbaijan media,"the security of the activists conducting the protest is ensured by the military and police officers of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan". Why on the earth you would do that? It is absolutely unnecessary as it was already attributed. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) All of the reports make it clear that gas was cut off, and BBC says Azerbaijan did it. There is no other accused party in other sources as well btw.

2) No, because BBC does go in detail even more than any other sources why these aren't "eco activists" so current version is what the activists call themselves which is what's acceptable.

3) Why do you keep changing what's said? Both sentences should stay as both are sourced. One mentioning that forces arrived, the other as their claimed reason. Quotes are added to the stated claims that are not supported by independent RS as true.

4) Ludicrous claims that eco activists can not wear fur coats are undue. - You're misunderstanding what the source says; The source doesn't say what they can or cannot wear but that wearing fur clothing isn't something your usual environmental activists do. Sourced content hence should stay. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nope. BBC does not say that. I already quoted to you what BBC article says: The Armenian side also says that Azerbaijan cut off the gas, Azerbaijan denies this. News headlines—including sub headlines—are not a reliable source, especially in our case, where there consensus among the all sources that gas supplies was cut according to Artsakh authorities.

2. So what you did not like in ""group of Azerbaijanis from government-affiliated environmental organizations presenting themselves as environmental activists."? which delivers the same information but in better and more detailed way? Current version is not encyclopedic, rather nonsense existing as result of translation of the article from the Armenian Wikipedia.

3. What "as per source" are you talking about? Here is the what exactly source says: The Azerbaijani media reported that soldiers of the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan and police forces arrived in the territory of Lachin Corridor to "ensure the safety of the participants of the protest action". I am not sure about your rationale to partially cite first source making unfinished claim, especially after I explained that it result is the wrong imply that forces were moved to block the corridor. Sorry but that is not going to happen.

4. Still do not agree, but yeah, keep it if you so into it. Not worth discussing it long. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]