Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Rename

A constitutional referendum was held yesterday. The approved changes included a rename of the country to Artsakh (formally 'Republic of Artsakh'). Artsakh is already taken by another article. Just wondering when and where we should move this article? Number 57 10:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Republic of Artsakh! --RaffiKojian (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The title of this page is here due to the common term of "Nagorno-Karabakh" needing disambiguation. Constitutional changes do not affect the common name. Instead, news over the next few months should be watched to see if "Artsakh", which was already in use, becomes the more common standard. (And also to see if the formal name in English will be "Republic of Artsakh" or "Artsakh Republic", both of which I've seen.) CMD (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Republic of Artsakh

The Republic of Artsakh (formerly Nagorno-Karabakh Republic recently voted for an official name change.

http://armenianweekly.com/2017/02/21/artsakh-votes-for-new-constitution-officially-renames-the-republic/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shant03 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Rename the article

Yesterday people of Artsakh voted for name-changing. Now the official name of the country is Republic of Artsakh.:Republic of Artsakh! --Harut (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This is already reflected in the article. Our naming policy is WP:AT. CMD (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
When the new name (as well new constitution) will be introduced? On all official web pages (Parliament, President, Prime Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs) the old name (and old constitution) is still used. Aotearoa (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the title needs to be renamed to Republic of Artsakh, since it is supposed to refer to the autonomous republic—not the name of the region.
—Rye-96 (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I was inclined to agree, but I feel like we need better sourcing. From what I can tell, the only constitutions and official sources online still refer to it as the NKR. The only sourcing of it being renamed is the provisional constitutional referendum? --Golbez (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe that we have to wait until this name becomes prevalent in English usage. Alæxis¿question? 07:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The country is so small and unknown that I'm not sure you can say a particular name is prevalent. It's not like "Nagorno-Karabakh" is a well-known exonym, ingrained in the popular consciousness like Japan or Germany. --Golbez (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Good points, Golbez.
I just took a look on the web and surprisingly couldn't find any reliable source that would use the official name of the republic. It appears that we have to wait until the term occurs in some major non-Armenian publication.
—Rye-96 (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Clear and valid consensus, but see closing comment below. Andrewa (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic → Republic of Artsakh – The new name. I see it in a few places in English and altho it's not common yet, it is their name (which can also be translated Artsakh Republic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Support. Above, I said it seemed premature as the official sites hadn't switched over, but they're beginning to; [1], [2], and [3] all mention Artsakh as the primary name, though in many places of course it still mentions NK. And I said that there isn't really a "common" name for the country in English, as it's not exactly part of the linguistic consciousness like "Germany" or "Japan" are, so we don't even need preponderance of usage. It's not a situation like Burma/Myanmar, where the people who renamed the country are considered somehow illegitimate. And it's not like Cabo Verde/Timor-Leste/Cote d'Ivoire, where the rename is purely an untranslation. The country has changed names, and English doesn't care, so we must move it. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - re ngrams and the other clear leads visible in Google general searches and news searches. Imc (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Your link goes to 2008. I'm reasonably confident that a name change from 2016 or 2017 will not show up in that. Not that it matters, though, since ... I mean, see how many zeroes there are after the decimal point? There simply is no "common" name for this country in English. One term may have been used more, but that doesn't mean it's a solid exonym that overrules local naming. Finally, there's the matter that the name "Nagorno-Karabakh" is a Russian name, and the locals have decided to go with a local name. That should matter. --Golbez (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Support — Per what Golbez said.
—Rye-96 (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this passes I hope whoever makes changes to the article itself is very careful to preserve Nagorno-Karabakh wherever appropriate, e.g. in quotes, or things that existed in the past like "The Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army was officially established on 9 May 1992 as a defense against Azerbaijan." It would be easy but inappropriate to go through and universally replace the name. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Republic of Artsakh map
Republic of Artsakh
Nagorno-Karabakh map
Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic of Artsakh vs Nagorno-Karabakh
  • Support per nom. This article deals with the contemporary state which is now called Republic of Artsakh and not the historical region. This move does not affect the name of the Nagorno-Karabakh article and I echo User:DIYeditor's admonition. —  AjaxSmack  02:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh, absolutely. They only have the authority to name their own country, not the region it's in. *that* would take a preponderance of sources and common usage to overrule. But a country can rename itself. --Golbez (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Shouldn't it be moved to "Artsakh", instead of "Republic of Artsakh"? Presumably "Artsakh" is the short form name, and since "Artsakh" already redirects here, naming the article "Republic of Artsakh" would be over-disambiguating. --Golbez (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move. I'm normally fairly conservative on political page moves, but here it seems like there is no reason to keep the old name.  ONR  (talk)  01:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I note that this move overwrites the history of attempts at cut-and-paste moves by an IP, most recently 17:38, 26 February 2017‎ 82.199.208.154 (talk | block)‎ . . (95,139 bytes) (+95,101)‎, and subsequent indefinite page protection that seems to have been effective but is no longer necessary. Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Closing comment: I'm disappointed that several old hands above don't cite WP:NAMECHANGES, which seems the obvious policy to apply here. But as I say above, consensus is clear and valid even without this, so I don't think my closing is a supervote anyway. But it would make it clearer still to cite policy rather than just appealing to personal opinion. Andrewa (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved back

Some ... enterprising chap has decided to undo pretty much every rename from NKR to Artsakh. I've told them this was bad and unhelpful, maybe they'll explain themselves! But until then we should probably start fixing their mess. Or, we could wait and make sure they won't simply undo it. Or, we do it anyway so that when they do undo it, they're blocked for edit warring. Either way. --Golbez (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Golbez, Hi, I have reverted back the pages that the user disrupted. I hope there was nothing that I missed. Thank you for bringing the issue back at the noticeboard. I hope the user will not go back to the same disruptive edits after his block expires. --Growupon (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Artsakh (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Moving some of the related pages

I wanted to start a discussion regarding a number of articles relating to the Republic of Artsakh. I think it's easier to have a joint discussion regarding all of the articles rather than having separate ones as the issue is the same for all of them. Once I saw that this article was moved, I began moving the articles that use the name "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to "Republic of Artsakh" and "Nagorno-Karabakh" to "Artsakh". However, after I moved certain articles, that move was reversed. Those articles include, History of Nagorno-Karabakh, Culture of Artsakh, Music of Artsakh, Religion in Nagorno-Karabakh and List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh. I am sure that there are more types of articles that would relate to this issue. Culture of Artsakh and Music of Artsakh were both reverted back by me after the user and I both left comments here. It is very clear that Artsakh should be used for the name of those two articles as they clearly refer to the cultures and music of the self-declared republic. The user's argument for reverting the other articles was that "Nagorno-Karabakh" is the neutral term for the region while "Artsakh" is solely the Armenian name, however from what I got from the discussion to move this page and the actual articles of Republic of Artsakh and Nagorno-Karabakh the areas currently controlled by the de facto independent republic are referred to as "Republic of Artsakh" or simply "Artsakh" and the territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh AO are referred to as "Nagorno-Karabakh".

With that being said, my personal opinion is that the following articles should also be renamed to reflect the name move that occurred here, as articles such as History of Nagorno-Karabakh refer to the areas currently controlled by the self-proclaimed republic rather than just the territories of the former Nagorno-Karabakh AO. It also makes all of the articles relating to this topic a lot more consistent and less confusing. Please share your opinion about this issue so that we can come to a consensus. Thank you. --Growupon (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Country code in Infobox

The "|country_code NKR" isn't working and displaying properly because:

Replacing "|country_code= NKR" with "|iso3166code= omit" fixes the problem. Feel free to make the edit. 2001:569:79AE:3200:A028:B373:8CF:68CA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Republic of Artsakh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Republic of Artsakh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Artsakh pronunciation

pronunciation of Artsakh is given in IPA code as (/ɑːrtsɑːk/), but actually last consonant should be "x", which is valid IPA letter. See Help:IPA, Voiceless_velar_fricative.

Any other opinions? Darwwin (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it should be "x". Kentronhayastan (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. --RaffiKojian (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Add capital to intro

Sorry, I didn't notice the comment about it, so I'll just report it here for discussion afterwards: I added the name of the capital, Stepanakert, to the intro. – gpvos (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Self-contradiction

The lead is self-contradictory. It says that Artsakh is de facto independent and de facto part of Armenia. So which state of affairs is actually more factual? — Kpalion(talk) 12:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it de facto independent from Azerbaijan? Absolutely. Is it true that "in many ways it functions de facto as part of Armenia."? Some say yes. These are not contradictory statements, as the first independence is geopolitical, and the second one seems more geared to institutions and support. Also, the two sources are just, well, statements from scholars, one from 16 years ago, so I'm not sure they can outweigh everything else. I've tried to temper the language, they certainly can't be the sole arbiters of truth. --Golbez (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
is a de facto independent country in the South Caucasus, internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. would be a confusing introduction for someone who has never heard of Artsakh. Seraphim System (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Just trying to think of something that would be factually accurate, neutral and make sense. How about this? Artsakh is a self-proclaimed independent country, which is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan and functions de facto as part of Armenia. — Kpalion(talk) 16:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that's giving too much credence to those sources. Those are someone's opinions, and that shouldn't force us to make a definitive statement like that. --Golbez (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Golbez: I'm not sure what the objectıon to Kpalion's proposal is?Seraphim System (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Placing the facts that it is a self-proclaimed independence country, and that it's recognized as Azerbaijan, on the same level as two scholars' opinion that it largely functions as part of Armenia. --Golbez (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
In geopolitics, everything is someone's opinion. Either the two scholars' opinions are reliable sources, and then there's no reason not to put them on the same level, or they are not reliable, and then there's no reason to include them in the article at all. — Kpalion(talk) 17:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
In geopolitics, everything is someone's opinion. is an incredibly problematic thing to say on Wikipedia. It's an opinion that Artsakh is actually part of Armenia. It's not an opinion that it does in fact exist (de facto). It's not an opinion that the international community recognizes it as being within the borders of Azerbaijan (to state that it's not recognized by the international community is simply saying that they said what they said they said, not using Wikipedia's voice to offer an opinionated perspective on it). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment To ensure accuracy without including a contradictory statement, I recommend we note that Artsakh is de facto independent and internationally considered to be part of Azerbaijan because these two statements are neither inaccurate nor subject to difference of opinion. As for Artsakh functioning as part of Armenia, we should simply describe the situation between Armenia and Artsakh without using Wikipedia's voice to make a declarative statement that Artsakh is de facto part of Armenia. We should avoid saying that Artsakh is effectively part of Armenia. Differing subjective opinions can exist here, as one could say that Artsakh does not function as a province of the government of Armenia but rather that Armenia de facto but not de jure recognizes the country. Likewise, if we were to say that it's simultaneously independent and part of Armenia, we'd be labeling it a puppet state which would be a highly contested POV to use Wikipedia's voice for (note that we never reached a consensus to label Abkhazia a puppet of Russia, much less de facto part of it). In short, a small change in wording could make the difference between this being a very easy fix and this being a very messy process. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I will make minor modifications to the lead's language templates

I want to change 

{{lang-hy|Արցախի Հանրապետություն}}, ''{{lang|hy-Latn|Artsakhi Hanrapetut'yun}}''; [[Azerbaijani language|Azerbaijani]]: Artsax Respublikası),

Armenian: Արցախի Հանրապետություն, Artsakhi Hanrapetut'yun; Azerbaijani: Artsax Respublikası),

To: 

{{lang-hy|Արցախի Հանրապետություն}}, {{lang|hy-Latn|Artsakhi Hanrapetut'yun}}; {{lang-az|Artsax Respublikası}}),

Armenian: Արցախի Հանրապետություն, Artsakhi Hanrapetut'yun; Azerbaijani: Artsax Respublikası),

This really should not be controversial.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Persian Empire and the Satrapy of Arran

Seems as if there should be some mention of Christianity around this point in the History section. - Snori (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


The below sentence looks like POV as it doesn't shows any reference or doesn't state after which year and which war between Persians and Romans. Can someone give more information?

Following wars with the Romans and Persians, Armenia was partitioned between the two empires. Artsakh was removed from Persian Armenia and included into the neighbouring satrapy of Arran.

Mirhasanov (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Area

I updated the unsourced figures given for the area of the Republic of Artsakh, according to Encyclopedia Britannica's entry covering the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, which the Wikipedia article states is a synonym for it, and which redirects to the article. Britannica's entry begins:

Nagorno-Karabakh, also spelled Nagorno-Karabach, Azerbaijani Dağlıq Qarabağ, Armenian Artsakh, region of southwestern Azerbaijan. The name is also used to refer to an autonomous oblast (province) of the former Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (S.S.R.) and to the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, a self-declared country whose independence is not internationally recognized. The old autonomous region occupied an area of about 1,700 square miles (4,400 square km), while the forces of the self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh presently occupy some 2,700 square miles (7,000 square km).[1]

It was reverted, and the citation was removed, by Darwwin, with the explanation: "the citation provided does not refer to Republik of Artsakh, but rather to the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which implies old Soviet-age boundaries, which are not more valid". Darwwin, you are mistaken about that. The first figures given (1700/4400) are for the former region, while the second set (2700/7000) are clearly for the Republic. Therefore I have reinstated the edit. --IamNotU (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@IamNotU: I've seen what you are referring to. But the data in your source may still be outdated, as no date is provided there. I bothered to check the surface are on my own using online surface measuring tools and got the old figures, which you are reverting. If interested please take few minutes and check on your own. Reproducing wrong data even from the credible source is not the goal of wikipedia. The correct figures are provided also in http://www.nkr.am/en/general-information. BTW, please sign your posts. Darwwin (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Darwwin, thanks for noticing that I forgot my signature, I've added it now. You're correct that the data in Encylopedia Britannica could be outdated, as could any published data. However, unless there is actual evidence of that, in the form of other equally or more reliable independent sources that contradict it, we can't assume that it is wrong. Thanks also for checking with the online mapping tools, but I'm sure you understand that is original research, and can't be used. The figures published on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that you linked to are interesting. However, the government source is primary, and not independent, and the government may have some interest in overstating the amount of territory they control, so it is not necessarily reliable. I would like to see the figures be as accurate as possible, but there is no alternative to using figures published by reliable, independent, secondary sources. If you can find more of those, which could be considered more reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica (i.e., not simply quoting the government's figures) that would be good. It's not up to us to judge whether the data is right or wrong, but to fairly summarize and represent what is published in reliable, independent sources. --IamNotU (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
4400 (region) + 7000 (otherwise occupied) is almost the same as the figure given by the government website. CMD (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
looks like CMD is right, Britanica just uses a strange wording to present same data as government source. @IamNotU:, please check and revert your changes. Did you checked with an online map? sure that can't be referenced here, but it will disclose real figures to you - if you are interested.Darwwin (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok - it's difficult to see that the Britannica source should be read that way, but I have put it back to the previous figures for now with "citation needed", since the Britannica source may be confusing. We really do need high-quality citations, and since the territory is disputed, per WP:NPOV we need to explain the dispute, and not only state one view or another. For example CNN notes that the government claims the figure of about 4400 square miles but that the claim is disputed.[2] The BBC uses the 1700 square miles figure,[3] etc., so Wikipedia can't be in conflict with these sources. I wasn't able to find any reliable independent source that simply states the 4400 square mile figure as a fact, without also stating that it is "claimed", "disputed", "under Armenian control", or similar. So in addition to citations, the infobox probably needs some kind of explanatory note, and the Geography section should be expanded slightly to explain how the given area figure is determined. --IamNotU (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The BBC refers to the former autonomous area, and the CNN source gives the same size as the other sources mentioned above. Given all these sources concur, I don't see how Wikipedia is in conflict with any of them. I also think it's reasonably clear from the article that the entirety of the territory is disputed, claimed by Azerbaijan, and under Armenian control of some kind. None of these points conflict with the area figure. I agree with making clear in the Geography section the difference between the former autonomous area, the currently controlled area, and the uncontrolled claimed area is a good idea, and we can do that easily with just the sources presented here. CMD (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The BBC refers to the territory that "unilaterally declared itself an independent republic in 1991". If someone reads the BBC's infobox-like country profile, and then Wikipedia's infobox profile, they could think, "Wikipedia is wrong, it contradicts what the BBC says". It should be clear why there is a difference in the figures presented, without needing to dig deep into the article or even the talk page to find an explanation. It's not only the BBC. I did a bit more searching for sources, and a significant number of reliable sources use the 1700 sq mile figure when referring to the current Republic: [4] [5] [6], etc. Even if the BBC and the New York Times give an inaccurate impression, we can't just ignore them. Please understand that what may be obvious to you is not obvious to people who don't know much about the topic, reading the article. I personally find it confusing, as well as this article's relationship to the Nagorno-Karabakh article. I appreciate the explanations given here, but the talk page isn't a substitute for clarity in the article. Wikipedia's job isn't to find the reliable sources that support the "correct" figure, but to summarize what all reliable sources say, and try to explain any significant differences. Making it clear in the Geography section as you described would be a good step towards that. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The difference is, I suspect, because the status of the areas around the former NKAO is not defined. The declaration of independence was for the oblast (and Shahumyan Province, but this was almost never controlled by NKR), and the rest was conquered during the war, and has over time become more integrated into the country. I agree we can make it clear in the Geography section, but we still need to pick one figure for the infobox. For this, I suggest we use the de facto area. (As for Nagorno-Karabakh, I don't feel that article has much a of a point, but it's not uncommon on Wikipedia for someone to create an article covering the area of a disputed entity that isn't linked to the political entity to decrease the prominence of the political entity.) CMD (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-05-19.
  2. ^ CNN, Eliott C. McLaughlin. "Armenia, Azerbaijan violence decades in making". CNN. Retrieved 2019-05-21. {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
  3. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh profile". 12 March 2015. Retrieved 2019-05-21 – via www.bbc.com.

Change Purpose

Gents,

I thing below statement regarding Nagorno-Karabakh Republic being second official name is not correct and also the sentence doesn't clearly shows that it is de facto state.

The Republic of Artsakh (/ˈɑːrtsɑːx/; Armenian: Արցախի Հանրապետություն, Artsakhi Hanrapetut'yun),[3][4] or simply Artsakh, also known by its second official name, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (/nəˌɡɔːrnoʊ kɑːrəˈbɑːk/), is a breakaway state in the South Caucasus that is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan.

Hence I purpose below:

The Republic of Artsakh (/ˈɑːrtsɑːx/; Armenian: Արցախի Հանրապետություն, Artsakhi Hanrapetut'yun),[3][4] or simply Artsakh, mainly known as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (/nəˌɡɔːrnoʊ kɑːrəˈbɑːk/), is a breakaway de facto state in the South Caucasus that is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan.

Looking forward for your comments.

Mirhasanov (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Key info missing

As of 2020, does the Republic want to be independent for ever, or does it want to merge with Armenia? This should be included. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Something wrong with a translation

Note 3 says that the Constitution reads "The names 'Republic of Artsakh' and 'Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh' are identical". Something must be wrong with the translation. They obviously mean "synonymous" or "interchangeable", as the names are obviously not identical (i.e., not the same name), otherwise there would we no reason for the clarification. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Above request to the infobox

Would anyone have to add the Azerbaijani language to this de facto state regardless of whether its official or not? It's de jure part of Azerbaijan actually. -69.157.126.206 (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The de-facto language is all that should be noted in this article. We've already determined that politically-driven "it's de-jure part of Azerbaijan" style edits have no place in this article since they don't respect the neutral POV pillar of Wikipedia. Furthermore the Azerbaijani POV is already provided at length in the Nagorno-Karabakh article. HyeProfile (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox change

I changed the infobox to the one used by dependencies since it is not a sovereign state of its own. -70.49.10.194 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There is not actual formal status within Azerbaijan for this territory, so I have reverted that infobox as it doesn't apply. CMD (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Artsakh is not a part of Azerbaijan and the population is Armenian people thus it is a part of Armenia Peaceloveandstrength (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

URGENT

Please edit the Republic of Artsakh page. It should say that it is "internationally recognized as a part of Armenia" Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.124 (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Internationally recognised as a part of Armenia" means that the majority of UN members recognise the claim of Armenia for the republic. Now, however, Armenia does not claim the state as its own territory and recognises (?) this as a sovereign state. All other UN members either support Azerbaijan's claim to the state or are neutral. kostya_nad (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Recognition by Armenia?

On 5 May 2016, the Government of Armenia approved the bill on recognition of the independence of the Republic of Artsakh. [1] right in the 5.2, second last point. Does not that mean that the Republic of Armenia recognises the Republic of Artsakh and the state has at least some UN-member states recognition? kostya_nad (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Kostya nad, it seems like that may have just been some preliminary legislation; Associated Press reports published a few days ago say that [Prime Minister] Pashinyan also said that Armenia may recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as independent, a move that could further interfere with a potential settlement of the dispute.[7]. Armenia's ambassador to Russia has made similar comments recently [8]. signed, Rosguill talk 16:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Armenia government approves bill on recognition of Karabakh independence". News.am. Archived from the original on 27 December 2016. Retrieved 18 December 2016.

"Country" vs "breakaway state"

I have wp:boldly used the term "country" as it is consistent with how the ROC and Kosovo is also described as a country, despite being either entirely, or partially, unrecognized internationally. From what I can tell, the cases are fairly similar, and I'd like to see what the consensus on this topic is.

I support the term "Country" as it better describes the nature of the territory, whilst being consistent with the descriptions of other non-UN de-facto states used on WP. Furthermore, the state is recognized in reliable sources as behaving as a de-facto independent state, with the chief issue being territorial claims by another state. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 21:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2020

Please add the abbreviation "NKR" to the first sentence of the lead, using one of the following:

  • the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR; /nəˌɡɔːrnoʊ kærəˈbæk/; Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետություն, romanized: Lerrnayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetut’yun)
  • the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (/nəˌɡɔːrnoʊ kærəˈbæk/; Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետություն, romanized: Lerrnayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetut’yun; abbbreviated NKR)
  • the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR) (/nəˌɡɔːrnoʊ kærəˈbæk/; Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետություն, romanized: Lerrnayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetut’yun)

or whatever you deem suitable. The abbreviation is not used in the article but does appear in several of the refs and also in the External links section, and NKR redirects here. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:F079:9A84:A5E9:D0EA (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 conflict ceasefire between armenia and Azerbaijan

"Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed a temporary ceasefire in the conflict in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Russia's foreign minister announced the agreement just before 03:00 Moscow time (midnight GMT), following 10 hours of talks in the Russian capital.

Sergey Lavrov said the two countries would now begin "substantive" talks.

More than 300 people have died and thousands displaced since the latest violence in the long-running conflict broke out on 27 September.

The hostilities will be halted from midday local time (08:00 GMT) on Saturday, to allow an exchange of prisoners and the recovery of dead bodies." Current article does not include any info on ceasefire. (Source for info: bbc news) Mr anonymous username (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

There is no such concept as Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Azerbaijan is a region it claims as its territory, that name is not a republic. There is the Republic of Artsakh. The changes made on this subject should be canceled. The NKR record, which is not based on any source, must be deleted.

 Not done, sources establish that both names are used semi-interchangeably, e.g. [9]. signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but No . That way this discussion will not end. If the name of this republic is the Republic of Artsakh in this article, someone cannot change it in their opinion. One should not confuse the concepts and the region names. The name of a region and the state that defines itself as a republic are not the same concept. Being the majority does not mean being right. The title of the article cannot be confused with the claims of Azerbaijan or supporters.Also, the source you provide is not objective and cannot be regarded as a wikipedia resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.18.185 (talk • contribs)

It's not clear what changes you're actually proposing here, please be more specific. Is your position that all references to "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" should be removed? Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~, which both helps other editors identify you and allows bots to properly archive pages when discussions are over. signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This phrase at the beginning of the article is invalid. It needs to be deleted. ....or the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (/nəˌɡɔːrnoʊ kærəˈbæk/; Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետություն, romanized: Lerrnayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetut’yun; sometimes abbreviated NKR),[3][4][5] is a self-proclaimed South Caucasian state situated within internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan.[6][3].... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.18.185 (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not going to happen. A Google Scholar search will confirm that the term is widely used and should be mentioned in the lead. You may have had a point if you were objecting to the use of the phrase elsewhere in the article, but we're going to include alternative names in the lead if they're widely used (see also Stepanakert, Hebron). signed, Rosguill talk 22:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but,This was not objective. What do you mean by widely usage? If this is the title of this article and it is called Republic of Artsakh as a definition, it is ridiculous to change it to common opinion. With this logic, we should use the US with the same names as the Native American lands, or add the names given by the Indians to the American lands Identification is important to the article. If this article bears this name, it should not contain different and non-objective content. If there is any other claim, a NEW ARTICLE should be opened. Baseless definitions should not be made in this article. It is clear that there is no such republic as NKR. The place called Nagorno Karabakh is a region and not a republic. Maybe if Azerbaijanis give that name to there, it will not change its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.18.185 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Also, this NKR addition was added to the item very recently (on October 4) for non-objective reasons, there was no such addition before. Therefore, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.18.185 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to interrupt. An article about a region of Azerbaijan called Upper Karabakh economic region already exists. So there are two articles about both points of view. The term in dispute NKR is really widely used and I don't see a reason to remove it. Maybe you want to expand the article Upper Karabakh...? Also, I repeat the advice by Rosguill to sign your edits at the talk page with ~~~~ Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Also the NKR term (Nagorno Karabakh as a Republic) is there at least since 2017 (not since 4 October as you claim), so your argument lacks of relevance.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
information Note:Closing as  Not done. There is no actionable edit request here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No. You have no knowledge of legal information. As I have repeatedly stated, the name given to a region by others and the official name of that area are different concepts. Whether a state is recognized or not, the name of the rate should be expressed in whatever way it is used. If the content in the article is the Republic of Artsakh, it should not be given another name. The Native American example I gave above proves this very clearly. What you do will only be valid if it is included in another article.So I request you to create another article based on the claim named NKR or remove the phrases I mentioned.

Who did sign the Bishkek Protocol? Nagorno-Karabakh Republic! Some sources say, that this was a recognition of Artsakh by Azerbaijan. But it is not.Geysirhead (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm talking about the current official naming. The subject you're talking about is irrelevant. The name given to a region by some people and the official name of the republic should not be used in the same sense. The place that could be called the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAR) in the early periods is now officially registered as the Republic of Artsakh. In this sense, it is not appropriate to change the name with other claims instead of official records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.18.185 (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
"is now officially registered as the Republic of Artsakh"? "Сегодня я был в нескольких избирательных округах Нагорно-Карабахской Республики, посетил десятки избирательных участков и могу отметить, что выборы здесь проходят очень активно, организованно, в рамках международных норм и без жалоб”, - в беседе с журналистами заявил вице-спикер парламента Абхазии Вячеслав Цугба.[1] Translation: "Today I was in several constituencies of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, visited dozens of polling stations and I can note that the elections here are very active, orderly, within the framework of international norms and without complaints," the vice-speaker of the Parliament of Abkhazia said in an interview with reporters Vyacheslav Tsugba.Geysirhead (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Вице-спикер парламента Абхазии: Выборы в НКР соответствуют всем международным стандартам". Ararat-online.ru - Армянский информационный интернет портал. Retrieved 12 October 2020.

Republic of Negorno Karabakh

The lead says that it's also known as the "Republic of Negorno Karabakh". Says who? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

TASS[1] CBC [2] .... Geysirhead (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The information you provide from news sites is not correct. The name of the republic is the Republic of Artsakh. A synonym for the region and the republic / state are not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.18.185 (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Even the 3 unrecognized states, who recognized it, call it NKR. An unrecognized state can not enforce any name conventions.--Geysirhead (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Very few call it the RoN-K. See these Google Trends which show that RoA outranks R0N-K by a factor of 7. Weight matters. Fringe views should not feature in the lead. [10] Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
"Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" is not uncommon, and until the 2017 constitution prompted a reassessment here was the name of this page. CMD (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree both are relevant. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that it is relevant and should feature in the history section. However, it is undue weight to put it in the lead IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Passport What is writen on the passport? Geysirhead (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice pic. Does it date prior to 20 February 2017? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The date is not relevant. Please, provide a pic of any passport having Artsakh on it!Geysirhead (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A 2019 Republic Of Artsakh stamp appears on this link. https://www.reddit.com/r/EveryPassportStamp/comments/g6eezs/artsakh_visa_in_old_passport_this_is_the/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.18.185 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Yerevan reports another downed Azeri jet in Nagorno-Karabakh". TASS. Retrieved 12 October 2020.
  2. ^ "Canada tells Turkey to stay out of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". Retrieved 12 October 2020.

Artsakh is a de facto Armenian protectorate

@Chipmunkdavis: "The country is reliant on and closely integrated with Armenia, in many ways functioning de facto as part of Armenia." does not come to the point. It should rather be "Artsakh is a de facto Armenian protectorate" Artsakh has handed over all of its foreign affairs issues to Armenia. Artsakh has only foreign relationships to Armenia. Otherwise, Artsakh has own passports and a president. Armenia is the voice and the will of Artsakh in the negotiations with Azerbaijan. Eurasianet, The Independent, the book "Genocide and Human Rights" by Mark Lattimer, at least 34 Papers and many other sources label the relationship right away as "Armenian protectorate". The current wording is misleading and does not reflect the actual reality.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There is already an ongoing discussion of this issue on another talk page. Please do not open new ones on different pages. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
There have been many different forms of protectorates in history. Expecting the reader to intuit a specific interpretation does not feel like the best writing. CMD (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the Republic of Artsakh unrecognized or unrecognised?

Is there a consensus on which spelling conventions should be used on this page? I was about to change all the -ize words to -ise words, or vice versa, but the usage is so inconsistent that I can't tell which way to go. Thoughts? Fried Gold (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there has been a consensus. Looking at official English language media ize seems more common, but it probably doesn't matter too much. CMD (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Meh. Depends if you live in Boston or Glasgow. Both are readily understandable. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAMB in hatnote

The title of this article, as far as I can tell, is specific and unambiguous. The primary topic 'Artsakh' (a DAB) links to here, or people have to specifically search for the nation-state in Artsakh or Nagorno-Karabakh—it is reasonable to assume the people coming here are coming specifically for the unrecognised state not mistakenly for any of the other topics disambiguated at the DAB (I think 'Nagorno-Karabakh' might be an exception and be within the purview of this page). I have also just edited three redirects which were variations of the spelling of the primary topic but redirected here (Artsah, Artzakh, and Artsakh's) to point to the primary topic, the DAB.

So now, we can remove the "For other uses, see Artsakh." from the hatnote for this article, can't we? Didn't get why we needed to put a hatnote for our DAB page when our title is disambiguated already (and now those redirects have been fixed).

I think the guideline the status quo is a violation of is WP:NOTAMB, which I think we fulfill now and which says the part of the hatnote I quoted in particular is an improper use of hatnotes. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2020

During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the Ministry of Defence of Artsakh stated that on 30 October the Azerbaijani side has used phosphorus weapons to burn forests near Shushi.[58] The next day, Armenia's human rights defender, Arman Tatoyan, stated that civilians were hiding in the forest. Aavetisyan24 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

add: dissolved: November 10, 2020. 202.133.209.187 (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a source for changes you wish to make. CMD (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This country has been disestablished

This country has been disestablished. Must be add. Deniz.Sulay (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  • There is no official statement, but when there is this information should be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan868 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Artsakh is no more.

Artsakh is now both de jure and de facto part of azerbaijan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nar 2608 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Status of Republic of Artsakh

Hello. In my opinion, the status of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh article is incorrect. If the state does not recognize it, the country to which it belongs must also be written in its status. For example, unrecognized Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria are not like Arsakh in the article. Arsakh's status was written by three non-UN member states. Sorry, is this important? Does it matter? However, they are unrecognized separatist organizations. Even four countries have recognized the independence of those separatist organizations. But Arsakh was not recognized by any state. Excuse me, why isn't the Republic of Artsakh article the same as the 3 unrecognized states article? Don't you think this is a double standard? Sword313 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that recognitions in the infobox are presented in an undue manner. As for why different articles are different, there aren't fixed standards to which various sets of articles are written, especially not on the level of such specific details. CMD (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
No, I don't know what you are talking about. International law is a non-sanctioned field, not like local law. In this sense, the actual situation is more important than the recognition of the countries. For example, places like Jammu and Kashmir (state) and Northern Cyprus are like that. It is very wrong to think that everything is defined. In addition, activities to recognize the Artsakh Republic are increasing. Italian regional governments and many federal districts continue to recognize. This may increase or remain the same over time. There are no ossified rules in international law and most are political.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Nagorno-Karabakh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.16.217 (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

The caption below the map is unclear; it clarifies that Artsakh's territory is represented in green, but it does not clearly differentiate which territory is claimed and which is controlled. Similar to the articles for other states with claimed but uncontrolled territory (i.e. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, People's Republic of China), the caption should read "Land controlled by the Republic of Artsakh shown in dark green, land claimed but uncontrolled shown in light green". ShockedCurve453 (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Mt Mrav: in or out?

Mount Mrav has just been removed from the article text. Has NK lost this mountain in 2020? Then the photo needs to be removed as well. If not: reinstate in text. Either - or. For now I have "saved" the altitude (3,340 metres (10,958 ft)), which was removed from the text, and placed it inside the caption. Arminden (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Historic monasteries: which remain in Artsakh?

As far as I can tell, Gandzasar, Amaras, and St. Nerses (Martuni) remain in Artsakh. What about Saint Yeghishe Arakyal Monastery and Bri Yeghtze Monastery in the Martuni District? These two still need to be clarified.

Once the two have been clarified and placed either under "In Artsakh after 2020" or "In Azerbaijan after 2020", a short general presentation should be written under the heading "Historic Armenian monasteries and churches". Arminden (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Article names of NK towns and villages

Hey! I've recently opened a discussion regarding page moves for the articles concerning Nagorno-Karabakh towns and villages here: Talk:Qarakənd and I would appreciate feedback from other editors that are familiar with the issue. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Source for land area of ‘Republic of Artsakh’

Old land area for the claimed breakaway ‘Republic of Artsakh’: Total 11,458 km2 (4,424 sq mi) That was what the article claimed also of July 2020. Does anyone have a source for the current stated area of the territory: 3,170 km2 (1,220 sq mi) Both the then and now area totals were tagged as requiring a source. Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Existence of Republic of Artsakh

As the result of ceasefire the unrecognised state of Artsakh government collapsed. And since the Nogorno-Karabakh territories are officially recognised as territory of Azerbaijan, so the question is shouldn't we add something to article like: "Collapsed: 10 November 2020" ? EntityRrr (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Who says it collapsed? Who says that the government of the state that has reduced territory does not continue? Who's running the electricity to Stepanakert? Who's supplying the water? Where are the sources? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The President of Artsakh is still meeting people in an official capacity and issuing official statements. See here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Your link contains the statements issued by the President of Armenia, not the President of Artsakh though. 2001:8003:9008:1301:7579:50ED:CE26:29F2 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
They did not collapse, they still retain control of some land from the original NK autonomous oblast. FlalfTalk 14:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is time limits. So,They have to go out from Lacin, Kalbajar, Agdam till 1st December. So, they may live only Khankendi, Xocavend and Xocalı but only some small part of these cities. And armenians can live there but they have to accept Azerbaijan passport, and they have to live under Azerbaijan flag. What kind of country are we talking about? Artsax doesn't exist anymore. NikoFeyzi (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Until reliable sources explicitly state that the republic no longer exists, there is nothing for us to add. Please see our policy on original research for more information. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree, premature. There will also probably be more clarity in the coming weeks and the implementation (or lack thereof) of the accords as to the new situation. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see if they continue to act independently. If it's established that the area is under Russian or Azari control then this "de facto state" no longer exists and a former country infobox should be added. 3bdulelah (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Artsakh never existed as a de jure country so we can not mention the date 10 November 2020. Also, there is not any term in the ceasefire agreement that indicates the status of Khankendi, Khodjaly and Khodjavend (or the remaining parts of artsakh, in other words). So we can't say that the land is not de facto ruled by Artsakh. It will cease to exist surely, but we must wait for the peace deal. After that, all the pages that contain the word "Artsakh" will be edited. I understand, we all are excited because of the triumph but there's no hurry. Tulparus (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

109.205.166.111 (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 11:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Artsakh has collapsed. There is no need for so much information about a country that no longer exists. The President of Azerbaijan said that no autonomy would be granted, all the lands of Karabakh are in the hands of Azerbaijan. Yes, Armenians will be able to live here. However, not an inch of Karabakh will be given to the Armenians. Let's not deny the facts. Clean up the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.253.228.155 (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

See Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is the placement of note b?

Maybe I am ever so blind, but looking between note a and note c in the initial information boxes, I can't locate what note b refers to. The information is there but where is the actually section with this b note?

Arcsoda (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Presumably it's meant to go after President, but it seems unnecessary for the infobox so it's probably worth removing. CMD (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Add mention of Russian peacekeeping mission in lead

Since the remaining territory of the Republic of Artsakh is under the de facto control of the Russian Peacekeeping mission in Nagorno-Karabakh, this should be mentioned in the intro and elsewhere in the article. Currently only Russian peacekeeping in the Lachin corridor is mentioned. Revolution Saga (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Source that they are busy controlling it rather than maintaining a military presence alongside existing local authorities? CMD (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Whether referred to as de facto control or not, the presence of the Russian peacekeeping mission is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Revolution Saga (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, if there are independent reliable sources that accord them that much significance. Nothing in the article body suggests that at the moment. CMD (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Could we rename this page to simply "Artsakh"?

I doubt many people searching Artsakh are looking for the ancient armenian region, after all it's not like we use "Syrian Arab Republic" to differentiate the modern country from the roman region

so basically Republic of Artsakh -> Artsakh Artsakh -> Artsakh (disambiguation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. Iristine (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

99,7% "clean" and no mention of ethnic cleansing

The population is 99,7% "clean" and no mention of ethnic cleansing? --Geysirhead (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Overwhelming majority and I mean very, very majority of population changes during the war happened as a result of expulsions and deportations of both Azeris from Armenia and Armenians from Azerbaijan. Keep your UNDUE out of the lead, please. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Dear @ZaniGiovanni: according to your words "expulsions and deportations of both", this conflict is a prime example of mutual ethnic cleansing. Sorry, I forgot to add the term "mutual" to my change. "After conflict-driven mutual ethnic cleansing, the population became 99,7% ..." You agree? I also want to start the List of mutual ethnic cleansings --Geysirhead (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
No, I already said mutual or not, the overwhelming majority of population changes happened as a result of population exchanges, expulsions or deportations, not ethnic cleansing. Go ahead and gather how many people died as a result of ethnic cleansing from both sides, then please see the number of refugees from both Arm and Az which goes over hundreds of thousands, that would answer your question. UNDUE, again. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Dear @ZaniGiovanni:, counting the percentage of murdered people as a measure for ethnic cleansing rised the question: What is the threshold? If for example, a family is deported and only their little baby dies .. Is it then just deportation? But, once also the mother dies, is it ethnic cleansing? --Geysirhead (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I laid down my argument as simple as it would get. Overwhelming Majority of population changes happened as a result of either populations exchanges or deportations/expulsions from both sides. Ethnic cleansing / massacres was only a tiny fraction. Hence your edit is undue. This is as simple as it gets. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Please, read the first sentences from ethnic cleansing! What you describe, is an ethnic cleansing.--Geysirhead (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a source. Do you have reliable sources saying the majority of population changes happened as a result of "ethnic cleansing"? If not, then I don't see how your edit is DUE, especially for the lead. And we don't write articles based on our WP:OR. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Map

Is there a better map that can be used for the info box? That tiny square is a bit ridiculous. Wikipedia article maps are often hit or miss. Sometimes there are great maps and even additional zoomed in and zoomed out ones with nearby countries, borders, bodies of water, and even disputed areas clearly marked. Then, other times you get a tiny square that barely shows the territory at all and no labeled areas whatsoever. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding citations seen as a problem

When I went to Hadrut Province article and saw that this "de jure part of Republic of Azerbaijan' sentence ended with a [citation needed] template, first I removed it because it is the lede/lead and lead can be left like that, without that template. But several times it got reverted, because apparently, any claim or sentence in wikipedia needs to have a citation and uncited materials may be removed. Okay, I understand that and added two citations.

Then I passed by to the article of Republic of Artsakh, eventhough the same sentence doesn't have [citation needed] with them, I decided to put and utilise those two citations I used in Hadrut Province article. Those works aren't bias as far as I am concerned and I avoided using Azerbaijani sources because they're deemed as highly provocative and part of Azerbaijani Government's propaganda.

ChipmunksDavid, sorry for misspelling, said that those two citations don't contain anything unique and not an improvement. How come putting a citations can't be seen as an improvement. I don't have a comment regarding uniqueness that citations need to have/bring/deliver. But I still argue that those two works are more than eligible to be added into the lede of Republic of Artsakh article, because it is not disrupting and vandalising the article.

Or to put a citation also need a consensus from other editors? My edits that tried to put Azerbaijani/Turkic name for several articles got reverted because other experienced editors said what I did doesn't meet the consensus. Mfikriansori (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Leads generally do not need citations given they are meant only to reflect what is in the article body. That is the current setup for this lead. Where sources are added, it is usually for potentially contentious statements. That Artsakh's breakaway from Azerbaijan is unrecognised is not a contentious statement, and the article has a dedicated subsection on the topic. CMD (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi CMD, thank you. So, instead of involving in what supposed to be an edit-war, I can add new content to that dedicated subsection and citetwo works I said earlier. Mfikriansori (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
If its very detailed content I'd suggest adding it to subarticles, but in general yes it's easier to add to bodies than to leads. CMD (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2022

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: not moved. Favonian (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

– The article can serve as the primary page for the title. DownTownRich (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Added move of associated page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
SUPPORT This should be done ages ago. I can understand why formal names are used for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo as both countries literally share the same name. Since there is only one Artsakh on Earth right now, what is the point of using the long formal name for this country just because there was a historical country used the same name? 110.145.30.41 (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose to maintain distinction from melikdoms and provinces that have used the same name over the centuries. I suspect that the nomination may be a politically motivated attempt to delegitimise the Republic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Laurel this is by no way politically motivated every nations article does reflect its official name and I myself do support these articles as I am part of the WikiProject that maintains and expands them. DownTownRich (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose Artsakh as a name of modern political entity is dated back only to 2006 and before, it was and still widely known as Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The current title needs to be kept because it differentiate between this today's Artsakh with Artsakh of Ancient Armenia, which aren't the exact same. Mfikriansori (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 13 May 2022 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2022

Manta18382 (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Local names for holidays in Republic of Artsakh are missing.Manta18382 (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Demonym

A demonym of inhabitans of the Republic of Artsakh is Artsakhtsi in Armenian language. Not is Artsakhi! Artem Pogosian (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but English Wikipedia is in English and follows the line of English-language RS, when available. Searching on Google Scholar, these were the results that came up:
  • "Artsakhi "-- 62 results
  • "Artsakhian " -- 14 results
  • "Artsakhtsi " -- 4 results
I would take this as adequate evidence that Artsakhi is the most appropriate term in English, noting as well that English-language demonyms do not distinguish between terms for people and other entities, unlike Armenian and Russian--Armenian may have Արցախցիներ (~Artsakhtsi people) vs Արցախի Հանրապետություն (~Artsakhi Republic) or Արցախյան հող (~Artsakhian land), English just uses a single term across all contexts. Artsakh is obscure enough in the English-speaking world that we do see some variation in English sources, but unless you can provide stronger evidence than what I've listed above, there seems to be a clear front-runner: Artsakhi. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"Self proclaimed" vs "breakaway"

The article in current stable version describes Artsakh as "breakaway" republic. When I amended it to "breakaway" in Azerbaijan article for congruency purposes and in order to use a less loaded term, Golden hurried to revert it to "self-proclaimed", commenting that it is " not "loaded" in any way" and that "it's the most commonly used word to describe the republic. User Golden, 1) can you prove that "it's the most commonly used" term, and 2) do you think there is academic consensus to support the use of that (apparently loaded) term for Artsakh? Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

A quick Google search already shows that "breakaway" is more commonly used with either Artsakh or Nagorno-Karabakh, this contradicts Golden's "more common" argument.
"Artsakh" "breakaway" 126,000 results
"Artsakh" "self-proclaimed"  89,600 results
"Nagorno-karabakh" "breakaway"  107,000 results  
"Nagorno-Karabakh" "self-proclaimed" 63,800 results
--Armatura (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
What is the supposed difference in loading between these two effective synonyms? CMD (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
CMD, thanks for joining the discussion. Breakaway means the political entity broke away from a (larger) entity. Self-proclaimed has more negative connotations - e.g. "Self-proclaimed is used to show that someone says themselves that they are a type of person which most people would be embarrassed or ashamed to be 1 or, here. "Breakaway" is not entirely neutral, either, but at least focuses not on recognition and, as demonstrated above, is an adjective more frequently used by media. If we are exploring all neutral wordings, then I would personally prefer "de facto state", "partially recognised state" or more general "state with limited recognition" as in the Wikipedia List of states with limited recognition. "Self-proclaimed state" is the hardest epithet to use, I think, kind of equal to a "pseudostate", and should be therefore discouraged. Artsakh has some recognition, hence "self-proclaimed" sounds unjustified, it is certainly not more self-proclaimed than the other post-Soviet "frozen conflict" zones of Abkhazia (currently described as "de facto state" in lede), Transnistria (currently described as "breakaway state" in lede), South Ossetia (currently described as "breakaway state" in lede) . I believe we should use rigorously unified terminology regarding these 4 states, to avoid opportunistic variations in the interpretation of the adjective. Perhaps an RfC could be done regarding these 4 states, to feel the preference of the wider community, what do you think? --Armatura (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Artsakh did break away from a larger entity, through a unilateral proclamation. I do not think either term is unneutral, or particularly indicative of anything other than the fact that Artsakh basically lacks recognition, despite the linked list. I wouldn't use pseudostate, but it's not some kind of out of left field term for Artsakh. Both breakaway and self-proclaimed have the advantage over de facto of being in English, and thus more likely to be accessible. (State with limited recognition is too long when we have so many more concise alternatives.) I think picking between the various terms here is a very minor issue, and that an RfC would be in WP:BIKESHED territory. CMD (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis Many thanks for your opinion. I think we should be very sensitive to how those terms would affect the lives of people living in those entities and be as neutral as possible, especially after devastating military conflicts all of them had. "A person with reduced / limited mobility" is better than "invalid" or "housebound. "A person with mental health issues" is better than "insane" or "mad". I appreciate the shorter words are quicker to pronounce, but they can still hurt. "Afro-American" is better than "ni**a", "LGBT and intersex" is better than "qu**r". "Self-proclaimed" for Artsakh is the worst of all currently used options, in my opinion (no wonder it is favoured by Azerbaijani government-controlled-media), the other terms are more neutral. I am not going to bring the example of Taiwan whose legal statuses is also contentious but imagine if a do a test and change "breakaway" to "self-proclaimed" in South Ossetia / Transdniestria / Abkhazia articles, I am sure that will generate large wave of opposition. We should also beware of political application of the term by warlords in order to justify military interventions towards that entity... Finally, there is no reason why we should treat Artsakh differently from the other three very similar entities (which recognise each other, and enjoy some other limited recognition as well). I have asked in the talk pages of those entities as well, to have a wider feel for perceptions. Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It is incorrect to compare Artsakh to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, or Taiwan. Because all three are recognised by at least one UN member state, their declaration of independence is not recognised solely by themselves (thus not self-proclaimed). In the case of Artsakh, however, no UN member state recognises it, so their independence is recognised only by themselves. "Self-proclaimed" is not a negative term. The Oxford dictionary defines it as "described as or proclaimed to be such by oneself, without endorsement by others." This is precisely the case with Artsakh, whose independence has not been recognised by any other recognised state.
The most accurate comparison of Artsakh would be to Transnistria, which is also not recognised by any other UN state and is described in its article lead as an "unrecognised breakaway state", not just "breakaway state". I'm fine with describing Artsakh as an "unrecognised breakaway state" in articles because it distinguishes between breakaway states that have recognition and those that don't. Thoughts? — Golden call me maybe? 13:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I am not a fan of adding another adjective that is essentially redundant. We would not use "breakaway" to describe a well-recognised state, so adding another word doesn't add much. CMD (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Here is how each perennially reliable source describes the republic that controls Nagorno-Karabakh (Republic of Artsakh/Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh):
  • self-proclaimed/declared (14):
    • ABC News: "...a military conflict in self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, Azerbaijan..." Link
    • Al Jazeera: "The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic is recognised only by the self-declared republics of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Artsakh." Link
    • Amnesty International: "...there have been no formal declarations of war and the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR)..." Link
    • Associated Press: "during fighting with forces of the self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh" Link
    • BBC: "Nagorno-Karabakh remained part of Azerbaijan, but since then has mostly been governed by a separatist, self-declared republic..." Link
    • Deutsche Welle: "The self-proclaimed republic also controlled parts of the surrounding Azerbaijani districts." Link
    • The Economist: "...Armenians in the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh republic..." Link
    • Financial Times: "Today, the self-proclaimed republic of fewer than 150,000 people remains unrecognised worldwide..." Link
    • The Independent: "A war last year between Azerbaijan and the self-declared Republic of Artsakh..." Link
    • New York Times: "Area self-declared as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" Link
    • Time: "...a disputed region called Nagorno-Karabakh, a self-declared independent republic..." Link
    • USA Today: "Officials in the self-proclaimed republic of Nagorno-Karabakh..." Link
    • Voice of America: "...shelling during a military conflict in the self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh" Link
    • National Geographic: "...Stepanakert, the capital of the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic..." Link
  • unrecognised (6):
    • Al Jazeera: "...the capital of the unrecognised Republic of Artsakh..." Link
    • Bloomberg News: "The defense army of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" Link
    • The Guardian: "it has ruled itself – with Armenian support – as the unrecognised Republic of Artsakh." Link
    • New York Times: "...the internationally unrecognized, ethnic Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." Link
    • Slate: "...formed a Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, unrecognized by any other state..." Link
    • Washington Post: "...contested territory controlled by an unrecognized state called the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR)" Link
  • breakaway (5):
    • The Atlantic: "...authorities in the breakaway republic of Nagorno-Karabakh..." Link
    • ABC News: "...breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region..." Link
    • Politico: "...travel to the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh republic..." Link
    • Reuters: "...Nagorno-Karabakh, a breakaway region inside Turkey’s close ally Azerbaijan..." Link
    • Wall Street Journal: "...and the breakaway republic’s leadership..." Link
  • de facto independent/republic (2):
    • CNN: " a de facto independent Armenian state not recognized internationally which controls Nagorno-Karabakh" Link
    • NPR: "...governed as a de facto independent state controlled by ethnic Armenians, known as the Republic of Artsakh..." Link
Comment:
The term "self-proclaimed" is used more than twice as frequently as "breakaway" in reliable sources to describe the Republic of Artsakh. Thus, its application would be the most accurate representation of what reliable sources say. — Golden call me maybe? 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I demonstrated that the term "breakaway" which you chose to revert by saying it is less common than the term "self-proclaimed" you (and Azerbaijani state controlled media) favour is 1.4-1.7 times common than "self-proclaimed" - anyone can Google and confirm. Searching only Wikipedia list of perennial sources to prove a point is a logical fallacy at best, as the list page itself says that A source's absence from that list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability hasn't been the subject of serious questioning yet., hence no reason to exclude sources saying "breakaway" (which constitute majority - 1.4-1.7 times more than sources saying "self-proclaimed"). And international recognition does not need to involve just UN states, there are degrees of recognition, while unrecognised means not recognised by anyone (other than themselves), it is not true in case of Artsakh: it is recognised by Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, 12 US states, administrative units in Australia, Canada, UK and France. This recognition is very modest, agree, but not non-existent, hence it is neither "self-proclaimed" nor "unrecognised" by definition. --Armatura (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The recognition that matters in this question is recognition from UN member states. Not their subdivisions, nor other unrecognised (Transnistria) or partially recognised (Abkhazia, South Ossetia) states. Had at least Armenia recognised NK, this would've made a case against using "unrecognised" qualifier, but since this isn't the case, usage of "unrecognised" qualifier is not incorrect. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The recognition that matters in this question is recognition from UN member states - thanks for opinion, but what can you provide to support this statement that you postulated? And how does it go against "breakaway" term, which is more commonly used anyway? --Armatura (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I see no much difference between "breakaway" and "self-proclaimed", in fact both terms encompass unrecognised and partially recognised states (just as the term de facto state does). In any case, sources are avaliable for my contention, that partial recognition emerges when UN member states recognise something, not when subdivisions or other de facto states recognise something. See e.g. Emerson: Partial recognition can come in different degrees through official recognition by any number of UN member states, with or without the agreement of all the UNSC permanent members, and the number is maybe some guide to the strength of the case (emphasis mine) or Ker-Lindsay, James (2022-01-28). "De Facto States in the 21st Century". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.635. ISBN 978-0-19-084662-6. Retrieved 2022-06-13. Beyond this, there are a number of other terms that have been used. For example, the terms partially and unrecognized states have found a place in the literature, but these are also unsatisfactory for immediately apparent reasons. For a start, not all de facto states are wholly unrecognized. Many enjoy partial recognition to a great or lesser extent. Northern Cyprus is recognized by Turkey. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognized by Russia and a handful of other countries. Likewise, calling them partially recognized states is equally wrong as a substantial number have yet to be recognized by a single UN member state. (emphasis again mine). Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Breakaway is not quite same as self-proclaimed. In my understanding self-proclaimed means that Artsakh proclaimed itself as an independent state, but no UN members recognize Artsakh(all recognize it as part of Azerbaijan, even Armenia). Breakaway means that self-proclaimed state took control over the territory of another country and broke-away as separate state. For example Abkhazia is breakaway, but not self-proclaimed state as at least 1 UN member recognizes it, but Artsakh is self-proclaimed breakaway republic as no UN member recognizes it. Basically Artsakh article should state that Artsakh is self-proclaimed breakaway state or unrecognized breakaway state or breakaway state not recognized by UN member states. That is my vision. Abrvagl (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
And Taiwan is different again, because although it has limited recognition, its statehood has roots in 1912 and it is a former member of the UN, and has diplomatic relations with a number of states. It is nothing like “Artsakh” which is based on a revanchist claim by Armenia. —Michael Z. 22:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
They’re neither synonyms nor redundant. Consult a dictionary. Breakaway is an informal term for separatist or secessionist. Self-proclaimed and unrecognized mean lacking legitimacy. I don’t think “limited recognition” is a fair and neutral description of the members of a club of entities that are all puppets propped up by one state and only recognizing each other.
And none of these are pejorative nor offensive. —Michael Z. 22:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
A “quick Google search” is meaningless. Please read WP:SET and search reliable sources. —Michael Z. 22:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

To The term "self-proclaimed" is used more than twice as frequently as "breakaway" in reliable sources to describe the Republic of Artsakh. - I'm dumbfounded how your search revealed only 5 sources for breakaway and 14 for self-proclaimed. Seems like you've missed a good chunk of sources that use the former, I'll add though no worries. Here are 25 sources for "breakaway";

International Crisis Group,[11] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,[12] The Hindu,[13] National Geographic,[14] Deutsche Welle,[15] The Jerusalem Post,[16] U.S. News & World Report,[17] Arab News,[18], Euractiv,[19] Vox Media,[20] Human Rights Foundation,[21] NBC,[22] The Washington Post,[23] The National Interest,[24] Eurasianet (this source in particular demonstrates why "breakaway" is a neutral POV term),[25] The Guardian,[26] Time Magazine,[27] NPR,[28] Los Angeles Times,[29] Yahoo! News,[30] BBC News,[31] Financial Times,[32] Haaretz,[33] The Moscow Times,[34] and Euronews.[35].

These should be enough to settle the debate: both in web searches and sources "breakaway" is more common hence it should be used in this article and related articles. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Almost every source you've linked uses the term "breakaway" to refer to the geographical region of Nagorno-Karabakh, not the republic under discussion here. Obviously, a geographic region cannot be self-proclaimed, but its government/country can. — Golden call me maybe? 06:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Artsakh is also referred to Nagorno-Karabakh, in fact there are many sources that use Nagorno-Karabakh to refer to Artsakh, that's the whole point. It's also the other name of the country, Nagorno-Karabakh republic. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but all of the sources you've linked make that distinction by using "region of Nagorno-Karabakh" to distinguish between the self-proclaimed republic and the breakaway region, with the exception of Euractiv, HRF, and Eurasianet (which uses "self-proclaimed breakaway", not just breakaway). If we disregard the fact that my list was supposed to be what WP:RSP sources state (I haven't included any sources that aren't labelled as reliable for the use of any term), the count for "breakaway" to refer to the republic would still be 9. — Golden call me maybe? 07:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Sources are not using really generic phrases to distinguish between the breakaway region and the self-proclaimed republic. The two are the same. That said, on the main topic again, are there any sources which ascribe the implications to either term that seem to be being ascribed here? I'm tempted to suggest code that randomly switches between the two, if doing so saves editors what appears to be considerable research time on this matter. CMD (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The political status of Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh is complex and contentious. The region has faced recent ethnic cleansing and war, and a more neutral-sounding term such as "breakaway" is more appropriate in my view to utilize than "self-proclaimed" or "self-declared", which are similar in tone to "so-called" and can therefore be considered to be more charged and potentially pejorative. When a more detailed description of Artsakh's political status and situation is needed, further terminology can be used to clarify, directly, through linking to the aforementioned article or by using explanatory footnotes. Using comparisons with other disputed regions and political entities with regard to their diplomatic relations and recognition is limited in its usefulness and relevance, each case has its own unique context that should be considered. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    How is it complex and contentious? It is a territory internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan, but partially controlled by a government that no other UN member state recognises, making it self-proclaimed. Surely you're not implying that the majority of reliable sources who use the term "self-proclaimed" to refer to the republic know less than you and I. Mzajac and Abrvagl have already detailed how nothing about "self-proclaimed" is charged or derogatory, so that isn't a valid argument. — Golden call me maybe? 10:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The political status of Artsakh is contentious in the sense that the status of the region is disputed - this is not controversial. The political status of Artsakh is complex in many ways, apart from the aforementioned recent ethnic cleansing and war, many prominent political entities have recognized Artsakh [36]. Many terms are used by reliable sources - using a more neutral-sounding term with additional clarification through links or explanatory footnotes when needed, when taking the context into consideration is far more reasonable in my view. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what ethnic cleansing and war have to do with political status. These factors affect the de facto situation, not the de jure situation. As Seryo93 stated above, the only recognition that matters is recognition from UN states, not recognition from subdivisions of countries or other unrecognised states (you can see their listed sources if you want to learn more). Reliable sources don't use that many terms; as I've shown above, they use "self-proclaimed" more than twice than any other term to refer to the republic. I'm also not sure how "self-proclaimed" is any less neutral than "breakaway"; surely you're not calling organisations like the BBC, Associated Press, Amnesty International, and many more who use "self-proclaimed" biased? — Golden call me maybe? 11:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding how "self-proclaimed" is less neutral than "breakaway": Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary for example label "self-proclaimed" as "disapproving" [37] [38] while "breakaway" is not labeled as such [39] [40]. That "the only recognition that matters is recognition from UN states" with regard to terminology usage and that "nothing about 'self-proclaimed' is charged or derogatory" are personal opinions/conclusions/stances, and ones which I disagree with. With regard to your statement that "reliable sources don't use that many terms", your own statistics and the additional statistics presented further down in the discussion seem to clearly dispute that conclusion. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
You may disagree, but that is the standard way of classifying what makes a country 'recognized', and Seryo93 has provided several reliable sources to back that up (which really shouldn't be necessary for such common sense. It's unfortunate that this even needs to be debated). In terms of sources, I don't see how my statistics contradict what I've said. Four terms (three really, since only two use "de facto") isn't "many", especially when there's a clear winner among them, which I'm not sure why you're ignoring.
In my previous comments, I proposed a compromise by using "unrecognised breakaway state" instead of "self-proclaimed" or "breakaway", which you may have missed. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. — Golden call me maybe? 12:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The only clear winner here is that breakaway is used more in RS than self-proclaimed. And it’s already been told that sources are not using really generic phrases to distinguish between the breakaway region and the self-proclaimed republic, it’s the same thing. There isn’t really a debate here when in searches and RS breakaway is used more. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Chipmunkdavis in that utilizing double adjectives is overkill. I also don't think using the term "unrecognized" without further context is appropriate given the region's complex history and political status, using breakaway with a link to the main article explaining the political status of Nagorno-Karabakh (breakaway) or using an agreed-upon explanatory footnote to explain Artsakh's political status in detail should be sufficient when clarification is needed. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
That is a neutral description of a “nation” that lacks legal status, sovereignty, legitimacy, and recognition. It doesn’t represent self-determination of some non-existent Artsakhian nation, but Armenian irredentism opposed to the international order and against the national rights of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and underlined by the non-implementation of the 2020 peace agreement. The term is not pejorative or “loaded”: it neutrally identifies lack of legitimacy. Arguing that there’s something wrong with the term is whitewashing Armenian and Russian interference in Azerbaijan. —Michael Z. 15:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I would say that your argumentation here does not have a neutral point of departure but seems to be largely based on a more broader analysis based on opposition to Russia. Calling Artsakh as a nation "non-existent" is quite problematic, and is quite a leap that does not take the history of Nagorno-Karabakh into account. The peace proposals furthered by the OSCE Minsk Group such as the Madrid Principles have included the right to self-determination of Karabakh Armenians. I don't really get what you mean by the "non-implementation of the 2020 peace agreement" either. What you're arguing for demonstrates the problematic nature of terms like "self-proclaimed", they are often used in order to delegitimize, to further the argument that a political entity is "illegal" or "illegitimate", while not taking into account the broader context, such as the history of the region, the ethnic cleansing and armed aggression that the region has faced recently, and that encyclopedias like Wikipedia should present information in neutral and factual manner. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Mzajac I'm sorry, but this is a rather emotional response, and we don't write Wikipedia based on emotions. You commented A “quick Google search” is meaningless. Please read WP:SET and search reliable sources., and I provided 25 reliable sources for "breakaway". Breakaway is a perfectly fine and neutral term, it's used in a dozen RS, more than self-proclaimed. Hence it warrants more of a reason for inclusion than self-proclaimed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
25 reliable sources above, where only 3 actually refer to the republic? We're discussing the republic here, not the geographic region. — Golden call me maybe? 17:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with the logic used by AntonSamuel above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Transnistria, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia, Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic have many similarities. They are all proxies used to unofficially occupy other countries' lands; they are all backed by Russia in some extent, either directly or indirectly, and none of them has true independence (they are all entirely reliant on the mother(occupant) country). The difference is that while others are partially recognized by some UN countries, Artsakh is not recognized by any UN country. Even Armenia recognizes Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan. Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary label "self-proclaimed" as "breakaway" differently because they have different meanings, not because one is more neutral than the other. We should not exaggerate and play on emotions here; "breakaway" and "self-proclaimed" have distinct meanings and calling Artsakh a self-proclaimed state is not a matter of neutrality since it is a fact. Artsakh is a self-proclaimed and breakaway state and it should be described accordingly (as I mentioned in my previous comment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrvagl (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    Please take the emotions out of this and focus on content. Breakaway is a neutral term, breakaway and self-proclaimed are used interchangeably when referring to Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh. It all comes down to sources and I showed above that the former is used more in WP:RS. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    You really haven't. Please look for sources that use the term "breakaway" to refer to the Republic of Artsakh/Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh rather than "region of Nagorno-Karabakh," as we currently only have 5 perennially reliable sources and 3 non-perennially reliable sources that show the use of "breakaway" to refer to the republic, compared to the 14 strictly perennially reliable sources that use "self-proclaimed." — Golden call me maybe? 17:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but what are you repeating again and why? “breakaway” inherently refers to the Republic of Artsakh, because a geographic region cannot be a political entity. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
    Just adding my 2 cents here, I believe @Golden is trying to explain that the connotation of "breakaway" is different in terms of a geographic region and a political state. Breakaway region in a geographic sense basically refers to a region (Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast) which broke away from the larger region it was previously a part of (Azerbaijan SSR), whereas a breakaway from a political entity standpoint refers to a state (Republic of Artsakh) which has formally seceded from another state (Azerbaijan SSR / Republic of Azerbaijan), and which has the privilege of being de jure recognised by a UN member-state (not the case of Artsakh). Cheers, – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 14:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all for opinions. As no clear consensus emerged from the discussion above, I created RfC to allow the wider community to comment. Everybody who commented here is welcome to comment, too, but please keep it brief, you can refer to chunks of text already posted above instead of reposting them to RfC. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Artsakh/Archive_3&oldid=1137121593"