Talk:2020 Artsakhian general election

Requested move 13 February 2020

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: No consensus. (non-admin closure) OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

---

2020 Artsakhian general election → 2020 Artsakh general election – Make more sense.

"Artsakhian elections" The adjective "Artsakhian" does not even make sense. It's not widely used in English. *A simple Google search shows that only a few Armenian news websites use it and that does not make it an acceptable term.

As for WP:NCELECT, we have exceptions. See 2020 United States presidential election. We don't make up words like "United Statesian". It sounds as ridiculous as "Artsakhian." We use 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary, not "New Hampshirian" and "2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses", not "Nevadan."

There's really no need to make up adjectives just for the sake of it. Thanks. ----Երևանցի ^talk 15:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NC-GAL requires use of the adjectival form and I don't see this as a situation that requires an exception (the US articles are so named due to the claim that "American presidential election" is ambiguous, so this isn't a relevant comparison). Artsakhian is the adjectival form for Artsakh. The claim that it doesn't make sense is in itself nonsensical (as the word clearly exists and is used by the government), and I don't believe it sounds ridiculous. The nomination seems to be largely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. . Number 57 16:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Also WP:COMMONNAME. Google yields 4,150 results for "Artsakh elections"[1] and only 3 results for "Artsakhian elections" [2]. ----Երևանցի ^talk 17:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Similar results also for "Artsakh people" (21,200) vs "Artsakhian people" (81)[3]. Or "Artsakh politics" (8,470)[4] vs "Artsakhian politics" (0)[5].

Still think it's not ridiculous? ----Երևանցի ^talk 17:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do still think that. COMMONNAME is irrelevant as we are appying a specified formula (i.e. adjectival form) here. Number 57 17:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support Based on consistency from previous elections; it's 2015 Nagorno-Karabakh parliamentary election NOT "2015 Nagorno-Karabakhian parliamentary elections." I know the name of the Republic has changed, but the principal here is that this article should remain consistent with other related articles. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The name of that article is not relevant to this discussion as it does not contain the word being debated here, i.e. Artsakh. It may also be the case that that article is misnamed if "Nagorno-Karabakhian" is an acceptable adjectival form. Number 57 17:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It is very relevant- as editors we need to maintain a level of consistency. "Nagornoian elections" or "Nagorno-Karabakhian" elections is not an acceptable term, just like "Artsakhian elections" or 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Hawaii for example is not "Hawaiian". Archives908 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not relevant; the discussion on the appropriate adjectival form to use for the 2015 election is a different matter because it's a different country name and there needs to be a separate discussion on whether there is an adjectival form for Nagorno-Karabakh. Regarding your last example, if WP:NC-GAL was applied properly "Hawaiian" would still not be part of the article title; bringing this up makes me concerned you are not entirely clear how the guideline should be applied. Number 57 18:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

My main argument is and will remain- maintaining consistency. Past elections (despite the Republic's name change) are all structured differently then the way you are suggesting. Nonetheless, a consensus must be established to ensure that the proper name is being used for ALL election related articles regarding Nagorno-Karabakh and Artsakh, in the spirit of maintaining (WP:CONSISTENT).

I get that, but my counter-point is that there will not be any consistency either way as we're dealing with two separate names that may have different adjectival forms (or not). For example, there doesn't seem to be any adjectival form of Gold Coast but there is one of Ghana (Ghanaian); the elections use Gold Coast until 1957 and then Ghanaian afterwards. Djibouti has two former names (French Somaliland / Afars and Issas) with no apparent adjectival form. Number 57 20:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Artsakh in this instance can be used in the sense of an adjective as much as a noun. This is far less clunky a formulation than tacking on the "ian" at the end. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Artsakh is not an adjective. It can be used as a noun adjunct, but the naming guideline requires the adjectival form. Not liking the adjectival form (thinking it clunky) is not a valid reason for deviating from the guideline. Number 57 22:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – WP:NCELECT is very clear:

For individual elections and referendums, use the format "Date [adjectival form of country name] type election/referendum"

Exceptions only apply when no proper adjectival form of the country/place name can be used, not at the whimp of some users. "Artsakhian" is a valid demonym (unlike "United Statesian", "New Hampshirian", "Nevadan", etc) so this is basically an WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue. Since it is a naming convention, thus having community consensus on a wider scale, it cannot be overturned by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Impru20^talk 18:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

։:How do you explain this? Google yields 6 500 results for "Artsakh elections"[6] and only 3 results for "Artsakhian elections" [7]. Honestly, if "Artsakh" isn't an adjective, then why do we have 2,166X more uses for "Artsakh elections" than Artsakhian elections"? ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NCELECT is the naming convention of application here (and the one that actually got mentioned in support of the move proposal), and reality is that the proposed name goes against the naming convention. "Artsakh" is a noun, "Artsakhian" is the adjectival form. You would have to seek (and obtain) a wider consensus for changing NCELECT no allow for these kind of exceptions (i.e. using the country name when an adjectival form does exist), but you can't pretend to ignore the naming convention in an ad-hoc basis. Impru20^talk 18:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You still didn't answer my question. If "Artsakh" isn't an adjective, how come "Artsakhian elections" isn't ever used? "Artsakh" is as much of an adjective as is "Nevada" ----Երևանցի ^talk 19:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You have been shown that "Artsakhian" is used as an adjective even by the country's government itself. Why don't you Google "Artsakhian"? It gets you +5,900 results, and it even has its own wiktionary entry. It also has its use in English sources ([8] [9] [10] [11]). From here, there is no "question" to be answered, as NCELECT prevails. It is so obvious that there is a complete lack of consistent arguments for this move to proceed (you keep coming with a different, ad-hoc new argument every time you get disproven) that this should be closed ASAP. Impru20^talk 19:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This reverses an apparently undiscussed move

 15:35, 12 February 2020‎ Number 57 talk contribs block‎  93 bytes +93‎  Number 57 moved page 2020 Artsakh general election to 2020 Artsakhian general election over redirect: It's the adjectival form of Artsakh as required by WP:NC-GAL (see usage at e.g. https://armenpress.am/eng/news/993979.html) thank Tag: New redirect

but IMO Artsakh like Kazakh is a perfectly acceptable adjectival form. I note that Wiktionary currently treats Artsakh and Kazakh quite differently in this respect, but in my dialect of English this quite simply wrong. Andrewa (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Andrewa: This isn't reversing an undiscussed move. If you look at the page history, I was moving it back after the nominator had moved it less than an hour earlier. The article title has used "Artsakhian" since 2017.

• 15:35, 12 February 2020‎ Number 57 talk contribs block‎ m 5,208 bytes 0‎ Number 57 moved page 2020 Artsakh general election to 2020 Artsakhian general election over redirect: It's the adjectival form of Artsakh as required by WP:NC-GAL (see usage at e.g. https://armenpress.am/eng/news/993979.html)
• 14:46, 12 February 2020‎ Yerevantsi talk contribs block‎ m 5,046 bytes 0‎ Yerevantsi moved page 2020 Artsakhian general election to 2020 Artsakh general election: what even is "Artsakhian"

Also, forgive me if I'm pointing out the obvious, but Artsakh (or the Republic of Artsakh) is the actual name of the territory, so is not comparable to Kazazkh/Kazakhstan as far as I can see? Number 57 21:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point regarding the move history. I missed that.

But the point you make about the official names of Artsakh and Kazakhstan is important, because what seems to be not obvious at all here is that it's irrelevant. All that matters is, what do English users say and understand? Artsakh is used and perfectly well understood, and the arguments for rejecting it in this context appear to be prescriptive linguistics and as such, also irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The reason for rejecting using "Artsakh" it is the naming guideline for election and referendums (WP:NC-GAL) specifies that we should use the adjectival form. That Artsakh is perfectly well understood is irrelevant as far as I can see. Number 57 19:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Specifically WP:NCELECT I assume? But Artsakh is an adjecival form in common usage, just like Kasakh, and that has been demonstrated above. The examples given at WP:NCELECT are 1867 Canadian federal election and 1946 Faroese independence referendum, and that's right, you wouldn't say 1867 Canada federal election or 1946 Faroe independence referendum any bmore tha you would 1972 Aultralia federal election, it's Australian. But Artsakh is unobjectionable. Andrewa (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe it has been demonstrated that Artsakh is an adjective; it is being used as a noun adjunct in the same way United States is in 2020 United States presidential election. Unlike the US case, where the claim has been made that "American" is ambiguous (which I also happen to diagree with), no compelling reason has been given why the adjective (which clearly exists) is inappropriate here. Number 57 12:13, 1 March 2020 (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.

POV edits?

@Number 57: I am wondering as to the source of your concern for my allegedly POV edits in this article. I am contributing what I know best about and so far, to my knowledge, I have done nothing to be accused of bad faith. The fact that foreign governments bother to react (or parrot each other, as you put it) to the outcome of this election demonstrates that Nagorno-Karabakh's status as an unrecognised state is indeed relevant and that this election affects processes well beyond Nagorno-Karabakh. Why revert this or what part of this is POV? Parishan (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The concern arises because your only edits to this article have been ones that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the territory or the elections. You seem to have no interest in the election itself, merely on inserting the Azeri viewpoint. Number 57 13:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I can assure you that the concern is undue. First of all, the sections on the election itself seem to be well maintained largely thanks to your effort. Second of all, I must disagree that the legitimacy of the election or lack thereof represents "an Azeri viewpoint". It is the viewpoint of government bodies representing at least a dozen countries, as it turns out, which cannot be described as particularly pro-Azerbaijani. What can rather be described as POV is @Archives908:'s proposal to remove the mention of the countries, but highlighting Turkey and Azerbaijan, and thus making it seem like the non-recognition of the election is "the Azeri viewpoint". Furthermore, the information on the international reaction only occupies three lines of the whole article, which is far from assigning it improper weight. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is, after all, an international conflict; I believe there needs to be stronger evidence to suggest that the information regarding the international response is POV or clogging up the article. Parishan (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

On a separate note, I agree with Yerevantsi's suggestion above that "Artsakhian" is not a well-established adjective in the English language, but we probably need a separate discussion for this. Parishan (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Parishan: Firstly, as a word of caution, please refrain from making assumptions or falsely accusing editors. It is not constructive. It is very clear that you are on an agenda- which other editors and now myself have concern. It is not reasonable to add, for example, 200 plus countries who make minor generic announcements regrading the elections. This is distorting what the actual article is about and is highly redundant. However, as a sign of good-will, I have noted your concern regarding the countries that I decided to keep in my last edit and I will re-evaluate that edit in good faith. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: In contrast to Number 57, who merely voiced his concern, you accuse me of being "on the agenda", which is in violation of WP:AGF and a sign that you yourself should probably exercice the caution you are talking about. I questioned the constructiveness of you edit, while you are attacking my integrity. If there were indeed 200 countries making statements, I would agree that the information was redundant. However, may I remind you that you removed the information by claiming it "clogged up the article", while an extra line can hardly do that. To make things worse, you are not "taking note" of my commentary in what you refer to as "a sign of good will", you seem to be mocking it by arbitrarily trimming the list of countries to leave only two whose role as international actors is clearly less significant than that of Australia, Germany, the UK, and Italy (two of which are incidentally on the committee that officially mediates the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and are expected to issue a reaction), which featured on the list earlier. This is unless you have a better reason to explain why you only decided to leave Estonia and Montenegro. Parishan (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Parishan: Stop trying to twist what I am saying and for the second time, I urge you to cease making assumptions. Again, that behavior is not constructive. Another editor has already brought up a valid concern regarding your edits- and I share the same concern. I reviewed and took into account your contributions to this article- and it seems that you are hell-bent on having "your-way or no-way". You downplayed your edits to Number 57 and don't seem to be receptive to constructive criticism at all. Furthermore, I stand by my rationale. It is highly redundant to include a list of that magnitude in this article. Based on your edit history, you added new organizations and countries which released statements back-to-back. Which is fine, but there must be a LIMIT. For example, if Tonga, Mauritania, Peru, Namibia, Nepal all release statements, are you going to include those nations as well? Why? Why not? This is not the article for this! Therefore, I refined your edits (while keeping each and every reference you included) so that should readers seek more information, they will have access to it. I also find it comical that you are now upset that Estonia and Montenegro were selected, when you were the one complaining that Turkey and Azerbaijan were chosen. It seems, to my earlier point, that you are hell-bent on including certain countries which fit your agenda (ie. Germany or the UK). Your comments have showcased that you are editing based on personal biases rather then on fairness and neutrality. All editors must put their personal biases aside and remember that this article is about an election- not about recognition controversies, international legalities or lack-thereof. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: Accusing me of "having an agenda" is against WP:AGF. This is not twisting, this is actually as bad faith as it can get; and I suggest you stop comparing your "constructive criticism" to that of other users in an attempt to gain legitimacy because your statements are much bolder and more confrontational (statements like "you have an agenda" and "you are complaining" are far from constructive criticism). The few edits I have contributed to this article were not in violation of any rules, nor were aggressively pushed; then you came in and started tampering with it despite there being a discussion in progress. If this behaviour on your part is not "hell-bending" and "my way or no way" kind of approach, I do know what is. The question is not about which countries "fit my agenda". I already provided my rationale as to including either the information in its entirety and or, as a compromise, statements from those involved in mediating the conflict (hence their significance). The question is why you decided to leave Estonia and Montenegro without at least discussing it here. Your statement about "Tonga, Mauritania, Peru, Namibia, Nepal" only shows that you agree with me regarding the international significance of certain political actors, and that your choice of leaving Estonia and Montenegro (which you are yet to explain) was not a "good gesture" but ill-intentional: a way of baiting me into stating this very opinion which you obviously share, but with the goal of using it to "shame" me for "having an agenda". In any event, I am still expecting your argumentation as to why you left these two countries in particular. Parishan (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Parishan: You may want to revisit the edit history- as the series of events does not match your comments above. 1) "Few edits", you have done more then just a "few edits". 2) "Violation of rules", I have not accused you of outright violation- but rather a legitimate concern based on your edit history. 3)"Tampering", since when does making a contribution without your permission considered tampering? But that is besides the point- you are ignoring much of the greater argument at hand. IT IS NOT about Estonia or Montenegro or Peru or Mongolia or Turkey for that matter....this article is about an election, which did occur, in Artsakh. This is not the place to determine which of the 200 plus countries to include or not to include. Why not choose Estonia or Montenegro? Both are culturally rich nations, with ancient histories and proud peoples. Estonia for one, is an EU and NATO member state just as much as Germany is. Out of fairness and neutrality I had selected those two, but again that is beside my main argument. The list must have a limit, as it certainly cannot go on indefinitely (as you seemed to be on the trajectory of, based on your edit history). This is not the article for that. Likewise, neither of us have the authority to set the standard of how many to include and which to include/exclude. Therefore, by logical rationale, it is best to stick to the topic- the election. Finally, I have been more then pleasant and cordial throughout this discussion, so please, I ask that you stop with the attack on my character. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Opinions from all points (even from African countries) should be included. You can't just remove opinion of Germany or UK because you don't like their stance or you think that "they don't have rich culture" (i wonder what's that to do with this article about politics). For example, 2017 Catalan independence referendum include opinion from China. You think their opinion is added because they have "rich culture"?— Abutalub (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, there should be two important factors in defining which countries must be included:

• Regional or related countries like Georgia or Ukraine. Their opinion matters because they are also post-soviet states like Azerbaijan and Armenia.
• Important countries in the world like UK, Canada and Germany whose opinion matter in the world diplomacy. You can't just remove their name and include country created in 2006 (Montenegro) instead of them. If you do that it means that you want to downplay their statements because you didn't like them. And what is the reason to include Montenegro's opinion but not others?— Abutalub (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read the above discussion? Have you even noted what we are discussing here? Do you even know what the main argument is about? Clearly not, because what you are talking about is exactly what this article is NOT intended to be about. Ie. this is not a complete list of countries who do not recognize the elections. This is an article about the elections in Artsakh- and it should be kept to just that. There is sufficient information already present in the article about various international responses. If you want to create another article which discusses which countries do not validate the elections, then by all means, you have every right to do exactly that! Archives908 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Where in the rules does it say that an article about elections cannot include reactions from various countries around the globe, in particular those which have a big weight on the international arena? I don't think your argument that any editor wishing to include reactions from certain countries needs to create a separate article has any basis in Wikipedia rules. The international reaction is an important information that needs to be included. And no, not every country's reaction is important, but the reaction of big players should certainly be reflected. Grandmaster 13:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't misinterpret the on-going discussion by only reading the last paragraph. No editor here has ever said to not include international reactions. Every editor has agreed that the section should be included as it is indeed relevant. The ongoing debate is to what extent should that section be. Some editors were adding states (both big and small), with no end in sight. My argument is that, this article is certainly NOT the article for that. This article is not a list, it should remain focused on the main topic- the election. Furthermore, the section you are referencing already has a great amount of detail and information from significant bodies (ie. EU, OSCE, NATO, GUAM, and references to almost a dozen countries reactions). Therefore, there is sufficient amount of detail and references (like the one you just added) for the reader. Archives908 (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2020 (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:

• Arayik Harutyunyan (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2017 Artsakhian presidential election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)