Talk:Foreign relations of Artsakh/Archive 1

Archive 1

quality scale rating

I'd rather rate this stub as stub quality...
I'll do so! Feel free to discuss
Greets from Munich,
Bavarjan (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Permanent Missions

I thought states had Permanent Missions in International Organizations. Now NKR seems to have given the concept a new meaning. Or is it us that did this? Anyway it is not a valid term. --E4024 (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving article

Any objections to moving this article to something along the lines of International recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh? It's a broader topic, and foreign relations fit well as part of it. CMD (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I support, but I think it would be better to call it International status of Nagorno-Karabakh, because NK has no recognition from any de-jure state. If the article is dedicated to the status in general, it would cover all the aspects of the status of the region, including legal debates, the position of the international community, etc. Grandmaster 20:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Would be a very short article: "NK is part of Azerbaijan." --E4024 (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

International recognition is the standard topic name at the moment, and I reckon it should be consistent. Legal debates and the international community fit under both titles. CMD (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with CMD on the title. Even though no state has recognized NKR, the debate by the international community about whether to recognize or not would fall under the scope of that title. TDL (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the international recognition fit under the Foreign relations, as opposed to the other way around? Antelope Hunter (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see arguments both ways, but the reason I prefer having international recognition as the broader topic is that I have found that foreign relations are usually associated with diplomatic relations, which require recognition. CMD (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to point out that all States of the world, including States with limited recognition have Foreign relations articles. A few States with limited recognition in addition have also International recognition articles (They are only: Israel, Abkhazia + S. Ossetia, Kosovo, SADR, Palestine, Transnistria..six articles). Foreign relations are not a sub-theme to international recognition. Foreign relations articles series are not include diplomatic relations only, but often include also the economical, humanitarian, non-governmental etc. relations, which are not conditional on state recognition. On the contrary, the page about international recognition are specific, focused only on a single act of the full spectrum of possible interactions. It cannot be tolerated NKR be only one State of the world without Foreign relations article. Article needs editing, but not moving.

At the same time, I note that there is now a page International recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is redirected to chapter Nagorno-Karabakh Republic#International status of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article. Therefore, if someone wants to create (restore) article International recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh it is possible to move existing chapter that is within the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic disproportionately long and would be useful as a separate article. But here is the question of the optimal name for this potential new article. In relation to the content of (deals with the theoretical aspects of status) the Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh may be better. All of this is possible. Jan CZ (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I also support the title of Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh or International status of Nagorno-Karabakh, because International recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh is an awkward title, and the article with that title would be about something that does not exist. Grandmaster 17:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh in such a case would be better since there are now articles as Political status of Kosovo, Political status of Western Sahara, Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip etc. Content to these articles are very similar. Let´s with the possible discuss about moving Nagorno-Karabakh Republic#International status to a separate article Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh on Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. And let´s edit the existing article Foreign relations of Nagorno-Karabakh, its quality and scope are not sufficient now. Jan CZ (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

How would you set up the two articles Jan CZ? With regard to the title, International recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh is the standard for all such articles at the moment. International recognition is a valid topic, and the title sets the topic, not describes any particular part within it. CMD (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not against the existence of the article International recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh. But the existing article Foreign relations of Nagorno-Karabakh must be retained, because all States, including States with limited recognition have this type of article. And both types of articles have a different focus. The question here is, if we need also the article International recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh? For Kosovo, Israel, Abkhazia, SADR and Palestine (due to many positions and receiving the recognitions from UN members) it makes clean sense. For Transnistria here is also many positions of States (that refuse to recognise it). NKR case is similar to the Transnistria case. If somebody now sources about positions of States to NKR independence (support, against, neutral..), it can have sence to create International recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh similar to International recognition of Transnistria. Jan CZ (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the title "International recognition of ...." with regard to a region with no recognition or limited recognition is quite misleading. It should rather be called "International non-recognition", since it deals with the reasons why a particular region has no recognition as a state. In addition, the section Nagorno-Karabakh Republic#International status deals not just with the diplomatic aspects of the issue, but also with the Soviet laws, which some try to use to justify the claims of Armenians of NK for independence. So the scope of the proposed article goes beyond diplomatic recognition, which is why I believe the title Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh is more appropriate. Grandmaster 17:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The NKR enjoys foreign relations with other unrecognized or semi-recognized states like South Ossetia. It also has had MPs visit from France, Russia, and Uruguay. Moreover, NKR has close ties with the Republic of Armenia. The article title is fine and should not be moved.--Moosh88 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Foreign relations of Nagorno-Karabakh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080511144044/http://pridnestrovie.net/foreignpolicy_full.html to http://pridnestrovie.net/foreignpolicy_full.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep. Jan CZ (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Merge List of representative offices of Nagorno-Karabakh here. The offices have no diplomatic status; most of them do not even have "any" status. No need for so many articles for an unrecognised entity. --E4024 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The seven offices are already in this article. In fact deleting that article could be more practical; however, I did not want any user to think that I was proposing the deletion of some product of their labour. All the same, that article is redundant and should be simply directed here. --E4024 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - All States of the world have a page List of diplomatic missions/representative offices of. A small range is not a reason to delete a page. On the contrary, here on this page Foreign relations of NK could be the missions included (only) in the framework of the bilateral (unofficial) relations. Jan CZ (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - if there is too much redundancy, then the section in the FR article should be trimmed (e.g. leave only the leading sentence without the list, that's already at the "main:..." article), not the List article deleted. Japinderum (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

FR article was modified, the contents of both articles is no longer duplicated. I propose to close the discussion. Jan CZ (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2016 (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.