Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC on the descriptor of Artsakh as a state

The following discussion 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.

---

Should Republic of Artsakh be described as

1. breakaway
2. self-proclaimed
3. unrecognised
4. partially recognised or
5. de-facto state

in Wikipedia articles? --Armatura (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey (descriptor)

• Commenting as the RfC creator. Use 1 (as it broke away from Azerbaijan SSR, and the term is most used one per Google hits), 4 (as it has some recognition) and 5 (as it is a de facto state with democratic elections and administration) state interchangeably. Do not use "self-proclaimed" (as this is disapproving term) or "unrecognised" (as this is not reflecting the entities who recognised Artsakh). See my additional thoughts above. --Armatura (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think the term "self-proclaimed" is disapproving. It might have a slightly more negative connotation than "self-declared", but it means roughly the same thing. For a state to be self-declared, it literally just has to declare that it exists as a sovereign state. So, there's nothing inherently negative about that. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Use 1, 4 or 5 Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Only #1 when there's no room for nuance (lead and infobox): "Breakaway" seems to be the only one that doesn't need much qualification. The article has a lot of inconsistencies (for fair reason in context) on whether the state (or parts of it) is de facto an independent state or part of Armenia. "Partially recognized" is hardly a useful term if you're only recognized within the so-called "Commonwealth of Unrecognized States".— Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelRiv (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

Amend: #1 or #2 or both, in lead and infobox [Quick addendum: so as not to be completely useless, I weak support both: "self-proclaimed breakaway"]. This is following the arguments (raised above) re-linked by users below that I clearly did not pay enough attention to. Apologies. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Everything except 4 works fine. The above discussion has many contortions that leave unaffected the basic point that these terms are mostly interchangeable. (There may be occasions where one is better than another due to a specific context, but that is not going to be well-defined in this RfC.) CMD (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• 1. Although the terms are quite similar, option one is probably the most accurate designation. How neutral the designation may be up to debate considering the sanctions in this area, but that is not the subject of this RfC. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• 2. Per this. The majority of reliable sources use "self-proclaimed" to refer to the republic. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 04:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• 2. As I said earlier[1][2] breakaway and self-proclaimed have a distinct meanings and calling Artsakh a self-proclaimed state is not a matter of neutrality since it is in fact the real political status of Artsakh. List of states with limited recognition and Principles of Non-recognition clearly state criteria for inclusion to the list of states with limited recognition: 1. be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state. - No UN country recognizes Artsakh. 2. satisfy the declarative theory of statehood Artsakh does not meet that criteria either, as its territorial arrangements were obtained through force of arms. I personally would vote for "Self-proclaimed breakaway Artsakh", because Artsakh in fact self-proclaimed state that breakaway from Azerbaijan using force of arms. However, if we talking about keeping only one, then I would keep "self-proclaimed". Self-proclaimed clearly illustrates the current political status of the Artsakh, while "Breakaway" is not clear and misleading. --Abrvagl (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that I buy your two arguments for proving/disproving Artsakh's existence as a sovereign state or as a de facto state. Firstly, UN recognition is not required for a state to exist in the de facto sense. So, it really doesn't fundamentally matter whether Artsakh is recognised by zero states or fifty states. Secondly, aside from having apparently been initially created through the use of force, there are other factors that determine whether a state exists in the de facto sense. Indeed, various other de facto states only satisfy parts of the criteria for being regarded as de facto states, and yet they too are often regarded in such a way, particularly due to the outward perception of them existing as such. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• 1 – breakaway, it's the most neutral as well as the most common and accurate as a stand-alone term among the options. Using de facto in some manner would be acceptable in my view as well. There are many problematic aspects of using "self-proclaimed" as was mentioned in the discussion in the previous thread, most significantly its negative connotations compared to breakaway [3] [4] [5] [6]. Using piped links to the article Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh (breakaway) to clarify or using an agreed-upon explanatory footnote (see Template:Kosovo-note for a relevant example) are useful options for when a more detailed description of Artsakh's political status and situation is needed. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• 1. Per comment, breakaway has the most reliable sources because it is the republic that broke away. We don’t wonder if when sources neglect to write “Republic of Armenia” or “Republic of Azerbaijan” they are merely referring to a geographical region. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• 1, 2 or 3 per above, all three convey the land dispute issue that is one of the facets of the NK conflict. In that regard we shouldn't limit ourselves to just one option across the entirety of Wikipedia articles. Brandmeister^talk 21:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Good points, I think it is important to note that it is often not just important to classify things according to Wikipedia's own jargon but also on the basis of the common perception of things. i.e. "common name" is an oft-cited concept. Theoretically, the best descriptor that we can use for Artsakh's basic political status, if we can't agree upon one, is simply the one that is used most commonly in the relevant literature. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• 2 — the other users have established that majority of the reliable sources use the term "self-proclaimed" when referring to the NKR. The project functions within the framework of these reliable sources.--Nicat49 (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• 2 — Azerbaijan established its indepence on August 30, 1991. So, we can rule out the Azerbaijan SSR option here. On top of that, reliable sources offer "self-proclaimed" the most. This, in my opinion, is the correct description of the area — Toghrul R (t) 06:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• 1 breakaway - as per some of comments above, I would say breakaway best describes it. Dwnloda (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• 2 Self-proclaimed (Self-declared) - I believe that this term best described the political status of Artsakh in the most fundamental sense. Discussing the levels of recognition is irrelevant in determining the fundamental status. "De facto state" could somewhat work, but it presupposes that Artsakh is indeed a state rather than a quasi-state. At the same time, Artsakh is indeed a breakaway state (from both Azerbaijan and the Soviet Union as a whole), but I don't think this descriptor is necessarily the most relevant one in determining what Artsakh fundamentally is. With that being said, "breakaway" is certainly a useful concept to understand in the context of Artsakh. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (descriptor)

As I said above, narrowing the search down to only Wikipedia list of perennial sources creates a logical fallacy, as a source's absence from that list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present in that list. --Armatura (talk)

Then create a new list that includes RS that aren't just in perennial sources list that use different terms to refer to the republic. You can't complain about the list if you haven't attempted to create a new one that you prefer. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That's another logical fallacy. I do not need to create a list I prefer, just to prove a point in a local dispute. World wide web is the naturally existing list. --Armatura (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Breakaway and self-proclaimed are the terms that have diverse meanings and none of them has a bad linguistic connotation. "Self-proclaimed" is a neutral term that denotes lack of recognition, and the Artsakh is self-proclaimed because it is not recognized by any UN country (recognition by other proxy states does not count as per Principles of Non-recognition.) Actually Artsakh is both self-proclaimed and breakaway state. If we saying that double adjectives is overkill and we shall remove one of the adjective, then we should remove breakaway and keep self-proclaimed. Because there shall be difference between breakaway states with limited UN recognition like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Donetsk People's Republic, etc. and Artsakh which has no UN recognition at all. Abrvagl (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

While some of your points are a bit strange, I do believe that you've hit the nail on the head with regard to using "self-proclaimed" rather than "breakaway". Also, I agree that neither of these two terms carries a negative connation. For example, with regard to Kosovo, it is clear as daylight to me that it has broken away from Serbia, and yet I still personally recognise it as a sovereign state. So, the fact that Kosovo is a breakaway state in objective fact has not dissuaded me to recognise its sovereignty personally. As for a state being self-declared, well, theoretically, every sovereign state on Earth is self-declared. It is only a matter of whether other states recognise this declaration. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:17, 19 July 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.

Why is this article called "Republic of Artsakh" and not simply "Artsakh"?

Is it just me or should the article "Republic of Artsakh" be renamed to "Artsakh"? As far as I'm aware, the Republic of Artsakh is the main topic that features the name "Artsakh". All other topics about "Artsakh" point back to this one, e.g. historical entities called "Artsakh" (located in the same geographic region) or other political topics relating to Artsakh, such as "Nagorno-Karabakh". Currently, the article called "Artsakh" is a disambiguation page for a handful of articles that are all related directly to the Republic of Artsakh, which, in my opinion, is a little bit silly. In the situations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for example, their articles are simply called "Abkhazia" and "South Ossetia". This is different from the situations in Palestine and Western Sahara, where it is actually possible to get confused between the "Palestinian Territories" and the "State of Palestine" or "Western Sahara" and the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic". And no, I don't consider the distinction between "Nagorno-Karabakh" and the "Republic of Artsakh" to be similar to the situations in Palestine and Western Sahara. For one thing, the Nagorno-Karabakh region doesn't hold the same "prestige", so to speak, in the international community as the other two regions; the other two regions have significant involvement from the United Nations, whereas Nagorno-Karabakh is basically just an administrative entity that was created by the Soviet Union during its rule over the region, and it is otherwise insignificant in an international sense (when comparing it to Artsakh, which is the self-declared state that claims it). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: I am aware that the Republic of Artsakh used to call itself the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic". At that point, it would have been necessary to name this article "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" in order to distinguish it from the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. However, this is no longer the case now that Artsakh has changed its name to Artsakh (from Nagorno-Karabakh). | EDIT: In terms of a "common name", I'm not sure that Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh even has a common name. Most people around the world are unaware of the existence of this place, regardless of which name it is referred to by. So, we may as well go with the abbreviated version of its current official name, that being "Artsakh". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I've found the answer to my question. In that discussion that I linked above, one user pointed out that the article "Artsakh (historic province)" used to be called "Artsakh", and hence the newly-formed Republic of Artsakh could not take this name due to it not being the primary topic at the time (given that the renaming of the country had only just recently occurred); they were also the person who suggested turning "Artsakh" into a disambiguation page. With that being said, it is now five years since that decision was made, and I'm pretty sure that the Republic of Artsakh has long since overtaken the historical province of Artsakh in terms of notability, especially since both political entities are/were located in pretty much the exact same region. I believe that a move is in order here (unless, of course, Azerbaijan completely conquers the Republic of Artsakh, but that's a separate issue...). | By the way, that article "Artsakh (historic province)" has a linguistically inappropriate name. The article should really be called "Artsakh (historical province)", and I have it in mind to move it too. --> Talk:Artsakh (historic province)#This page needs to be moved. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

First off, the article is not accurate. This entity did not change its name, both "Republic of Artsakh" and "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" are official names, per the source cited. This article is about this unrecognized statelet which goes under 2 names. Therefore I don't think the title could be changed. Grandmaster 15:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The source (which is the Artsakh constitution) does say: "The Republic of Artsakh is a sovereign, democratic, social State governed by the rule of law. The names 'Republic of Artsakh' and 'Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh' are identical." Now, based on what the source says, this means that the Republic of Artsakh has two co-equal names, although one of these names is typically used over the other (i.e. Artsakh). I will point out though that Artsakh and Nagorno-Karabakh are not translations of one another from different languages (as is the case with "East Timor" vs "Timor-Leste", for example). They are completely different names, albeit describing the exact same piece of territory. This is very strange, mind you. It is not very common (as far as I'm aware) for a country to have two co-equal official names that are completely different from one another. | Edit: South Ossetia is in a similar situation, except that it seems to have combined its two co-official names into a single unit. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: This Wikipedia article has an entry about Artsakh "changing its name" in February 2017. --> Timeline of geopolitical changes (2000–present). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The timeline article is not accurate either, because there are 2 official names. And then, Nagorno-Karabakh is a more widely accepted term. Artsakh is rarely used in international documents or scholarly literature. So I believe it is better to keep this article under one of its full official names. Grandmaster 16:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It's just you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. Usually, articles about countries or country-like entities are abbreviated to the basic form of the name. There isn't a good reason that "Artsakh" is a disambiguation page whereas this article is titled "Republic of Artsakh". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It is called "Republic of Artsakh" because there is a wider region called "Artsakh". Similar to Republic of Ireland because there is a wider island called Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

There is an obvious difference between the situations in Artsakh and Ireland. In Artsakh, the centre of gravity i.e. the core topic of the region *is* the Republic of Artsakh. On the other hand, in Ireland, there are two major entities in the region, namely the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom's Northern Ireland. If the Republic of Artsakh didn't exist, nobody would care about the region of Artsakh, to be quite frankly honest. The "Nagorno-Karabakh" region is only important in the context of the ethnic Armenians living there; they've declared a separatist republic that is internationally unrecognized. Enough said. That's all there is to this region. Azerbaijan doesn't claim the region of Artsakh as some kind of a "southern Artsakh". Azerbaijan just doesn't recognize the existence of the Armenians living there; it wants to expel them from the region. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

There were many kingdoms/ provinces / melikdoms called Artsakh over the years. It's an ambiguous region. It needs to be differentiated. Hence the current name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Those kingdoms were all located in the same historical region. They aren't so much "distinctive entities" as they are predecessors in the succession of states. I've personally seen some pseudo-theories that Armenians in the present day somehow aren't descended from Armenians that lived in Armenia and surrounding areas hundreds or thousands of years ago, but if we are to ignore those theories, then it can be reasonably presumed that the modern Artsakhis are the descendants of those people who previously established entities called "Artsakh" in the region in centuries past. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

How is a succession of states not a succession of distinctive entities? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

A succession of states that possess the same "international personality" is different from a succession of states that are completely different civilizations. For example, the Ottoman Empire is a distinctive civilization from the Byzantine Empire (i.e. East Roman Empire), but the Republic of Turkey (Türkiye) is a direct descendant of the Ottoman Empire. Because Turkey and the Ottomans are both ethnic-Turks and Muslim, whereas Byzantium was ethnic-Greek and Christian. In the situation of Artsakh, the natives in the region who established various polities have generally (or always?) been ethnic-Armenians. There hasn't ever really been another civilization in the region that called itself "Artsakh", as far as I'm aware. That's the Armenian name for the region. Russia and Azerbaijan tend to call the region by other names, especially "Nagorno-Karabakh", which is the Russian name for the region. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I will not engage further with your idiosyncratic views other than to say that you do a disservice to both the Ottoman and Byzantine empires, both of which were multi-ethnic and multi-faith. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I can tell that I touched a nerve there. Long live Byzantium, mon amie. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

We need more Armenians commenting in this talk section. Getting bored talking to the opposite side. The conversation is going nowhere (seriously, you think the Ottoman Empire and Byzantine Empire are one and the same? oh, please). My original points all still stand, there's no need to re-iterate them at the present time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. What do you mean by “talking to opposite side”? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

To the side that finds any excuse to argue against logic. The comparison to the Republic of Ireland for example is unhelpful. Nor is the suggestion that the "theory of the succession of states" is meaningless. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Why my edit was reverted without any explanation? [7] The constitution clearly says: 2. The names 'Republic of Artsakh' and 'Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh' are identical. [8] That means that both names are official, and "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh" is not a former name. It is used in parallel with "Republic of Artsakh". Grandmaster 09:41, 27 October 2022 (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:

• Bandera Front Alliberament Cham.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Political Status of Artsakh in lede

This diff of mine was reverted. I am of the opinion that the Political Status of Artsakh is relevant to the lede as this is a big issue in the conflict that is yet to be resolved. Platforms such as the OSCE Minsk Group were established to determine its status, and the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh Ceasefire Agreement did not solve this issue. Therefore, in addition to stating that the territory is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan, it should also be noted that the political status of Artsakh remains unresolved. This information is also stated in the article Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh, which states that the political status of Nagorno-Karabakh has remained unresolved even after the ceasefire agreement, which does not specify the political status of the region. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The status of Artsakh is not a "big issue in the conflict", it is the conflict. It is quite clear throughout the lead, and the article, that this status is unresolved. At best, the addition confuses the topic by suggestion it is as a separate issue, and it creates a framing on the dispute approach that doesn't seem to reflect how the topic is actually approached. CMD (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

infobox changes

While I understand the inclusion of the Armenian currency & TLD in the infobox, the ISO 3166 code for Armenia should not be in the infobox. Stating that the ISO 3166 code for Armenia is valid for Artsakh is incorrect. In ISO 3166, Artsakh is part of Azerbaijan, which I understand is a source of contention. I think the most neutral way to go about this is to simply remove the ISO 3166 code from the infobox for this article, as Artsakh does not have its own code assigned anyway.
Additionally, the placement in the population section should say unranked, rather than 191st, as Artsakh's lack of international recognition means it is not ranked.

I would make these changes myself, but my edit count is too low to do so, per Wikipedia:GS/AA. Can someone make these changes?
Thanks, No Lives Left ⸞^Nᴇᴡ_Tᴀʟᴋ⸟ 05:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Both of these sound sensible, there is no ISO code, and I've never seen Artsakh in one of these rankings. I removed other currently blank rank code as well. CMD (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

Armenian is the only official language of the republic. Fake news saurce. David (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I was able to confirm the source is reliable. I was also able to find several other sources supporting the source provided in the article. To be clear, Armenian is still the only state language, but it is not the only official language. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 13:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh

Hi. Just a quick note here but right now, a blockade of the Republic of Artsakh is taking place and had already lasted for about 8 months now. Back in December, Azerbaijan blocked every road out of Artsakh and refuses to let anyone or anything in or out. Airplanes are also banned over the airspace of Artsakh with Azerbaijan saying they will shoot down any aircraft that violates this rule. The result is now is now widespread suffering in Artsakh, lack of food and medical supplies, four people dead and several miscarriages because mothers cannot go to a hospital or feed their babies the nutrients they need. In addition, there's also what appears to be the start of an Azerbaijani campaign of genocide in Artsakh. The modern-day equivalent of a medieval siege though instead of just a castle under siege, it's an entire country! Here's some sources to prove all the above.

https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2023-03-06/undeclared-war-a-new-phase-azerbaijani-armenian-conflict https://eurasianet.org/azerbaijani-president-gives-ultimatum-to-karabakh-authorities https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/no-sanctions-against-azerbaijan-blockade-of-lachin-corridor-continues/ https://oc-media.org/azerbaijan-breaches-line-of-contact-seizing-positions-in-nagorno-karabakh/ https://schiff.house.gov/imo/media/doc/recognizing_the_republic_of_artsakhs_independence_and_condemning_azerbaijans_continued_aggression_against_armenia_and_artsakh.pdf https://globalvoices.org/2023/02/22/lachin-corridor-standoff-between-azerbaijan-and-armenia-enters-third-month/ https://eurasianet.org/karabakhs-airport-still-waiting-for-takeoff https://eurasianet.org/nagorno-karabakh-under-total-blockade https://www.civilnet.am/en/news/742167/and-in-other-news-alarms-rise-as-azerbaijan-increases-attacks-on-armenia/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/nagorno-karabakh-azerbaijan-armenia-roadblock/ https://www.icrc.org/en/document/azerbaijan-armenia-sides-must-reach-humanitarian-consensus-to-ease-suffering https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/dem/release/against-backdrop-of-bakus-ongoing-blockade-of-lachin-corridormenendez-blasts-commerce-plans-to-permit-export-of-lethal-weapons-to-azerbaijan https://apnews.com/article/armenia-azerbaijan-nagorno-karabakh-blockade-2a9fb9852534ab38656a99b435f0ba86 https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/nagorno-karabakh-blockade-200-days-azerbaijan-armenia/ https://www.azatutyun.am/a/32183196.html https://www.azatutyun.am/a/32183196.html https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1100099.html https://news.am/eng/news/770358.html https://oc-media.org/first-death-from-starvation-reported-in-blockade-struck-nagorno-karabakh/ https://greekcitytimes.com/2023/08/16/azerbaijans-blockade-starvation/?amp https://www.intellinews.com/karabakh-blockade-reaches-critical-point-as-food-supplies-run-low-286173/ https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc15154.doc.htm https://www.lemkininstitute.com/open-letters https://armenianweekly.com/2023/02/02/international-association-of-genocide-scholars-issues-statement-condemning-the-azerbaijani-blockade-of-artsakh-nagorno-karabakh/ https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-blockade-of-artsakh

I hope you don't mind all the links. I don't normally go onto to talk pages, I would normally just edit the page myself but unfortunately, there is a block on it, despite the face the top of the page invites people to update it. This is by all accounts a major event that would normally get a mention in the "history" section of the page of any other country (and oftentimes in the lede at the top of the page too). Please change to add mention of the blockade in both the lede and in "2020 war and aftermath". In the lede, a sentence like "starting in December 2022, a blockade of Artsakh by Azerbaijan has caused an ongoing humanitarian crisis throughout the territory" or somewhere along that line. A separate section on the blockade might also be a good addition to the page. There really needs to be more awareness of this event, especially considering how big the page on the blockade is compared to its total lack of attention here. Every source linked here was found on that page. I consider this my way of spreading awareness of the blockade and I hope this does make a difference. Thanks for reading.51.37.233.38 (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I am unsure about the lead addition, given the broad scope of actions the lead could cover (with considerable WP:RECENTISM and WP:DUE issues), but I note a body subsection has been created. CMD (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It's me again. Thanks for the edit! Don't worry about recentism, I'm pretty sure both the "Russia" and "Ukraine" that started on February 24 2022 had already mentioned the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the lede of both countries pages from day 1 of the invasion.109.77.56.233 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

As of September 20th 2023 (Anti-Terrorist Operation), Republic of Artsakh stopped its existence and Artsakh Defence Army was disbanded. Karabakh is part of the Republic of Azerbaijan both de jure and de facto (as of September 20th 2023, when ceasefire agreement was reached and government of the Republic of Artsakh gave up). Amirrza777 (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CMD (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

User "TheCelebrinator" has recently made an edit to the first sentence of the article that needs to be corrected. For instance, the user's stated reasoning is; "The State has ceased to exist." This information is false and unsubstantiated. The Artsakh governmental buildings are still under Artsakh Republic control and there is no credible evidence to suggest that the republic has ceased to exist. Due to recent events, it is best to refrain from making callous and uninformed remarks about a controversial and sensitive issue. Thus, the following is what should be corrected;

CHANGE: "Artsakh, officially the Republic of Artsakh (/ˈɑːrtsɑːx, -sæx/ ART-sahkh, -⁠sakh)[e] or the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (/nəˌɡɔːrnoʊ kærəˈbæk/ nə-GOR-noh karr-ə-BAK),[f][6] was a breakaway state in the South Caucasus whose territory was internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan."

TO: "Artsakh, officially the Republic of Artsakh (/ˈɑːrtsɑːx, -sæx/ ART-sahkh, -⁠sakh)[e] or the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (/nəˌɡɔːrnoʊ kærəˈbæk/ nə-GOR-noh karr-ə-BAK),[f][6] is a breakaway state in the South Caucasus whose territory is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan."

Thank you. KuchmachiEnjoyer (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Appears to have been done. There is an ongoing discussion regarding this topic above. CMD (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"21st century" paragraph not part of "History" chapter

The "21st c." paragraph is of a different nature than all the rest (great detail, focus on diplomacy, ideology), should be separated from the "History" chapter. Suggestet heading: "Ideological background and inter-war negotiations ([year]-2022)". Arminden (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"Admin. divisions" map/table: broken

"Artsakh Provinces" map or whatever it was supposed to be isn't formatted correctly, at least on cellphone I can make no use of it. Pls fix. Thkx Arminden (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

There is an error in end date in the caption bellow to be corrected. Between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and USSR (1917-2024) Stapaben (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed.--Nemoralis (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Dissolved?

Nothing heard since [9]. Most likely dissolved. Thought on end date? Beshogur (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Not yet. Hraparak says it is going to happen in the next days Nemoralis (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for information. Beshogur (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Artsakh wasn’t a state according to the constitutive theory because it was not recognized by any other country (not even Armenia). It was a state according to the declarative theory: it had a territory, a population, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Since the surrender, I think the fulfilment of any of these four requirements is highly questionable. However, I do understand that it might be difficult for us on Wikipedia to make the decision to relegate Artsakh to the past, unless other sources come to the same conclusion. De wafelenbak (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Dissolution of Artsakh?

An addition can be made stating Artsakh leadership's decision to evacuate all 120,000 citizens to Armenia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenSourceBhai (talk • contribs) 17:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

See the following topic: The Republic's existence. Make sure to keep your discussion there. ValiantVenture (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the lead paragraph about the evacuation of civilians with more details in the relevant part of the history section of the article.Dn9ahx (talk)

I'm not able to edit the main article but can someone please add these sources to the dissolution coming on 1 January? Right now there's one in Russian so I think it will be better to add an English one: https://news.am/eng/news/783778.html and https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1120704.html. Ideally, there should be a link to the actual presidential decree and/or the official page of the Artsakh government (https://www.gov.am/en/news/ I can't see it here) but I don't know where to find it so I suppose the Armenian ones are official enough.clh_hilary (talk)

Name

When was the name changed from NKAO to Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and then to Republic of Artsakh? The article only says: Another referendum was held on 20 February 2017 [...] Its name was changed from "Constitution of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic" to "Constitution of the Republic of Artsakh", though both remained official names of the country. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

NKAO The first change would have been when the entity declared independence. As for the other names, Nagorno-Karabakh and Artsakh are both old names associated with the region, hence the interchangeability. Artsakh is an Armenian word, but presumably Nagorno-Karabakh (which Russia used) was kept in some languages due to its pre-existing use within the NKAO name. CMD (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Thanks. So the name Artsakh was the common vernacular name in Armenian before 1993? And until 2017, was the Republic officially called NK or Artsakh? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 Not an expert on 20th century Armenian vernacular, although that is my assumption, but as for the other question it also used both names prior. You can see the 2006 constitution here: "The Nagorno Karabakh Republic, Artsakh...The Nagorno Karabakh Republic and Artsakh Republic designations are the same". What the 2017 constitution did is flip the emphasis from Nagorno Karabakh to Artsakh, at least in English. CMD (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Thanks! We should maybe make that clearer in the article. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The presidential page is actually off (http://president.nkr.am/en/nkr/nkr2), but their declaration of independence actually says "STATE INDEPENDENCE DECLARATION OF THE NAGORNO KARABAGH REPUBLIC." so honestly I don't know why the page calls it the Republic of Artsakh. I'm aware of the fact that Armenians call it Artsakh and probably the citizens of Artsakh also call it Artsakh, but it is what it is. Officially it seems "The Nagorno Karabagh Republic" is the official name.

Their official websites also use "nkr" as their initials, and their Foreign Ministry's non-official translation of the Artsakh constitution (https://www.nkr.am/en/constitution-of-Artsakh) also says "the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh" in parts even though "the Republic of Artsakh" is used in the banner and below the quoted text of the constitution. I don't speak Armenian so I only use Google Translate for the original text. Here (https://www.nkr.am/hy/chapter-I-foundations-of-constitutional-order)in this article it says "The names Artsakh Republic and Nagorno Karabakh Republic are identical". Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Clh hilary: read 2017 Nagorno-Karabakh constitutional referendum Nemoralis (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

That says the Republic of Artsakh is used as an official name *alongside* the Nagorno Karabakh Republic though, not that it was "changed". Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2023

This is not a part of Azerbaijan this is part of ARMENIA and it is recognized as an independent country of its own governed by ARMENIA there is no official changes that have been made, hence the information provided here is not only incorrect but also contributing to misinformation driven by false media coverage related to a current war that is taking place between the two countries. Here is a link from your own website that confirms the invalidity of the statements made in this article. Please modify this information until there is official statements released that confirm the results of the war. By providing this type of misinformation you are contributing to the problem of false media and therefore advocating for the war itself.

Please replace "recognised as part of Azerbaijan. " with "recognized as a part of Armenia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artsakh_(historical_province)#:~:text=Artsakh%20(Armenian%3A%20Արցախ%2C%20romanized,following%20the%20Peace%20of%20Acilisene. Doctah17781 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Entirely incorrect. CMD (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Beshogur (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It says "internationally recognised as" not "recognised by Armenian citizens". It´s internationally recognised as a part of Azerbaijan, international including the Republic of Armenia. Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Starovoytova

The lead contains this POV claim:

The Soviet Azerbaijani authorities worked to suppress Armenian culture and identity in Nagorno-Karabakh, pressured Armenians to leave the region and encouraged Azerbaijanis to settle within it, although Armenians remained the majority population

The reference is made to Russian ethnographer and politician Galina Starovoytova, known for her support to the separatist movement in Karabakh. For claims such as this, better and more neutral sources are needed. Grandmaster 10:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit as a whole introduced lot of POV issues to the article, citing low quality sources or cherrypicking parts of the good ones. Another example of this aside from what Grandmaster said: "Throughout the Soviet period, Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast were heavily discriminated against." Nemoralis (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

How exactly is that source in violation of WP:POV? Just because it takes a stance on an issue doesn’t make it unsuitable for Wikipedia, POV is about accurately representing viewpoints published in reliable sources, the source is reliable and the vast majority of sources agree that Armenians in Azerbaijan SSR were discriminated against. TagaworShah (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

That line can also be attributed to the Parts of a Circle documentary, which is an Armenian-Azerbaijani-Conciliation Resources co-production. But regardless, the Starovoytova source is published by the United States Institute of Peace and she was notable human rights activist like Andrei Sakharov. She was a university professor on the politics of self-determination and is a very reliable source. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Ceased to exist

The article needs to be updated with new info. The NKR dissolved itself today, and does not exist anymore even in de-facto form. [10] Grandmaster 08:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It decided to dissolve by 1 January, which it is not yet. De facto one could consider the republic to be dissolved when (nearly) all Armenians have left, which as it looks now may still take a few weeks. We should not get ahead of the situation, so I suggest keeping wording about the republic to be in the present tense for now. The decision itself can be (and is) mentioned on the page, of course. – gpvos (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that NKR dissolves immediately, while individual structures will dissolve gradually by the end of the year. But we can wait to see if we get more clarity soon. Grandmaster 10:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Based on what is this understanding coming from? While it´s more than likely that there will be no institution left when all the Armenians leave (before 1 January), they still have a government providing power, receiving fuels, organizing buses, running hospítals and so on. Recently, some official surrendered himself to the Azeri authority by travelling to Shusha, which suggests that the government is at least still in full control of the capital city. The presidential decree makes it clear that 1 January is the date. Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the Republic of Artsakh will cease to exist on 1 January 2024 from the perspective of the Republic of Artsakh itself. Until that day, it will in practice mostly be a government that doesn’t control any territory, i.e. basically a government-in-exile. If, at this point, they still do have some authority in Nagorno-Karabakh, I suppose it is more as some sort of organization, rather than a real republic. I personally don’t think the Republic of Artsakh can still classify as a sovereign state in its current form. But that, of course, is very much open to interpretation. In situations like this, we are probably best to follow the descriptions used by authoritative sources; if they still speak about the Republic of Artsakh in the present tense, we probably should do so too. The Republic of Artsakh will only unambiguously cease to exist on 1 January 2024. De wafelenbak (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

We are talking only about de-facto existence here. NKR did not exist de-jure. Recent president elections were not recognized by anyone, and criticized by the UN, the EU, CoE, USA, UK, Germany, etc. Whether any of its bodies still function remains questionable, since Azerbaijani police is already patrolling the region's capital. Grandmaster 16:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a source that says Azeri police is patrolling the region´s capital? That´s highly doubtful on many levels. The recent presidential election not being recognized by anyone other than Armenia is not relevant at all. The international community also criticized the Azeri presidential elections, does it mean Azerbaijan doesn´t exist? Artsakh has never been recognized by any of the entities you mentioned, so unless you´re suggesting that the entire page should be removed because it never existed, nothing has changed on this front.

I don´t know how many of its institutions still function, but some people are organizing the transport to Armenia, some people are organizing the transport of fuel and food that some people requested of different countries and organizations, and some people are running the government´s different webpages and social media pages. Unless you´re suggesting that it turns out Azerbaijan has been running the pages updating in Armenian then I´m not sure what you´re not seeing. Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You are mistaken, NKR's de-jure existence was disputed... This means that it both did not exist and existed at the same time. I don't know why this concept is so hard for people without a political science background to accept but multiple de-jure truths can exist at once, only one de-fact truth may exist at one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don´t disagree, but we should not and cannot change an encyclepedia article based on what we interpret a soverign state is. Case in point, many people - and probably many within the Republic of Artsakh - never considered the NKR a "soverign state" but an "exclave" (obviously not true based on pre-2020 borders anyway) or just a part of Armenia. The article itself never called it or classifies it as a "soverign state" to begin with so I´m not sure why that´s relevant. It is a political entity that exists, and it still does. We also cannot tell the future and cannot have an article that´s based on what we expect the future will be - at the moment, there is clearly still a government, which controls some territories (unsure as to how much), and organizes certain things (not sure how many). For all we know, there may not even be a government-in-exile when everyone´s moved to the Republic of Armenia. From the looks of it, there´s no institution arising from the Artsakh government operating within the Republic of Armenia so I don´t think the current government will just move to Armenia and continue operating until 1 January, but once again, we cannot predict the future and cannot state that before it happens. Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Needs update

Over 100k Armenians have left, just hundreds remain. The majority of the population is no longer Armenian nor Christian. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This probably should go in some kind of recent history section before its (impending) collapse. Throughout most of its existence, it seems to have been the case, so no need to update just yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.160.120.91 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have any good statistics on that. The population used to be 99.7% Armenian, so even with 15% remaining, they would still be something like 98% Armenian. But those are pretty approximate numbers and, as we don't have data on who remains, we shouldn't really engage in speculation. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 01:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You´re assuming there are others who moved in...Given that almost everyone there was Armenian and Christian, even if its population drops to 10, its population would still be Armenian and Christian. There will no doubt be Azeri military personnel around, but they´re not living there permanently so I don´t know if they´d be counted as a part of the "population" just yet. Not that we have any publicly available information on that.

And 100,000 out of 120,000 is not "hundreds". That´s 20,000. Neither here nor there of course, since they could also be leaving too. Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2023

User "XICO" made an edit to the page on 29 September 2023 that needs to be reversed. For instance, the user's revision towards the beginning of the article is highly sensationalized and omits crucial information that was present in previous versions of the article. Examples of the user's revision include the following:

"For centuries, the Muslim Azerbaijani and Christian Armenian populations, both of whom call the region of Nagorno-Karabakh home, have clashed over its control."

This obfuscates and omits the crucial detail that Artsakh for most of its history was historically inhabited by ethnic Armenians, as clearly stated in previous versions;

"The predominantly Armenian-populated region of Nagorno-Karabakh was claimed by both the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and the First Republic of Armenia when both countries became independent in 1918 after the fall of the Russian Empire."

Moreover, the user has also deliberately left out relevant information about the history of the republic under Soviet rule and the referendum of 1991;

"Throughout the Soviet period, Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast were heavily discriminated against. The Soviet Azerbaijani authorities worked to suppress Armenian culture and identity in Nagorno-Karabakh, pressured Armenians to leave the region and encouraged Azerbaijanis to settle within it, although Armenians remained the majority population.

In the leadup to the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, the region re-emerged as a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In 1991, a referendum held in the NKAO and the neighbouring Shahumyan Province resulted in a declaration of independence."

Example of sensationalism in the user's version of the article;

"Armenian forces gained control of Nagorno-Karabakh and extended their occupation to significant Azerbaijani territories beyond the disputed region, occupying 20 percent of Azerbaijan's geographic area"

"In 2020, a new war flared in the region, and this time, Azerbaijan achieved an easy victory, regaining much of the territory it had lost decades earlier."

The "occupying 20 percent of Azerbaijan" and "easy victory" parts are extremely misleading and distorts the nuance of the conflict.

In general, the user's version of the article needs to be reversed to the article prior to their edits. Due to recent events, it is best to refrain from making callous and uninformed remarks about a controversial and sensitive issue. Additionally, any new and relevant information should be stated/added onto the previous version of the article.

Thank you. KuchmachiEnjoyer (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

CHANGE:Republic of Artsakh

TO: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1177795812

Also, new and relevant information (such as the republic's dissolution date) should be stated/added onto this previous version of the article.

Thanks. KuchmachiEnjoyer (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Obscurasky as noted above, there have been several undiscussed changes by user XICO. Any updates are welcome but it was otherwise changed problematically by one user without reasoning/discussion, so those changes should be reverted such as historical ones. The lead is still updated, you can add more recent updates if there are any. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the opening paragraph, with a citation, to show its current status. Although effectively now dissolved, formal dissolution is not effective until Jan 01, 2024, so I suggest we don't change 'is' to 'was', until then. Regarding the the rest of the lead, much of it is too detailed and needs trimming, as well as updating. Obscurasky (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The latest offensive and dissolution is already mentioned chronologically, see end paragraph of lead. And the UN resolution was about surrounding regions of Nagorno-Karabakh, see discussion. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of the lead should summarize the "most important points" of the article - it doesn't need to be chronological. And in any case, imo, the last paragraph of this article is too detailed and needs to be much more succinct. Also, the UN resolution is referenced in the Washington Post citation I added, and is accurately written. From what I can see your edits seem concerned with pushing a particular perspective. I'm not an expert on the subject (and nor do I need to be), but it's always better to make edits in an atmosphere of cooperation, neutrality and encyclopedic aspiration. Obscurasky (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

A sentence in the lead section says this: full out war in 1992. Please fix this sentence. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 20:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Please clarify what specific changes you would like made using the form "please change X to Y" & provide reasoning. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

the map could be better

Could someone make a map that shows some key neighboring countries and other claims, please? The current map is not very informative for foreigners. I'm from a long way away; I'm more interested in Eurasian geography than the average Australian, but I really can't make much sense of the current map. I can see Artsakh is in the Caucus region, but that's about all, and I already knew that. It would be good to see it's size and position compared to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. Irtapil (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Or it's the same thing as Nagorno-Karabakh? so why are there two pages… it's probably covered in the text, but it would be good to have a baffled-foreigner-friendly infobox to clarify up front hope they relate to each other? Irtapil (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It´s not exactly the same. Artsakh is the regime, NK is the geographical location. I suppose it would be similar to the island of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but they don´t have 2 pages, do they? Going forward, they should be 2 pages though as the Republic of Artsakh would be a historical country, and historical countries can have their own pages. Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I added the box, I'm able to edit protected pages, but I'm really not qualified on this topic. Irtapil (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: An edit request is not an appropriate way to ask for help with this since your account is already extended-confirmed. You could ask on the relevant WikiProjects' talk pages, for example. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The Republic's existence

The Republic of Artsakh is very likely to be disbanded. I suggest we edit the article accordingly.

What do y'all think? ValiantVenture (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

We need to wait for reliable sources to come out that confirm there is no more remnant of it left. Also, the status of the region will be discussed tomorrow so I say we wait until then to see what happens. TagaworShah (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The Russian article already says the Republic doesn't exist anymore. ValiantVenture (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

As you can imagine the articles are being heavily brigaded right now. The defacto Artsakh government released the terms of the peace deal and they are the ones who will be meeting with Azerbaijani authorities soon so I still say to wait until we have reliable sources confirming the defacto government is gone. TagaworShah (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Its been one day since offensive. We should wait now Nemoralis (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I would say that we should wait for the developments to unfold in the (near) future, there is no some urgent need to change the article right now. But obviously, if the ongoing conflict ends in some sort of capitulation/surrender of the Republic, its existence will be over and this article must reflect that fact. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait to see the results of tomorrow's talks. So far the only sources I've seen have said that it's military have disarmed not that Artsakh has dissolved. Khronicle I (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

uh, when it happens? not before. Scu ba (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks kinda dead to me. lol https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F6sE4TZXoAA07fo?format=jpg&name=900x900 Midgetman433 (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources still mention the Republic of Artsakh as existing, including Azerbaijan meeting with the president of Artsakh, Samuel Shahramanyan for talks: https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/23/nagorno-karabakh-food-and-other-aid-arrives-as-talks-resume-azerbaijan-armenia

Until the government is formally disbanded, it still exists, regardless of how much territory it controls. TagaworShah (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheCelebrinator Hello, please see this talk page thread, consensus among editors is that reliable sources have not yet shown that the Republic “ceases to exist,” please kindly revert your edit until we have more clarity on the situation. As Dn9ahx says, even without territory, until a government disbands it still exists. TagaworShah (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I object to the claim that the consensus is either valid or even current. The Artsakhan government had stated that it will hand over control over Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan about a week ago. The situation has since changed considerably.

Considering that Artsakh no longer has a central government that can effectively govern over its population (which is fleeing by the thousands), the State has been effectively dissolved. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

That is incorrect, the government agreed to disarm and disband its army, not to disband its government. https://oc-media.org/armenia-receives-thousands-of-refugees-from-nagorno-karabakh/

This source says that they will not disband until every single Armenian that wants to leave is able to. TagaworShah (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this discussion is relatively moot since you and I both agree that the State's capacity to govern has been effectively permanently compromised.

Whether it is now or in a few weeks, Artsakh will soon cease to exist if it hasn't already, so I don't think the exact timing of it is that important. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There is not need to jump the gun, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a speculative source, if something has not happened yet, it cannot be reflected in the article until after it has happened and been independently verified by a reliable source. As of now reliable sources says the republic still exists. TagaworShah (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand. That's a valid point. You're right in that we should wait for confirmation before officially adding this to the encyclopedia.

Even if it appears somewhat inevitable. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's largely just a government in exile now, it exists but it doesn't really control territory 92.40.218.68 (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the users above that the republic should be shown to be extant until it is officially dissolved. Even if the republic no longer controlls any territory, it is possible that it's existence may continue in exile. In this case it could be reclassified within Wikipedia as a "government in exile" rather than an "unrecognised or brake away state".Dn9ahx (talk)

WTF, folks? It's about the fate of around a quarter of a million people, refugees of all kinds included. Of course it's over, but there's no rush to change the article before it's official. Nobody can wag the dog by its Wiki tail, one way or the other. History has been very nasty in that region, no need to seem like anyone's gloating about the last turn of the wheel. Arminden (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a quarter of a million, it’s more like a tenth. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that you should learn something about Wikipedia policy and what it means to be an encyclopedia. 2600:8802:571B:E00:ACF0:C807:6E87:7039 (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Several experienced users are dealing with this thread, i think they know what they're talking about when it comes to Wikipedia. I also think we should wait and see what reliable sources say, there is no hurry.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Artsakh President Samvel Shahramanyan just signed a decree disbanding the Republic by Jan 1, 2024.

Source (Russian): https://t.me/SputnikARM/61622 ValiantVenture (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Official source (Russian):

https://www.facebook.com/ArtsakhInformation/posts/pfbid02187AgVgU7iFzwjyH9wtiDRzKhWgp8CYKWezgABZnUGsrdXLHjV5dGyfB3xvqbNh1l ValiantVenture (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Now on Radio Public of Armenia in English [11], albeit literally a copy-pasted google translate of the Russian version. CMD (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I've added a mention to the body. CMD (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! ValiantVenture (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not able to edit the main article but can someone please add these sources to the dissolution coming on 1 January? Right now there's one in Russian so I think it will be better to add an English one: https://news.am/eng/news/783778.html and https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1120704.html. Ideally, there should be a link to the actual presidential decree and/or the official page of the Artsakh government (https://www.gov.am/en/news/ I can't see it here) but I don't know where to find it so I suppose the Armenian ones are official enough.clh_hilary (talk) Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Considering the raising of the Azeri flag in Stepanakert yesterday, I think it's safe to say the Republic has been de facto dissolved. NonHydranary (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess it's already moment to move the narration from Present to Past like "it was breakaway state", if not now then in few next days. Despite the formal decision for its President about 1 January, the republic seems to already not functioning, with Azerbaijani forces patrol Stepanakert/Xankendi streets and arrest its highest officials and virtually all the population fled. I think in such case the situation on the ground is more important than the formal decrees. 46.121.217.14 (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed, but it´s unclear what it should be changed to. One thing to correct you is that Azerbaijan hasn´t arrested "its highest officials" - they arrested some *former* officials. As far as anyone knows, I believe both the President and the State Minister are still somewhere in some building in Stepanakert. Not sure doing what exactly. Just googling it, the websites of the presidency and the Foreign Ministry still work, and the latest update on the presidencial website was from 13 October (https://www.president.am/en/press-release/item/2023/10/13/President-Vahagn-Khachaturyan-sent-a-congratulation-letter-to-Tigran-Avinyan). So a resemblance of a claimed governmental organization still exists somewhat. It can also only be a government-in-exile if it actually is not in Stepanakert. I haven´t read anything about them leaving the region. Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

I suggest removing this excerpt under the 9th reference.

Throughout the Soviet period, Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast were heavily discriminated against. The Soviet Azerbaijani authorities worked to suppress Armenian culture and identity in Nagorno-Karabakh, pressured Armenians to leave the region and encouraged Azerbaijanis to settle within it, although Armenians remained the majority population.[9]

I deem this reference [Parts of a Circle I: The Road to War (Documentary). Media Initiatives Center, Internews Azerbaijan, and the Humanitarian Research Public Union. May 2020.] fails to be the source of the given above excerpt, firstly, it is a just interview (papers, news, books could be used), secondly, after watching this video track I did not find pertaining piece of information to the given excerpt. Emil Savalanli (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I've gone ahead and added a "reliable?" tag next to the source. I would suggest going to the talk page of the editor who added the source and asking them what part of the source supports their addition to the article, and also establishing consensus using the article talk page. Brendan ❯❯❯ Talk 04:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Shadowrvn728 Emil Savalanli Please see 2:50-6:20 for that part of the documentary. This documentary was co-proudced by both Armenian and Azerbaijani production companies and also an international one, as has been previously dicussed, so it is very reliable. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Dissolution date / dissolved or not?

The region is fully deserted. There is no point to keep this as an existing entity. We should take the decree date into account. Afghanistan Islamic Republic was a while ago dissolved with the takeover of Kabul, but UN keeps them still until today. Thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

We ought to wait longer to make this call. The UN has just sent a delegation to assess the situation, and it's unknown how many people are actually left there; at the very least, most elected officials of Artsakh are remaining for the time being. I think it's too early to make such a drastic change - maybe wait another couple days. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

UN doesn't do anything. First reports of Azerbaijani troops entering Stepanakert was in 29 September. Thus days passed. Pretty sure no one remained. If Azerbaijan established control over the whole region, will we wait until 1 January? From my understanding, the state has already been abolished on that day, until 1 January, what's left will be abolished as well if there's anything left to abolish of course. Beshogur (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the UN doesn't do anything, but they'll release credible reports about the state of affairs in Artsakh. We should wait until we have more credible information so we can avoid jumping the gun on the dissolution. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

For a specific dissolution date, we need sources. Even with that date though, it wouldn't capture what was a continuous process, which no doubt some researchers will work through over time. What are the proposed changes anyway? Just changing "is" to "was"? (I think both would work at the moment given the flux, so it's not really that important.) CMD (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I second this - we need specific information & suggestions for change, and in order to be able to make proper changes, we need verifiable sources; there is very little verifiable information about the on-the-ground state of Artsakh now that over 90% of the population has left. Therefore, we should wait. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

UN Karabakh mission released their report: [12] Nemoralis (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel as if we should look to the declarative theory of statehood, codified by the Montevideo Convention. There are 4 qualifications that must be met:

a) A permanent population

b) A defined territory

c) A government

d) A capacity to enter into relations with the other states so long as it was not obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure

We know that as of 24 September, when the Armenian exodus from the region began, Artsakh qualified all 4 of these. We know that by 28 September, the amount of evacuees outnumbered remaining residents. A UN mission on 1 October gathered that there were only 50 to 1000 Armenians left in the entire region. So certainly by 1 October, Artsakh no longer meets the 1st qualification of a permanent population. When did Artsakh lose all territorial control? Do they still have any? We know Azerbaijan gained control of Stepanakert/Khankendi on 29 September. Was this the last territory controlled by Artsakh? We know the government will completely dissolve by 1 January, so we know they arguably meet this qualification. And for the last point, as long as Artsakh officials communicate with Azerbaijan in any capacity (such as when they entered into talks after the recent military offensive), they arguably meet this qualification as well.

Between permanent population and territorial control, we'll find our answer, likely between 24 September and 1 October. But as it seems, we need to wait for more specifics regarding the timeline of these events.Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 13:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we can make a de jure, de facto difference. De facto dissolved this year (categories, etc.) de jure, only mention at the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Also the history section will be deleted (preferably until #Dissolution of the USSR; First Nagorno-Karabakh War. So maybe users want to move some stuff to other pages. Beshogur (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

why would the history section be deleted? Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no point in keeping geographical history in old states. Do we add history of Anatolia in Ottoman Empire? Only the background. Afghanistan Islamic Republic's page is a good example. There is History of Nagorno-Karabakh. Beshogur (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I assume you don't mean "delete" in its literal sense since this is full of well-sourced info and rather mostly moved to the History of Nagorno-Karabakh article. Yeoutie (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

History section was in terrible condition with not much sources, History of Nagorno-Karabakh pretty much covers all of them. Not sure what it misses. Beshogur (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We should not be making any changes based on our personal interpretations of particular theories of statehood. Nor really is the infobox a helpful place to handle such things. CMD (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I´m not sure how the theory of statehood is helpful to your case - 1000 residents still living there permanently would still be enough considering the fact that the Vatican City is considered an actual country. The problem lies not with whether they have those 4 qualifications, which itself is neither here nor there as Wikipedia and the world aren´t really governed by that, but that there´s a government and there´s a population, but the government doesn´t control the population within that defined territory. They might still have control over their presidencial building or whatever, but not the areas where those 1000 live, and they have no jurisdiction over the 100k people who moved to the Republic of Armenia. The fourth one is likewise tricky - as long as Armenia allows them to operate their permanent representative office in Yerevan like a diplomatic mission, and as long as there remains someone claiming to be a president and a Foreign Ministry controlling their mission, then it technically still fits.

In a way, this is like when an election has concluded but the previous administration still operates, like a lame duck period. But we simply do not have enough information from neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan to have a comprehensive understanding of the nature of its "governance" at the moment. Like, do we even know who is updating their websites? Where are those workers located? Are the President and other officials still living in Stephanekert? I´m not aware that any of these is public availavle. Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Prof. HL Chow FRAS: President is in Yerevan. Panam2014 (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Reuters: former breakaway region of Karabakh

Sky news: former breakaway region

AP: former breakaway region’s capital Beshogur (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur: New sources: [13], [14] Panam2014 (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Are we sure this isn't just a clickbait title? The quote by Samvel doesn't seem like this. Beshogur (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise it'll be just a government in exile (eg Afghan government) which still means dissolved. Beshogur (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Bad RfC Question is not neutral. Too hasty to make the call, dissolution is not scheduled until the end of the year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I second this. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Why did you unilaterally make the call to change this despite a consensus not being made, @Beshogur? NorthTension (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

Change the 1991-2023 date at the top of the info box to 1991-2024. Whatoaejfeas (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done: Not 2024 for one reason.  // Timothy :: talk  23:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Map change

I strongly recommend, either now or after 1 January 2024, that the map of Artsakh be changed to this one, showing Artsakh at its territorial height:

Republic of Artsakh (orthographic projection) v1.png

It won't link here but can easily be found in the wikimedia commons if you copy and paste that.

I recommend this because it largely appears to be Wikipedia precedent for articles on formerly existing states, to show them at their territorial height. For example: the Roman Empire and the USSR. Evaporation123 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I expect at some point a map will be put together showing the different borders together. At the moment events in the region are still quite recent, so I do not feel it is a problem to keep the more recent map in case any readers are looking into the topic. CMD (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't have to be super soon, but at some point like you said. Evaporation123 (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Why "was"?

Why is the Republic of Artsakh considered a former country in this article? According to the sources, Artsakh will cease to exist from 1 January 2024. It still has nearly a month of life left. Why we use "was" instead of "is"?

Link: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/nagorno-karabakh-republic-will-cease-exist-jan-1-2024-nagorno-karabakh-2023-09-28/

Furthermore, as of today, the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Artsakh is still up and running. This country is still alive.

Link: https://www.nkr.am/en/general-information 58.160.77.124 (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I am with you on this. I came to the talk page to find out if it was discussed. I am going to change it back to "is". ollyhinge11 (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

nevermind, it's extended-protected, so I can't. point still stands, the republic still exists at present so the article should use the present tense. ollyhinge11 (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Official dissolution date: September 2023 or January 2024?

I think there needs to be a discussion about this. Artsakh did de facto dissolve on September 2023 with its military disbanded and its entire population gone. In the other hand the state continued to exist until 1st of January 2024 on paper according to the decree signed by Shahramanyan.

I'm personally in favor of using the de jure date as this is the case in most other pages for historical states. The most notable examples being the Empire of Japan which de facto ceased to exist in 1945 after its unconditional surrender to the United States but the page setting its end date to 3 May 1947 in accordance with the formal establishment of a new constitution that day, as well as the Soviet Union which the page labels the end date to 26 December in accordance with the formal dissolution despite the state being de facto nonexistent days, weeks or even months prior. Why shouldn't we do the same and set the end date of Artsakh to 1st of January which the official decree labels? Ken Aeron (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There may be some difference in declarative and constitutive principle in definition of a Sovereign state. In general, states are not really created or disbanded by international law but are rather subjects of it (to some vague extent probably similar to how a person is a subject of law but is not created by this law despite the fact that the person is influenced by it). Where I am going with all of this. Well it seems only reasonable to take factual dates into account, while the other self declared date may be mentioned appropriately in the text as something that was declared at certain point. After all, taking formal declarations too seriously would imply taking diplomatic protocols and international law as a central argument and in this case we can notice that Artsakh didn't in fact have any formal international inter-state relations. I think it is much better to focus on factual dates of the existence of what was de facto state. Now, as there may be some actual policies aimed at erasure of cultural traces of the local population (or at least perceived as such) we may need to be particularly careful with each edit to avoid any perception of endorsement of any such policy.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It would depend what reliable, preferably scholarly, sources say. Do they say the Empire of Japan de facto ceased to exist in 1945? CMD (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There are currently no news sources stating that any official dissolution of Artsakh happened on 1 January, and that's because it almost certainly didn't happen- all that happened is that Shahramanyan signed a decree in September stating that he would dissolve all Artsakh state institutions by 1 January, but then in December went back on that and annulled the previous decree. As a result, I don't believe any assertation that any sort of dissolution actually happened on 1 January can be backed up by RS, so all mentions of it as a de jure event should be removed. A decree stating intent to dissolve state instutions, followed by a subsequent decree reversing the first one, isn't enough for Wikipedia to claim that said dissolution happened. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Who cares about "official" dissolution of an unrecognized state. It got capitulated in September 2023. That's the dissolution. How many people has its former president left around him? Who cares about one single person's "decree". Be realistic. All news agencies mentioned this place as "former breakaway region" months ago when Aliyev raised flag in its so called capital. Beshogur (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. There was going to be a formal dissolution but that did not happen so all uses of "January 1" as an ending date for the state are entirely factually incorrect, and yet people keep adding the January 1 date to Artsakh-related articles. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Why would it be incorrect? The news about a supposed undoing of the dissolution came not from Shahramanyan himself but from a certain Vladimir Grigoryan, described "as the advisor to the President of the Republic of Artsakh". The very next day, after some backlash, Grigoryan said in an interview that what he had expressed was his personal opinion and that he was no longer Shahramanyan's advisor. Exceptional statements require exceptional proof, and going back on a decision like that is exceptional. So far it does not look like there is any basis to disregard the 27 September statement. Parishan (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There is clearly some uncertainty about the dissolution, so we can't state that it has happened on 1 January until an RS states that it has. If all we have is sources from September 2023 saying that, at that time, Artsakh dissolution was planned for January 2024, that's really not enough. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I read that some NKR politicians urged Shahramanyan to made public the decree which cancelled NKR's dissolution. Do you have the source? Panam2014 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Restructuring of name change format in infobox

Currently, the infobox lists the two names for Artsakh together without noting the fact that "Republic of Artsakh" did not become the country's official name until 2017. As such, I was thinking of restructuring the official name section to match that of other former countries that changed their official names during their existence, such as South Yemen and the First French Empire. Would that be a good idea? PrusBis6187 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think both were co-official. Beshogur (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you know if it would have been officially called the Republic of Artsakh alongside the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic before the 2017 referendum? I only remember it being called the latter before 2017. PrusBis6187 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Both names were in both constitutions, just with different emphasis. CMD (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)