Jump to content

Talk:Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Subnational entities

[edit]

Soffredo, the political ravings of a single person are simply not enough to call recognition by a city as equal to that of a state. Neither is it an excuse to edit war your preferences in. CMD (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a single person. It's U.S./Australian states, and cities with California. [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 22:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The single person was a reference to your armenpress link. US/Australian states/cities do not engage in diplomatic recognition. CMD (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are sources stating that they have? And Highland has even twinned itself with a place in Nagorno-Karabakh. [Soffredo] Journeyman 2 01:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Their recognition is not diplomatic recognition; subnational entities simply do not have that power. Their statements are a statements of principle, often accompanied by a request to the national government to recognise. City twinning has nothing to do with diplomatic recognition. CMD (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii

[edit]

We have a(n Armenian) source saying Hawaii rejected a bill recognizing Azerbaijani territorial integrity, (1) but the bill itself seems to be pro-Azerbaijan and even says "Armenian forces occupy twenty percent of Azerbaijan’s territory, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the surrounding seven districts" (2). So where do we put Hawaii on the U.S. states table? [Soffredo] Yeoman 12:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point. How aren't the news source and resolution not consistent? Recognition of Azerbaijani territorial integrity is pro-Azerbaijan.
I'd say the statement in the preamble "Armenian forces occupy twenty percent of Azerbaijan’s territory, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region" is recognition of Azerbaijani's territorial integrity, so "Rejected a bill recognizing Azerbaijani territorial integrity" where it is now is the correct one. TDL (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I wasn't sure that the bill had been deferred. [Soffredo] Yeoman 22:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that's a good point. Perhaps we should add a note that the bill was deferred rather than defeated? Also, the panorama article says that there were two bills in Hawaii. TDL (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should find the result of the other bill to see if it got rejected so that we could possibly take off the extra "deferred" note. [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was deferred as well: [1]. Here is the text: [2]. TDL (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New US states

[edit]

Arkansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Tennessee have been added under "Passed a bill recognizing Azerbaijani territorial integrity". However, all the sources provided are just links to proposed bills. Do we have any sources saying these bills have been passed? Otherwise we should remove these additions or place them under "Rejected a bill recognizing Azerbaijani territorial integrity" if that's the case. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 03:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Political status 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

subsections

[edit]

I feel like a subsection for "Cities which recognised Artsakh" would be appropriate and then we can add sub-subsections under it for the countries. Thoughts? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes more sense to keep it country by country, but whatever the division, the word "recognised" and similar should not be used so prominently for cities and other subdivisions. They cannot recognise in the same way that states can. The use in prose may be convenient, but for headers it would be better to use other formulations. CMD (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what I suggested shouldn't be actual header, it was just a suggestion to help understand what the section is for. It can just be "Cities" I guess. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It makes more sense to keep it as is. Archives908 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why I thought it should be changed is because the country names make people think that those mentioned countries officially did something about the republic's recognition, while in reality, it's the cities. This can be misleading and a separate section for cities would be easier to understand. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view, however, under those respective sections, it clearly states which jurisdiction(s) within those countries "recognize Artsakh". Nowhere does it say that the country itself recognizes Artsakh- leaving little room for any misinterpretation by the reader. Archives908 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not saying sections themselves are misleading. My point was that most people who don't actually read the context will initially assume the mentioned countries themselves did something in regard to the recognition. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is your assumption, not a fact. Archives908 (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not a fact, I was telling my opinion (which is that I found it confusing at first because of the country names having separate subsections), which is why I asked others' opinions as well. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could separate the other mostly unrecognised states from the rest, and put the rest in a new section titled "Positions of subnational entities" or similar, which would provide the context to the country names. CMD (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm, that seems like it could cause more confusion to readers then what we already have. If you look at other similar articles for Somaliland, Taiwan, Abkhazia and Ossetia- recognition is all organized by country. Thus, it would be appropriate to maintain consistency. Besides, "Positions of subnational entities" is vague and hard to define as each country has different definitions of what constitutes a "subnational entity". In this case, we have "departments", "city councils", "metropolitan areas", "boroughs", and so forth. If you are worried about confusion to the reader, this surely sounds more confusing. Any other editors have feedback on this? Archives908 (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We use "subnational entities" exactly for the reason that it is hard to define. Departments, city councils, metropolitan areas, boroughs and etc are different things, but they're all subnational entities. Don't see how any of it is confusing tbh. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is confusing because some of these "subnational entities" are actually not the cities or towns themselves, but rather their Legislative Council's. And in many cases, these Council's call on their national governments to recognize Artsakh while not directly recognizing Artsakh themselves. Which was exactly your concern to begin with- albeit on the national level. Thus, this proposal is redundant. I will also bring up (for a second time) that most other related articles organize recognition on a national level- not a subnational level. That standard should be upheld here- for consistency's sake. Archives908 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Parliament

[edit]

@Archives908: Hello, I have reverted your edit about the inclusion of an alleged bill recognising Artsakh people's right to self-determination by European Parliament as the sources were 1) Not WP:RS 2) Greatly obscured what the resolution was about. Here's the original document here. It mentions to reaffirm support to the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs’ efforts to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and to their 2009 Basic Principles, which include territorial integrity, self-determination and the non-use of force; to call on Armenia and Azerbaijan to re-launch negotiations in good faith with a view to implementing these principles to solve the conflict, which cannot be solved using military force, which is where I assume the Armenian websites you provided got the title "EU recognised Artsakh's self-determination". While in reality, it's a pretty typical resolution that just repeats the OSCE Minsk Group's main principles. If I got anything wrong, please tell me before reverting the edit again. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the new source very thoroughly. It should clear any concerns you may have. Cheers! Archives908 (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it, but it didn't see anything different. The Armenian source just seems to exaggerate a single point of the resolution. Edit: It's not very constructive to revert my revert with summary "unexplained removal of sourced content", when I have written a lengthy explanation here. You should try to reach WP:CONSENSUS before adding controversial material. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You read it that fast? Because you reverted my edit extremely quickly. hmmm. Nonetheless, it was a legitimate resolution and it was overwhelmingly approved. No valid reason to omit this information from this encyclopedia or article. I would be more than happy to include other sources as well, there is a plethora of them. Archives908 (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite short. I'm having hard time understanding how this resolution is any different, and in what point of the resolution does it state that it "recognises right to self-determination of the people of Artsakh" as you claimed? It's a pretty typical resolution that repeats the basic principles of the OSCE Minsk Group, which also includes territorial integrity (also mentioned in the resolution). Please provide a WP:RS that explicitly states what you claimed or this just seems like WP:OR with an unreliable source. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree with you in the sense that several of the EP resolutions discuss territorial integrity, however, the resolution also discusses the right to self-determination of the people in Artsakh. Why should we, as neutral and unbiased editors, only allow the inclusion of one side of that resolution and omit the other? As per WP:NPOV, it is not fair to only highlight either the self-determination or the territorial integrity sides of any EP resolution. The first paragraph under the EP section discusses in-depth the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and returning lands to Azerbaijan. You will notice, that I have not removed any information about territorial integrity. In good faith, I added part of the 2017 resolution which does discuss self-determination. The overall point being- that both sides should be included and accounted for in this article, out of total fairness. Surely, neither of us should be opposed to that. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to re-wording the sentence to be even more fair, as a sign of good faith. If you or any other editors have any recommendations, please share. Let's also keep in mind that the 2017 resolution also discussed confidence-building measures and dialogue between Armenian and Azerbaijani civil society, maintenance of the ceasefire regime, and calls on both sides for an immediate end to military hostilities. If we want to expand this section to include more of that resolution, we can. The last resolution discussed was from 2013, so an update wouldn't be such a bad thing. Archives908 (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested to only include one side. Quite the opposite, I was arguing against the inclusion of only one side. I have now added a quote from the original document which should abide by WP:NPOV. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Please note for future reference, it would have been beneficial if you included your proposal here first before making the edit (especially considering there is an ongoing discussion trying to reach a WP:CON). That would have allowed myself and other editors to provide feedback or alternative suggestions without having to revert edits/clog up the edit history. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CONSENSUS, it's the user who wants to make the controversial addition that is supposed to talk here and reach a consensus before edit warring. I've talked about this in my previous comments. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 06:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversial addition"... a European Parliament ruling is far from a controversial addition. Also, just so your fully aware of the events (as clearly seen in the edit history), you were the one that proceeded to remove sourced content after I tried to add a more reliable source. Trying to add a more reliable source is not a violation. You even used WP:GF to describe my edit, remember? So, let's not be so quick to make false accusations of edit warring now... Lastly, a consensus was not reached before you made the final edit, and thus not allowing editors to review and discuss here first. That is not best practice, especially since we were in the middle of an on-going discussion. Archives908 (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the sources you provided were not WP:RS. If you had added a source and the sentences I did that were WP:NPOV and didn't emphasize one side of the resolution over the other to fit a certain POV, I wouldn't have reverted your edit. And yes, an edit becomes "controversial" when another user raises serious concerns about the information in your addition. Yes, I used WP:GF to describe your edit because I believed your intentions were good, which is why I opened a discussion here, politely explaining why I reverted your edit (which you reverted back without replying here and called it "unexplained" when I had already explained it here). Keep the WP:ETIQUETTE, cause I really don't have time nor energy to argue with people who accuse me of random things. I think we're done here now. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SENATE RESOLUTION 19-012

[edit]

Archives908, I checked the resolution and I did not find where it does state "Azerbaijan invaded the Republic of Artsakh, a region of the Armenian homeland", but may be I am looking to the wrong place. Can you please point where did you read that? P.S. even if it does state as such this wording it does not mean recognition. --Abrvagl (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the updated Senate joint resolution 21-017 [3]. The wording is clear. The resolution condemns the Azeri invasion (and subsequent occupation of certain districts) of the Republic of Artsakh. Hence, acknowledging Artsakh as a separate political entity from the Republic of Azerbaijan. Not to mention, Azerbaijan cannot invade Azerbaijan. Archives908 (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does not change much. Asserting that mention of Artsakh "Azerbaijan invaded the Republic of Artsakh, a region of the Armenian homeland" in whereas section means that Colorado recognizes sovereignty of the Artsakh is not correct and original research. For future reference, here is example of how recognition resolution looks like, as you cant see we do not need any original research to assert that Hawaii recognized Nagorno-Karabakh. Abrvagl (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does. Because if the Senate did not recognize the political entity (albeit tacitly) as separate from that of Azerbaijan, the wording/terminology used in the resolution would be completely different. Words matter. Archives908 (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources backing this up [4], [5], [6], [7]. Archives908 (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources ( [4], [5], [6] and [7]) you linked are not well-established online newspapers, which have no reputation for fact checking and have an apparent conflict of interest. None of them is independent reliable peer reviewed source. Moreover, all of the sources you linked are referencing to the SENATE RESOLUTION 19-012 (not the one you linked here), which does not even contains statement you cited above. The bottom line is that Colorado state never recognized Nagorno-Karabakh(Artsakh) in that resolution. All we have is resolution that does not recognize, but mention Nagorno-Karabakh(Artsakh), non-RS partisan sources claiming that mention in the resolution equals to the official recognition and not a single RS source to support that claim. Do you have independent reliable sources to support the statement? Abrvagl (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple. The latest resolution definitively refers to Artsakh as a separate polity, thus, tacitly recognizing their differentiated status from the Republic of Azerbaijan. As I'm sure you are more than aware, there are varying degrees of recognition and it is abundantly clear that this document references Artsakh as a completely separate Republic. The resolution as a whole condemns the Republic of Azerbaijan's invasion of the Republic of Artsakh and subsequent occupation (again, a country cannot occupy itself) thus, proving the Senate recognizes a difference between Artsakh and Azerbaijan. And this does count for something. In terms of the sources provided, none of them are on WP:DEPSOURCES and are considered WP:RS on Wikipedia. Archives908 (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not quite as simple seems at first glance. Yes, I am more that aware that there are varying degrees of recognition. It is applicable to the our case we should not mix de-facto and de-jure recognition. Almost whole world recognizes that Nagorno-Karabakh de-facto controlling some part of Azerbaijan territories, but that doesn't not means recognition. After all, Artsakh is still self-proclaimed breakaway republic not recognized by UN countries. What we talking here is about de-jure recognition. I already brought you of an example recognition resolution here.
Now, sources that you referenced are not reliable sources and they do not even refer to the resolution you talking about. Interpretation of new resolution on your own is an original research. I recommend you to self-revert and do not restore that material until you demonstrate verifiability by referencing reliable source as per Wikipedia:BURDEN. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 04:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is [8] this resolution has been passed by the Colorado Senate and it does give way to tacit recognition of the Republic of Artsakh as a separate political entity from Azerbaijan. As far as I can see, there remains no valid reason to omit this. You are also mistaken that these sources do not mention the resolution. If you actually looked into the resolution I highlighted, you would have noticed that it is not a new resolution. Rather, it is simply a revised copy of the original. Both documents are essentially the same (you can have numerous subsequent versions of any legal resolution- its quite a common practice) and concern the exact same topic. The sources from 2019 discuss the original resolution, which again, already tacitly recognized Artsakh as a distinct polity. The updated document from 2021, goes even further by denouncing the Azeri invasion/occupation of Artsakh. Again, there is no valid reason to omit this. Archives908 (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

California

[edit]

Do any reliable sources state that California "recognizes" Artsakh? AJR-32 does not mention "recognition", nor do the two cited sources [9] [10] — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Colorado's purported "recognition" is not found in the cited bills text. [11] — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section is somewhat weak, it would be much better to be written in prose to avoid the potential oversimplification a table can bring. CMD (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, California called on the US president to recognize NK independence. California cannot recognize itself, as it has no such authority. It should be reworded accordingly. And Colorado does not say anything on recognition. Grandmaster 13:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 March 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh → Political status of the Republic of Artsakh (removed "The") – The article's content demonstrates that the political developments, negotiations, and conflicts discussed primarily involve the self-declared Republic of Artsakh as a political entity, rather than the geographical region of Nagorno-Karabakh. WP:PRECISION: The term "Republic of Artsakh" accurately reflects the political entity that declared independence in 1991 and existed until its collapse in 2023. While "Nagorno-Karabakh" refers to the geographical region, "Republic of Artsakh" specifically denotes the self-declared, though internationally unrecognized, republic. This distinction is crucial for accurately describing the entity's political status, which is the focus of the article. Альдий (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Limited recognition has been notified of this discussion. asilvering (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with The term "Republic of Artsakh" accurately reflects the political entity that declared independence in 1991 and existed until its collapse in 2023. The term "Artsakh" became official in 2017 (or 2016) referendum. Prior to this, it was Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and the surrounding regions (which're outside of NK) were not included. Also Nagorno-Karabakh term has been used internationally. It's a common, accepted name.
PS: FYI, they didn't abandon the term Nagorno Karabakh totally. It had 2 names: Nagorno Karabakh and Artsakh. Aredoros87 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This self-proclaimed entity had 2 official names, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Republic of Artsakh. Both were official until it ceased to exist. But the article is about the status of the territory, because it has a status of Azerbaijan's province under the international law, but the secessionist forces claimed independence. All the aspects of the situation must be reflected. Grandmaster 10:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The territory has no specific status under international law I'm aware of. It falls within Azerbaijan's recognised borders and whatever internal division used there is a matter for Azerbaijan (which simply includes the nebulously-defined area within its system of districts). CMD (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since UNSC resolutions refer to "Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Azerbaijan Republic", I believe this is how it is internationally accepted. Grandmaster 08:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "region" there is just a generic term for territory, it does not reply any internal Azerbaijani status (such as the non-generic usage). CMD (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_status_of_Nagorno-Karabakh&oldid=1217914565"