Tag: Reply |
|||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
:::::::::: ''The recognition that matters in this question is recognition from UN member states'' - thanks for opinion, but what can you provide to support this statement that you postulated? And how does it go against "breakaway" term, which is more commonly used anyway? [[User:Armatura|--Armatura]] ([[User talk:Armatura|talk]]) 17:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
:::::::::: ''The recognition that matters in this question is recognition from UN member states'' - thanks for opinion, but what can you provide to support this statement that you postulated? And how does it go against "breakaway" term, which is more commonly used anyway? [[User:Armatura|--Armatura]] ([[User talk:Armatura|talk]]) 17:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::I see no much difference between "breakaway" and "self-proclaimed", in fact both terms encompass unrecognised and partially recognised states (just as the term de facto state does). In any case, sources are avaliable for my contention, that partial recognition emerges when UN member states recognise something, not when subdivisions or other de facto states recognise something. See e.g. Emerson: [https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1752.pdf Partial recognition can come in different degrees through official recognition by any number of '''UN member states''', with or without the agreement of all the UNSC permanent members, and the number is maybe some guide to the strength of the case] (emphasis mine) or {{Cite web |last=Ker-Lindsay |first=James |date=2022-01-28 |title=De Facto States in the 21st Century |url=https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-635 |access-date=2022-06-13 |website=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies |language=en |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-635|quote=Beyond this, there are a number of other terms that have been used. For example, the terms partially and unrecognized states have found a place in the literature, but these are also unsatisfactory for immediately apparent reasons. For a start, not all de facto states are wholly unrecognized. Many enjoy partial recognition to a great or lesser extent. Northern Cyprus is recognized by Turkey. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognized by Russia and a handful of other countries. Likewise, calling them partially recognized states is equally wrong as a substantial number have yet to be recognized by a single '''UN member state'''.}} (emphasis again mine). Bests, [[User:Seryo93|Seryo93]] ([[User talk:Seryo93|talk]]) 19:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
::::::::::::I see no much difference between "breakaway" and "self-proclaimed", in fact both terms encompass unrecognised and partially recognised states (just as the term de facto state does). In any case, sources are avaliable for my contention, that partial recognition emerges when UN member states recognise something, not when subdivisions or other de facto states recognise something. See e.g. Emerson: [https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1752.pdf Partial recognition can come in different degrees through official recognition by any number of '''UN member states''', with or without the agreement of all the UNSC permanent members, and the number is maybe some guide to the strength of the case] (emphasis mine) or {{Cite web |last=Ker-Lindsay |first=James |date=2022-01-28 |title=De Facto States in the 21st Century |url=https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-635 |access-date=2022-06-13 |website=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies |language=en |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-635|quote=Beyond this, there are a number of other terms that have been used. For example, the terms partially and unrecognized states have found a place in the literature, but these are also unsatisfactory for immediately apparent reasons. For a start, not all de facto states are wholly unrecognized. Many enjoy partial recognition to a great or lesser extent. Northern Cyprus is recognized by Turkey. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognized by Russia and a handful of other countries. Likewise, calling them partially recognized states is equally wrong as a substantial number have yet to be recognized by a single '''UN member state'''.}} (emphasis again mine). Bests, [[User:Seryo93|Seryo93]] ([[User talk:Seryo93|talk]]) 19:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::::Breakaway is not quite same as self-proclaimed. In my understanding [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/self-proclaimed self-proclaimed] means that Artsakh proclaimed itself as an independent state, but no UN members recognize Artsakh(all recognize it as part of Azerbaijan, even Armenia). [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/breakaway Breakaway] means that self-proclaimed state took control over the territory of another country and broke-away as separate state. For example Abkhazia is breakaway, but not self-proclaimed state as at least 1 UN member recognizes it, but Artsakh is self-proclaimed breakaway republic as no UN member recognizes it. Basically Artsakh article should state that Artsakh is self-proclaimed breakaway state or unrecognized breakaway state or breakaway state not recognized by UN member states. That is my vision. [[User:Abrvagl|Abrvagl]] ([[User talk:Abrvagl|talk]]) 20:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:10, 13 June 2022
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Map
Is there a better map that can be used for the info box? That tiny square is a bit ridiculous. Wikipedia article maps are often hit or miss. Sometimes there are great maps and even additional zoomed in and zoomed out ones with nearby countries, borders, bodies of water, and even disputed areas clearly marked. Then, other times you get a tiny square that barely shows the territory at all and no labeled areas whatsoever. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Adding citations seen as a problem
When I went to Hadrut Province article and saw that this "de jure part of Republic of Azerbaijan' sentence ended with a [citation needed] template, first I removed it because it is the lede/lead and lead can be left like that, without that template. But several times it got reverted, because apparently, any claim or sentence in wikipedia needs to have a citation and uncited materials may be removed. Okay, I understand that and added two citations.
Then I passed by to the article of Republic of Artsakh, eventhough the same sentence doesn't have [citation needed] with them, I decided to put and utilise those two citations I used in Hadrut Province article. Those works aren't bias as far as I am concerned and I avoided using Azerbaijani sources because they're deemed as highly provocative and part of Azerbaijani Government's propaganda.
ChipmunksDavid, sorry for misspelling, said that those two citations don't contain anything unique and not an improvement. How come putting a citations can't be seen as an improvement. I don't have a comment regarding uniqueness that citations need to have/bring/deliver. But I still argue that those two works are more than eligible to be added into the lede of Republic of Artsakh article, because it is not disrupting and vandalising the article.
Or to put a citation also need a consensus from other editors? My edits that tried to put Azerbaijani/Turkic name for several articles got reverted because other experienced editors said what I did doesn't meet the consensus. Mfikriansori (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Leads generally do not need citations given they are meant only to reflect what is in the article body. That is the current setup for this lead. Where sources are added, it is usually for potentially contentious statements. That Artsakh's breakaway from Azerbaijan is unrecognised is not a contentious statement, and the article has a dedicated subsection on the topic. CMD (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi CMD, thank you. So, instead of involving in what supposed to be an edit-war, I can add new content to that dedicated subsection and citetwo works I said earlier. Mfikriansori (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 7 May 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
– The article can serve as the primary page for the title. DownTownRich (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Added move of associated page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- oppose this article is about the political entity not the region—blindlynx 19:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- The proposed title currently serves as a disambiguation page and this has nothing to do with the region Nagorno-Karabakh which has Artsakh informally used. DownTownRich (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Other articles related to Republic of Artsakh are using Artsakh instead of Republic of Artsakh (e.g Artsakh–United States relations, Artsakh Defence Army). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Artsakh to see similar pages DownTownRich (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose no real rationale given. Super Ψ Dro 20:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The other articles using the name in their are because they are otherwise unambiguous, but the same cannot be said of the base title itself. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- SUPPORT This should be done ages ago. I can understand why formal names are used for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo as both countries literally share the same name. Since there is only one Artsakh on Earth right now, what is the point of using the long formal name for this country just because there was a historical country used the same name? 110.145.30.41 (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose to maintain distinction from melikdoms and provinces that have used the same name over the centuries. I suspect that the nomination may be a politically motivated attempt to delegitimise the Republic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@Laurel this is by no way politically motivated every nations article does reflect its official name and I myself do support these articles as I am part of the WikiProject that maintains and expands them. DownTownRich (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Artsakh as a name of modern political entity is dated back only to 2006 and before, it was and still widely known as Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The current title needs to be kept because it differentiate between this today's Artsakh with Artsakh of Ancient Armenia, which aren't the exact same. Mfikriansori (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2022
Manta18382 (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Local names for holidays in Republic of Artsakh are missing.Manta18382 (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Demonym
A demonym of inhabitans of the Republic of Artsakh is Artsakhtsi in Armenian language. Not is Artsakhi! Artem Pogosian (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, but English Wikipedia is in English and follows the line of English-language RS, when available. Searching on Google Scholar, these were the results that came up:
- "Artsakhi "-- 62 results
- "Artsakhian " -- 14 results
- "Artsakhtsi " -- 4 results
- I would take this as adequate evidence that Artsakhi is the most appropriate term in English, noting as well that English-language demonyms do not distinguish between terms for people and other entities, unlike Armenian and Russian--Armenian may have
Արցախցիներ
(~Artsakhtsi people) vsԱրցախի Հանրապետություն
(~Artsakhi Republic) orԱրցախյան հող
(~Artsakhian land), English just uses a single term across all contexts. Artsakh is obscure enough in the English-speaking world that we do see some variation in English sources, but unless you can provide stronger evidence than what I've listed above, there seems to be a clear front-runner: Artsakhi. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
"Self proclaimed" vs "breakaway"
The article in current stable version describes Artsakh as "breakaway" republic. When I amended it to "breakaway" in Azerbaijan article for congruency purposes and in order to use a less loaded term, Golden hurried to revert it to "self-proclaimed", commenting that it is " not "loaded" in any way" and that "it's the most commonly used word to describe the republic. User Golden, 1) can you prove that "it's the most commonly used" term, and 2) do you think there is academic consensus to support the use of that (apparently loaded) term for Artsakh? Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- A quick Google search already shows that "breakaway" is more commonly used with either Artsakh or Nagorno-Karabakh, this contradicts Golden's "more common" argument.
"Artsakh" "breakaway" 126,000 results "Artsakh" "self-proclaimed" 89,600 results "Nagorno-karabakh" "breakaway" 107,000 results "Nagorno-Karabakh" "self-proclaimed" 63,800 results
- --Armatura (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- What is the supposed difference in loading between these two effective synonyms? CMD (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- CMD, thanks for joining the discussion. Breakaway means the political entity broke away from a (larger) entity. Self-proclaimed has more negative connotations - e.g. "Self-proclaimed is used to show that someone says themselves that they are a type of person which most people would be embarrassed or ashamed to be 1 or, here. "Breakaway" is not entirely neutral, either, but at least focuses not on recognition and, as demonstrated above, is an adjective more frequently used by media. If we are exploring all neutral wordings, then I would personally prefer "de facto state", "partially recognised state" or more general "state with limited recognition" as in the Wikipedia List of states with limited recognition. "Self-proclaimed state" is the hardest epithet to use, I think, kind of equal to a "pseudostate", and should be therefore discouraged. Artsakh has some recognition, hence "self-proclaimed" sounds unjustified, it is certainly not more self-proclaimed than the other post-Soviet "frozen conflict" zones of Abkhazia (currently described as "de facto state" in lede), Transnistria (currently described as "breakaway state" in lede), South Ossetia (currently described as "breakaway state" in lede) . I believe we should use rigorously unified terminology regarding these 4 states, to avoid opportunistic variations in the interpretation of the adjective. Perhaps an RfC could be done regarding these 4 states, to feel the preference of the wider community, what do you think? --Armatura (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Artsakh did break away from a larger entity, through a unilateral proclamation. I do not think either term is unneutral, or particularly indicative of anything other than the fact that Artsakh basically lacks recognition, despite the linked list. I wouldn't use pseudostate, but it's not some kind of out of left field term for Artsakh. Both breakaway and self-proclaimed have the advantage over de facto of being in English, and thus more likely to be accessible. (State with limited recognition is too long when we have so many more concise alternatives.) I think picking between the various terms here is a very minor issue, and that an RfC would be in WP:BIKESHED territory. CMD (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Chipmunkdavis Many thanks for your opinion. I think we should be very sensitive to how those terms would affect the lives of people living in those entities and be as neutral as possible, especially after devastating military conflicts all of them had. "A person with reduced / limited mobility" is better than "invalid" or "housebound. "A person with mental health issues" is better than "insane" or "mad". I appreciate the shorter words are quicker to pronounce, but they can still hurt. "Afro-American" is better than "ni**a", "LGBT and intersex" is better than "qu**r". "Self-proclaimed" for Artsakh is the worst of all currently used options, in my opinion (no wonder it is favoured by Azerbaijani government-controlled-media), the other terms are more neutral. I am not going to bring the example of Taiwan whose legal statuses is also contentious but imagine if a do a test and change "breakaway" to "self-proclaimed" in South Ossetia / Transdniestria / Abkhazia articles, I am sure that will generate large wave of opposition. We should also beware of political application of the term by warlords in order to justify military interventions towards that entity... Finally, there is no reason why we should treat Artsakh differently from the other three very similar entities (which recognise each other, and enjoy some other limited recognition as well). I have asked in the talk pages of those entities as well, to have a wider feel for perceptions. Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is incorrect to compare Artsakh to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, or Taiwan. Because all three are recognised by at least one UN member state, their declaration of independence is not recognised solely by themselves (thus not self-proclaimed). In the case of Artsakh, however, no UN member state recognises it, so their independence is recognised only by themselves. "Self-proclaimed" is not a negative term. The Oxford dictionary defines it as "described as or proclaimed to be such by oneself, without endorsement by others." This is precisely the case with Artsakh, whose independence has not been recognised by any other recognised state.
- The most accurate comparison of Artsakh would be to Transnistria, which is also not recognised by any other UN state and is described in its article lead as an "unrecognised breakaway state", not just "breakaway state". I'm fine with describing Artsakh as an "unrecognised breakaway state" in articles because it distinguishes between breakaway states that have recognition and those that don't. Thoughts? — Golden call me maybe? 13:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not a fan of adding another adjective that is essentially redundant. We would not use "breakaway" to describe a well-recognised state, so adding another word doesn't add much. CMD (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here is how each perennially reliable source describes the republic that controls Nagorno-Karabakh (Republic of Artsakh/Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh):
- self-proclaimed/declared (14):
- ABC News: "...a military conflict in self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, Azerbaijan..." Link
- Al Jazeera: "The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic is recognised only by the self-declared republics of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Artsakh." Link
- Amnesty International: "...there have been no formal declarations of war and the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR)..." Link
- Associated Press: "during fighting with forces of the self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh" Link
- BBC: "Nagorno-Karabakh remained part of Azerbaijan, but since then has mostly been governed by a separatist, self-declared republic..." Link
- Deutsche Welle: "The self-proclaimed republic also controlled parts of the surrounding Azerbaijani districts." Link
- The Economist: "...Armenians in the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh republic..." Link
- Financial Times: "Today, the self-proclaimed republic of fewer than 150,000 people remains unrecognised worldwide..." Link
- The Independent: "A war last year between Azerbaijan and the self-declared Republic of Artsakh..." Link
- New York Times: "Area self-declared as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" Link
- Time: "...a disputed region called Nagorno-Karabakh, a self-declared independent republic..." Link
- USA Today: "Officials in the self-proclaimed republic of Nagorno-Karabakh..." Link
- Voice of America: "...shelling during a military conflict in the self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh" Link
- National Geographic: "...Stepanakert, the capital of the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic..." Link
- unrecognised (6):
- Al Jazeera: "...the capital of the unrecognised Republic of Artsakh..." Link
- Bloomberg News: "The defense army of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" Link
- The Guardian: "it has ruled itself – with Armenian support – as the unrecognised Republic of Artsakh." Link
- New York Times: "...the internationally unrecognized, ethnic Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." Link
- Slate: "...formed a Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, unrecognized by any other state..." Link
- Washington Post: "...contested territory controlled by an unrecognized state called the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR)" Link
- breakaway (5):
- The Atlantic: "...authorities in the breakaway republic of Nagorno-Karabakh..." Link
- ABC News: "...breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region..." Link
- Politico: "...travel to the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh republic..." Link
- Reuters: "...Nagorno-Karabakh, a breakaway region inside Turkey’s close ally Azerbaijan..." Link
- Wall Street Journal: "...and the breakaway republic’s leadership..." Link
- de facto independent/republic (2):
- self-proclaimed/declared (14):
- Comment:
- The term "self-proclaimed" is used more than twice as frequently as "breakaway" in reliable sources to describe the Republic of Artsakh. Thus, its application would be the most accurate representation of what reliable sources say. — Golden call me maybe? 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I demonstrated that the term "breakaway" which you chose to revert by saying it is less common than the term "self-proclaimed" you (and Azerbaijani state controlled media) favour is 1.4-1.7 times common than "self-proclaimed" - anyone can Google and confirm. Searching only Wikipedia list of perennial sources to prove a point is a logical fallacy at best, as the list page itself says that A source's absence from that list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability hasn't been the subject of serious questioning yet., hence no reason to exclude sources saying "breakaway" (which constitute majority - 1.4-1.7 times more than sources saying "self-proclaimed"). And international recognition does not need to involve just UN states, there are degrees of recognition, while unrecognised means not recognised by anyone (other than themselves), it is not true in case of Artsakh: it is recognised by Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, 12 US states, administrative units in Australia, Canada, UK and France. This recognition is very modest, agree, but not non-existent, hence it is neither "self-proclaimed" nor "unrecognised" by definition. --Armatura (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The recognition that matters in this question is recognition from UN member states. Not their subdivisions, nor other unrecognised (Transnistria) or partially recognised (Abkhazia, South Ossetia) states. Had at least Armenia recognised NK, this would've made a case against using "unrecognised" qualifier, but since this isn't the case, usage of "unrecognised" qualifier is not incorrect. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The recognition that matters in this question is recognition from UN member states - thanks for opinion, but what can you provide to support this statement that you postulated? And how does it go against "breakaway" term, which is more commonly used anyway? --Armatura (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see no much difference between "breakaway" and "self-proclaimed", in fact both terms encompass unrecognised and partially recognised states (just as the term de facto state does). In any case, sources are avaliable for my contention, that partial recognition emerges when UN member states recognise something, not when subdivisions or other de facto states recognise something. See e.g. Emerson: Partial recognition can come in different degrees through official recognition by any number of UN member states, with or without the agreement of all the UNSC permanent members, and the number is maybe some guide to the strength of the case (emphasis mine) or Ker-Lindsay, James (2022-01-28). "De Facto States in the 21st Century". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-635. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
Beyond this, there are a number of other terms that have been used. For example, the terms partially and unrecognized states have found a place in the literature, but these are also unsatisfactory for immediately apparent reasons. For a start, not all de facto states are wholly unrecognized. Many enjoy partial recognition to a great or lesser extent. Northern Cyprus is recognized by Turkey. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognized by Russia and a handful of other countries. Likewise, calling them partially recognized states is equally wrong as a substantial number have yet to be recognized by a single UN member state.
(emphasis again mine). Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)- Breakaway is not quite same as self-proclaimed. In my understanding self-proclaimed means that Artsakh proclaimed itself as an independent state, but no UN members recognize Artsakh(all recognize it as part of Azerbaijan, even Armenia). Breakaway means that self-proclaimed state took control over the territory of another country and broke-away as separate state. For example Abkhazia is breakaway, but not self-proclaimed state as at least 1 UN member recognizes it, but Artsakh is self-proclaimed breakaway republic as no UN member recognizes it. Basically Artsakh article should state that Artsakh is self-proclaimed breakaway state or unrecognized breakaway state or breakaway state not recognized by UN member states. That is my vision. Abrvagl (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see no much difference between "breakaway" and "self-proclaimed", in fact both terms encompass unrecognised and partially recognised states (just as the term de facto state does). In any case, sources are avaliable for my contention, that partial recognition emerges when UN member states recognise something, not when subdivisions or other de facto states recognise something. See e.g. Emerson: Partial recognition can come in different degrees through official recognition by any number of UN member states, with or without the agreement of all the UNSC permanent members, and the number is maybe some guide to the strength of the case (emphasis mine) or Ker-Lindsay, James (2022-01-28). "De Facto States in the 21st Century". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-635. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
- I demonstrated that the term "breakaway" which you chose to revert by saying it is less common than the term "self-proclaimed" you (and Azerbaijani state controlled media) favour is 1.4-1.7 times common than "self-proclaimed" - anyone can Google and confirm. Searching only Wikipedia list of perennial sources to prove a point is a logical fallacy at best, as the list page itself says that A source's absence from that list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability hasn't been the subject of serious questioning yet., hence no reason to exclude sources saying "breakaway" (which constitute majority - 1.4-1.7 times more than sources saying "self-proclaimed"). And international recognition does not need to involve just UN states, there are degrees of recognition, while unrecognised means not recognised by anyone (other than themselves), it is not true in case of Artsakh: it is recognised by Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, 12 US states, administrative units in Australia, Canada, UK and France. This recognition is very modest, agree, but not non-existent, hence it is neither "self-proclaimed" nor "unrecognised" by definition. --Armatura (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here is how each perennially reliable source describes the republic that controls Nagorno-Karabakh (Republic of Artsakh/Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh):
- I am not a fan of adding another adjective that is essentially redundant. We would not use "breakaway" to describe a well-recognised state, so adding another word doesn't add much. CMD (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Chipmunkdavis Many thanks for your opinion. I think we should be very sensitive to how those terms would affect the lives of people living in those entities and be as neutral as possible, especially after devastating military conflicts all of them had. "A person with reduced / limited mobility" is better than "invalid" or "housebound. "A person with mental health issues" is better than "insane" or "mad". I appreciate the shorter words are quicker to pronounce, but they can still hurt. "Afro-American" is better than "ni**a", "LGBT and intersex" is better than "qu**r". "Self-proclaimed" for Artsakh is the worst of all currently used options, in my opinion (no wonder it is favoured by Azerbaijani government-controlled-media), the other terms are more neutral. I am not going to bring the example of Taiwan whose legal statuses is also contentious but imagine if a do a test and change "breakaway" to "self-proclaimed" in South Ossetia / Transdniestria / Abkhazia articles, I am sure that will generate large wave of opposition. We should also beware of political application of the term by warlords in order to justify military interventions towards that entity... Finally, there is no reason why we should treat Artsakh differently from the other three very similar entities (which recognise each other, and enjoy some other limited recognition as well). I have asked in the talk pages of those entities as well, to have a wider feel for perceptions. Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Artsakh did break away from a larger entity, through a unilateral proclamation. I do not think either term is unneutral, or particularly indicative of anything other than the fact that Artsakh basically lacks recognition, despite the linked list. I wouldn't use pseudostate, but it's not some kind of out of left field term for Artsakh. Both breakaway and self-proclaimed have the advantage over de facto of being in English, and thus more likely to be accessible. (State with limited recognition is too long when we have so many more concise alternatives.) I think picking between the various terms here is a very minor issue, and that an RfC would be in WP:BIKESHED territory. CMD (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- CMD, thanks for joining the discussion. Breakaway means the political entity broke away from a (larger) entity. Self-proclaimed has more negative connotations - e.g. "Self-proclaimed is used to show that someone says themselves that they are a type of person which most people would be embarrassed or ashamed to be 1 or, here. "Breakaway" is not entirely neutral, either, but at least focuses not on recognition and, as demonstrated above, is an adjective more frequently used by media. If we are exploring all neutral wordings, then I would personally prefer "de facto state", "partially recognised state" or more general "state with limited recognition" as in the Wikipedia List of states with limited recognition. "Self-proclaimed state" is the hardest epithet to use, I think, kind of equal to a "pseudostate", and should be therefore discouraged. Artsakh has some recognition, hence "self-proclaimed" sounds unjustified, it is certainly not more self-proclaimed than the other post-Soviet "frozen conflict" zones of Abkhazia (currently described as "de facto state" in lede), Transnistria (currently described as "breakaway state" in lede), South Ossetia (currently described as "breakaway state" in lede) . I believe we should use rigorously unified terminology regarding these 4 states, to avoid opportunistic variations in the interpretation of the adjective. Perhaps an RfC could be done regarding these 4 states, to feel the preference of the wider community, what do you think? --Armatura (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- What is the supposed difference in loading between these two effective synonyms? CMD (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)