Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
|||
Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
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. [[User:Armatura|--Armatura]] ([[User talk:Armatura|talk]]) |
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. [[User:Armatura|--Armatura]] ([[User talk: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. — [[User:Golden|<span style="color:#0F52BA;">Golden</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Golden|<span style="font-size:82%"><span>''call me maybe?''</span></span>]]</sup> 10:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
: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. — [[User:Golden|<span style="color:#0F52BA;">Golden</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Golden|<span style="font-size:82%"><span>''call me maybe?''</span></span>]]</sup> 10:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:: That's another [[Logical Fallacy|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. [[User:Armatura|--Armatura]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Abrvagl|Abrvagl]] ([[User talk:Abrvagl|talk]]) 16:33, 27 June 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. [[User:Abrvagl|Abrvagl]] ([[User talk:Abrvagl|talk]]) 16:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:09, 5 July 2022
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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/9780190846626.013.635. ISBN 978-0-19-084662-6. 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/9780190846626.013.635. ISBN 978-0-19-084662-6. 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):
- And Taiwan is different again, because although it has limited recognition, its statehood has roots in 1912 and it is a former member of the UN, and has diplomatic relations with a number of states. It is nothing like “Artsakh” which is based on a revanchist claim by Armenia. —Michael Z. 22:54, 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)
- 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)
- They’re neither synonyms nor redundant. Consult a dictionary. Breakaway is an informal term for separatist or secessionist. Self-proclaimed and unrecognized mean lacking legitimacy. I don’t think “limited recognition” is a fair and neutral description of the members of a club of entities that are all puppets propped up by one state and only recognizing each other.
- And none of these are pejorative nor offensive. —Michael Z. 22:56, 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)
- A “quick Google search” is meaningless. Please read WP:SET and search reliable sources. —Michael Z. 22:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- What is the supposed difference in loading between these two effective synonyms? CMD (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
To The term "self-proclaimed" is used more than twice as frequently as "breakaway" in reliable sources to describe the Republic of Artsakh.
- I'm dumbfounded how your search revealed only 5 sources for breakaway and 14 for self-proclaimed. Seems like you've missed a good chunk of sources that use the former, I'll add though no worries. Here are 25 sources for "breakaway";
International Crisis Group,[1] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,[2] The Hindu,[3] National Geographic,[4] Deutsche Welle,[5] The Jerusalem Post,[6] U.S. News & World Report,[7] Arab News,[8], Euractiv,[9] Vox Media,[10] Human Rights Foundation,[11] NBC,[12] The Washington Post,[13] The National Interest,[14] Eurasianet (this source in particular demonstrates why "breakaway" is a neutral POV term),[15] The Guardian,[16] Time Magazine,[17] NPR,[18] Los Angeles Times,[19] Yahoo! News,[20] BBC News,[21] Financial Times,[22] Haaretz,[23] The Moscow Times,[24] and Euronews.[25].
These should be enough to settle the debate: both in web searches and sources "breakaway" is more common hence it should be used in this article and related articles. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Almost every source you've linked uses the term "breakaway" to refer to the geographical region of Nagorno-Karabakh, not the republic under discussion here. Obviously, a geographic region cannot be self-proclaimed, but its government/country can. — Golden call me maybe? 06:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Artsakh is also referred to Nagorno-Karabakh, in fact there are many sources that use Nagorno-Karabakh to refer to Artsakh, that's the whole point. It's also the other name of the country, Nagorno-Karabakh republic. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but all of the sources you've linked make that distinction by using "region of Nagorno-Karabakh" to distinguish between the self-proclaimed republic and the breakaway region, with the exception of Euractiv, HRF, and Eurasianet (which uses "self-proclaimed breakaway", not just breakaway). If we disregard the fact that my list was supposed to be what WP:RSP sources state (I haven't included any sources that aren't labelled as reliable for the use of any term), the count for "breakaway" to refer to the republic would still be 9. — Golden call me maybe? 07:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sources are not using really generic phrases to distinguish between the breakaway region and the self-proclaimed republic. The two are the same. That said, on the main topic again, are there any sources which ascribe the implications to either term that seem to be being ascribed here? I'm tempted to suggest code that randomly switches between the two, if doing so saves editors what appears to be considerable research time on this matter. CMD (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but all of the sources you've linked make that distinction by using "region of Nagorno-Karabakh" to distinguish between the self-proclaimed republic and the breakaway region, with the exception of Euractiv, HRF, and Eurasianet (which uses "self-proclaimed breakaway", not just breakaway). If we disregard the fact that my list was supposed to be what WP:RSP sources state (I haven't included any sources that aren't labelled as reliable for the use of any term), the count for "breakaway" to refer to the republic would still be 9. — Golden call me maybe? 07:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Artsakh is also referred to Nagorno-Karabakh, in fact there are many sources that use Nagorno-Karabakh to refer to Artsakh, that's the whole point. It's also the other name of the country, Nagorno-Karabakh republic. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- The political status of Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh is complex and contentious. The region has faced recent ethnic cleansing and war, and a more neutral-sounding term such as "breakaway" is more appropriate in my view to utilize than "self-proclaimed" or "self-declared", which are similar in tone to "so-called" and can therefore be considered to be more charged and potentially pejorative. When a more detailed description of Artsakh's political status and situation is needed, further terminology can be used to clarify, directly, through linking to the aforementioned article or by using explanatory footnotes. Using comparisons with other disputed regions and political entities with regard to their diplomatic relations and recognition is limited in its usefulness and relevance, each case has its own unique context that should be considered. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- How is it complex and contentious? It is a territory internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan, but partially controlled by a government that no other UN member state recognises, making it self-proclaimed. Surely you're not implying that the majority of reliable sources who use the term "self-proclaimed" to refer to the republic know less than you and I. Mzajac and Abrvagl have already detailed how nothing about "self-proclaimed" is charged or derogatory, so that isn't a valid argument. — Golden call me maybe? 10:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The political status of Artsakh is contentious in the sense that the status of the region is disputed - this is not controversial. The political status of Artsakh is complex in many ways, apart from the aforementioned recent ethnic cleansing and war, many prominent political entities have recognized Artsakh [26]. Many terms are used by reliable sources - using a more neutral-sounding term with additional clarification through links or explanatory footnotes when needed, when taking the context into consideration is far more reasonable in my view. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what ethnic cleansing and war have to do with political status. These factors affect the de facto situation, not the de jure situation. As Seryo93 stated above, the only recognition that matters is recognition from UN states, not recognition from subdivisions of countries or other unrecognised states (you can see their listed sources if you want to learn more). Reliable sources don't use that many terms; as I've shown above, they use "self-proclaimed" more than twice than any other term to refer to the republic. I'm also not sure how "self-proclaimed" is any less neutral than "breakaway"; surely you're not calling organisations like the BBC, Associated Press, Amnesty International, and many more who use "self-proclaimed" biased? — Golden call me maybe? 11:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding how "self-proclaimed" is less neutral than "breakaway": Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary for example label "self-proclaimed" as "disapproving" [27] [28] while "breakaway" is not labeled as such [29] [30]. That "the only recognition that matters is recognition from UN states" with regard to terminology usage and that "nothing about 'self-proclaimed' is charged or derogatory" are personal opinions/conclusions/stances, and ones which I disagree with. With regard to your statement that "reliable sources don't use that many terms", your own statistics and the additional statistics presented further down in the discussion seem to clearly dispute that conclusion. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- You may disagree, but that is the standard way of classifying what makes a country 'recognized', and Seryo93 has provided several reliable sources to back that up (which really shouldn't be necessary for such common sense. It's unfortunate that this even needs to be debated). In terms of sources, I don't see how my statistics contradict what I've said. Four terms (three really, since only two use "de facto") isn't "many", especially when there's a clear winner among them, which I'm not sure why you're ignoring.
- In my previous comments, I proposed a compromise by using "unrecognised breakaway state" instead of "self-proclaimed" or "breakaway", which you may have missed. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. — Golden call me maybe? 12:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The only clear winner here is that breakaway is used more in RS than self-proclaimed. And it’s already been told that sources are not using really generic phrases to distinguish between the breakaway region and the self-proclaimed republic, it’s the same thing. There isn’t really a debate here when in searches and RS breakaway is used more. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Chipmunkdavis in that utilizing double adjectives is overkill. I also don't think using the term "unrecognized" without further context is appropriate given the region's complex history and political status, using breakaway with a link to the main article explaining the political status of Nagorno-Karabakh (breakaway) or using an agreed-upon explanatory footnote to explain Artsakh's political status in detail should be sufficient when clarification is needed. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is a neutral description of a “nation” that lacks legal status, sovereignty, legitimacy, and recognition. It doesn’t represent self-determination of some non-existent Artsakhian nation, but Armenian irredentism opposed to the international order and against the national rights of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and underlined by the non-implementation of the 2020 peace agreement. The term is not pejorative or “loaded”: it neutrally identifies lack of legitimacy. Arguing that there’s something wrong with the term is whitewashing Armenian and Russian interference in Azerbaijan. —Michael Z. 15:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would say that your argumentation here does not have a neutral point of departure but seems to be largely based on a more broader analysis based on opposition to Russia. Calling Artsakh as a nation "non-existent" is quite problematic, and is quite a leap that does not take the history of Nagorno-Karabakh into account. The peace proposals furthered by the OSCE Minsk Group such as the Madrid Principles have included the right to self-determination of Karabakh Armenians. I don't really get what you mean by the "non-implementation of the 2020 peace agreement" either. What you're arguing for demonstrates the problematic nature of terms like "self-proclaimed", they are often used in order to delegitimize, to further the argument that a political entity is "illegal" or "illegitimate", while not taking into account the broader context, such as the history of the region, the ethnic cleansing and armed aggression that the region has faced recently, and that encyclopedias like Wikipedia should present information in neutral and factual manner. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Mzajac I'm sorry, but this is a rather emotional response, and we don't write Wikipedia based on emotions. You commented
A “quick Google search” is meaningless. Please read WP:SET and search reliable sources.
, and I provided 25 reliable sources for "breakaway". Breakaway is a perfectly fine and neutral term, it's used in a dozen RS, more than self-proclaimed. Hence it warrants more of a reason for inclusion than self-proclaimed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)- 25 reliable sources above, where only 3 actually refer to the republic? We're discussing the republic here, not the geographic region. — Golden call me maybe? 17:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding how "self-proclaimed" is less neutral than "breakaway": Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary for example label "self-proclaimed" as "disapproving" [27] [28] while "breakaway" is not labeled as such [29] [30]. That "the only recognition that matters is recognition from UN states" with regard to terminology usage and that "nothing about 'self-proclaimed' is charged or derogatory" are personal opinions/conclusions/stances, and ones which I disagree with. With regard to your statement that "reliable sources don't use that many terms", your own statistics and the additional statistics presented further down in the discussion seem to clearly dispute that conclusion. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what ethnic cleansing and war have to do with political status. These factors affect the de facto situation, not the de jure situation. As Seryo93 stated above, the only recognition that matters is recognition from UN states, not recognition from subdivisions of countries or other unrecognised states (you can see their listed sources if you want to learn more). Reliable sources don't use that many terms; as I've shown above, they use "self-proclaimed" more than twice than any other term to refer to the republic. I'm also not sure how "self-proclaimed" is any less neutral than "breakaway"; surely you're not calling organisations like the BBC, Associated Press, Amnesty International, and many more who use "self-proclaimed" biased? — Golden call me maybe? 11:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The political status of Artsakh is contentious in the sense that the status of the region is disputed - this is not controversial. The political status of Artsakh is complex in many ways, apart from the aforementioned recent ethnic cleansing and war, many prominent political entities have recognized Artsakh [26]. Many terms are used by reliable sources - using a more neutral-sounding term with additional clarification through links or explanatory footnotes when needed, when taking the context into consideration is far more reasonable in my view. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the logic used by AntonSamuel above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Transnistria, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia, Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic have many similarities. They are all proxies used to unofficially occupy other countries' lands; they are all backed by Russia in some extent, either directly or indirectly, and none of them has true independence (they are all entirely reliant on the mother(occupant) country). The difference is that while others are partially recognized by some UN countries, Artsakh is not recognized by any UN country. Even Armenia recognizes Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan. Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary label "self-proclaimed" as "breakaway" differently because they have different meanings, not because one is more neutral than the other. We should not exaggerate and play on emotions here; "breakaway" and "self-proclaimed" have distinct meanings and calling Artsakh a self-proclaimed state is not a matter of neutrality since it is a fact. Artsakh is a self-proclaimed and breakaway state and it should be described accordingly (as I mentioned in my previous comment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrvagl (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please take the emotions out of this and focus on content. Breakaway is a neutral term, breakaway and self-proclaimed are used interchangeably when referring to Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh. It all comes down to sources and I showed above that the former is used more in WP:RS. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- You really haven't. Please look for sources that use the term "breakaway" to refer to the Republic of Artsakh/Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh rather than "region of Nagorno-Karabakh," as we currently only have 5 perennially reliable sources and 3 non-perennially reliable sources that show the use of "breakaway" to refer to the republic, compared to the 14 strictly perennially reliable sources that use "self-proclaimed." — Golden call me maybe? 17:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but what are you repeating again and why? “breakaway” inherently refers to the Republic of Artsakh, because a geographic region cannot be a political entity. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just adding my 2 cents here, I believe @Golden is trying to explain that the connotation of "breakaway" is different in terms of a geographic region and a political state. Breakaway region in a geographic sense basically refers to a region (Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast) which broke away from the larger region it was previously a part of (Azerbaijan SSR), whereas a breakaway from a political entity standpoint refers to a state (Republic of Artsakh) which has formally seceded from another state (Azerbaijan SSR / Republic of Azerbaijan), and which has the privilege of being de jure recognised by a UN member-state (not the case of Artsakh). Cheers, – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 14:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but what are you repeating again and why? “breakaway” inherently refers to the Republic of Artsakh, because a geographic region cannot be a political entity. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- You really haven't. Please look for sources that use the term "breakaway" to refer to the Republic of Artsakh/Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh rather than "region of Nagorno-Karabakh," as we currently only have 5 perennially reliable sources and 3 non-perennially reliable sources that show the use of "breakaway" to refer to the republic, compared to the 14 strictly perennially reliable sources that use "self-proclaimed." — Golden call me maybe? 17:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please take the emotions out of this and focus on content. Breakaway is a neutral term, breakaway and self-proclaimed are used interchangeably when referring to Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh. It all comes down to sources and I showed above that the former is used more in WP:RS. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all for opinions. As no clear consensus emerged from the discussion above, I created RfC to allow the wider community to comment. Everybody who commented here is welcome to comment, too, but please keep it brief, you can refer to chunks of text already posted above instead of reposting them to RfC. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
RfC on the descriptor of Artsakh as a state
Should Republic of Artsakh be described as
- breakaway
- self-proclaimed
- unrecognised
- partially recognised or
- 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)
- Use 1, 4 or 5 Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Only #1when 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[31][32] 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) - 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 [33] [34] [35] [36]. 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. Brandmeistertalk 21:02, 27 June 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)
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)