Talk:Artsakh

Requested move 20 August 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved as per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Artsakh (disambiguation) → Artsakh – per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, i.e. there is no primary topic. There are three roughly equally important topics that "Artsakh" can refer to: Nagorno-Karabakh, Artsakh (historic province) and the new Republic of Artsakh. —  AjaxSmack  02:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 16:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that, until this undiscussed move in March of this year, the title "Artsakh" was occupied by the Artsakh (historic province) article. Since then the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article has been moved to Republic of Artsakh due to an official name change. Pinging previous participants at this move discussion.

Relisting note: although all the voices here are supports, as AjaxSmack pinged more users I think we should wait until they respond and also gain consensus on the "Republic of" prefix. DrStrauss talk 16:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. Concur with nom – Seems reasonable that there is no primary topic for the "Artsakh" title, which currently redirects to the Republic of Artsakh as if it were the primary-topic redirect.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. It should be that in cases like this where there is significant doubt as to whether a primary topic exists, the default is to assume that there is none, and to have a DAB at the base name. That is not yet reflected in any guideline, so I will plead WP:IAR for now and see this RM as a small part of building consensus toward adopting it as a principle. Andrewa (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I fully agree with such move, the "Republic of" prefix is unneeded. B.Lameira (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. IMAO, a base name should only be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if it is overwhelmingly the most likely meaning. Otherwise, bad links will accumulate and will never be found and corrected. The fact that this redirect until recently pointed to Artsakh (historic province) and now points to Republic of Artsakh supports my argument. Narky Blert (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Maybe it would help a little if we note that while there are many redirects that begin with "Republic of", there are also many articles that begin that way...

• All pages with titles beginning with Republic of

I think it's okay to leave the Republic of Artsakh article title as is and name the dab page "Artsakh". The "Republic of" prefix then becomes a natural disambiguation for the article on the republic.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Artsakh's (Nagorno Karabakh) status

International law, including the United Nations resolutions (UN GA/10693,14 MARCH 2008, UN SC resolutions No 822, 853, 874, 884) clearly identify Artsakh or Nagorno Karabakh as Azerbaijan's territory (https://www.un.org/press/en/2008/ga10693.doc.htm). It might be an issue of dispute between countries (Armenia and Azerbaijan), but international laws are clear about which country the territory belongs. Wikipedia must rely on official documents, not political agendas of certain sides. --89MsHm (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This land should not be in dispute. One just needs to trace it's census and it's architecture. Artsakh has been home to Armenians since the Kingdom of Artsakh began in 1000 A.D. How can Joseph Stalin girt away what has been Armenia for a millennia? Azerbaijan lost the war of the 1990's. Hyescolar (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Those so-called "international laws" are only ageed upon and followed by members of the UN. Nobody is actually obligated to follow those laws. What makes a document from the UN any more "official" than a document from the Republic of Artsakh? And how is it not a "political agenda of a certain side" to simply kowtow to the UN's opinions? The UN aren't some global government whose rules we must follow. I think you need to examine your own biases before making ignorant comments like that. Just because a bunch of self-proclaimed "authorities" believe that Artsakh isn't a real country, doesn't make that the "truth", by ANY definition. 1.157.95.133 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested Move

I honestly think that "the Republic of Artsakh" is the primary topic for the word "Artsakh" as it is the only entity in the world that identifies itself by that name. Everything else is historical. I think it should redirect to "the Republic of Artsakh" for the same reason that "Armenia" redirects to the "Republic of Armenia" instead of the kingdoms or regions known as "Armenia" in antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Why shouldn't "Artsakh" redirect to "Republic of Artsakh" if these unrecognized/partially recognized states do:

• Transnistria
• Taiwan
• Kosovo
• Somaliland
• Rhodesia

Kentronhayastan (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kentronhayastan I have nominated a move at Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 3#Requested move 7 May 2022 DownTownRich (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Republic of Artsakh which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)