Talk:Artsakh (historical province)

message: Please stop changing the text of Hewsen. Distortion of sources is a violation of the rules. Grandmaster 13:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon 

message: every campaign persian empire did to conquer the north of Aras river was about a war with Armenians, which is reflected in every persian text books
there was no mention of Albanians, Azeries or even Georgians in that area. only after 14th century some other ethnic groups merged in that reagon.
Albanians were only a part of armenia and kind of autonomous for brief time. but despite all this population was always armenian even in Turkey where
Armenians were subjected to genocide between 1915 to 1922.
Armenian belong to Armenoid race and their skull and nose and eyes are different and can not be like others who invaded that region, so it is absurd to
say that the people of Artsakh are mixed race. the language and body features is the same for last 5000 years  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.246.228 (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artsakh population 

message: The sourced information in the lead clearly says that Artsakh was a province of Caucasian Albania from 387 to the 7th century. Yet the map only shows Artsakh as part of Armenia. Why only Armenia? The infobox also gives misleading information that Artsakh was solely part of the Province of Kingdom of Armenia. That is simply not true. Had Vavio actually bothered to read this article he would have known that his Armenian POV pushing is unacceptable . Given the fact that Artsakh was part of two states at different times its more neutral not to include any political map. Neftchi (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Neftchi, I am very familiar with the historical information that underlies these facts since I wrote/reedited a significant part of it. Please read the passage Artsakh#Status. Artsakh was organized as a political entity called nahang (province) within Armenia, not CA. Even if it was part of CA after 387, we don't know what its status was as part of CA. We don't have any information that Artsakh was a political or administrative entity of CA. This article is generally about the political entity which was part of Armenia, therefor showing its name and location in Armenia in the infobox is certainly not POV pushing. I think it's OK to add a map where the later area of Artsakh is shown within CA elsewhere in the article, but removing important information from the infobox is not justified. --vacio 06:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: There are two issues with the dating in the Header in the upper left with a short timeline:
1) Substantive: It appears to be out of chronological order. Why does it say:
- Part of Albania 387
- Kingdom 1000
- Disestablished 387
2) When I went to try to edit this, assuming that that last "disestablished" part should be rolled into the "Part of Albania" part, I discovered that I can't even find that entry in the .html text.
As an aside, I think that when writing and editing about Caucasian Albania, whatever the article, great care should always be taken to say the full title "Caucasian Albania," while these articles should never ever just say "Albania" in order to avoid confusion with the country of Albania that sits on the Adriatic Sea.
And on another note, I greatly support a balanced point of view; however, I think it would be unjust and wrong for individuals who do not speak Udi to try to speak for Caucasian Albania and claim that their views represent the POV of Caucasian Albania. There are a few Udi speakers left in this world - To allow individuals who do not speak Udi to speak for the Udi only perpetuates the injustices of cultural hegemony that have created a situation in which Udi is an endangered language & culture on the verge of extinction in the first place. Great care should be taken to support those few people who still do truly represent that culture, and the most important way to support a culture is to speak its language. Without its language, a culture will inevitably die. Without speaking a culture's language/dialect, the most any individual has is a latent identity that can only be re-born by breathing life into the language/dialect of that culture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dechrwr (talk • contribs) 03:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating in the Subject Summary/Header on the Upper Right 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Artsakh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310231608/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f8/v1f8a022.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f8/v1f8a022.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Artsakh (historic province). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222030748/http://historyarmenia.org/1936.html to http://historyarmenia.org/1936.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page needs to be moved because the two words "historic" and "historical" mean different things in English. The word "historic" means something like "very important in history", whereas the word "historical" simply means "something that took place in history". So, the word "historic" places an emphasis on the "importance" of something that happened/existed historically, which I believe is unnecessary here and also probably accidental (the person who moved the page several years ago probably didn't realise the distinction between these two terms).
See this discussion for more info: Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 4#Why is this article called "Republic of Artsakh" and not simply "Artsakh"?. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs to be moved