The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.
Artsakh is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
This article is part of WikiProject Azerbaijan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Dating in the Subject Summary/Header on the Upper Right
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)