Image talk:Nagorno-Karabakh regions named english.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This map is incorrect factually -- the author doesn't know that Martakert has long been renamed to Aghdere, and is not part of Kelbajar and Terter, which are separate regions. Furthermore, all independent sources place the name of the regional center city, Khankendi, first and in bold, whilst the old name, Stepanakert, in parenthesis.

You are more than welcome to contact me with inaccuraces in my map. I made it based on our article. As for Kalbajar and Tartar, yes, it is part of the Azeri rayons of those. You cannot say the Azeri rayons are smaller because there is a de jure/de facto split here. Portraying it in this fashion seems the least POV. And that's nice, but this map is drawn from a Karabakh POV (which kind of contradicts my previous statement). It uses de facto Karabakh borders and, therefore, should use de facto Karabakh names. If you want the Azeri names, we have the de jure Azerbaijan map available, with the de facto Karabakh region in green. --Golbez 05:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Golbez. Karabakh might be a de-facto independent entity, but it still cannot be and should not be encouraged to be above the law. It is a military occupation, is illegal and has been recognized as such by all relevant organizations and countries. We cannot say that since, temporarily, a certain region is outside of its country's jurisdication/sovereignty, then we can change all the names AND present them only one-way, without the true, legal, and historic, names/toponyms. For example, Israel is officially recognized as occupying parts of certain countries -- does it mean we should unilaterally change the names of those places in accordance with what they are called, spelled or transliterated by Israelis? Similarly, Al Qaeda or someone else, created some Waziristan Republic in Pakistan, or Taliban is still strong in Afghanistan -- so? Azerbaijan has a small, tiny exclave of Armenia, Artsvashen, under its full control -- does it mean we should forget the legal Armenian name and use the Azerbaijani one? This is not only unfair, but illegal in the strict sense of the word. While Wiki is an encyclopedia and should report facts, those facts 1) should not deceive people, 2) cannot be based on illegality and contrary to all sources. When all maps report the names of the regions in the official way, and your map does it differently, you wreak havoc and confusion upon everyone, especially unsuspecting readers, who just quickly need to glance at a map to put things in perspective.

And by the way, Azerbaijan still retains control of up to 15% of former NKAO, mainly parts of the Aghdere and Khojavend regions. Hence, it still have some sovereignty over those parts and thus it reinforces the need to do it correctly -- which means use internationally-acceptable and legal names. --AdilBaguirov 06:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been outside of Azeri control for a decade now - this isn't a fly-by-night republic. As for Artsvashen, I was under the impression that the legal name is Azerbaijani, since it's Azeri territory, though currently occupied (note that there's a difference between occupied and de facto independent) by Armenia. I am receptive to your arguments, but I challenge others. I am considering altering the map to add some Azeri terms, but the primary terms should remain those used in Karabakh. (If you want the Azeri terms to be primary, just use the Azerbaijan map). As for your Israel example, many countries do NOT recognize Israeli control over some areas, de facto or de jure. I reject the argument of "international recognition" of internal borders, while accepting the argument over the difference between de jure and de facto indicators, and as I said, I'll consider adding some parenthetical names. However, again, since we already have maps of Azerbaijan, I don't see the harm in having a map that expresses the Karabakh view. If you want the Azeri view, just look at the Azeri map. And Azerbaijan may control 15% of teh NKAO, but Armenia and Karabakh together control about 22% of Azerbaijan, if I remember the numbers correctly. --Golbez 06:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep on referring to some Az map -- which one, where? Right now, aside from a small general map devoid of any names aside from NK in the beggining of the page, there is only your map, and it's comletely pro-Armenian for reasons specified. If you would have noted it with a clear disclaimer ("this maps represents the Armenian view") and provided an "Azerbaijani view" (and/or actually, legal and international community view) map, it would have been different. Either we do this approach, or have to remove your map completely, replacing it with another common and accurate map. Note that in this question, there is no "Azerbaijani view" -- Karabakh and 7 other regions are occupied, and that is a fact, not opinion or view. Not everything can be in shades of gray -- somethings are actually black or white.

The map available on Subdivisions of Azerbaijan. As for "noted it with a clear disclaimer", I thought I did - I clearly state that it uses the NKR's borders and names. --Golbez 08:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear -- in fact, the page is called "Nagorno-Karabakh" yet is presented as some "NKR". The map has no direct disclaimer at all. Moreover, why are you using Shaumyan/Goranboy? Despite the disclaimer, why is it there at all? Not only was it not part of NKAO, but Azerbaijan has full control of it militarily, politically and economically. You are contravening your own logic by the way. Shaumyan has to be removed completely, and instead noted somewhere in the text that it is claimed by Armenia as well. --AdilBaguirov 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no comment on the nature of the article - only the map. That the article is about the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" is outside the scope of a discussion on the map, except to say that the borders offered are those used by the self-proclaimed NKR. As for Shahumian, I don't have that on the map, because I don't have a source for its borders, and either way, it was not a part of the original NKAO, and merely claimed (but not administered) by the NKR (If you like, assumine I include self-declared before each reference). In a future map, I would like to include Shahumian, in a different color, just as the maps we have of India and China indicate those areas claimed but not administered. Shaumyan (I assume you mean what I know as Shahumian) isn't even in my map, so I don't even know what this paragraph is about. --Golbez 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's good that you recognize a difference between "de facto independent" and "occupied". Karabakh and 7 other regions are occupied -- there are no disclaimers, if's, but's, or otherwise limitations -- that's how the UN, OSCE, PACE, US State Department, US President, OIC and others call it (I've cited it on several pages) -- occupation of legitimate and de jure parts of Azerbaijan. Rewarding the occupiers by pretending that there is a "Karabakh view" is strange -- the negotiations under the leadership of OSCE are between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the two "principal parties", with occassional attendance by the two ethnic communities of Karabakh, Azerbaijani and Armenian, which are "interested parties" (these are legal terms). Thus, you are mistaking "Karabakh" view for an actual Armenian view. Do not forget that 25% of Karabakhis are displaced/IDP and live in non-occupied parts of Azerbaijanis, and are predominantly ethnically Azerbaijani.

The U.S. state department may refer to the NKR as so-called, whatever, but they have no opinion whatsoever on how it's internally arranged. I see nothing wrong with supplying a map based on how the controlling government of a region divides that region. It does not harm Azerbaijanis to supply this map, and it is properly disclaimered. --Golbez 08:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated, I have nothing against a map with internal divisions or reflecting Soviet-era names preferred by Armenians. Thus, our positions are much closer than you might think. Instead, I maintain that 1) an appropriate warning and disclaimer has to be provided with the map, and 2) the internationally-recognized names, which are also those liked by Azerbaijan, should be primary (in bold, or be on top of the Soviet-era name which should be in parenthesis). --AdilBaguirov 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, so far as I know, there are no internationally recognized names for provinces and cities. At least not by the United States. The US State Department, so far as I know, makes no judgement on what cities are called, except where diplomatically expedient. --Golbez 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The 15% of NKAO in Azerbaijani control is from Armenian "NKR MFA" source. Meanwhile, Armenia occupies about 16% of Azerbaijan, not 22%, according to CIA World Factbook. In reality, by now it's less than 16%, as Azerbaijani Army constantly liberates more and more lands -- that's why there is constant shooting on the line of contact. But this is not very relevant to our discussion -- Armenia can occupy 1% or 100% - it would still be wrong and still be called occupation, and the toponyms should not be changed on neutral, independent sources. There is international law and it is for everyone to follow, for better or worse, instantly or reluctantly. Armenia cannot sustain the occupation forever -- and every year that goes by, makes Azerbaijanis more determined to take revanshe. Considering greater economic and demographic prospects, as well as military buildup and restoration of military traditions that were supressed by the Russian imperial and then Soviet rule, it makes one think hard.

I think I was including N-K in that 22% estimate. As I said, it was from memory. --Golbez 08:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The total occupation is about 16%, that includes NK. --AdilBaguirov 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Artsvashen used to be Azeri territory until the Soviet-era land transfers to Armenia, and hence, by 1983, it was firmly and legally an Armenian exclave inside of Azerbaijan (that is, it's an Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan). Despite Azerbaijan having full possession of it, no one would even think of changing its name to smth else. Similarly, Armenia occupies Kerki, Yukhari Askipara and Baganis Ayrum exclaves of Azerbaijan (which are enclaves in Armenia, respectively). And they are not changing their names on their official maps, as far as I know. So why should Karabakh-related names be different?

Perhaps I was incorrect. I don't know the names of the enclaves - I just know that Azerbaijan has three in Armenia and Armenia has one in Azerbaijan. Based on your original comment, I thought you meant one of the former; now I realize you mean the latter. --Golbez 08:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether anyone recognizes Israeli control or not -- Israel has it, and not for 10 years, but decades. Hence, following the logic behind your map, we should change all Arab names on those maps to whatever Israelis use -- since after all, it's de facto under Israel's full military and political and economic control. So here again, what is the difference between much longer Israeli occupation and Armenian occupation of Karabakh and 7 other regions?

--AdilBaguirov 07:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm too tired to formulate a response to this, but I'd rather not be dragged into an argument over the extent of the Israeli occupation. In my own map of Israel's districts Image:Israel districts named.png, I colored them in a separate, 'disputed territory' color. Kind of what I did with my map of Azerbaijan (the Azeri one I made, at that). There is no harm in denoting a disputed area. If I ever do I a zoomed in map of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, I am much more likely to show the local Palestinian divisions, with perhaps a nod to the Israeli ones as well. Likewise, with the N-K map.

Since you didn't do this for Palestine-Israel conflict -- the oldest in the world perhaps -- and there is none for Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnistria, it is then completely unfair and unjustified. Why such one-sided and overly-exhaustive approach to an Azerbaijani territory, but not all other similarly occupied and disputed areas? --AdilBaguirov 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My lack of maps for Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Chechnya, etc. is not a sign of bias, but merely a sign that I haven't gotten around to making maps yet. There are roughly 191 countries in the world today, give or take a couple, and I've made maps for about a third of them. That's a LOT. It takes a lot of time, effort, and research to make these. I've spent so much time with the Azerbaijan/Karabakh maps simply because, well, I have. My map of Azerbaijan was among the first I made and required an extensive amount of research; it's now on its third version or so, each one taking me many hours to accomplish. As for "one-sided and overly-exhaustive", I see nothing wrong WHATSOEVER with giving an "exhaustive" map of the regions of Nagorno-Karabakh, as declared by the de facto rulers. To not do so would be ignorant. I see no problem with creating a map of any lines declared by anyone. It harms no one.

Basically, very long story short: This is a map of the N-K borders, which I see no harm in indicating, and I see no problem in using N-K names on a map of N-K borders. Period. It would be exceedingly ignorant to say "there are no borders there!" There are, they have been declared by people in Stepanakert who may or may not have the right or ability to draw lines. But they have been declared, and to assist those seeking information and research, I made this map. Deal with it. My maps are neutral - they do not state who rightly owns the area, or even if these borders are real. It only states that which is claimed, and that is all I can do. --Golbez 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Long story short: What's wrong with my map? --Golbez 08:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In light of the above, I say this map should be removed completely, with the table being reworded with a more prominents warning/disclaimer. --AdilBaguirov 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Request denied, you will not whitewash Wikipedia. There is no harm whatsoever in creating any map I damn well please. --Golbez 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And before you ask - the line of control moves every day, as you said, so it's not reasonable to make a map showing those areas under Armenian occupation. However, the areas under Armenian occupation have not declared independence, nor have they been annexed by Armenia - they are merely occupied. N-K has declared independence. That's a major distinction. I would make maps of the self-declared internal divisions of Chechnya and Abkhazia if such divisions/maps existed, but I would also include those regions in their mother countries if I ever made a map of the mother country. This is supplying both points of view, and supplying all the possible information. This insults and harms no one, and supplies the most neutral POV IMO. --Golbez 08:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

dear Golbez, you know that I've already addressed all of the above, and if I am to do it again, it would seem as if I am debating you, as opposed to having a normal conversation and exchange. To be brief: 1) NK did not declare independence in accordance with all rules and laws of the time, and any objective observer, such as British expert Tom de Waal, would attest to that; 2) there is no such thing as "mere occupation". Occupation is occupation, and in addition, it is clear that Armenia attempted and attempts to annex at least some parts, like Lachin, Kelbajar, etc. 3) the line of Contact does not change dramatically -- and half of its changes occur on the proper of former NKAO. Also, since it does change, then why have a special map on internal divisions at all? --AdilBaguirov 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I respond only to mere occupation: Iraq is occupied by the USA, but there are no moves to annex it. As for the debate, yes, because you want to destroy a work of mine that cannot possibly harm anyone, nor does it express a POV. It is a statement of declaration, which is a fact, not an opinion. Nothing more. I was originally receptive but now you want to remove it altogether, rather than merely have it edited - this implies you think it's harmful either to someone or to Wikipedia, both of which I vehemently deny. --Golbez 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

more was discussed here: ^[1] The map should either be 1) completely removed with the table ammended/edited, or 2) the map (and table) modified, to reflect the internationally-recognized names. --AdilBaguirov 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The map will not be removed, nor the table removed. They state a fact - the government of the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic have drawn these borders. That is an NPOV, factual statement, and makes no judgment as to whether or not the government, the republic, or the borders are legitimate. What's wrong with that? --Golbez 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First, NK page and map are inconsistent with pages of other similarly uncontrolled, separatist regions, such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnistria - none of the latter have such maps, tables, etc., even though in case of some of them they were actual autonomous Republics in Soviet times, not just oblast, and were not aided as much in terms of soldiers by another state, as is the case with NK, which is occupied by Armenia and not only its own ethnic Armenian population. Second, the territories occupied are still part of Azerbaijan, are recognized as such, and thus, official names should be reflected on any map. Third, Armenian forces control neither all of historic Karabakh, nor all of Nagorno-Karabakh, nor even Artsvashen exclave of Armenia's proper -- thus, it means that the argument about "whoever-has-military-control-has-exclusive-right-to-name-it" is not applicable. Likewise, all three exclaves of Azerbaijan are occupied by Armenia, yet no one is changing those names on any grounds. Finally, NK is occupied, and is not independent -- neither de jure, nor even de facto -- its leader is the President of Armenia, while its military commander is the Defense Minister and Security Council head, and future President. The "speaker" of "NKR" was just appointed as Armenia's ambassador to Belarus -- another fresh example of who is who and under whom. There are also both a judicial decision, and Parliament-adopted law, on recognizing NK as part of Armenia (all is lacking is President doing the same for a full de jure recognition). And of course, the OSCE Minsk Group never had the Armenian community of NK as a principal party, only as interested party -- along with its counterpart, the Azerbaijani community of NK. The only two principal parties discussing the fate of the region are Armenia and Azerbaijan, two recognized republics. Thus, the whole "independence" is a smoke-screen and deception, and lending it credibility is not a job for an encyclopedia.

So far as I know, Abkhazia, S. Ossetia and Transnistria have not created internal divisions, so having maps of them would not be possible. If I am incorrect, please correct me. I asked you to give specific examples of how my map is poor; you have not, you continue to argue about who owns N-K. I ask you again, please, no more broad strokes - I only want specific issues pertaining to my map, not to N-K. --Golbez 07:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, let's get smth straight here -- I am not here to "destroy" your work, since I like the maps you did for the regions. Also, I didn't know you did 30% of all Wiki maps for countries, that's obviously a lot and understandeably, you take pride. Thus, don't get offended and apprehensive about it (also, as you take pride in your maps, so do real people on the ground take pride in their country, history, region, culture, and life -- much of which was stolen or trampled upon by the cruel realities of war). Instead, from the *beginning* I've said that the map would be fine if it is modified to reflect internationally-recognized names, and a disclaimer/warning would be placed. From this rather simple and ordinary request, you initiated this whole discussion, to which I've answered as comprehensively as possible given the circumstances and believe to have articulated all the points well. I've suggested to remove the map completely as an additional alternative to just get rid of the problem alltogether and in light that other occupied or separatist regions do not have same maps, whereas NK page should be consistent accross the board (which is important for any encyclopedia). Once again, I was not and am not against 1) a map; 2) a map/table showing internal divisions, 3) a map/table showing internal divisions' name spelled in a certain way ... as long as the second, legitimate and recognized spelling is also provided together with a clear warning/disclaimer of some sort about occupation or control and not endorsing separatism. --AdilBaguirov 06:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

30% of the maps of countries here are not by me; I have, however, made maps for 30% of countries, for future use on Wikipedia. I took your calls to "remove" my map as a call to delete it, then I later realized you just wanted it off the article, which is why I then called for calm. There are no internationally recognized names; I will continue to ignore that argument as it does not apply here. Please stop bringing it up. Please suggest a disclaimer. I will only respond to specific, short criticisms, complaints, or suggestions. I will no longer entertain long paragraphs about the rightful owners of whatever plot of land there is in that region. Please. --Golbez 07:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

---

it's hard to add more comments, so I started a new thread, if you don't mind. FYI, Abkhazia always had internal (administrative) divisions/rayons, and of course retained them till now: Gagr, Gudaut, Gal, Ochamchir, and Gulrip rayons. Same with S.Ossetia: Tskhinvali, Dzaus, Znaur and Leningor rayons. Same with Transdnistria: Kamenskiy, Dubosarskiy, Grigoriopolskiy, Slobodzeyskiy and Ryibnitskiy rayons. But we do not find any of them on the maps, and aside from Abkhazia page at Wiki (Russian one), none of the regions are even named.

I don't mind at all. And I suppose I should get started on maps of those regions. ;) --Golbez 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've given specific comments on the map, which is to provide the "Azerbaijani" or internationally-recognized names in conjunction with Armenian one's. That was my original comment and you've obviously heard it several time.

I reject the "internationally recognized" argument, so please stop bringing it up. I of course accept the Azerbaijani argument, except for one thing - What's the Azerbaijani name for Martakert? For Hadrut? For Martuni? I got into a similar discussion with someone else who wanted a map of N-K in Azeri, but he could never supply the Azeri names for those three regions. --Golbez 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, you cannot reject the internationally-recognized argument - your position is hard to understand, on what grounds do you unilaterally reject smth by which the whole world lives by? This is not very constructive.

And what do you mean? I've provided the names many times, and you have them in the table! Mardakert (region) = Tartar (region), Mardakert (town) = Aghdere (town); Hadrut is Hadrut; Martuni (region/town) = Khojavand (region/town). I don't know what someone you've talked to said or why did he have trouble -- I am not responsible for what others before me might have said and have zero responsiblity for their words. I speak on my own behalf and asnwer to every statement of mine, I'm not afraid of putting my real name on the line. Here's from State Statistical Committee of AR to aid in any future map revisions from the standpoint of correct spelling: http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/en/013.shtml, http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/en/010.shtml --AdilBaguirov 21:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand, Ail. Yes, Martuni and Hadrut = Khojavend, but what is the Azeri word for Martuni? Or for Hadrut? We're looking for labels for the N-K map, not the names of the Azeri rayons. --Golbez 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your: "There are no internationally recognized names; I will continue to ignore that argument as it does not apply here. Please stop bringing it up." statement -- I am sorry, but there definitely are internationally-recognized names/toponyms, and certainly, Shusha, Khankendy, Aghdere, Tartar, Khojavand, etc., are all internationally-recognized, and some of them are often featured on maps. Hence, I cannot stop bringing this up. Please understand that I am not trying to be hard, but frankly, this is very frustrating that we are discussing something that is never questioned by anyone else otherwise -- the need to adhere to common standards and international law, and not make up new, confusing and often contradictory rules.

I've also asked to remove former Shaumyan rayon from the table completely -- it is neither occupied by Armenia, nor was/is part of NKAO/NK, and hence, just because of an illegitimate and illegal claim, should not be there. Armenians claim many things -- like other parts of Azerbaijan, many parts of Georgia, Eastern Turkey, and even Iran and sometimes Syria and Russia -- doesn't mean these claims should be legitimized.

It is claimed by NKR; we include claims. Again, look at the pages on India and China, they mention their claims, even if they have no control or even legal claim on the area. And actually, yes, if the government of ARmenia claimed part of Syria, I would note it in the article, with a similar disclaimer pointing out how futile such a claim is. Why are you so afraid of reporting actions, even if they aren't backed up by the situation on the ground? There's nothing wrong with saying "x claims this area". Period. End of story. --Golbez 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

it is not that I am afraid, but I stressed it to show the inconsistency of your map and table and your reluctance to change, because: 1) on one hand you say that "Armenian" names of Soviet era have to stay and perhaps even be the only names on the map as that area is not controlled militarily by AR (which as we saw is not precise as 15% of former NKAO is still free), and yet 2) you do include Shaumyan, which is completely free of occupation! This is an inconsistency -- no matter what, it seems like the Armenian POV wins, and Azerbaijanis lose, and that's not fair or accurate. By the same token, Azerbaijan claims Zangezur, Goycha, parts of Naxcivan back (of course, not on the level of president, but then neither is former Shaumyan region claimed by President of Armenia), and wants to have all the Azerbaijani toponyms restored, so let's create/modify a map for that. --AdilBaguirov 21:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The table is areas claimed by the self-proclaimed NKR; therefore, it should include areas it, well, claims. It also notes those which it controls. And, uh, we already have a map of Azerbaijan including Zangilan, Goychay and Nachichevan (I assume these are the areas you refer to). And the map argument is a non-sequitor, as the map does not include Shahumian, mainly because I did not have a source on its borders. If I did, I would include it, in a different color, to show "claim but no control, and the claim is mostly invalid" --Golbez 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer/warning is a little tougher -- the first step is for us to recognize that it is a good idea, and it seems we all do. Once the map is ready and the table is slightly modified, then we can take up the warning/disclaimer issue -- it would be much easier then. --AdilBaguirov 09:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the table needs changing, except to express a little more strongly about Shahumian. The map will remain unchanged for now. --Golbez 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

golbez, why are we discussing things that are straight-forward and plain? why do we have to spend so much time and effort to show that the map of part of AR territory cannot not have AR names? why can't we just follow the international law which is there for this purpose and invented by human society many years ago to bring everything to one common point and have more agreements, than not? Once more, I appreciate your work and your graphic design talents -- I personally cannot do such maps -- and your research and dedication, as well as making sure that all corners are covered. Neither do I oppose your map per se or the table or the OK of having Armenian names. All I said from the beginning is that if there is such a map/table, it has to reflect both names and have a special disclaimer/warning. --AdilBaguirov 21:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what's the "internationally recognized" word for the region in Hadrut's borders? Only that region - not the whole region of Hadrut and Martuni. If you don't want the N-K borders, then that removes the need for the map altogether, and that won't be happening. --Golbez 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

again, Hadrut is Hadrut -- it was never changed (for the town). Region is Khojavand. How much of it coincides with the Soviet-day Hadrut I don't know. And for the final time, I am OK with the map with administrative borders of former NKAO as long as the Azerbaijani names are provided, or a separate "zoom map" is provided (another option I've proposed in the beginning). --AdilBaguirov 23:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the town. I'm talking about the Azeri name for the region within the borders of the Nagorno-Karabakh province of Hadrut. And a "zoom map" is worthless and would be pandering to Azeri POV. I will add Khankendi and Shusha to the map, and the border between Tartar and Kalbajar. --Golbez 00:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

put another way, you say the region is Khojavend, but it's only half of Khojavend. What is the name of that half? --Golbez 01:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's still Khojavand. Think of Khojavand as smth like California or Virginia, which are states, with their own counties, but there people also invented - and it stuck - classifications like SoCal and Northern Virginia, or Upstate New York, or Upper Penninsila in Michigan. And don't forget that despite Armenians' still prefering to call two regions of former NKAO as Martuni and Mardakert, they were unable to fully occupy them, and thus have no full control over them. By the same token, Azerbaijan does not have full control of Khojavand, but that shouldn't cause problems for map-making if it didn't cause problems in regards to Martuni/Mardakert. --AdilBaguirov 03:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)