Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Nagorno-Karabakh is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and 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.
Nagorno-Karabakh is part of WikiProject Caucasia, a project to improve articles related to Caucasia and Caucasians.
If you would like to participate you can visit the project page.
WikiProject Azeri This article is part of WikiProject Azeri, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azeri-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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nagorno-Karabakh article.
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] First line

I suggest the following revision of the first line:

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. After the end of World War I the region fell under the occupation of British forces, who provisionally affirmed Khosrov Bey Sultanov, appointed by the government of Azerbaijan Republic, as governor-general of Karabakh, pending final decision by the Paris Peace Conference.

Grandmaster 09:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. - FrancisTyers · 10:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
But why? The above information is factually accurate and can be verified from a great number of sources. Grandmaster 10:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It is only tangentially relevant, and not sufficiently relevant for the lead. - FrancisTyers · 10:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, it is more relevant than the addition, proposed by Tigran. Grandmaster 10:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. That the region was disputed is relevant, how the region was disputed is a matter for the article. - FrancisTyers · 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
But it says that it was a source of dispute, and we need also to mention that by the time Bolsheviks took the region over it was under Azerbaijani administration. It is important information. Grandmaster 11:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Not in the lead it isn't. - FrancisTyers · 11:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't under Azeri administration. The administration had been rejected by Armenians. If we mention the governor, we should mention that de-facto, Armenians established an independent government over NK without Azeri control. And the non-recognition of Azeri claims over disputed areas.--TigranTheGreat 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

GM, Tigran is right... The reality of a De-Jure Azeri administration over NK before 1920 can never be considered factual since Azerbaijan's own administration was not considered De-Jure until it was recognized as such by the British (actually, even you specify that the British appointed Khosrov Bey PENDING confimation at the Paris peace treaty, so the latter would have actually confirmed the De-Jure status of Azerbaijan's governor)... Until then, only De-Facto status can be discussed, and even you won't contend the fact that Armenians maintained factual control over the territory of NK even after 1920...HyeProfile 16:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The region was under the Azeri administration (many sources, including Armenian ones, use the word jurisdiction), even Armenian and pro-Armenian sources say so. I provided so many quotes from various sources, I think there can be no doubt about that. Armenians agreed to that, it is also verifiable info. And Azerbaijani government had a de-facto control over the whole region, by the time Soviets took the region over the Azeri forces put down the Armenian revolt in Karabakh, and Shusha and other major settlements were under the firm Azeri control. Red Army met no resistance from the Azerbaijani army, because most of the military forces of ADR were dispatched to Karabakh. When Soviets occupied Azerbaijan, they replaced the Azeri army with Red Army forces, but Karabakh still remained within Azerbaijan SSR.
I think my above suggestion accurately describes the situation. I did not use the word “jurisdiction” like Hovannisian and other sources did, I chose more neutral wording to make it acceptable for everyone. Grandmaster 05:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
GM, I like your subjective quoting of Hovannisian... Is it just me or do I remember his adding the all-important "provisional" right before "jurisdiction"... "Provisional juristiction" implies in itself that Azerbaijan had gained control of the region only temporarily, which clearly also suggests that there was a non-negligeable Armenian resistance to it's control after the act (we can safely state that there was resistance prior to the act because of the need to gain provisional jurisdiction, and I'm sure even you won't contend that fact)... Hence, on a strict factual basis, it becomes obvious that the region remained contended de-facto if not even de-jure (in reality, Armenians never really lost de-fact control of the region despite being defeated in Shoushi, but I'll spare myself the fruitless sparing with you GM)!!! HyeProfile 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please have a look at what I suggested once again:
The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. After the end of World War I the region fell under the occupation of British forces, who provisionally affirmed Khosrov Bey Sultanov, appointed by the government of Azerbaijan Republic, as governor-general of Karabakh, pending final decision by the Paris Peace Conference.
I did not forget to include the word “provisional”, my version is factually accurate. It mentions that Sultanov was appointed provisionally, pending final decision on the status of the region by the Paris Peace Conference. But the final decision was made by Bolsheviks, who took the region over before Paris Conference got to consider the status of the region. Soviets left NK within Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And there are many sources that do not use the word "jurisdiction," most notably the very British circular itself (to which GM has referred to before). So, we cannot use the wording of 1-2 sources (which are interpretational wordings) and ignore the wordings of other sources. We need to stick to facts--there was a mere appointment of an Azeri governor. And we can't use that in the intro (since we would have to also state that the appointment was rejected by Armenians, and all the other facts countering that appointment). The circular merely stated the British support the provisional appointment of an Azeri governor--there was nothing about "jurisdiction," "recognition of de-facto ownership" or any other legal meaning that Azeris have tried infer from it. It was a mere practical decision to appoint someone so the fighting would stop, without any diplomatic meaning. There could be none, since Azerbaijan was not even recognized de-facto at the time (and hence could not have even a de-facto recognition over NK). The British decision is precisely the kind of double-faced solution that I was talking about before--the kind of decisions that big powers have imposed over the region, with each side interpreting it in its own way.

In sum, Azerbaijan didn't establish any jurisdiction over NK--either de-facto or de-jure. As many sources (including pro-Azeri ones) have stated, Armenians established an independent government in NK, who rejected the appointment of the Azeri governor. While *some* Armenians later *temporarily* agreed to the appointment, the rest kept refusing any Azeri jurisdiction. And those who had agreed, did so only briefly, as in spring of 1920 *all* Armenians of NK declared union with Armenia. For several months, Armenia actually controlled NK (again, as stated in sources). In August, while the Armenian REpublic agreed to a temporary ceasefire, with temporary Bolshevik occupation of NK, the *local* Armenians kept rejecting Azeri jurisdiction. All this was going on, when in November 1920, Bolsheviks "handed" NK to Armenia. And all this while, the Allies recognized the disputed status of the lands, and while recognizing Armenia de-jure, did not do so with respect to Azerbaijan.

In sum, as many sources have demonstrated, throughout the period, while local Armenians had de-facto control of NK, Azerbaijan had neither de-facto nor de-jure control over NK, all the way till 1920. Now, we could state in the intro that Armenians established and maintaned independent government in the region, later declaring union with Armenia. But I am willing to compromise and leave that detail to the main text of the article.--TigranTheGreat 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The British circular was rejected as a source by yourself, and now you refer to it. You should decide whether you accept the source or you don’t. Once again, Azeri governor was not rejected by the NK Armenians, quite the contrary, they agreed to his appointment and agreed that they would be granted cultural autonomy within Azerbaijan and the region would be part of Azerbaijan pending the final decision at the Paris Peace Conference. Plus, Azerbaijan had a de-facto control over the region as well, Azerbaijani forces suppressed the Dashnak revolts in the area. Think for yourself, if NK was part of Armenia, then why Bolsheviks occupied the region, when they occupied Azerbaijan? Armenia was sovietisized later, but NK was part of Soviet Azerbaijan before that, and Narimanov’s telegram said that old borders were annulled. Bolsheviks simply reaffirmed the decision by British. Here’s another source, in fact quite sympathetic to Armenians:
Karabagh first became part of modern Azerbaijan because temporarily occupying British troops turned Armenian forces under the partisan leader Andranik away from Karabagh in 1918. Promising fair treatment at the Paris peace conference, the British instead assigned the region to Azerbaijan, a decision the Bolsheviks would later uphold. For the Armenians the historical lessons are clear: Andranik... [was] duped.
Stuart Kaufman. Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. ISBN: 0801487366
Grandmaster 06:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The British circular comes from the same MFA website that has been extensively used by you here. The circular itself has been relied upon by you, so we can refer to it: [1]. The circular says nothing about "jurisdiction" or "reinforcement of ownership"--any such statements are interpretational, not factual, and therefore cannot be used in the article. Once again, the Azeri governor was rejected by Armenians, who had established an independent government in NK, and later declared union with Armenia. Azerbaijan was never able to suppress the Armenian resistance in NK, in fact on April 1920, the Azeri army was completely thrown out of Karabakh, without ever having any de-facto control over NK.

The reason Bolsheviks occupied Karabakh was not because it belonged to Azerbaijan (it didn't), but because they wanted to weaken Armenia in order to make it easier for Bolsheviks to establish their rule in Armenia. I don't know where you got that new "source," I haven't checked it so I don't know how reliable or accurate it is, but considering that the British circular mentioned nothing about Azeri jurisdiction, it is the author's POV interpretation. And it runs counter to facts in many other sources, which clearly state that there was no de-facto recognized Azeri goverment (and this there could not be de-facto Azeri ownership of Karabakh), that Armenians didn't accept the Azeri governor, and that Armenians controlled NK, establishing their government and declaring union with Armenia. These facts are stated even in pro-Azeri sources (such as Cornell), so we can't say that NK was part of Azerbaijan before Soviets.--TigranTheGreat 03:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

Hey guys, has anyone seen the Signpost recently, specifically the "in the news" section?

In anticipation of Wikimania, GQ put out "Who Edited My Cheese?", a list of five "topics likely to start a Wiki-brawl", including MySpace, 2006 World Cup, Scientology, Cheese, and Nagorno-Karabakh.

(from the website) Nagorno-Karabakh: "It's a portion of the South Caucasus which should be part of Azerbaijan but is effectively unruled or de facto independent. The arguments are about stuff like whether the Azerbaijani coat of arms should be included on the page or not. They're trying to work towards a compromise."

Congratulations guys... :p —Khoikhoi 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Damn, they are all watching us.--TigranTheGreat 03:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the subtle hopelessness: "They are trying to work towards a compromise". Most people would say "They are working towards a compromise" but we aren't, we're still trying to. --Golbez 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Good point. This is the most fun I have had on this page.--TigranTheGreat 03:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, we are making headlines. Or at least get mentioned somewhere. First step to the international fame! Grandmaster 04:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

HAHA :))) - FrancisTyers · 08:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article really does get attention

[2]--Eupator 11:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, now that you all got your 15 minutes of fame, can we get back to the task at hand!?!HyeProfile 23:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Azeris and Armenians: Go to your languages' versions of this page! Improve them, translate all that German into Armenian, expand the Azeri version and turn those red links blue! Just don't waste electrons on the English version when your own languages' pages are so sadly lacking! Wareq 09:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hah, I agree, the pages on their Wikipedias really suck. - FrancisTyers · 09:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It certainly does not suck. Those are new and improving wikis and it is not appropriate to compare it with the English version. Furthermore, where de hell one would think that they get the right to tell others what to edit, where to work and where not? Be careful before attacking others. --72.60.179.223 00:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Lol, calm down. —Khoikhoi 00:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
72.60.179.223- Dude, the Armenian page has about three times more text in German than in Armenian, and the Azeri page is shorter than the English page's INTERNATIONAL STATUS section. Start in your own backyard (unless there aren't any keyboards in your alphabet).Wareq

Wareq dude, first of all what is the relevance of wikipedias in other languages to this discussion? Second, you have not answered the question that where the hell do you get the right to tell people what to do? If they choose to edit English instead of their language, who the hell are you to object? --72.60.179.223 09:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuation

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918, y. When the Bolsheviks took over the region in 1920, they initially x to Armenia, and then x to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

x y
a placed under control of remaining disputed until the arrival of Bolsheviks.
b recognized as part of remaining disputed for the next two years
c granted to remaining disputed until Bolsheviks took over the region
d awarded to
e transferred to
f decided that NK should belong
g passed a resolution in favor of
h handed to
i allotted to
j allocated to
k bestowed to/upon

[edit] Solution

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918, remaining disputed for the next two years. When the Bolsheviks took over the region in 1920, they initially transferred to Armenia, and then transferred to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

We should go with x-e and y-b. - FrancisTyers · 08:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How about the Azeri governor, appointed by the British? Why should we mention "remained disputed" and omit this episode? I think "y" is not required at all. The first line is OK without it, but if we expand it, then we should mention the governor as well. Grandmaster 08:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No. You can talk about that in the body. - FrancisTyers · 08:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not x-e. It has a hidden meaning of "NK belonged to Azerbaijan before." Any other choice except e, f, or g.--TigranTheGreat 00:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to have to live with this fictitious "hidden meaning", just like Grandmaster is going to have to live with the region being disputed. Transferred quite rightly means "To make over the possession or legal title of; convey.". Considering it is only you, and a few other contributors who seem to be struck by this, I don't think it will be a big loss. - FrancisTyers · 08:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, we can always try asking other (non-involved, non-extremist) people what they think of it. Not a vote, but just like an RfC without the complicated filing stuff. - FrancisTyers · 08:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Holy christ, this is still going on? I thought there was an agreement! The mediation is done. Francis has mediated. Now Francis should choose. Mediation is also leadership. --Golbez 09:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that we can add any wording you guys deem necessary, but it will not resolve the issue. New editors would still challenge the accuracy of that wording and everything would start all over again. So it is better to find a compromise solution, acceptable for both sides, otherwise we would just be postponing the solution of the dispute. Grandmaster 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a compromise solution, if you've got a better idea I'd like to hear it, but I seem to remember that all your suggestions were refused by the other side. Not to mention that all the other sides suggestions were refused by you. Having a suggestion refused by both sides is about as close to agreement as we're going to get I suspect. In fact, when impartial observers attempted to make suggestions, those were refused too. - FrancisTyers · 20:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the hidden meening behind "transfered" is too strong to convey a NPOV... It's a long way from x-b since "recognize" is the most netural verb in this case, as it makes no allusions to any previous occupancy or possession... I'd vote for x-b, and so would a lot of others... Let's put it to a vote like Francis suggested!!!HyeProfile 17:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't, and I never suggested a vote. - FrancisTyers · 18:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis, there is nothing fictitious about the hidden meaning. Actually, it's not even hidden. The applicable definition of transfer is "to pass from one place, person, or thing to another." Your definition is not applicable since it talks about legal-title--real estate, a car, not a political unit. As such, the meaning is going to be there. Who are we trying to fool?

There is a reason why GM strongly agreed with the version "transfer"--to him, that means it belonged to Azerbaijan. So, who are we trying to fool, GM? Are we trying to let each side infer a meaning most favorable to his POV? That's not the right way to go about mediation. If we are making a compromise, we have to be clear what we are sacrificing, and what the sacrifices mean. Ironically, the people of the region have too often been imposed ambigious "solutions" to "fool each side" into believing he got the best deal. It's only temporary success, and that approach has never worked. I know what transfer is, GM knows what transfer is, so let's not pretend it means something that it doesn't.

As to who will have to live with what--maybe I will agree to live with not mentioning that NK had independent Armenian government, if GM agrees to live with not mentioning some Azeri guy's appointment. "NK being disputed" is the middle ground, so all can live with it.--TigranTheGreat 01:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, would it not be better to use the words "allocated" and "included" in the section? The quote says that the region was disputed for several years (1918-Sovietization of the republics) until the Soviet Union invaded both countries. Neither country was able to full gain control of the region and even if they did, their borders were not even recognized (this is what I understand from the quote). So, now that the USSR came in and decided who would have what (not just in the NK but other regions too) would it not seem more reasonable to say that it originally "decided to allocate (allot) the region to Armenia" but the decision was thus reversed and instead, "in 1921, the region was included as a part of the Azerbaijan SSR"? Transfer gives up off the feeling that the region belonged to someone prior to Sovietization and that the USSR took it from one republic, decided to transfer it to the other, then reveresed it and again "transferred" it to another country (there's a connontation of which makes it sound like there was a 3rd party to the dispute; for example, if it was a part of Georgia, the region was transferred to Armenia and later to Azerbaijan). You cannot transfer something out of a country and then annul the order and then use the word transfer if it belonged to one of the countries in the first place.--MarshallBagramyan 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We cannot use the words like “allocated” and “included”, as it clearly contradicts all historical documents. The region was under the provisional administration of Azerbaijani government, pending final resolution at the Paris Peace Conference, but because of Soviet occupation of the region Paris conference never considered the NK issue. When Bolsheviks took the region over, they eventually decided to leave NK within Azerbaijan. Therefore it is OK to use the word "transferred", though the most appropriate would be to say that NK was left within Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Armenians and Azeris will never agree on this, ever. No, it would not be more accurate to say that. Prior to 1923 or so, whenever the NKAO was established, there is no accurate way to say what the status of Nagorno-Karabakh was, because no one agrees. When every party involved in the mediation accepts this, then mediation will be successful. All we can do is state the simple facts, then say what each side says. We cannot pick one side over the other, period. The simplest of facts must be stated. We must not make any assumptions or presumptions over anything about Nagorno-Karabakh prior to the establishment of the NKAO - to say it was "left" within Azerbaijan is not acceptable. That is what this horrendous discussion has attempted to do, and I am downright angry it's still going on. --Golbez 05:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So let's simply state that "... the region remained disputed for the next two year." and that "When the bolsheviks took over, they initially decided to include the NK within Armenia's jurisdiction, and then decided to include it withing Azerbaijan's jurisdiction, much to the displeasure of the Armenians in the region." This is factually accurate and states the contentious issue very clearly... We could include the fact that the British assigned it to Azerbaijan in interim to the actual Paris treaty, but that isn't relevant since the bolsheviks took over the region and tends to take away from the NPOV... my two cents HyeProfile 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We could assign the value "included within jurisdition of ....." to x, as it has been suggested before. We can't use "decided to" because 1) it would use one phrasing for Armenia and another to Azerbaijan, and 2) it wasn't just "decided to" hand NK to Armenia, it was actually "handed" to Armenia, as stated in Stalin's, Orjonikidze's, and Narimanov's telegrams. So, it was given/handed/included within jurisdiction of first Armenia, then Azerbaijan. And as decided before, we can't use "reversed" since, besides being redundant, we can't be sure if the decision was reversed, or a *new* decision was later made to give it to Azerbaijan. And, as Marshall stated, "transfer" presupposes that Bolsheviks took it from someone and gave it to someone else (yes, Francis is says that readers would pick definition #2 of the word, but we all know that before getting to #2, they will pick #1, which is precisely why GM wants to use the word so strongly).--TigranTheGreat 03:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I already explained why the words like “included”, “granted”, “given”, etc are not acceptable. The original Kavburo resolution said that NK was to be left within Azerbaijan SSR, and so do many other sources. I think the only other solution that allowed no interpretations as to whom the region belonged or did not belong before was the one that said:
When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially decided that Nagorno-Karabakh should belong to Armenia, this decision was reversed and it was decided that it should belong to Azerbaijan.
This version was rejected without any serious consideration. But I’m also OK with the version that uses the word “transferred”. Stalin and Orjonikidze used that word to describe the situation. Grandmaster 06:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
There was never a reversal. It was a newly made, arbitrary and politically motivated decision. There is no document stating that the previous decision was invalid or something of that sort, a new decision was made overriding the previous one by the occupying Bolshevik regime.--Eupator 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
GM, you must surely understand that in order to find a truely neutral statement, we must use neutral words, and any terms that have inherent conotations of prior ownership/right/associativity are inacceptable in this context (this goes both ways, and the Armenian lobby seams to be respecting that, so why can't you)... You say that "words like “included”, “granted”, “given”, etc are not acceptable" on grounds of neutrality, but you yourself propose an even less neutral words ("transfered" or "decision was reversed") instead... This is getting ridiculous to the point of frustration...
But on a positive note, based on your latest suggestion, at least you agree that x & y CAN BE both identical without sacrificing neutrality. Now can you agree to a neutral but fully-descriptive "was handed to"??? It goes straight to the point and says that the decisions was not only taken, but it was also enforced (at the Bolshevik governance level at least)... And as for different interpretations, it goes both ways since the same verb is used for both... However, I must still stress that "without consulting the people of NK" should be added somewhere in there, thus drawing away from the delicacies of the wording and emphasizing the contentious issue... I'm leaning more and more on opposing any statement that doesn't contain that statement... HyeProfile 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, if it would be more suitable for you, let’s replace “reversed” with “changed”, as Francis suggested. As for handed, granted, etc, you see, we have the original Kavburo resolution that said NK was to be left within Azerbaijan. We also have other sources saying the same thing. So we cannot ignore those and go with certain interpretation of Soviets decision. That’s why I think that my above suggestion is the best way out of situation. Also, there’s no need to add an extra line about decisions being made without consulting the people of NK, it is quite obvious from the context that the Soviets never cared about peoples' opinions. Grandmaster 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It might be obvious to you GM, but not to the reader who'll be reading this article (we can't assume that the reader knows anything about Soviet politics)... Since GM agrees that the people of NK weren't consulted, and since including such a statement clearly draws aways from the delecacies or connotations of the terms we use and emphasizes the problematics of the situation, then we should include it in the statement!!! I would tend to agree with replacing the transition verb by a compromising "handed to" IF "without consulting the people of NK" is added somewhere in that sentence... We definately cannot use "changed" since it has the same effect as "reversed" which inplies direct reference to the prior decision, and the actual resolution had nothing to do with the prior decision to hand the territories to Armenia. Eupator said it best: "There was never a reversal. It was a newly made, arbitrary and politically motivated decision.")HyeProfile

As it has already been explained (by me, Francis, and Golbez, among others), Kavburo's resolution is just one source, and we can't ignore the rest of the sources and pick this one. There were other words used as well--annexed to, ceded to, awarded to, handed to etc. So, as Golbez stated, we need to stick to facts. The facts clearly show that NK was given to Azerbaijan, since previously it belonged to Armenia (as it had been handed to Armenia). "Recognized as part of" would be most neutral, but I compromised for "handed to." As to "changed," it has the same problems as "reversed" and is unacceptable--there was a new decision made, 8 months later, not a "change" of prior decision. Also, the fact that Soviets didn't care about NK's people's opinion actually works in favor of including the line proposed by HyeProfile--since it shows the illegality of NK's annexation to Azerbaijan.--TigranTheGreat 02:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. You say that we cannot ignore other sources and pick one, and then suggest to pick “handed” and thus ignore sources that say NK was left within Azerbaijan. As for legality or illegality of decisions, we don’t make any judgments on that, we just report the facts. Declaration of Narimanov on transfer of Azeri territories to Armenia was illegal too, revolutionary committee had no right to make such decisions, and its authorities were highly dubious. But it’s a different story, which we are not going to discuss at the moment. I think the best way out of the situation is to exclude the line in question from the intro and provide more detailed description in the main text of the article. Otherwise I’m ok with the word “transferred”. Grandmaster 05:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"Transfered" is inacceptable and uncompromising as it is a far-from-neutral word that implies both de facto & de jure control after the fact, which was certainly not the case as Tigran proved above with more than a couple refereneces. If you don't agree to this fact GM, then your position is obviously biased, and I believe you should step away from this discussion to help reach a consensus and for the sake of moving forward...
I agree with Tigran's argument that "recognized as part of" is the most neutral statement in terms of connotations of prior ownership, but I'm also willing to compromise for "handed to" which is more of an executive term. vs the more passive "recognized"... Everyone except GM agrees on this compromising solution and it is becoming very frustrating to waste any more precious wiki space discussing this further...
This is what i suggest as a compromise:
The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918, remaining disputed for the next two years. When the Bolsheviks took over the region in 1920, they initially handed the region to Armenia, and then decided to hand it to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923 without consulting the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Can we now turn the page and move on to debating the next paragraph for the next month or two??? HyeProfile 15:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to prior comments--using "handed to" as opposed to "left in" doesn't exclude other sources for the following reason. While Grandmaster insisted on the use of "left in" just because some sources use the term, I favor "recognized as part of" or "handed to" not because they are mentioned in sources (since, as always, I don't believe relying on one source to the exclusion of others), but because those terms stick to undisputed facts, as opposed to "left in" or "transferred" which implies the disputed claim of NK being part of Azerbaijan before 1920. The verbs supported by my side are most factual and closer to the neutral middle (in the spectre of various verbs used in sources) than "transferred" or "left in." The undisputed facts here are--that the region remained disputed throughout the period, that it was first "handed to" (a term used in Stalin's telegram--translation of Russian "peredacha") Armenia, and then it somehow ended up in Azerbaijan. These are the undisputed facts--and Golbez makes a good point (which unfortunately is being ignored here)--we are never going to agree on the other "disputed" facts (who owned NK before 1920), so we should only stick to the undisputed facts, without giving preference to the either side.

As to the illegality of NK's transfer to Azerbaijan--sure, let's stick with facts, as GM says--and let's mention that the transfer occured against the wishes of NK's population, and let the readers judge if it was illegal or not.

By the way, Walker, the source used by GM for the term "remained Azerbaijani" or "left in Azerbaijan," also uses other terms with respect to NK's handover to Azerbaijan (just as many other sources provided by me did)--proving once again that terms like "left in," "included," "handed to" have been used interchangably in literature. In particular, Walker uses terms like "included in," "designated as part of," and "joined to" Azerbaijan:

Mountainous Karabagh was, in contradiction to the wishes of its people, in 1921 designated part of Soviet Azerbaijan, to which it was joined in 1923. Walker p 396

[In 1921] Democratic arguments favoured the union of Karabagh with Armenia; but regional arguments favoured the region’s inclusion in Azerbaijan. Walker p. 395

And where Walker uses "remain in Azerbaijan" (p 395), he is quoting (as clearly seen from footnote 13) Libaridian's book, which is far from Armenian POV (and in fact contains numerous erroneous pro-Azeri characterizations) and which has been heavily relied upon by Grandmaster.

And by the way, Walker himself confirms the undisputed fact that the region remained disputed throughout the period:

Both regions [Nakhichevan and Karabakh] had been, along with Zangezur, ‘disputed territories’ between Armenia and Azerbaijan throughout much of the time of the independent republics of 1918-20. Walker p 394 --TigranTheGreat 03:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I explained many times before, we cannot distort the primary source (the Kavburo resolution) to say that NK was handed, granted, etc to Azerbaijan. The resolution clearly says that NK was to be left in Azerbaijan, part of which it was before the Soviet takeover. In addition to the primary source we have many secondary sources (including Armenian and pro-Armenian ones) that say the same thing. The same Walker to whom Tigran refers and which is very anti-Turkish and anti Azeri source, says that NK was left in Azerbaijan, and moreover, it confirms that “Mountainous Karabagh with its large Armenian majority remained Azerbaijani throughout the pre-Soviet and Soviet period”. Now why should we ignore all those primary and secondary sources and go with the interpretation that is preferable to the Armenian side of the dispute? Of course, we cannot do that. Also, the word “transferred” was not suggested by me, it was a compromise proposal by the mediator. I agreed to it, you don't. If we cannot agree on compromise wording, the only other way could be removing the disputed line from the intro altogether and providing a more detailed description of the dispute in the main text. I suggested this also many times before. Grandmaster 11:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I had something long and profanity-ridden here but I retract it. If Francis wants me, he can drop a note on my talk page. But til then, I see no reason to dedicate any time to this worthless discussion. You people have been arguing over two words in a single sentence for over a month - even though, ultimately, it is irrelevant, as no one knows what happened in Nagorno-Karabakh before 1923. Period. Anyone who states differently should be discarded from mediation as a hopeless POV warrior. You people should stop trying to figure out what verbs to use and just state facts, no verbiage but "is" and "was". Madre de dios. I personally don't understand how Francis remains sane.

Fuck the sources. Pick a neutral geographic source, rather than a political or legislative one. Get into the political/legislative specifics later, but if I'm not mistaken, this sentence is for the intro? "After the Bolsheviks took over, they struggled to find a place for Nagorno-Karabakh/they struggled with the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh/whatever. From X to X, it was part of Armenia, then from X on it was part of Azerbaijan. Prior to X, its political status was uncertain." If this or any variant of this gets used, I want a medal. This is what happens when I stay up til 7am, people. --Golbez 11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, Golbez. I actually feel the same, but we need to find some wording that would please everyone or simply give up any attempts to fit the dispute into 2 short lines. The thing is that it is not so easy to agree on those X to X as well. Grandmaster 11:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Then give up. A month over this is a hopeless waste of time. Everyone cannot be pleased - simply try to offend the least. And I wasn't aware there was any disagreement on the dates, just the verbs that occurred on those dates. I'm saying remove the verbs. State the facts. And if we even don't know what dates it was moved or transferred or given or gifted or whatever the hell verb you want to use, then don't mention it. Mention, simply, that the history of Nagorno-Karabakh before 1923 is vague, complex, and challenged by several sides. And move on. --Golbez 11:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest saying in the intro that NKAO was established in 1923 and that’s it. Let's make it as simple as possible. Grandmaster 05:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Th.. tha... that's what we have now... --Golbez 06:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
No, we don't. The current version uses the word "incorporated", which started this prolonged dispute. I suggest to change it to "established". Grandmaster 06:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is quite possible to resolve disputes, if both sides simply stick to the facts that can be verified from more than one reliable source and show some good will. Nakhichevan is a good example of that, the disputes have been for the most part resolved and the article looks quite good now. Grandmaster 06:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If we use the version prior to all this controversy--"NK was incorporated as NKAO in 1923," it will be fine. As it has been discussed extensively, "established" is incorrect since the region wasn't established in 1923, but existed long before. As to sticking to facts--that can be done too. We have pure facts that everyone agrees to, including pro-Azeri sources--that NK was disputed throughout 1918-20, that it was recognized as part of/handed to Armenia at some point, then as part of/handed to Azerbaijan at a later point. The rest of the quarrel (whether it was left in Azerbaijan or annexed to it etc) are disputed interpretations favoring one side and should be left out.--TigranTheGreat 07:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NKAO did not exist prior to 1923, so it is correct to say that it was established that year. And it was not incorporated in Azerbaijan, as I explained many times. There's no official document of incorporation of NKAO into Azerbaijan, the Kavburo resolution says NK was to be left within Az.SSR. So the word "incorporated" should be replaced with the word "established", and the intro will be fine and factually accurate. Grandmaster 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
When a region in the United States decides to become a city, with a city government and a school system or whatever, it incorporates. It becomes a city. This means it can (in most circumstances) no longer be annexed by other cities. Cities can usually only annex *unincorporated land*. THAT is the definition of incorporation I've been using. Do you understand this one? I'm not saying we should use it - I'm just asking, GM, if you understand the terminology I'm using, because up til now I don't think you have. --Golbez 08:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You know perfectly well, Golbez, that the word “incorporated” has another meaning as well, i.e. “included”. So the use of this word implies that NK was included in Azerbaijan by the Soviets, which is not neutral statement. You can insist that you attach only a certain meaning to the word, but you know that the readers could construe it different way. So in this case we should use the word that has only a certain meaning. Grandmaster 09:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You misconstrue my remarks. I did not say I want you to use incorporated, nor that it has only one meaning - I was just making sure you understood what I meant by it. I realized that I don't think you've once acknowledged that, and therefore we had one definition beating the other definition around wiht a rotten fish, without anyone caring about what people meant. --Golbez 10:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Golbez, I understand that the word “incorporated” has other meanings as well, if that’s what you are asking about. I just explained why this word is not acceptable in the intro. Grandmaster 11:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, since "incorporated" is unacceptable to you because you don't like one meaning (though the other meaning is applicable), we shall not use "transfer" since its one meaning (actually the main one) assumes NK was taken from azerbaijan and given to Armenia. Which obviously is not neutral. --TigranTheGreat 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azeri language incorporated

After meeting with a group of Azeri-speaking journalists, we discussed the origins of the name, and incorporated the Azeri definitions into the description of the name.--Brad Patrick 19:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you around, Brad. However, that flat contradicts the cited source. Then again, the original version didn't match the source either, so I'll remove it. That does, unfortunately, leave that section unsourced. --Golbez 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, the source removed by you (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/3658938.stm) says The word Karabakh has Turkic and Persian roots and means "black garden. The COE document says essentially the same: The name Nagorno-Karabakh is a relatively recent combination of the Russian word Nagorno, meaning mountainous, and the Turkic-Persian word Karabakh, meaning black garden [3]. We got that much sourced and we should use that. And since when do we use "discussions with Azeri journalists" as a source? --TigranTheGreat 22:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if Brad hadn't made that change, the source didn't match the text - saying it's of turkic-persian roots does not necessarily mean 'kara' is turkic and 'bagh' is persian. I would agree that Brad's Azeri friends are blinded by POV, but that doesn't change the fact that the source didn't match either version. If we put the source back, get rid of the splitting of the word into kara and bagh. --Golbez 23:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, let's do that. Better to have a shorter sourced info than an unsourced (and POV) one.--TigranTheGreat 23:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This still hasn't been reverted... I mean, come on!!! Kara & Bagh originate from Azeri??? We're dealing with Guerillas here!!! HyeProfile 16:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kara and bagh are indeed Azeri words. Kara is a Turkic word meaning black, bagh is a word of Persian origin that entered Azeri language and it means garden. Both words exist in Azeri language and Karabagh means Black Garden in Azeri. Grandmaster 06:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Then from that same logic, "bigot" should also become an Azeri word since I'm sure it would be useful within the language...
GM, I'm amused by the ease at which you neglect the obvious facts while pretending to use factual arguments that are completely out of context!!! Your lack of integrity astounds me... HyeProfile 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don’t know if you are familiar with wiki rules or not, but they require to comment on content and not on the contributor. Please bear that in mind in the future. You might wish to check this out: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As for your comment, just open any Azerbaijani language dictionary and look for the word “garden”, and see what you get. All languages have borrowed words, Azerbaijani is not exception. Grandmaster 05:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That's true GM, Armenian is no exception with its large vocabulary of words that have Iranic origin, but the statement: The word Karabakh has Turkic and Persian roots and means "black garden. is still correct is it not? Kara is Turkic, Bagh is Iranic. It's just an explanation of the etymology, doesn't mean that garden is not bagh in the Azeri language, it's just a loanword. --Eupator 14:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind that statement, it is factually accurate. I just responded to the statements by some that the word is not of Azeri origin. It is, as both parts of the name exist in Azeri language and that's the reason for that combination of words to exist. Grandmaster 10:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is moot. OK, so 'bagh' is an Azeri word. That does not mean it has Azeri roots. It means the Azeri 'bagh' and the part of 'Karabakh' have the same root. Furthermore, we have a source that is correctly cited. All of this is moot unless you can find a source that says bagh originated in Azeri, not Persian or Turkic. --Golbez 10:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I said that I don't mind the current wording. I just commented on statements by some users above. The word Karabagh is of Azeri origin, as both parts of it exist in Azeri language, even though the word bagh is not of Turkic origin and is a loanword from Persian. But the combination of the two exists only because both words exist in the same language. Anyway, I see no point in arguing over this. Grandmaster 10:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If we go historic way. word "bagh" was azeri (in a time most poeple in south azerbaijan and some in North azerbaijan were speaking persian or another indo-aryan language like syth or kurdish)and word "kara" from Turkic root came to azeri language after turk immigration in 800 or 1000 or 1400 years ago. azeris words are combination of Turkic and Farsi origin (and now farsi has 60% Parsi and 40% Arabic)

[edit] How long...

...has this article been locked and what's keeping it from being unlocked? -- Clevelander 11:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is still unresolved. The article says that NK was incorporated into Az.SSR, which is a false statement. My question to Golbez. Why do you insist on the word "incorporated" being used? And why can't we replace it with the word "established"? Grandmaster 11:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
And misconceptions like this are part of why it remains locked. I mean, hell, I just said, TWICE: "I'm not saying we should use it" and "I did not say I want you to use incorporated". Mainly because I don't care anymore. But hey, say whatever. This style of debate ain't getting things unlocked any time soon. In the meantime, the version I crafted remains up there - with the word 'incorporated.' I get my version solidly kept, and I get to yell at people for being annoying curmudgeons - sounds like I'm the winner here. --Golbez 17:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Because "incorporated" is not a false statement, as admitted by you. It merely has more than one definition, one of which you don't like. Golbez' definition is more applicable to the intro, since it says "NK was incorporated as NKAO," and not "NK was incorporated in Azerbaijan."

"NKAO was established" can't be used since it creates a disconnect between the "region" (the topic of the lead) and "AO."--it throws in the NKAO out of blue. And it omits the prior immediate history of the "establishment" which is important, and which is why we need the "handed to X, then B" version.--TigranTheGreat 12:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The intro should say: The Soviet Union established the predominantly Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923. This is factually accurate, NKAO was indeed established in 1923, and no one can deny it. We cannot include any POV interpretations in the article, including the intro. All the historical details should be provided in the main text. The current POV version of the intro is not acceptable. Grandmaster 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Noone can deny that NK was incorporated as NKAO either. Or that NK was first handed to Armenia, then Azerbaijan. And that it was disputed throughout the 1918-20 period. The "Established" version creates disconnect between NK and the AO, and omits "how" it came to be established. Therefore its unacceptable.--TigranTheGreat 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what's wrong with the word "incorporated?" -- Clevelander 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Even better question is why we have to fight that word for two months. Maybe GM can answer this time.--TigranTheGreat 23:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The word “incorporated” is absolutely inaccurate to describe the situation and is POV. I already explained so many times on this talk page why it is inaccurate, but I’ll do it once again. NK was part of Azerbaijan before the Soviet invasion, as you confirmed yourself. British affirmed Khosrow bey Sultanov, appointed by the government of Azerbaijan, as the governor of Karabakh, pending final decision by the Paris Peace Conference. ADR had a firm control over the region, including its capital Shusha, especially after Azerbaijan put down a dashnak revolt in the region. So by the time of Bolshevik invasion Karabakh was part of Azerbaijan. When Bolsheviks took the region over, they passed the following resolution:
Proceeding from the necessity of national piece among Muslims and Armenians and of the economic ties between upper (mountainous) and lower Karabakh, of its permanent ties with Azerbaijan, mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR, receiving wide regional autonomy with the administrative center in Shusha, which is to be included in the autonomous region.
As you can see from the above, they left NK within Azerbaijan, and did not “incorporate” it. If you can show me any resolution of Soviets on incorporation of NK into Azerbaijan, we can use that word, but since this resolution uses the words “NK to remain within Az.SSR”, we cannot include in the intro any POV interpretations of this document. Plus, in addition to this primary source, we have many secondary sources, even pro-Armenian ones, such as Walker, saying the same thing. Please see more quotes here: User:Grandmaster/Karabakh. I see no reason why should we ignore all those sources and go with the Armenian interpretation of the history of the region. Grandmaster 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Now please explain to me what is wrong with the word "established". Was NKAO not established in 1923? Then what is this argument about? Let's include this simple fact in the article withoit any POV interpretations and move on. Grandmaster 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what do you guys think about this? It's a compromise. Would this work?:

When the Soviet Union incorporated the South Caucasus into its borders, the predominantly Armenian region was established as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923. -- Clevelander 11:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Does it sound OK: “the region was established as NKAO”? Maybe it would sound better as “predominantly Armenian NKAO was established in Az.SSR”? Grandmaster 11:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was established as the NKAO (that's a fact) and it was within the Azerbaijan SSR (another fact). In any case, I think we should stick with my suggested version as it uses both the terms "incorporated" and "established." I'm interested in reading what Golbez thinks of my suggestion. -- Clevelander 11:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
A little wordy. How about, "When the Soviet Union expanded in to the South Caucases, it organized/established/incorporated/fooed the predominantly Armenian region as the NKAO within the Azerbaijani SSR." I don't like the first sentence, though. --Golbez 22:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Clevelander's suggestion has merit, but GM opposes that as well... Why am I not surprised!?! GM, an AUTONOMOUS OBLAST, by definition (it's obvious to everyone but you) is INDEPENDANT of any other SSR's governing body but is included within the borders of an SSR simply for the sake of governance... Get that into your head... It was incorporated WITHIN Azerbaijan, not INTO Azerbaijan... Jeeeez!!!
Golbez & Francis, I seriously suggest we take GM out of this mediation for the sake of moving forward... He consistently refuses to drop his extremely POV attitude and repeatedly insists on misleading the spirit of the article by objecting to anything that doesn't convey a pro-Azeri POV... HyeProfile 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the only way that we can move forward is to take out all of the partisan contributors from the equation. - FrancisTyers · 16:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
...which is almost impossible to do. How can you not allow certain editors to contribute to an article? Again, I say we just use my version and be done with it. We all have lives, it's time we get on with them. -- Clevelander 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration, which I previously endorsed for GM and Adil. --Golbez 22:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Why haven't we taken this to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration yet? -- Clevelander 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I did not object to Clevelander's proposal, I just suggested to improve its wording, which sounds a bit awkward to me. In general, I'm OK with it. Second, I suggested arbitration long time ago, but I was told that they don't deal with content disputes. Has it changed yet? Grandmaster 06:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This wasn't a content dispute, it was constant and unrepetant POV pushing, which is within ArbCom's purvey, as it makes it impossible to work on an article. --Golbez 10:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You yourself said that it was a content dispute when I wanted to submit this case to Arbcom. The issue would have been resolved long ago if we had done that back then. I don’t mind if we submit this issue to them now. Maybe they can help to resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 10:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I also remember you said that we could not submit this issue to Arbcom unless it passed thru the stage of formal mediation, and you refused to support my submission of this case to formal mediation. Correct me if I’m wrong here. Grandmaster 10:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Back then, it was a content dispute. Then you and Adil went wild with inserting false, blatantly POV statements. And clearly, I don't think it should go to Arbcom - but as I said, I would endorse it if it did. I still think things can be worked out. And of course, in the meantime, my version remains. --Golbez 10:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It is still a content dispute, and it was not me who rejected the last proposal by Francis. If you think "incorporated" is neutral and "established" is not, it is just your POV. If you really wanted to help reach a compromise, you would come up with some new ideas, instead of trying to place blame with one of the sides to the dispute. Grandmaster 11:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You still think I care about that. And that is precisely why this goes on. And I have been trying to come up with new ideas; scroll up for a proposal I made that doesn't include "incorporated". But hey, if you want to argue for the sake of arguing, go ahead - it just keeps 'incorporated' there longer. --Golbez 11:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just going to say that your version of Clevelander's proposal is fine: When the Soviet Union expanded in to the South Caucases, it established the predominantly Armenian region as the NKAO within the Azerbaijani SSR. Let's agree on that and move on. Grandmaster 11:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw, if you scroll up you'll see that I said I was fine with Clevelander's proposal. Somehow you missed that and started accusing me of various things. Grandmaster 11:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
...but Golbez never objected to your response to my proposal in the first place. In fact, I was interested in seeing what he thought. -- Clevelander 11:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Then why are we having this argument? Let's move on. Grandmaster 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been on for a few days. Since school started, I won't be able to contribute as much. At any rate, as EXTENSIVELY discussed before, we can't say "the region was established in 1923" since the region was established in the pre-Cambrean period. And for the sake of not tossing the past discussion away, we should go with "handed to/recognized as part of ..." version rather than "incorporated." We can't use transfer, since NK was never part of Azerbaijan before 1920 (Sultanov never had de-facto rule over NK, nor was Azeri rule recognized either de-facto or de-jure, since Azerbaijan itself wasn't recognized as de-facto at the time--TigranTheGreat 22:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The colony of Virginia was established in 1604. The Soviet Union was established in 1922. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in 1923. None of these statements is either ambiguous or incorrect. Your complaint about 'established' makes even less sense than GM's complaint about 'incorporated'. --Golbez 01:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that both established and incorporated are very clear and unambiguous. Time to move on. Golbez, you can just be bold, pick a version and get it over with. How about you and Francis choose one together without any partisan intervention? There are other parts of this article that require attention. --Eupator 01:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Eup's suggestion. Golbez and Francis should make the final decision. That way we can ensure that it will be nonpartisan. -- Clevelander 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, colony of Virginia was established in 1604, but the region of Virginia wasn't established by anyone. Yes, and NKAO was established in xxxx, but the region of NK was never established. Applying "established" to a region makes no sense. You yourself agreed to this in the following edit summary: [4]--TigranTheGreat 02:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the new ordering seems to be "the NKAO was established in the region", and your comments tend to be blanket against the word 'established'. --Golbez 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the "new ordering" (proposed by GM) is "NK was established in Azerbaijan" or (by Clevelander) "NK was established as NKAO in Azerbaijan." You have to know that in any form/shape, using "established" with respect to "NK" makes little grammatical sense.

If you propose "NKAO was established," I will state my objections to it then.--TigranTheGreat 03:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's basically what I was saying. It would be better in the form of "NKAO was established in 1923 within Az.SSR", but whatever. Let's go with Clevelander's proposal and move on. Grandmaster 08:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
What suggestion was this now? - FrancisTyers · 09:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Clevelander and Golbez suggested the following: When the Soviet Union expanded in to the South Caucases, it established the predominantly Armenian region as the NKAO within the Azerbaijani SSR. I think it is OK, let's agree on that and move on. Grandmaster 09:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks great. So do we agree on that? - FrancisTyers · 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. That sounds good. Gm used to freak out regarding the line "within the Azerbaijani SSR" which I initially suggested months ago. I'm glad he's fine with it now. Golbez, Francis is ok with this, can we now end this?--Eupator 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as Im concerned, it's signed, sealed, and delivered... HyeProfile 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for a resolution and my solution works. The sooner we end this dispute and unlock the article, the better. -- Clevelander 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't look good at all. How do you establish a region? So, it's incorrect and makes no sense. And we are excluding the prior history of 1918-21 (dispute, grant to Arm., then Az). But, I will accept it only if Fadix is fine with it. He, I, and GM have been the principal participants in the mediation.--TigranTheGreat 00:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To establish a form of government within a region is very possible. This is the case with Karabakh as an autonomous oblast. -- Clevelander 01:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, so reorder it. "it established the NKAO in the predominantly armenian region within the Azeri SSR". --Golbez 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That's better and more logical. Grandmaster 05:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's quite more logical to say that a predominantly Armenian NKAO was established within the border of the Azeri SSR. can we move on??? HyeProfile 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Francis, can we please get this incorporated into the article... HyeProfile 12:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The reordering is actually worse. "the predominantly armenian region within the Azeri SSR" makes it sound like the region was part of AzSSR even before the AO was established (I suspect that's why GM agreed to it). Which would be fine in the prior version (when we mention its belonging to Armenia at some point). That's why generally it's not a good idea to abruptly abandon a version that we worked on for weeks (i.e. the "handed to" one) and overnight choose a totaly new version suggested out of blue.

Sorry guys, I am not gonna give my vote of approval to a poor and underdiscussed version just for the "good overall feeling" that we reached a compromise. You can move on all you want, Francis is free to add or not add what he wants, and I (just as anyone else) am free to make any changes I see necessary when the article gets unprotected.--TigranTheGreat 00:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headline

I think the term Mountainous Karabakh is preferable. Nagorno-Karabakh is neither Armenian, nor Azeri, it is incorrect Russian (instead of Nagorny Karabakh/Нагорный Карабах). Further more, Mountainous Karabakh is more self-explanatory due to the English word than Nagorno-Karabakh. At least Mountainous Karabakh should be mentioned and there should be established a redirect. --Ulf-S. 09:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

True, Mountainous Karabakh is more accurate name, but for some reason Nagorno-Karabakh is the name, adopted in English language, and it gets more hits on google. Grandmaster 09:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Mountainous Karabakh should be a redirect, but the prevailing term in English for the region, and especially the country, is Nagorno. English speakers have a habit of trying to keep the orignial name as they first heard it, rather than properly deconstructing it. (Since in French, it's Haut-Karabakh. And in English, 'Montenegro' would properly be 'Black Mountain', and this is recognized in most other languages, but we first heard it through the Italians or Latin or some sort, so...) Remember, folks - "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." --Golbez 10:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I created the new redirect. Hopefully this should work: Mountainous Karabakh. -- Clevelander 10:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name origin.

Golbez, could you please replace current Azeri explanation of the origin with the following, at least until we verify by dictionary what each component means?

The word "Karabakh" has Turkic and Persian roots and literally means "black garden.

That much is sourced ([5]). The current version is original research (i.e. that of Brad, based on Azeri journalists (!) ). Thanks.--TigranTheGreat 22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I removed the ref, I can put it back. Brad should know better than to use original research ;) --Golbez 01:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Not sure whether it was already mentioned, but should the article contain a remark why its Russian name is the most common? --Brand спойт 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. We could blame the Soviets, but then again, the NKR chose that name for itself as well. --Golbez 17:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the question already exists above :P --Brand спойт 15:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PACE resolution #1416

In the International status section, the sources for PACE resolution #1416 should be corrected (footnote #4) and should point to a neutral source such as www.coe.am/en/docs/pace/resolution_1416.pdf, or better yet, to the actual PACE resolution document itself, at [[6]]... Original sourcing restrictions shouldn't apply in this case since the resolution was released to the public through formal channels...

Furthermore, the comments on PACE resolution #1416 are very Azeri-POV... We should at least include the following line after the first two citations:

However, the Assembly reaffirmed "that independence and secession of a regional territory from a state may only be achieved through a lawful and peaceful process based on democratic support by the inhabitants of such territory", which was clearly the basis by which the NKR established itself as an independant state through it's referendum in the first place, and the war was a direct consequence of Azerbaijan's unwillingness to accept NK's right of self-determination. HyeProfile 13:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The whole Int. Status section is filled with "pushing" words like "reaffirm," "specifically mention" etc. And it unnecessarily quotes entire segments as if in a collage of newspaper clippings. It needs major work.--TigranTheGreat 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I don’t understand what the problem is with the current link. It leads to the official website of the PACE http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/TA05/ERES1416.htm, which is the original source of the document. I don’t understand how it is not neutral. The text was quoted directly from its source, so there’s no need to replace it with the link to the version with .am domain. As for the quote, you cannot quote only parts of the sentence that you like, we should quote the whole paragraph that reads:
2. The Assembly expresses its concern that the military action, and the widespread ethnic hostilities which preceded it, led to large-scale ethnic expulsion and the creation of mono-ethnic areas which resemble the terrible concept of ethnic cleansing. The Assembly reaffirms that independence and secession of a regional territory from a state may only be achieved through a lawful and peaceful process based on the democratic support of the inhabitants of such territory and not in the wake of an armed conflict leading to ethnic expulsion and the de facto annexation of such territory to another state. The Assembly reiterates that the occupation of foreign territory by a member state constitutes a grave violation of that state’s obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and reaffirms the right of displaced persons from the area of conflict to return to their homes safely and with dignity.
It actually says that Armenian side should not annex the territory of the neighboring state and ethnically cleanse it, and should use only peaceful means to achieve secession of the regional territory. By the way, PACE refers to NK as a regional territory of Azerbaijan, which was the subject of our prior discussions. And there's no need to attack Adil on any given occasion, it was me who included most of the quotes into that section. Every single one of them is easily verifiable. Grandmaster 06:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaumyan as part of NK

The claim that Shaumyan is part of NK is not valid, NK as a geographic notion appeared in 1923, and this region was not included in it. The link that Tigran provided in support of his claims is dead. Grandmaster 09:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether the term NK first appeared in 1923 is irrelevant. The region has always existed, and Shahumyan is part of the region (i.e. mountainous part of Karabakh). The COE document says "the Shahumian district (on the Northern tip of N-K)"--it doesn't say "Shahumyan, north of N-K," as it would if Shahumyan was seperated from NK.

Second, your suggestion that the geographic notion of NK was invented in 1923 is unsourced, and inaccurate. In 1918-20 the area was referred to as Mountaneous Karabakh (french Haut Kar.). In the Kavburo decisions its stated "mountaneous portion of Karabakh." So, clearly the notion that there was a mountanous Karabakh region was there.--TigranTheGreat 10:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The geographic term of Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be found earlier than 1918, Karabakh has always been a single geographic region. Anyway, it is irrelevant now. Grandmaster 10:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on intro

So is everyone happy with the introduction paragraphs? --Golbez 08:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Two remarks. "...very close to the border with Armenia". I think actually not so close (it's very close only in one point), so "very" may be removed. "The predominantly Armenian region..." Since when? Would be better to define. --Brand спойт 10:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I figure 4 kilometers is very close, I wanted to portray that it's almost touching Armenia but not quite. And since always, I think. No one ever challenged that it was predominantly Armenian. --Golbez 12:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I know, but mean it would be better to define since when it's actually Armenian. --Brand спойт 12:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
That runs in to the pre-1918 problem, in which on one knows what the hell was going on in Nagorno-Karabakh before the Soviets came in. The Armenians say x, the Azeris say !x. Twas ever thus. That should only be dealt with in a more detailed section, rather than in the lede. --Golbez 13:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually Golbez, in your intro, you've completely modified the sentence we've all agreed upon!!! The "predominantly Armenian region" part is missing (it should still be there even if it's mentioned above), and the overall structure/wording of the sentence is not what we agreed upon above. The whole point of the argument was that we don't want it to have any connotations of ownership, so the integrity of the structure and wording is very delicate. It took us a lot of time to come up with a consensus, and it must be integrated verbatim!!! I have corrected the intro to say "[...] it established the predominantly Armenian region as the NKAO within the borders of the Azerbaijan SSR", as agreed above...65.94.148.141 20:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, the intro sentence hangs on a finely tuned balance. Any change can mess it up and restart the edit wars. Any such edits, especially by non-regular contributors should be carefully monitored and added only with express consensus. The "wholly within" was added by Superbfc (see here: [7]). When we agreed on "officially," it didn't have the "wholly within" segment--it was one or the other. The addition makes it sound like "it was really really part of Azerbaijan." I know, and you know that the intented meaning is simple geography, but that may not be so obvious to the average reader. The intro already mentions that it doesn't touch the border with Armenia, so I see no reason to put that segment in. And the Geography portion makes it even clearer that it's an enclave. --TigranTheGreat 23:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

So is the picture an accurate depiction of the flag? I thought at first it was just pixelated because it was enlarged from a tiny source but then I read it has a white pattern so now I guess it's really supposed to be like that? Nil Einne 21:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. See: www.nkr.am/eng--Eupator 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Currency

Nagorno-Karabakh has its own currency. I assume it's pegged to the Armenian dram, but should it really be called the Armenian dram in the infobox? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it appears that the NK dram is not the legal and circulating currency? Interesting. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub for Nagorno-Karabakh

I recently created a stub to organize the growing number of articles relating to the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. It has since been nominated for deletion. Please voice your opinion on the matter here. Thanks. Serouj 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative subdivisions

The article lists both Azerbaijani and NK subdivisions, why we have an NK template and no Azerbaijani? Grandmaster 08:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article lists NK subdivisions, then points out where they correspond with Azerbaijani subdivisions. I agree that the NK template is not quite useful, but to say that NK is an administrative subdivision of Azerbaijan is simply incorrect. Furthermore, it's not on the template you're adding. --Golbez 09:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I just mean that the region of NK includes rayons of Azerbaijan, while the whole region is not a subdivision. But I agree that it is better to remove both templates. Grandmaster 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official name of NKR in Armenian

"(rv - being referred to as something != its name, that is mentioned down in the name section. please check any such edits on the talk page. i am not azeri, i am a neutral administrator.)" - Golbez

I'm not sure what this administrator means, but in Armenian, NKR is known as Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետութիւն — Արցախ, and it says so in the coat of arms. Also, the NKR government is also known as Artsakh, and it is the preferred word used by Armenians (please see http://nkrusa.org/ to verify).

Lastly, this country is known as "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (a.k.a. NKR), not Nagorno-Karabakh).

I hope I have addressed all of your concerns, Golbez. Thanks.Serouj 03:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, this article is specifically about the republic, not the region right? The region is covered in the History of NK article.--Eupator 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That is an issue that was never dealt with - whether the article is about the region, or the country. And requires a far larger discussion than what we can accomplish over this edit war. If it's about the country, then yes, the Armenian name should be included. I always thought it was more neutral to have it about the region first, then the country. I request that the edits to add this wait until we achieve a consensus here. --Golbez 07:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent republic in the South Caucasus." -Nagorno-Karabakh article.
I think the opening line suggests that this article is about the country. Perhaps the article should be renamed to "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (NKR). In its current form, I think this article is about the NKR and is really a country article, with the flag, national anthem, etc. I'd be fine in having two separate articles, with perhaps the "Nagorno-Karabakh" article simply being about the region, its history, and current status (with a link to the NKR article). As is, the "Nagorno-Karabakh" should be treated as what it is de facto - an article about a country. It therefore deserves its proper name and a distinction as to what Armenians refer to it as. (A note about the name "Artsakh." When speaking Armenian, Armenians don't refer to Armenia as Armenia but say Hayastan; it's the same thing with NKR: they don't usually call it Nagorno-Karabakh, they say Artsakh.) Thanks. Serouj 07:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I made this suggestion a while ago. I'm not sure what reason was made against it in the archives. - Francis Tyers · 11:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

None from what I recall. Nobody ended up doing it I guess. I assumed that the History article is the "region" article. --Eupator 13:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, up until the establishment of the state. I see no reason why we can't have a History of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic too though. - Francis Tyers · 14:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
So, is someone going to do it, or should we have a poll or something first? - Francis Tyers · 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
A poll is not necessary for something this logical. It will be much easier to work on separate articles also. Lets just get Grandmaster's take on this and then do it.--Eupator 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Gm hasn't been around for over two weeks though.--Eupator 14:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Polls are evil and unnecessary. We need discussion, not polling. --Golbez 01:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, whether the article is about the country or the region, the stuff that goes above the flag in the infobox has to be the country's official self-name. We can have the title NK, but the lines above the flag and coat of arms should be NKR. The flag isn't that of "Nagorno Karabakh," it's that of "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." If noone objects, I would like to add it.--TigranTheGreat 12:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I think at the same time we need to move the current "Nagorno Karabakh" article to "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" article (no hyphens). I think the "Nagorno Karabakh" article would essentially be about "Nagorno Karabakh" Autonomous Oblast, which I think is the first entity with the name "Nagorno Karabakh." (Previously it was known as "Artsakh" by Armenians, and is still called that to this day; and "Karabakh" to Azeris.) It looks like there are no objections, so I think we can go ahead with the move. Serouj 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Objection given, not on the merits, but just to say we need a little more discussion than that. --Golbez 04:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Serouj I think we should go ahead with that move. ROOB323 19:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now I don't have a particular position on this, but what would be the advantage of the move? --TigranTheGreat 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The advantages of the move include (Please add to this list):
  1. Separation of the entities i. "Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast" / the region known as "Nagorno-Karabakh" (they are one and the same) and ii. the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." This allows us to unambiguously describe the official name of the republic of Nagorno-Karabakh as "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic," be able to mention that it's called Artsakh by Armenians, and other things like the current territory under its control, etc. The NKAO's life is over, but the NKR's life has just begun... Since they are separate political entities, I think they should be treated as such.Serouj 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The disadvantages are (Please add to this list): Serouj 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the NKAO and Nagorno-Karabakh were not coextensive; the NKAO excluded Shahumian, which the NKR claims and is, I believe, classically a part of mountainous Karabakh. I defer to editors more knowledgeable though. --Golbez 21:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It's difficult to say what the exact borders of the region named "Karabakh" is. However, we do know that two political entities, with clear borders and/or regions of control, have existed in the region known as "Karabakh": the NKAO and the NKR. I'm now thinking that there might be three articles: Karabakh (region), Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (if enough info exists; if not, we would stick it under History section in the Karabakh article), and the Nagorno Karabakh Republic article (which would also have a mention under the History section of the Karabakh article, with a link to the main article). Serouj 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But see, Upper Karabakh (i.e. NK) has been historically important as a separate entity from Karabakh. It was where Armenians felt safe from Muslims, and established principalities.--TigranTheGreat 01:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, and we can include that in both the "Artsakh" article (which already exists), as well as the to-be-created "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" article; the NKR claims Upper Karabakh, if what you mean by it is the Shahumian district. Serouj 02:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
There already is an article related to the Soviet period (Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast) but its better to distinguish the current day borders of the NKR to that of the historical region which obviously surpasses beyond the map lines.--MarshallBagramyan 03:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/g/Talk%7ENagorno-Karabakh_05f4.html"