Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Arguments 2 Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece of the US 3 Intro 4 Return 5 Merge 6 Greeks, Karabakh, and Orkhistene 7 Occupation by Armenia 8 Armenian language 9 Intro 10 Trying one last time. 11 Economy 12 Shahumyan 13 Intro 2 14 Adil 15 Current version 16 Map 17 De-facto under Azerbaijani control 18 This week 19 Intro 3 20 Official words? 21 Military 22 A chart. 23 For the hell of it

Arguments

You clearly don't understand the concept of Wikipedia and WP:NPOV. Familiarize yourself with TRNC, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.--Eupator 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So should you -- let's compare all those pages against NK and see. --AdilBaguirov 00:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It already has been compared, revert war stopped over this and concessions were done. Fad (ix) 00:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece of the US

They are no more important than anyone else. Please stop spamming the talk page. - FrancisTyers · 23:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Worse is, he's stating things that we already agree with, and state quite prominently in the article. In the process, he is essentially making us argue against ourselves, as we argue with him. He needs to calm down and pay attention to us and the article, I don't think he has really read it. --Golbez 23:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the page was getting way too long, and spamming all of that wasn't helping, so I archived. Now, can you do as Golbez says and bring up some specific complaints. This bull in a china shop approach will not get you very far. - FrancisTyers · 23:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting -- when this obvious truth about military occupation of a legitimate part of Azerbaijan is simply stated, then one is requesting proof; yet once abundant proof is presented, it is suddenly gets labeled "spamming" and "Wikipedia is not the mouthpieece of the US". By the way, it has not only statements from US gov, but also various organizations and the UN rep.

But you don't undersatand, Adil. Not in the least - We agree with every one of the comments. In essence, you were flooding the talk page with no real reason but to make a point which you have not yet stated. --Golbez 00:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The page I've read, and re-read, and read again very carefully, and stated several time that in its present form it is clearly an Armenian POV. The intro paragraph absolutely must say while the Armenian POV is that NK declared independence and styled itself as "NKR", the international community rejects it, considers NK as a legitimate and recognized part of Azerbaijan that is under military occupation. We cannot talk about "independence" in the intro (and thus presenting only the Armenian POV, which is only one out of three parties, the others being Azerbaijan itself and the international community), and then have this clarified somewhere down the text.

That's not the Armenian POV, it's simple fact - NK declared independence. I can declare independence, and it's a fact - not that I AM independent, but merely that I declared. We also point out that it's unrecognized by everyone. In other words, every single complaint you have does not exist. --Golbez 00:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, if this would have been the case, then why remove (!) my quotes, as opposed to put them in the International status or History or Current Situation part?

Thus, what is the solution? Once again, the main problems are the intro paragraph, which is Armenian POV, and the detailed map of NK. I have given my suggested langauge for the intro already, and what we can do about the map. --AdilBaguirov 23:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please state specific complaints, rather than saying "the intro paragraph" and "the detailed map". Mention specific issues with these, please. Point out a sentence or an aspect of the map you disagree with. Specifics, please. I don't want your suggestions - I want your complaints. Pick a sentence or paragraph, and tell us what you think is wrong with it. Then we will respond. It's called discussion, something which you have, thus far, somewhat tried to muscle out of the talk page. --Golbez 00:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, since when did extensive research into a relevant topic (which is view on NK by neutral sources) on the NK page become "spamming"? Guys, let's be a little more respectful here and not throw accusations against people who at worst can be accused of being too detail-oriented and too comprehensive. --AdilBaguirov 00:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, but the talk page was getting long, and unilaterally copy-pasting a lot of quotes was not called for or condusive to a reasonable discussion.

Now then, you say that The intro paragraph absolutely must say while the Armenian POV is that NK declared independence and styled itself as "NKR", the international community rejects it, — the intro does state that. And I quote "The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world.". - FrancisTyers · 00:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is this - the very first sentence is important and sets the tone of the page. Currently, it says: "Nagorno-Karabakh is a region of Azerbaijan that has declared itself independent as the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR)."

What are the problems? 1) Any and every mention of "NKR" must be preceeded by "so-called", "unrecognized" or "self-styled" -- this was discussed at length and I've shown that it's how all authoritative sources approach this.

2) The first sentence is clearly an Armenian POV, because it doesn't talk of occupation, but of "independence" -- as if it was legitimate and non-violent.

I prefer the injection of the wording of CIA into that intro line: "Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan".

See the Abkhazia intro page, which is much better worded and factual: "It is a de jure autonomous republic within Georgia, but is de facto independent of Georgia, although not recognized as such internationally."

Even better South Ossetia: "Samkhret Oseti (unofficial) is a self-proclaimed (de facto) republic within Georgia. Although this former Soviet autonomous oblast (region) has declared its independence and is in control of significant part of the region, its separation from Georgia has not been recognized by any other country and is officially regarded part of the Georgian region (mkhare) of Shida Kartli. Georgia itself refuses to recognise South Ossetia as a distinct entity; the government calls it by the medieval name of Samachablo or, more recently, Tskhinvali region (after the republic's capital)."

Here's Transnistria, which is somewhat unscholarly in terms of wording, but once again makes clear that the declaration of independence is just a smoke-screen for meddling into internal affairs by a third country: "The unrecognised state has been de facto independent since September 2, 1990, when it made a declaration of independence from Moldova and, aided by contingents of Russian, Cossack and Ukrainian volunteers, and the 14th Russian (formerly Soviet) Army, successfully defeated Moldovan forces, in the War of Transnistria. While a ceasefire has held since 1992, the Council of Europe recognises Transnistria as a "frozen conflict" region. The sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention. Transnistria continues to claim independence and maintains sovereignty over its territory with the assistance of Russian forces."

Hence, as we can see, NK page stands out as an example of Armenian POV, unprecedented among other similar pages at Wiki -- or any other authoritative source. --AdilBaguirov 09:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in answer to your objections:

1. No. This just isn't going to happen.
2. We aren't going to include "CIA wording".

Did you read the archives yet? There was a lengthy discussion over whether to include de jure in the lead. Eventually (if I remember correctly) insufficient sources were given for this being the case, which is why we mention, "Under the Soviet Union, it was part of the Azerbaijan SSR as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast". This is not a call for you to give sources, but to read the archives.

You say:

The first sentence is clearly an Armenian POV, because it doesn't talk of occupation, but of "independence" -- as if it was legitimate and non-violent.

The intro says:

"Nagorno-Karabakh is presently under Armenian military control, as are areas of Azerbaijan between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, as a result of the war that took place between both countries in the aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR."

I don't think anyone will be confused as to the nature of the independence. It clearly states that a war took place and that NK is currently under Armenian military control. - FrancisTyers · 10:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I am surprized by this insistence that all is OK with the NK page, when it is clearly out of line with other similar pages such as Abkhazia, S.Ossetia, etc.

I want NK page to consistent with Abkhazia's - a fair and legitimate request, which is beneficial for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Note once again how many time Abkhazia's page stresses smth which you guys are making such a big problem about:

"Abkhazia ... is a self-proclaimed republic of 8,600 km² (3,300 sq.mi.) in the Caucasus. It is a de jure autonomous republic within Georgia, but is de facto independent of Georgia, although not recognized as such internationally.

Political status International organizations (UN, OSCE, Council of the European Union, etc) recognize Abkhazia as part of Georgia and are urging both sides to settle the conflict through peaceful means. However, the Abkhaz de facto separatist government considers Abkhazia a sovereign country.

Meanwhile the Russian State Duma is looking for legal ways to incorporate this region into the Russian Federation, while Russian media produce numerous materials in support of separatist rule. During the war, Russian authorities have contributed tremendously by supplying military and financial aid to the separatist side. Since the beginning of the war, Russia has politically and militarily contributed in the creation of the separatist movement in Abkhazia. Today, Russia still maintains a strong political and military influence over the de facto rule in Abkhazia."

I have to say, Abkhazia's page is well-written and bravo to its editors.

If we still don't agree, let's request addition help, mediation - I feel my position is completely justified and solid, I am not pushing any POV or introducing any original research, instead, I am trying to rid NK page of Armenian POV and standartize it, make it consistent with other pages.

The reason I emphasized CIA, US Presidential Determination, etc., quotes are not necessarily for inclusion as is, but as an example of wording used. Best, --AdilBaguirov 11:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out the Somaliland page. - FrancisTyers · 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Somaliland page - It says "unrecognized" right in front of the the "Republic", 2) this republic is at least recognized by Ethiopia, and 3) Somali is a failed state, that's it classification in political science and international relations. And of course, the only closes conflicts to that of NK are other post-Soviet conflicts -- with the one's in the Caucasus being the closest, that is Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This too is well acknowledged and recognized, as many authors review all of them in one pack as "post-Soviet conflicts". That's why I insist on having NK page be rendered consistently with other similar conflict zones pages (of course, as I've said many times, NK is still unique and different from all, but at least these are the closest). --AdilBaguirov 18:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I've retasked the intro, only by moving information around. Lemme know what you think. --Golbez 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's indeed better, thanks. You'll hate me more, though, but I still would like to see "self-styled" (or so-called) preceed each mentioning of "NKR", mention the local Armenian population as separatist (as in Georgia's pages (Abkhazia, S.Ossetia)) and instead of "control" name is how it is in reality - occupation. This is not going to lengthen the intro - just substituting some words and rearranging the order of others. Here's an example:

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region of Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus, about 270 kilometres (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, and very near the border with Armenia. The separatist predominantly Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan as the self-styled Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR) on December 10, 1991, though it remains unrecognized by any other country or international organization, including Armenia. The region has been a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan since the final years of the Soviet Union (USSR). Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as areas of Azerbaijan between it and Armenia, are presently under Armenian military occupation as a result of the war that took place between the countries in the aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR. Under the Soviet Union, it was part of the Azerbaijan SSR as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. --AdilBaguirov 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say no to the request to add "self-styled" everywhere, as it's beating the reader in the head with a hammer. We can trust the audience to understand that when you declare independence but aren't recognized, pretty much everything you do is unilateral. As for "separatist", that much is obvious - they separated, or at least are trying to. Just because something is done on Abkhazia and S. Ossetia doesn't mean it's right. And as for "control vs occupation", I agree that "control" is more NPOV, and the local population in charge of NK would say it's control, not occupation. However, regions like Lachin, Agdam, et.al. would be more likely to say occupation. However, that's a different, more complex issue. --Golbez 20:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Consistency is a valid concept and should be applied thoroughly. Having "self-styled" preceed "nKR" at least in half of the occassions, definitely in each section at least once, is just that -- consistent with how other similar pages are presented. Second, having "occupied" instead of "control" is actully less POV because that's what's used by everyone in the world. "Control" is the word insisted by Armenian POV, whilst occupation is used by CIA, PACE, UN, State Dept, US President, OIC, etc. I know your seeming disdain for international law and norms, but this is not the time or occassion to disagree with such terminology. Third, nothing is "obvious" - this is an encyclopedia, and accurate terminology should be used. If all is obvious, then why need an article at all? "Separatist" is such official and legal terminology and used in other similar cases, should definitely be used in conjuction to NK page as once again, it is used by the intl. community. --AdilBaguirov 21:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not accurate, neither self styled, self styled might suppose that there was no any region of Nagorno Karabakh and was carved by those that want separation, but this is unclear as Nagorno Karabakh had a statut in the Soviet Union even if as part of Azerbaijan. Also, the word occupied is not more NPOV, to the contrary, the population can not occupy itself, and the word occupation is generally used for those lands outside of Nagorno Karabakh kept by the Armenian army. Fad (ix) 18:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, the only objective way is by adhering to what the world community and independent sources say, and they call everything by its own names: occupation, instead of some vague and sounding voluntary and non-violent "control". By reversing your logic, Karabakh region's population, which was also Azerbaijani, could not have agreed to any foreign "control", could not have agreed to Khojaly massacre, could not have agreed to ethnic cleansing and occupation -- sorry, "control" -- of Lachin, Kelbajar, Aghdam, Fuzuli, Jebrayil, Zangelan and other regions outside of former NKAO (which was abolished by sovereign Azerbaijan in Nov 1991 -- fully in accordance with the laws of the time). 600,000 Azerbaijani IDPs (doesn't incl. 200,000 refugees from Azerbaijan) could not have agreed to such a "control". Thus, indeed, just as population cannot occupy itself, it cannot ethnically cleanse itself, massacre itself and make itself refugees/displaced for the past 12+ years. Thus, consistent with international practice and laws, the so-called "NKR" is a self-styled, unrecognized entity, and the 16% of Azerbaijan, which includes NK region, is occupied by Armenian forces. --AdilBaguirov 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally unrelated to my answer. The fact of the matter is, that people refer to occupied for what is not Nagorno Karabakh. Control is a good term, you don't deny they control it. Do you? On the other hand, occupied in implication with Karabakh is full of insinuations. And no, most international sources don't speak of Kazrabakh as occupied but rather what is not Karabakh as occupied. Fad (ix) 20:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What? I didn't really understand anything in the above. Please re-read all of the above as well as archives, which have all the official statements about occupation of Karabakh. --AdilBaguirov 04:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We talked about it in the archives, occupied is not used for Karabakh by most, and no one deny that Armenians control Karabakh. So, at least do you understand that? Fad (ix) 17:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify:

• Nagorno-Karabakh cannot occupy itself. Therefore, it is not occupied by separatists from Nagorno-Karabakh.
• Is Nagorno-Karabakh occupied by the Armenian army? Those in Nagorno-Karabakh would likely say no, since they are friendly with the Armenian army. It may be controlled by it, however.
• Are the surrounding rayons of Azerbaijan occupied by the Armenian army and/or Karabakh separatists? *Yes*, those regions did not declare independence nor are they, to my knowledge, friendly to Armenia, though some do have a sizable Armenian population. They are, de facto and de jure, part of Azerbaijan, yet occupied by a foreign army.

Is any of this incorrect? --Golbez 18:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, none of this is correct and it is all POV reflecting the opinion from Armenia. The international community (chiefly UN, as well as OSCE, EU/PACE/EC, OIC, and their member states, such as USA) clearly defined what is occupation, and it has also clearly defined what are NK and 7 other regions of Azebaijan, which together constitute 16% of Azerbaijan. These lands, including NK, are occupied by Armenian forces, which includes both Republic of Armenia forces and local separatists. Myself and other's have brought countless quotes and references, all verifyable --to the point that I was even accused of "spamming" (!) despite it all being 100% relevant and to the point.

Furthermore, the statement "NK cannot occupy itself", in addition to the above point, contradicts not only international law, but defies logic -- first, because "NK", as well as 7 regions (which had 99% Azerbaijani and Kurdish populations, no "sizeable Armenian population") had Azerbaijani population as well -- which certainly didn't want to be ethnically cleansed, killed and expelled from their homes, and second, because then why stop at such a statement, why not say that separatists do no exist, since Armenians of NK do not view themselves as separatists, and of course, there is no such thing as "terrorists", since neither ASALA members nor Osama Bin Laden consider themselves "terrorists", and Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., were certainly then no monsters, because they obviously didn't consider themselves as such -- and neither did majority of their popoulation at the time. Hence, with such an approach, let's revise all pages at Wikipedia and make them reflect this newly found truth.

Just as population cannot occupy itself, it cannot ethnically cleanse itself, massacre itself and make itself refugees/displaced for the past 12+ years. Thus, consistent with international practice and laws, the so-called "NKR" is a self-styled, unrecognized entity, and the 16% of Azerbaijan, which includes NK region, is occupied by Armenian forces.

All pages on unrecognized, conflict zones such as NK have to be consistent and adhere to one standard, not double standards. NK page must be consistent with Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnistria pages, and that means clearly showing NK, along with 7 other regions, as de jure part of Azerbaijan that are occupied by Armenian forces, and that "NKR" is a self-styled, unrecognized regime. --AdilBaguirov 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, I direct you to this map from the US Central Intelligence Agency, which clearly points out an Armenian majority in Karabakh, Lachin, the western half of Agdam, and some other nearby areas. It's dated 1995.

Also, lookie here: [1] It's a map of Karabakh. By the US Central Intelligence Agency, from 1993. What's the city name it uses for that big city in the middle of Karabakh? So much for "internationally recognized name". --Golbez 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

golbez, it's surprizing to see an admin act like this. That's unfortunate. Since you like CIA and those online maps, then perhaps you should look not at early 1990s maps, when nothing was updated yet and still reflected Soviet-era names, but at newer ones. If we go to the site you went to for maps, http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/azerbaijan.html, and look at the newer maps produced by CIA, such as http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan_pol_2004.jpg, or http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan_rel_2004.jpg (or from their own website, which you for some reason ignore: http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/aj.html), you will see only Khankendi (Xankandi), Shusha, Xocavand.

Fair enough, though the CIA has not seen fit to grace us with an updated map of Nagorno-Karabakh. --Golbez 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the map on their page says it all clearly: http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/aj.html --AdilBaguirov 08:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the ethno-linguist map is not making any relevant points -- it shows that there are no Georgian's in Abkhazia too, whilst there still are. Meanwhile, in NK and other occupied regions like Lachin and Kelbajar, there are no Azerbaijanis left - but there are indeed Armenian settlers, including from the Middle east -- it's documented by the US State Dept and OSCE mission, I have the reports and links, if needed.

At no point does the map say "no Georgians" or "no Azerbaijanis" - it's pointing the majority, not the totality. Your argument here borders on a logical fallacy. --Golbez 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is funny -- what Azerbaijani minority is there in Lachin and Kelbajar, not to mention NK proper? There are no Azerbaijanis left there, along with other regions. Meanwhile, the main fallacy of your resistance to change is not even that, but fact that you tried to use this irrelevant, outdated map to support, somehow, your position of not changing or procrastinating, on the map of NK and table and other relevant aspects of NK page. Even though I proved long ago that there is only one right point of view, and that's the NPOV of UN, US State Dept., PACE, OIC, etc., I then, for the sake of showing you that your resistance is only worsening things and is a Pandorra box, argued that since you can use that map to justify only Armenian names for toponyms on the NK map, then you have to use the same standard on Iran map and Daghestan map, where now Azerbaijanis are majority in those relevant areas, etc. Thus, as you can see, it's the map you brought in does not make your case -- and nothing can, as it's pretty black and white on this issue. --AdilBaguirov 08:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You delude yourself, sir. I did not use the map to attempt to back up everything - I was pointing out an error in a statement you made. Nothing more. Nothing less. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. And I await for when Azeris declare independence from Iran. --Golbez 08:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What error in my statement do you talk about man? What error? I did not make any errors -- please show it to me! I take fully responsibility for my statements -- and am not afraid of using my real name for additional credibility -- and while all can make mistakes, I never did any here, I obviously could have never claimed anything as ludocrious as 'there is an Azerbaijani majority in occupied Azerbaijani districts of Lachin, Kelbajar, NK, etc"! So what are you talking about? --AdilBaguirov 08:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "first, because "NK", as well as 7 regions (which had 99% Azerbaijani and Kurdish populations, no "sizeable Armenian population") had Azerbaijani population as well". I took this as you saying that Nagorno-Karabakh and some of the surrounding regions, including Lachin, were 99% Azeri or Kurdish. I simply posted the map to show you that the CIA says they were predominantly Armenian. Period. End of story. That is all. --Golbez 08:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And where is an error in my statement? I was absolutely right, even though used 99% figuratively, w/o checking/citing any sources. Before the war, that was pretty much the ratio! According to the 1989 census, Azerbaijanis were 96 per cent in Kelbajar, 89.9 per cent in Lachin, 99.6 per cent in Jebrail, 99.4 per cent in Kubatly, 99.2 per cent in Fizuli and 99.5 per cent in Agdam. Armenians were registered in Zangelan (0.4 per cent), and in Kubatly, Fizuli and Agdam (all 0.1 per cent). Other population included primarily the Kurds and Russians. From: Ethnic Composition of the Population of the Azerbaijan SSR (according to the USSR census of the population of 1989), Baku, 1990, pp. 7-8. Thus, once again, there is absolutely no mistake on my part -- and I cannot make a mistake so gross, I've been writing and publishing about this matter for over a decade now, and know this subject pretty well. --AdilBaguirov 08:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, I direct you to this map from the US Central Intelligence Agency, which clearly points out an Armenian majority in Karabakh, Lachin, the western half of Agdam, and some other nearby areas. It's dated 1995.

There are also census data from 1989 and 1979 and all other decades, showing how many Armenians lived in Lachin and Kelbajar and other regions. So not very clear what you mean by showing this ethnolinguistic map - what's the point? Note how many Azerbaijanis live in Daghestan and Iran -- should we append them to Azerbaijan then?

Now you've definitely fallen into logical fallacy, and I see no further reason to read this paragraph. I have no preference whether or not Lachin or Karabakh become part of Armenia, independent, or part of Azerbaijan, so please stop trying to make a fight out of this. I simply don't care either way. --Golbez 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, it's not me in logical fallacy :) You didn't respond - it was not about Armenian population, but about your logic of using that irrelevant, outdated map, and double standards. Meanwhile, once again, whether you personally care either way is not the point - don't you understand that this is not about you, or me for that matter, but about truth, verifiability, objectivity and credibility, which are all things we all care about at Wiki? Stop being such a primadonna man, this is not about you, this is about NPOV. --AdilBaguirov 08:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There are enough separatists and ultra-nationalists everywhere to justify such an action if we follow your logic. But also, why are you so selective -- not only choose early, 1992-93 maps, but also ignore that it says Xankandi first and Stepanakert in parenthesis, like I've been requesting from day one? Also, here is the an official and authoritative map -- done by the UN: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/azerbaij.pdf All maps must take this map into full account. --AdilBaguirov 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The UN does not control me, nor does it control Wikipedia. Also, heh, did you notice the disclaimer? "The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations." "International recongition" argument officially killed. Move on to another one, please. --Golbez 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, you are misrepresenting me. The first map only mentioned Stepanakert; the second map did mention Khankendi first, but I was not citing the map for the name, but merely to point out that Karabakh and the neighboring regions have an Armenian majority. As for there not being an updated ethnic map of the region, blame the CIA, not me. If you have a more up-to-date one, please link it. --Golbez 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not misrepresenting anyone. Anyone who claims such things should at least try to present evidence of misrepresentation. Second, there can be no double standards, you can't pick and choose what suits your purpose in any one map. Third, UN "controls" all of us through various laws and treaties they pass/sign, and financially, as you, like all other US taxpayers and taxpayers from 191 nation, including Azerbaijan, fund it, without being asked if you like that or not. Fourth, once more, this is not about you, and hence, whether or not UN controls you is irrelevant. UN is a authoritative and objective point of reference, NPOV. Fifth, the disclaimer UN maps has, is not present on most other maps, and wherever present, is in different form. Sixth, none of your maps have any disclaimer of this sort -- had you have them, I'd probably never bothered to write and object, but now that I see this POV, I reject it and will do so all the time. Seventh, the disclaimer can be take both ways -- do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by UN can mean both "we indeed do not endorse/accept" and "we do indeed endrose/accept". Seventh, take a look at the UN Security Council resolutions, statements by its chairman, resolutions of the General Assembly, and it will become very clear, very quickly that UN does in fact recognize both the correct spelling of names and the belonging of them to Azerbaijan. Finally, same disclaimer is on the map of Armenia -- whilst so-called "NKR" doesn't even have a map --AdilBaguirov 08:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Return

"...clearly points out an Armenian majority in Karabakh, Lachin, the western half of Agdam, and some other nearby areas. It's dated 1995". Golbez, the fact it has Armenian population in fact shows almost nothing. The majority doesn't always prove anything. Although 1995 map is outdated a bit I think. --Brand спойт 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It was solely in response to Adil's statement of: "Furthermore, the statement "NK cannot occupy itself", in addition to the above point, contradicts not only international law, but defies logic -- first, because "NK", as well as 7 regions (which had 99% Azerbaijani and Kurdish populations, no "sizeable Armenian population") had Azerbaijani population as well" 99% Azeri and Kurdish? the CIA disagrees. That was my only point in posting that map. And I now see that I have been drawn into a completely irrelevant fight by Adil. He's good. --Golbez 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but check out your another previous suggestion: "there are also census data from 1989 and 1979 and all other decades, showing how many Armenians lived in Lachin and Kelbajar and other regions. So not very clear what you mean by showing this ethnolinguistic map - what's the point? Note how many Azerbaijanis live in Daghestan and Iran -- should we append them to Azerbaijan then?" According to your logic Armenians should merge to Armenia Lachin and Kelbajar the way Azerbaijan should merge Daghestan and Iran :) --Brand спойт 23:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You have me mixed up with someone else, I never said that. --Golbez 00:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right, I wrote this, and indeed, you are too selective in what you want and don't want to appear - if you think that your point with ethnolinguistic map is right, then you should modify apprpriately bunch of pages, such as the Iran page, the Daghestan-Russia page, etc -- because the ethno-linguist map you like shows Azerbaijanis in majority on many of those territories near the border with Azerbaijan. Also, since you like the map, you must adopt Khankendy as the main and primary name, and place Stepanakert either in parenthesis or remove completely. Still, you might want to look at the official census figures as well as reports from OSCE about the true size of population of Armenians on the occupied territories. But then again, introducing this map (and asking to ignore the name of the city but not something else) to support your resistance to change map, drop double standards and make the NK page in full accordance with Wikipedia's other similar pages, still doesn't make any sense, as neither does it prove much, nor is the status and spelling of Lachin and Kelbajar districts being discussed here. . --AdilBaguirov 07:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not have you put words in my mouth. You have twisted my statements, and it is pissing me off. What the hell do I have to modify in those other articles? The map is mine to change, I have made no recent resistance, I just happen to not have done it yet. It takes time. Oh, and what about the UN map saying they have no opinion on the names and borders? I must do nothing, I do not take orders from you, sir. --Golbez 08:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you joking? Where do I twist a single statement of yours? Perhaps you should take a hard look at your word usage since you are making a lot of baseless accusations. You brought in one irrelevant and outdated map, and one completely outdated one -- in at least the latter case you were selective, since you obviously knew about the newer map and plus it was available at the same site you got it from -- and of course, I've given you a bunch of them too. It's OK -- if it takes time to redo the map, then take down the current one. And this is not an "order" from "me" - this is the requirement of an encyclopedia which requires veracity and objectivity and NPOV. The current map is a total POV. --AdilBaguirov 08:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I explained the ethnolinguistic map issue further above in my last edit. My accusations are not baseless at all. And there is no newer map of Nagorno-Karabakh alone, only of the whole of Azerbaijan. I tire of this fight. I explained the ethnolinguistic map in my previous edit, please read the explanation and let me know if it is satisfactory. --Golbez 08:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I will just count this as a genuine misunderstanding, since the CIA map conveyed the wrong impression upon you and my post didn't explicitly say that the 99% estimate was from before the war. Let's forget it and leave this map out. There is a newer map, but I don't have it. I have non-CIA map about births and population decline, and that whole occupied area is marked in white, meaning it is pretty much empty -- which is true, the whole occupied area outside of NK proper has maybe about 20,000 Armenian resettlers. --AdilBaguirov 08:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU, that's what I've been trying to get us to do, to "forget it and leave the map out". --Golbez 16:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

A proposal to merge this article with my recently-created Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast has been made, by someone not me. I can see the merits in a merge; however, I note that many other Soviet entities - two relevant ones being the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast and Azerbaijan SSR - have articles. I'm of the mind that says we should have articles on all the old Soviet entities, even if they have perfectly corresponding present-day ones, just because of the current standards and the history behind it all. Comments? --Golbez 01:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can have a link from the NK page to the NKAO page. NKAO page could cover the time period of 23-91, with economy and stuff--there is certainly much more official data on economy available for the Soviet period.--TigranTheGreat 07:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I don't think it's necessary. I turned the article into a redirect for the Nagorno-Karabakh page and I've redirected the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast page to the article on South Ossetia. After all, aside from the conflict that arose in the late 1980s, there really isn't much to the history of Karabakh under the Soviet Union. It's different for say the Armenian SSR or Azerbaijan SSR articles where the history of those republics can be detailed. -- Clevelander 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Greeks, Karabakh, and Orkhistene

Good catch, Eupator. Who has added that nonsense? Ptolomeus' 2nd AD map includes the region as part of Armenia. Plus, there is no source that "Artsakh" was used starting 2nd AD. Orkhistene was the Greek name, not the local name (which clearly is a variation of "Artsakh." The section needs to be changed.--TigranTheGreat 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As Mr. Tigran mentioned above the territory of Artsakh was part of the Armenian Kingdom until 428, that is undisputed. The border with C. Albania has always been the river Kura with the exception when C.Albania was subjugated by Tigranes the Great. See also: Paytakaran/Arshakuni Dynasty.--Eupator 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all those allegations by Eupator and TigranTheGreat are very much disputed, and such claims as Artsakh being part of Armenia are not true, as neither is the border of Kura river -- you've been misreading Strabo, who clearly said that Kura: "the Cyrus [flows] through Iberia and Albania" (11.1.5), and again:

"Parts of the country are surrounded by the Caucasian Mountains; for branches of these mountains, as I said before,1 project towards the south; they are fruitful, comprise the whole of Iberia, and border on both Armenia and Colchis. In the middle is a plain intersected by rivers, the largest being the Cyrus. This river has its beginning in Armenia, flows immediately into the plain above-mentioned, receives both the Aragus, which flows from the Caucasus, and other streams, and empties through a narrow valley into Albania; and between the valley and Armenia it flows in great volume through plains that have exceedingly good pasture, receives still more rivers, among which are the Alazonius, Sandobanes, Rhoetaces, and Chanes, all navigable, and empties into the Caspian Sea. It was formerly called Corus." (11.3.2).

And again: "IV. The Albanians are more inclined to the shepherd's life than the Iberians and closer akin to the nomadic people, except that they are not ferocious; and for this reason they are only moderately warlike. They live between the Iberians and the Caspian Sea, their country bordering on the sea towards the east and on the country of the Iberians towards the west. Of the remaining sides the northern is protected by the Caucasian Mountains (for these mountains lie above the plains, though their parts next to the sea are generally called Ceraunian), whereas the southern side is formed by Armenia, which stretches alongside it; and much of Armenia consists of plains, though much of it is mountainous, like Cambysene, where the Armenians border on both the Iberians and the Albanians.

[2] The Cyrus, which flows through Albania, and the other rivers by which it is supplied, contribute to the excellent qualities of the land; and yet they thrust back the sea, for the silt, being carried forward in great quantities, fills the channel, and consequently even the adjacent isles are joined to the mainland and form shoals that are uneven and difficult to avoid; and their unevenness is made worse by the backwash of the flood tides." (11.4.1, 11.4.2)

And another relevant passage on attempts of Roman conquests, which against Albania have failed: "[4] The inhabitants of this country [C.Albania] are unusually handsome and large. And they are frank in their dealings, and not mercenary;5 for they do not in general use coined money, nor do they know any number greater than one hundred, but carry on business by means of barter, and otherwise live an easy-going life. They are also unacquainted with accurate measures and weights, and they take no forethought for war or government or farming. But still they fight both on foot and on horseback, both in light armour and in full armour,6 like the Armenians.7

[5] They [C.Albania] send forth a greater army than that of the Iberians; for they equip sixty thousand infantry and twenty-two thousand8 horsemen, the number with which they risked their all against Pompey. Against outsiders the nomads join with the Albanians in war, just as they do with the Iberians, and for the same reasons; and besides, they often attack the people, and consequently prevent them from farming. The Albanians use javelins and bows; and they wear breastplates and large oblong shields, and helmets made of the skins of wild animals, similar to those worn by the Iberians. To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared. The pass from Iberia into Albania leads through Cambysene, a waterless and rugged country, to the Alazonius River. Both the people and their dogs are surpassingly fond of hunting, engaging in it not so much because of their skill in it as because of their love for it." (11.4.4, 11.4.5)

And of course Strabo himself used "Orchistene" ("and Orchistene, which last furnishes the most cavalry", 11.14.4), never "Artsakh" - hence I don't understand what is the "objection" to an Azerbaijani article which mentions it (and the reason for the reference was in response to someone's inclusion of "citation needed" next to Orchistene, which to me meant that the person didn't know about this forgotten name). By the way, Artsakh being used from 2nd century only was there before my edits - I've only added Orkhistene.

But for the borders of Caucasian Albania -- on the south going along Araxes, on the North - Derbend, on the East - Caspian sea and West -- Khnarakert castle (which is in present-day Qazax region of Azerbaijan, near Georgia and Armenia) borders see Movses Dasxuranci (Moisey Kagankatvatsi, Kalanketly) and Movses Khorenatsi (from Khorene), who say that very clearly, as well as a host of other authors. But of course the info from Dasxuranci/Kagankatvatsi is most reliable, as they (he) are Albanian historians. I can easily produce quotes in Russian and my translation into English.

Tigranes II never conquered C.Albania -- that is an insinuation of the Armenian scholars, and has been disproven already in the 1980s in the USSR. There is simply no evidence of that. Neither does Movses Dasxuranci mention that.

And I will look at those pages you've edited - thanks for pointing it out to me. --AdilBaguirov 00:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are you kidding? Oh and btw, Movses Dasxuranci was Armenian.

Strabo eh?

“[5] As we pass from Europe to Asia in our geography, the northern division is the first of the two divisions to which we come; and therefore we must begin with this. Of this division the first portion is that in the region of the Tanaпs River, which I have taken as the boundary between Europe and Asia. This portion forms, in a way, a peninsula, for it is surrounded on the west by the Tanaпs River and Lake Maeotis as far as the Bosporus7 and that part of the coast of the Euxine Sea which terminates at Colchis; and then on the north by the Ocean as far as the mouth of the Caspian Sea;8 and then on the east by this same sea as far as the boundary between Albania and Armenia, where empty the rivers Cyrus and Araxes, the Araxes flowing through Armenia and the Cyrus through Iberia and Albania;”

“[17] Further, the greater part of the remainder of Colchis is on the sea. Through it flows the Phasis, a large river having its sources in Armenia and receiving the waters of the Glaucus and the Hippus, which issue from the neighboring mountains.”

“…the Moschian country, in which is situated the temple,26 is divided into three parts: one part is held by the Colchians, another by the Iberians, and another by the Armenians. There is also a small city in Iberia, the city of Phrixus,27 the present Ideлssa, well fortified, on the confines of Colchis”

“[2] Parts of the country [Iberia] are surrounded by the Caucasian Mountains; for branches of these mountains, as I said before,1 project towards the south; they are fruitful, comprise the whole of Iberia, and border on both Armenia and Colchis. In the middle is a plain intersected by rivers, the largest being the Cyrus. This river has its beginning in Armenia, flows immediately into the plain above-mentioned, receives both the Aragus, which flows from the Caucasus, and other streams, and empties through a narrow valley into Albania; and between the valley and Armenia”

“[5] From the country of the nomads on the north there is a difficult ascent into Iberia requiring three days' travel; and after this ascent comes a narrow valley on the Aragus River, with a single file road requiring a four days' journey. The end of the road is guarded by a fortress which is hard to capture. The pass leading from Albania into Iberia is at first hewn through rock, and then leads through a marsh formed by the River Alazonius, which falls from the Caucasus. The passes from Armenia into Iberia are the defiles on the Cyrus and those on the Aragus. For, before the two rivers meet, they have on their banks fortified cities that are situated upon rocks, these being about sixteen stadia distant from each other--I mean Harmozice on the Cyrus and Seusamora on the other river. These passes were used first by Pompey when he set out from the country of the Armenians, and afterwards by Canidius.2”

[5] In ancient times Greater Armenia ruled the whole of Asia, after it broke up the empire of the Syrians, but later, in the time of Astyages, it was deprived of that great authority by Cyrus and the Persians, although it continued to preserve much of its ancient dignity; and Ecbatana was winter residence4 for the Persian kings, and likewise for the Macedonians who, after overthrowing the Persians, occupied Syria; and still today it affords the kings of the Parthians the same advantages and security.

“[4] In Armenia itself there are many mountains and many plateaus, in which not even the vine can easily grow; and also many valleys, some only moderately fertile, others very fertile, for instance, the Araxene Plain, through which the Araxes River flows to the extremities of Albania and then empties into the Caspian Sea. After these comes Sacasene, this too bordering on Albania and the Cyrus River; and then comes Gogarene. Indeed, the whole of this country abounds in fruits and cultivated trees and evergreens, and even bears the olive. There is also Phauene, a province of Armenia, and Comisene, and Orchistene, which last furnishes the most cavalry.”

The map of Ptolemy corraborates evertyhing Strabo said.--Eupator 00:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is hillarious! Eupator simply repeated me for no reason - basically, spammed, -- for unknown purpose. It's hard to disagree with the above Strabo wrote it, and if you look at the map, where Kura (Cyrus) and Araxes begin, and consider all the quotes, you will see VERY CLEARLY that the previously disseminated myth about border of Armenia and Albania being on Kura (Cyrus) is FALSE, and by copying Strabo's paragraphs -- which I've already provided -- you proved it once more. Kura, as Strabo said several times, flows THROUGH Albania, that means in the middle, not along or bordering, or anything like that. So thanks for exposing this major issue that has plagued many books from Armenia, which falsify Strabo's writings.

Finally, Movses Dasxuranci and Moisey Kalankatuyski (Kagankatvatsi, Kalankatly), which are two collective authors sometimes paired into one, could not have been Armenian as is obvious from the book -- he was ordered to write the book by "his king" great prince Jevanshir, and wrote about "our country, Albania". Same thing with the second and third authors of the "History of Caucasian Albanians". And finally, once again, both them, Albanian historians, and Armenian, Movses of Khorene, CLEARLY specify the border of Armenia with Albania as I described above. The issue of borders has been proven by the 1980s. Eupator, when it comes to history, leave it to those who are better versed in it. --AdilBaguirov 01

28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this is not a circus or some azeri science conference it's an encyclopedia. Let me spoon feed you like a baby: and then on the east by this same sea as far as the boundary between Albania and Armenia, where empty the rivers Cyrus and Araxes, the Araxes flowing through Armenia and the Cyrus through Iberia and Albania. Do you need someone to read this for you? The river Araxes empties into the Kura on the border of Armenia and Albania!

Movses Dasxuranci/Kalankatuaci was 100% Armenian with an Armenian name. What that mongoloid Farida Jafar gizi Mamedova teaches you people wont pass here.--Eupator 02:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you can’t do without incivility or personal attacks. The source says that Cyrus flows thru Albania, and not along its borders. As for Movses, have you seen his birth certificate? How do you know his ethnicity then? Grandmaster 05:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, the Kura being the border is not the issue here (and BTW, Ptolomeus' map shows Kura as the border). The issue is where was Artsakh. Strabo, Plinius, and Ptol. (1c bc-2 c ad) all say it was part of Armenia. By the way, Strabo also says that everyone in Armenia (including Artsakh) spoke Armenian.

The problem with the prior version in the article is that it suggested the local name was Orkhistene before 2 AD, and then all of a sudden it became Artsakh. Greeks never said any of that--they themselves called Artsakh Orkhistene--they always distorted local names to fit their language.

By the way, Movses Khorenatsi and Kaghankatvatsi lived in 5th-7th cc. In their time Artsakh had been attached to Albania. Both historians generally use myths when describing events more than a few centuries before them. Generally, that far back, they are not taken too seriously. Strabo and the other Greeks were contemporary in 1c BC- 2nd c ad. They are much more reliable.--TigranTheGreat 07:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

TigranTheGreat, the maps from those times are imprecise and irrelevant - one look at them and modern physical maps is enough to understand why. So bringing all those mythical maps is not helping anything. Meanwhile, I do not recall Strabo saying anything about everyone speaking Armenian in Artsakh -- especially since there was no Armenian language then (I mean ancient Armenian, grabar), and Armenians spoke either various (Caucasian or Semitic or other) dialects or Greek, or Pahlavi and other Indo-European languages. Maybe you have a reference to Strabo? Moreover, Armenia after the downfall of ethnically non-Armenian Tigranes II Great, has become once again a vassal state under the influence of both Rome and Parthia. Meanwhile, C.Albania retained its independence, even if somewhat nominal. Since Strabo never says that Artsakh was conquered by Tigranes -- which would not have mattered anyway, as his relevant conquests lasted only 15 years (85-69 BC), with total empire lasting less than 30 years (95-65BC) -- and Armenia was a vassal state, ruled even in the I century AD by (see below) various non-Armenian kings, it was simply in no position to hold any Albanian territories, such as Artsakh -- read again Strabo about the size, strength and determination of the Albanian army and the fact that it got help from nomads from the north. Of course Albanian historians MK and MD and Armenian Movses of Khorene (by the way, their Armenianized names mean nothing -- just like "Napoleon Allahverdyan" is not a French Muslim, or French-Turk/Iranian, but clearly Armenian, despite nothing in that name being Armenian, or "Robert Kocharyan" for that matter, a Western and Turkic name with Iranian suffix -yan, or Karen Demirchyan or Abel Aghanbekiyan, etc.) have a lot of anecdotal evidence, but when all of them coincide on the fact that Albania's southern border went on Araxes and Western on Khnarakert, it is not anecdotal. MK/MD book has many more references showing what size was C.Albania and that Artsakh was very much part of it.

Armenian kings in I c. AD:
1. Ariobarzan (Atropatenan/Median) A.D. 2‑4
2. Artavazd IV (Atropatenan/Median) 4‑6
3. Tigran V (Jewish) 6‑14
3a. Erato (Tigran IV, again, first ruled 8 B.C.‑5 A.D.) 14‑15
4. Vonon (Parthian) 16‑17
5. Artashes III or Zeno (Roman) 18‑34
6. Arshak I (Parthian) 34‑35
7. Mithridates (Georgian) 35‑37 and 47‑51
8. Hradamizd (Georgian) 51‑53

--AdilBaguirov 07:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just maps, but contemporary Greek accounts that state that Artsakh was part of Armenia in 1c BC- 2 c AD. MK/MD say it was part of Albania because in 5th c AD it was attached to Albania. What MK/MD say about 2c BC is generally considered myth, and not taken seriously.

If you believe MK/MD, I tell you what. They say that in 2nd c BC, Albania was founded by an Armenian named Aran (from the Armenian family of Sisakan, which descended from Armenian patriarch Hayk, who himself was grandson of Japhet). They also say that this Armenian founder of Albania was appointed as a governer of Albania by the Armenian king, with Albania being part of Armenia. Are you going to accept that? If you believe one, you have to believe the other. Historians believe neither--they regard it as myth.

Armenian language has existed for 4000-5000 years (since INdoeuropean split). It definitely existed under Tigran, there is no dispute about that. Strabo says everyone in Armenia speaks the same language. You can easily look up your Strabo section on Armenia, it's there.

In sum, Greeks say Artsakh was part of Armenia.--TigranTheGreat 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"(Making seperate section for the Greek discussion. Golbez/Francis, feel free to change however you like.)" I have no opinion at all on this section, consider my interest to be the remainder of the article. There's way, way too much here for me to start being familiar with it, so have your argument over that sentence. :) I'll stay down in the "one last try" section. ;) --Golbez 23:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey TigranTheGreat, the modern historians have established pretty well what are the borders of C.Albania - and if we are to read even ancient historians correctly (for example, the very same Strabo, whom some Armenian historians have been famous for misreading and then mistranslating, present the key word about Kura river flowing "through" as "along", which would give them then the result they wanted) - that the border was not on Kura river, but way to the West.

I like your sense of humor about Aran, Hayk, Japhet, Sisak, etc. - let me tackle that for you. To begin with, everyone except for a few lunatics, can mistake words about mythical and fairy tale rulers and kings for all other words. There is a clear distinction between those words, which MK/MD himself admits just before telling us about Valarshak, Aran, etc., that: "From the beggining of creation of human race to king of Armenia Valarshak, we cannot tell anything CREDIBLE to our listeners/readers about those living near the high mountains of Caucasus" (chapter 4). The words about Noah, Hayk, etc., are all very interesting -- but not for their historical accuracy value, but rather, as a study of a nation's folk tales and myths. Meanwhile, their data about the borders, however imprecise, was definitely not from the mythical perspective.

Secondly, you must have misread MK/MD and even Movses of Khorene, since you make several interesting claims: "Albania was founded by an Armenian named Aran (from the Armenian family of Sisakan, which descended from Armenian patriarch Hayk, who himself was grandson of Japhet). They also say that this Armenian founder of Albania was appointed as a governer of Albania by the Armenian king, with Albania being part of Armenia. Are you going to accept that?"

I don't know where did you read this, but certainly not from the above 2-3 authors. To begin with, Armenians simply cannot have an exclusive claim on mythical Japhet, who was according to the authors above (via his sons) the ancestor of the Caucasian Albans (see Chapter II of MK/MD).

Also, no one ever says that Sisak family was "Armenian" and hence, Aran could have been "Armenian" - that's simply not true, it is not in the text. MK/MD makes it clear that: "someone from the family of Sisak, one of descendants of Japhet, by the name of Aran, inherited the plains and mountains of Albania, FROM ARAXES RIVER TILL KHNARAKERT CASTLE" (Chapter 4). That's it, no word about some perceived Armenianess of those characters.

Then, perhaps you didn't know, but king Valarshak, the founder of Armenia, even in Armenian is known as Valarshak (Vagarshak) Partev -- i.e., Parthian. It is not a secret that he, like so many other "Armenian" rulers, was Parthian. So much for the "Armenian" nationality you stuck on him.

Thus, I've got no problem accepting all more or less logical information from ancient writers, realizing full well that much of info can be mistaken. However, when it coincides with info of other independent writers, it becomes more credible. Likewise, I've got no problem accepting both the factual recollections about the borders and the nice mythical story about Japhet, Sisak, Aran, Vagarshak, etc.

About the language and Strabo -- this is yet another example of misreading and puting words in the mouth of an ancient historian. Firstly, let's of course treat ancient authors with caution and see comments that are made by modern scholars. Then, let's remember that he was NOT a contemporary of these particular events you are alluding to. For example, his info about Hannibal and Artaxata, is disproven by Enc. Iranica. Secondly, NOWHERE does Strabo talks about "Armenian language" -- this language did not exist yet, and all that stuff about 4,000, even 5,000 years old Armenian language is bunch of fairy tales mixed with myths mixed further with balooney. There is no evidence about one common Armenian language - as the real "ancient Armenian", grabar, was developed in the early ADs, not BCs. That's why I've asked for the quote from Eupator, and he didn't quote it, because it would have become obvious. Moreover, Strabo writes the following:

"According to historians, Armenia, which was formerly a small country, was enlarged by Artaxias and Zariadris, who had been generals of Antiochus the Great, and at last, after his overthrow, when they became kings, (the former of Sophene, Acisene, (Amphissene?) Odomantis, and some other places, the latter of the country about Artaxata,) they simultaneously aggrandized themselves, by taking away portions of the territory of the surrounding nations: from the Medes they took the Caspiana, Phaunitis, and Basoropeda; from the Iberians, the country at the foot of the Paryadres, the Chorzene, and Gogarene, which is on the other side of the Cyrus; from the Chalybes, and the Mosynœci, Carenitis and Xerxene, which border upon the Lesser Armenia, or are even parts of it; from the Cataones, Acilisene,6 and the country about the Anti-Taurus; from the Syrians, Taronitis;7 hence they all speak the same language."

In other words, according to the understanding by certain Armenian historians, the inhabitants of Medes's provinces such as Caspiana (Talysh) (!) must have been Armenian, since they spoke "the same language" (which we are lobbyied to think was Armenian) with provinces of Iberia (Georgia), Syria, etc. Increddible! This is how history is being "rewritten" and thus (mis)understood by some. The truth is, if the "one language" is to be believed at all, then it was certainly Aramaic or Persian, and not unexistant Armenian, which outside Christian literature, never played any significant role, especially as a lingua franca. Nice try though. And of course neither Artaxias nor Zariadris were Armenian, hence where did Armenian language come in, is hard to understand. --AdilBaguirov 07:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you really expect to be taken seriously with remarks such as this? I will not go on and post the relevant materials, as it has nothing to do with the article, but before throwing words, terms and names to give the illusion that you know of what you are talking about(which has become quite pathological here in Wikipedia), you should read the three papers by Werner Winter about the problem of Armenian phonology, I. M. Diakonoff paper about Hurro-Urartian Borrowings and such relevant materials. And those are few, placing this into context, your words like This is how history is being "rewritten" and thus (mis)understood by some. Makes you look like an idiot, see, I did not say you were one, but that it makes you look like one. Dialects like Zaza, various Caucasian languages, (many which Circassians still speak of) etc. Are expected to have been distinguishable back from 600 BC, and they never up to now have had any alphabet or written rules. I'd rather see you use the same standard applied to the Azeris identity, had you done so, neither any Azeris language nor Azeris identity could have existed before the 1930s. I will not be claiming any thousands of years BC, but the Armenian dialects were clearly formed at least in 600 BC, since in the formation of the language there were few rule and many word barrowing from Hurro-Urartian which up to now are still distingishable. And for the relevant years it is unlikely that Aramaic for at least to the geography could have been those concerned, possibly Armenians or some tribal groups of Persians. But Stabro makes many mistakes in his writtings. All in all, there was no Caucasian Albania in the far BC years, and yet many scholars even deny there ever was one beyond a geographic region, much like 'Anatolia.' The only source, the author who wrote its history wrote it in Armenian, and who don't even know about his ethnicity and had no other contribution than Armenian. And the decyphrer key for the subsequent alphabets were written in Armenian too. It could have been an Armenian satelite state for all we know. As for the mythological stories about Noah, the sun of the sun or etc., are Armenian mythologies, the Albanian Noah connection was an Armenian mythology too. Those mythologies were recycled by Armenians from Jewish settlers in Nakhichevan, from which Armenians have fabricated legends. Fad (ix) 17:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, most of what you say is irrelevant to the section at issue. Do you admit that Strabo states that Orkhistene is part of Armenia?

I am Armenian, I know Armenian perfectly, and I can assure you that "tsakh" is very much Armenian word. There is absolutely noone objecting to this. If you have neutral sources stating otherwise, please tell us. I didn't ask you whether "Arsak" in Azeri really comes from "land of saks." If a group has its own name for something, and own explanation for its own name, we simply state it.--TigranTheGreat 20:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, before writing, think through please, and unlike you, I can read (and have done so) Dyakonoff in original Russian. Thus before throwing names you haven't read -- except in misinterpretations of some writers -- think about it. --AdilBaguirov 22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, and Fadix, you guys obviously have been misreading a lot of sources - perhaps you should stop relying on ideologically motivated sources, and read independent one's? Take an example from me - I easily cite Armenian authors despite not always supporting their points of view. Try to match that if you can -- cite a few Azerbaijani scholars if you can master that. Meanwhile, Tigran, everything I've written IS RELATED to this page and is very relevant -- even if only because I've been replying to you and others. If you can't answer to any of that and have realized your mistakes in misreading and misunderstanding many authors, you should just admit that instead of claiming, suddenly, that it's "irrelevant". Then, did I ever say that Armenian doesn't have the word "tsakh"? No, this is another example if misreading and misunderstanding me -- I've said that "tsakh" is an Armenian word, but means "brush". And that's in modern Armenian -- what about grabar, and any proto-Armenian languages BEFORE grabar, can you prove "tsakh" existed before? Since you claim that Artsakh is an ancient term from centuries before BCs (with which I do not disagree by the way), then it is peculiar that this Armenian word for "brush" didn't even exist then. Same with "Ar", which is a common suffix that is not Armenian, suddenly become Armenianized for "Aramanyak". This false fairy tale should be of course changed -- "tsakh" does't meen forests or woods in Armenian, but word "brush". Thus, we have Land of Brush. Meanwhile, in Azerbaijani it's etymology is very simple - "Ar" is a common suffix, for example, for Ardabil -- unless this too is an "ancient Armenian city" -- or Aral Sea, Ural mountains, for example. Meanwhile, nowhere does Strabo name Orchistene as part of Armenia -- not that it would have been reliable anyway, but he does not do that, you guys are again and again misreading him and this is amuzing now. --AdilBaguirov 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Tsakh" does mean woods--for example, an Armenian who chops woods would commonly say "tsakh kotrem"--"I chop woods." There is noone seriously disputing that.

The "Ar" suffix exists in Armenian, and it apparently exists in Azeri, as you say. We explain the "Artsakh" using our suffix, you guys explain "Arsak" using your suffix. Noone here disputed "Arsak" saying "can you prove that it really had to do with saks? Or that 'Ar' is the Azeri suffix as opposed to Armenian suffix?" Each of use calls it certain way, and explain it certain way.

You still didn't answer me-do you admit that Strabo places Artsakh in Armenia?--TigranTheGreat 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking yourself with me, I am not the one writting to Britannica to 'arrogantly' correct them, or throw words like 'Azeri propaganda.' Using Azeri sources? What Azeri sources; are you actually claiming that there was any written Azeri records? 'Ur', 'Ar' isen't a big deal at all, Artsakh was most probably a derived word of what the Urartians have been calling the place, 'Urtekhini' (ini, as in elements in the Armenian language for in instance lini, which in Eastern Armenian is indeed used) much like what meant 'Ur' in Urartu, to it to be an Caucasian Albanian name, such an identity should have existed beyond the influence of the Armenian Kingdom in the first place. It is accepted among linguists that 'ar' had become what 'ur' suffix was and was a Hurro-Urartian element, of course I'm not dismissing Babilonyan influence there. Will you be claiming that a word comming from the Urartians had been incoproated among those Easternward rather than the Armenians? We have here another clear example, afteral, some here have witnessed how Grandmaster has attenpted to make us believe that Nakhichevan was not recognized by most to have originated from the Armenians. But do ammuse me Adil with your theories. Fad (ix) 00:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Naxcivan, just like Artsakh, is a later attempt to "explain" it using modern languages. None of you answered a direct question - what does tsakh mean in grabar, the ancient Armenian, which is obviously more applicable than the 17th century modern Armenian language, which is very different? "Tsakh" means "brush" in English, where brush chiefly means dried twigs of trees and other plants, and that is exactly what it means in Armenian as well, that is where "tsakh avel" comes from, i.e. brush/broom. And good that you bring up Urartu and Hurro-Urartian languages -- Armenian has little to do with both. Having some borrowings doesn't make it an Urartean language -- Armenian has about 4,000 Turkic words in it, but that doesn't make it Turkic. Of course "Ar" does not and cannot stand for "Aramanyak" - as already said, it is completely false. It seems like all Armenian sources interpret the etymology of the word any way they want, which of course shows disagreement even within Armenians about the history of this term. Meanwhile, the term "Naxcivan" has nothing to do with Armenians -- I can easily retrace its history from the Urartean times, and show you how many years was it under Turkic, Armenian, Iranian, etc., dominions. Naxcivan's true etymology can be either Iranian or Caucasian. Unless Armenians want to claim various Caucasian toponyms, ethnonyms such as "nokhchu", or Nakh languages of North Central Caucasian family, despite coming to the region only about 6th century BC. Finally, how many more times do I need to ask to show me where do you take your "Strabo" info from? I've already shows several instances false, and will certainly show some more. --AdilBaguirov 09:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You aren't reading me at all. You are insinuating what I may have said 'as an Armenian.' I did not say that Armenian is a Hurro-Urartian language, what I said is that Artsakh was probably an Armenian deformation of the Urartian term, much like what the Greeks were calling it was a deformation. We here in Wikipedia rely on published material, and from published materials, it was first definitly been used by Armenians this way and with word associations. Words association with foreign barrowing has nothing new at all. It is the Azerbaijani Academia of science attempt to dump any Armenian names for places as foreign that is laughable. As for Nakhichevan, it is widely recognized as an Armenian word, this cases is even less problematic, Josephus does refer to it as what it was called by Armenians, Khorenatsi write its Grabar form for 'Nakhichevan' the closest to that Grandmaster came, in which anything similar to the word 'Nakhichevan' was a Persian source of about a thousand year after Khorenatsi, while the word with its definition has been used centuries after the other, with the same definition as Josephus discribe it was called in Armenian. This cases was pretty much closed, as Grandmaster stopped I believe pretending that it was not mostly recognized as an Armenian word, but rather requested other stuff. Artsakh in this form, until there is no other published records, has first been written this way by Armenians by incorporating definitions to it.

As for your '3000' Turkish word barrowing, very unlikely next to impossible. Fad (ix) 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Occupation by Armenia

In fact, “NKR” is nothing but a puppet regime, run from Yerevan. Since Armenia cannot admit that it occupies a territory of the neighboring country for obvious reasons, it uses “NKR” to cover up its involvement. This fact is very well known and admitted internationally. Dov Lynch of Institute for Security Studies of WEU explained situation pretty well:

The separatist areas depend on other sources of external support for their existence. In the case of Karabakh, independence is really a sleight of hand which barely covers the reality that it is a region of Armenia. In February 1988, the Supreme Soviet of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region in Azerbaijan voted to unite with the Armenian Republic. Subsequently, the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was declared on 2 September 1991. Karabakh’s independence allows the new Armenian state to avoid the international stigma of aggression, despite the fact that Armenian troops fought in the war between 1991-94 and continue to man the Line of Contact between Karabakh and Azerbaijan. The strength of the Armenian armed forces, and Armenia’s strategic alliance with Russia, are seen as key shields protecting the Karabakh state by the authorities in Stepanakert. [2]

Some more about involvement of Armenia from authoritative sources:

PACE Rapporteur David Atkinson:

According to the information given to me, Armenians from Armenia had participated in the armed fighting over the Nagorno-Karabakh region besides local Armenians from within Azerbaijan. Today, Armenia has soldiers stationed in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the surrounding districts, people in the region have passports of Armenia, and the Armenian government transfers large budgetary resources to this area. [3]

Human Rights Watch:

From the beginning of the Karabakh conflict, Armenia provided aid, weapons, and volunteers. According to Karabakh authorities, Armenia was providing upwards of 90 percent of the enclave's yearly budget in the form of interest-free credits. Some analysts believed that payments to Karabakh constituted 7 to 9 percent of Armenia's yearly budget.

Armenian involvement in Karabakh escalated after a December 1993 Azerbaijani offensive. The Republic of Armenia began sending conscripts and regular Army and Interior Ministry troops to fight in Karabakh. In January 1994, several active-duty Armenian Army soldiers were captured near the village of Chaply, Azerbaijan. While Armenia denied involvement in the conflict, in London in February 1994 President Levon Ter-Petrosyan stated that Armenia would intervene militarily if the Karabakh Armenians were faced with "genocide" or "forced deportation." The fighting during this Azerbaijani offensive, which lasted until February 1994, was exceptionally brutal. International aid agencies and foreign governments were concerned at the low number of prisoners of war registered given the scale of fighting.

To bolster the ranks of its army, the Armenia government resorted to press-gang raids to enlist recruits. Draft raids intensified in early spring, after Decree no. 129 was issued, instituting a three-month call-up for men up to age forty-five. Military police would seal off public areas, such as squares, and round up anyone who looked to be draft age. All male Armenian citizens between the ages of twenty-five and forty-five were forbidden to leave the country without special permission. According to a report in the influential German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued an order by which Armenian draft resisters should be given refugee status. [4]

Information from the US State department about involvement of Armenia was provided by Adil and can be found here. [5]

Unfortunately, the role of Armenia in the conflict has not been adequately reflected in the article, but Im going to correct this. Grandmaster 16:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is indeed a puppet state run from Yerevan, then explain to me why Armenia presently does not recognize it. The statements that you have provided only prove that Armenia has aided Karabakh Armenians and not the government of Nagorno-Karabakh itself. I do not wish to argue on this matter, but I just found your statement that "'NKR' is nothing but a puppet regime, run from Yerevan" to be a bit extreme. -- Clevelander 16:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It’s not just my opinion. Many observers think the same. See Dov Lynch of Institute for Security Studies of WEU:

Karabakh’s independence allows the new Armenian state to avoid the international stigma of aggression, despite the fact that Armenian troops fought in the war between 1991-94 and continue to man the Line of Contact between Karabakh and Azerbaijan. [6] Grandmaster 17:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you never explained to me why Armenia presently does not recognize the NKR if it is indeed a puppet state run from Yerevan. -- Clevelander 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason is obvious. Armenia will have to face serious consequences if it does so. It will be accused of disrupting the peace process and interfering in other country’s affairs.

Btw, I did not delete anything from the article. The paragraph that you added is now repeated twice. Grandmaster 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Grandmaster on this one, I think the only reason Armenia does not officially recognize Azerbaijan is simple politics. --Golbez 21:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but that alone doesn't mean that NK is a puppet state. They have their government with its own structure, they have disagreed with Armenia in the past. --TigranTheGreat 22:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

But if it's a puppet state, doesn't it have to be recognized by its agent government first? Oh well. I guess it doesn't matter. I won't pursue an argument over this.

Re: deletion - Ah, I see. My mistake. I apologize. -- Clevelander 18:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right. When a state sets up a puppet state--it first officially recognizes it as independent, then says "I got nothing to do with it." Armenia has not officially recognized the independence of NK.--TigranTheGreat 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Puppets don't need to be recognized to be puppets. It can be a de facto puppet. --Golbez 21:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lynch's opinion is opinion nonetheless, not fact. We have presented many neutral sources stating that NK is de-facto independent. Obviously, they don't consider it just a puppet state.

In 1997 Armenia accepted a solution in Lisbon. NK rejected. If NK was a puppet state, that would never happen.

Generally, political analysts often reflect positions and POV's of their countries. US and its close ally Britain, for political reasons, have traditionally be pro-Turkish, anti-Russian, which by default makes them pro-Azeri. Their POV is reflected in the US position, and British Atkinson's report. PACE resolution itself did not include Atkinson's "Armenia's soldiers are in NK" statement--it was more careful.--TigranTheGreat 20:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if it's an opinion, is it really necessary to include it in the article? -- Clevelander 20:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. If we include an opnion of some law school about NK, why should we not include this? The rules allow. Grandmaster 20:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, you make a good point. I'll compromise, let's keep it in. -- Clevelander 20:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenian language

Armenian POV is "NK is independent." That's not what the intro says. The current intro is purely factual, without any loaded objectionable words. There is absolutely nothing POV about it.

Adil claims that no Armenian language existed before 400 AD. He clearly has POV stance, and his dispute cannot be regarded as genuine.--TigranTheGreat 20:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, I don't claim anything - I state facts, and it seems you unable to disprove them. Instead, Tigran, you seem to misinterpret information and puting words in the mouths of some historians, like Strabo. That's a no-no. I've said what I've read from Armenian sources - which is that ancient Armenian language was formed in the early ADs. In fact the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, edited by an Armenian, and written by several Armenians, makes it clear: Grabar (Ancient Armenian) was formed in 5th century AD. Middle Armenian - from 11-17 cc. Modern - since 17 century, which in 19th century becomes even more modern. [7] Same is confirmed by another authoritative book [8] and [9]. Thus, please stop projecting your own image onto others and do not make baseless, groundless accusations that are so frivolous that make one wonder the real intentions. --AdilBaguirov 21:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, just because a few ignorant users "disagree", doesn't mean there is no concesus. Neither NK page nor Wikipedia can be held hostage by a few motivated users who base their incalcitrant and meritless positions not on internationally recognized, approved and voted documents (smth known as "international law", which is mandatory for everyone) but on frivolous claims. Armenian POV is not just "NK is independent", but also "NK is part of Armenia", and derivatives from it. Meanwhile, the international law -- that is NPOV -- is clear that: NK is militarily occupied, NK is de jure part of Azerbaijan, NK is ethnically cleansed of Azerbaijani population, NK is self-styled/unrecognized/so-called. There are NPOV and I've given dozens of citations as proof. --AdilBaguirov 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, please refrain from using insults. International law (unlike domestic law) is not mandatory for states (except when it's in a treaty) much less for private organizations like Wiki. It's a nebulous concept.

There is nothing in your sources saying that Armenian language didnt' exist before 5 c AD. They say "Literary Armenian language" didn't exist before, which is right--Armenian alphabed was invented in 405--before, Armenians spoke Armenian, but wrote in Greek. There is noone seriously claiming that Armenian didn't exist in BC centuries.--TigranTheGreat 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, you don't know many things, and among them that UN Security Council resolutions automatically become international law once passed, and are mandatory. UN SC resolutions clearly recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan, and that it is, along with other regions, being militarily occupied and its Azerbaijani population expelled. They are of course currently taken into account in the NK page, which is good, but the page must be brought in conformity with the NPOV wording used by international organizations.

As of Armenian language -- instead of trying to argue and each time having to change your position after realizing that I am correct, I suggest you give us a source where it contradicts the one's I've provided -- when was Grabar invented? Meanwhile, you are wrong again and misreading once more - the Great Soviet Encyclopedia says: "История литературного Армянский язык делится на 3 периода: древний, средний и новый. Древний — с 5 по 11 вв. Язык этого периода называется древнеармянским, а язык письменных памятников — грабар." Which means: "History of literary Armenian language divides into 3 periods: ancient, middle and new/modern. Ancient - from 5th till 11 century. The language of this period is called ancient Armenian, whilst the language of written monuments/works -- Grabar." So there you go. One more proof of that is what Movses of Khorene said (Book I, Chapter 3), where he in more details describes how Armenians before his age were not interested in literature and sciences, and were primitive, even "stupid and barbarian/wild" (his words). --AdilBaguirov 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually know quite alot. UNSC resolutions are mandatory only when passed under chapter 7 (this is explained even on the Wiki page on UNSC). An example is the resolution demanding Iraq to leave Kuwait. Other resolutions, including the NK ones, are merely advisory.

There is nothing in the source saying that before 5th c there was no Armenian. It says the language using in 5-11th c was ancient Armenian. Doesn't say that ancient Armenian didn't exist before. You are suggesting that Armenians started speaking Armenian only after creating an alphabet, which obviously is not true.--TigranTheGreat 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, the peculiar understanding of everything and seeing white as black and vice versa is noted. Per UN SC on NK, they are not "merely advisory". Then, once again, the sources on Armenian language are clear and I am 100% correct. Meanwhile, you have been unable to bring any credible source showing diverging view point or factual statement, which is not surprizing in light of the above. Yes, grabar started to exist only in ADs -- otherwise such ancient people as Armenians -- what was it, 4,000, or 5,000 years old? -- would have left smth in Pahlavi or Aramaic or smth other script, in which (proto-)Armenians obviously were able to write, but they didn't leave anything in other scripts in either grabar or some other mysterious ancient-ancient Armenian. Nothing. Which makes sense -- Armenians did not rule themselves, they were ruled by Parthians, Persians, Atropatena, Georgians, Jews, and others since BCs. And majority of population in cities for example in Tigranes II era were not even ethnic Armenians. Likewise, the whole story about Artsakh the way is written on the NK page is false, as is the understanding and reading of Strabo by yourself. --AdilBaguirov 23:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your insistence on violating civility rules is noted as well. UNSC resolutions on NK are indeed advisory, otherwise we would see armies marching to NK--as in the case of Kuwait. I don't need to provide a source that Armenian existed before 400 AD, since you havn't given any source stating otherwise. Armenians didn't write in Armenian before that because they had no Armenian alphabet--Aramaic script is not suited for Armenian. They tried it in 400 ad, didn't work, so they created a new alphabet.

So are you saying that Strabo does not place Arsakh in Armenia?--TigranTheGreat 00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Golbez and Francis, I am apalled that you have been ok with the "NK is part of Azerbaijan" part. It's a blatant violation of NPOV--it's clearly a position, and we on Wiki never assert positions. It's even worse than the "de jure" version, which was actually proposed by Azeri users. They could never dream about this one. From what I read, this was a misguided attempt at compromise by admin EIC. It's still non-NPOV.--TigranTheGreat 07:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I love you too. Please don't get riled up over TWO WORDS like that. Jesuchristo. You are allowed to mention it to me first before spitting on my grave. --Golbez 07:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I will also note that neither of you are allowed to revert for about 23 hours. Good job! --Golbez 07:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a position, it's a fact. NK is legally part of Azerbaijan. Your current edit is POV, and not neutral at all. Grandmaster 07:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, position of US State Dept, US President, UN, PACE, OIC, etc., are not POV, but NPOV. Plus it's consistent with other Wiki pages, such as on Abkhazia, S.Ossetia, etc. --AdilBaguirov 07:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro should be restored to say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan, as it legally is a region of Azerbaijan. THis fact is accepted by the international community, and it's not a position, but a fact, that it is recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 08:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Aw cmon, what's wrong with what I got there now? --Golbez 08:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It ignores the fact that it is de-jure part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 08:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In what way? So you have to wait for the second sentence for that. --Golbez 08:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I like that better. Grandmaster 09:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the impression, never meant to spit. Just saying I was really surprised.

De jure is defective--Armenia never accepts NK as de jure part of Az. Plus, if we mention de jure, we need to mention de facto. I am against both--we mention something only once. It already states that noone recognizes NK's independence from Az. If this means de jure, just leave it at that.--TigranTheGreat 09:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, congrats on the Latino guy winning the gubernatorial elections in Cali (you are in Cali, right?).--TigranTheGreat 10:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

They had a primary for the democratic candidate; the election against Arnold Schwarzenegger is not until November. Assuming you mean California, Cali has no governor. --Golbez 16:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that NK is a region of Azerbaijan and is internationally recognized as such. It’s not an opinion, it is an undeniable fact. No one can say that NK has any status other than a region of Azerbaijan. So the intro should say that. Since Tigran resumed the edit war over the intro, I think we have every right to submit this dispute for arbitration. It has already passed all stages of dispute resolution, including mediation and RfC, so we should have no problem with presenting our case to arbcom. Grandmaster 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration is not for content matters; you would have to show a lengthy campaign of edit warring. --Golbez 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You can go ahead and present it but I guarantee you it will be denied. Compared to TRNC this article is ridden with Azeri pov. The fact that it's recognized as part of Azerbaijan is not disputed but is secondary to it's de facto independence.--Eupator 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite a specific instance of "ridden with Azeri pov"? It's much easier if you do that, then make blanket assertions. --Golbez 17:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro is not fine and it's nothing like South Ossetia. It's de facto independance must be mentioned first. Azeri pov you say? "This was the name for the area from about 2nd century AD when it was part of Caucasian Albania to 13-14 centuries. Before that the name of Orkhistene was used in the area.[5]" Hogwash.--Eupator 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for being an outsider, but could you explain what your quoted passage has to do with Azeri pov? --Golbez 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It was sourced from the website of the Azeri Embassy. It was mentioned in the ref tags.--TigranTheGreat 20:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The source alone cannot make something POV, but yes, I did notice that. --Golbez 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, the POV aspect of the quote is this. The Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan has tried to make NK look as a completely historically Azeri land in a 2 step process: 1) Claim that it was part of Caucasian Albania for as many centuries as they can, and 2) Claim that Azeris are the modern Caucasian Albanians. The quote here is an instance of step 1)--even though it clearly contradicts contemporary Greek sources.--TigranTheGreat 07:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, "within Azerbaijan" is ambiguous--it can mean two things--1) within the borders of Az (your intended meaning), and 2) "belonging to Az." (as asserted by Wiki), which we should avoid. We should say "within the borders of Az."--it will clarify that we mean the 1st and not the 2nd.

South Oss. is different for 2 reasons. First, SO doesn't completely lie within borders of Georgie, whereas NK does--that was what you wanted to clarify in the beginning. Second, I agree with Eupator, SO article mentions "de facto." It counterbalances the "within Georgia." I am willing to make concession on "de facto"--it will draw unnecessary "de jure" objections--but the "within borders" needs to be specified. Note that I have already made concessions on "disputed region" and "enclave." I say, forget the Latin terms and let the reader decide--he will read the "not recognized by anyone" and will assume "de jure," and he will read "declared independence" and hopefully will assume "de facto."--TigranTheGreat 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Have we reached a concensus on the introduction? If we haven't then we should keep the tag on, if we have then I think we should take if off once and for all. Overall, it looks pretty neutral as it currently stands, though this is just my take (and perhaps, as an Armenian, I may be looking at it differently). -- Clevelander 20:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, NK is part of Azerbaijan -- that is recognized by everyone, UN above all. Hence, it should of course state the obvious and NPOV statement, which is "(with)in Azerbaijan", and not "within the borders of Azerbaijan". --AdilBaguirov 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not recognized by everyone - there are about a hundred thousand people in Nagorno-Karabakh who forcefully disagree. --Golbez 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention 3 million Armenians in Armenia, and int. law scholars in New England School of Law:)--TigranTheGreat 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, as a figure of speech, "everyone", "perfect", "completely", etc., are often used to denote majority agreement and concensus on any one issue. If we are to believe everything that one group thinks is correct and right, in this case what Armenian group thinks about military occupation, then we in essense get Nazi supporters, fascists, KKK supporters, Holocaust deniers, etc. weightening in, and we should give them at least 50% of the spotlight. That is we can't be selective and approach with double standards such issues -- military occupation and ethnic cleansing of NK and surrounding 7 regions is an illegal, immoral and inhumane act -- just as gasing people in concentration camps or lynching. Thus, what is thought by 3 million people in Armenia plus anywhere from 60,000 to 120,000 is while notable, at the same time only important vis-a-vis discussion of the military situation, but not the whole political, economic, cultural, etc., aspects. It is also peculiar that Armenia has claims to everyone of its neighbours - aside from Azerbaijan and Turkey, claims also Javakhetia from Georgia and hints about northwestern regions from Iran. Meanwhile, the "international law scholars in New England School of Law" do not know Russian and did not have access to all the Russian-only documents -- their assessment is completely biased and unworthy, it contradicts the USSR Constitution, not to mention all the other laws on the books at the time. For myself, a person who has read those laws and the Constitution (which is available in English in certified translation, online) to read this paid-for "analysis" is quite ironic. --AdilBaguirov 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are directed to read Godwin's Law. --Golbez 09:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I just glanced through the discussion quickly. IMHO, both “within Azerbaijan” and “within the borders of Azerbaijan” in the introduction section are somewhat ambiguous and not very neutral. San Marino is also frequently defined in a similar way, though it is an internationally recognized nation surrounded by Italy’s territories. I’d suggest reorganizing the intro section as follows:

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region, internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, though its majority Armenian population declared separation from Azerbaijan as the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR) on December 10, 1991 and has claimed de facto independence since then.

The region, located about 270 kilometres (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, and close to the border with Armenia, was established in 1923 by the Soviet Union as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of the Azerbaijan SSR. In the waning days of the Soviet Union, the region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan culminating in the Nagorno-Karabakh War between the two nations, which claimed several thousands of casualties on both sides and created a large tide of IDPs, chiefly to other parts of Azerbaijan. Although the region’s independence has been unrecognized by any international organization or country, including Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and some surrounding districts of Azerbaijan remain, since the end of the war in 1994, under Armenian military control, which is regarded by Azerbaijan and the OSCE as occupation.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group, where, among other issues, the future status of the region is being discussed.

Tell me what you think. Regards, Kober 09:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"San Marino is frequently defined in a similar way" Perhaps, but it isn't on Wikipedia. There's some merit in these but I think it makes the intro a bit awkward. --Golbez 09:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a standard reference. Also, my suggestion seems to me more neutral. Can you tell me what makes it awkward? Thanks, Kober 09:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merely the grammar. If you get rid of all the dependent clauses in the first sentence, you are left with "Nagorno-Karabakh is a region". Not very helpful. --Golbez 09:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, nowhere in your suggestion do you say that it's within the borders of Azerbaijan, which could mean it's an exclave of sorts, like Nakhichevan. That's a major issue here, it's enclaved within Azerbaijan. --Golbez 09:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the dictionaries an enclave is:

1. A country or part of a country lying wholly within the boundaries of another.

2. A distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit: ethnic enclaves in a large city. [10]

Since NK is not a country or part of another country lying wholly within the boundaries of another, it’s not an enclave the way Nakhichevan is an exclave, i.e. part of another country. It could be an ethnic enclave, but still no parallels with Nakhichevan, which is a legal part of another country. NK is legally part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 09:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, please don't make a fight where one exists. It was damn clear that I was not suggesting we call N-K an enclave, I was simply searching for a simple way of explaining in this talk page what I meant. --Golbez 10:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that was not my intention. I just think that parallels with Nakhichevan are not justified, which was my point. Grandmaster 10:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Kober's proposal makes a lot more sence than the current version with strange wording about "region within the borders of Azerbaijan". It describes both the current international status of NK and separatist control over the region. The words "region within the borders of Azerbaijan" show no connection of that region with Azerbaijan, and therefore it's unclear why the Armenian population declared independence from it, if there was no connection. Grandmaster 09:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. --Golbez 10:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That’s why I think it should say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan, because it’s the only legal status the region has and it makes clear that the Armenian population declared independence to change that status. Grandmaster 10:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We can simply add enclave before region in the first sentence, though it is only the de facto status that makes NK an enclave, I guess.--Kober 10:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think enclave is appropriate here, because it could be construed as NK is a state or part of another state, which it’s not. Grandmaster 10:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good thing that wasn't what I was doing! My point was, we have to give the geographical context. Consider these two options: "Nebraska is a region claimed by the United States", and "Uruguay is a region claimed by the United States". One is an exclave; the other is surrounded by the borders of the United States. My only point was, perhaps we should point out that N-K is surrounded completely by the rest of Azerbaijan. So far as I know, until I put that into Geography just now, it was absent from the article. --Golbez 10:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with you.--Kober 10:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you last edit makes perfect sense, including the part that explains geographic situation of NK. Grandmaster 10:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I like Kober's introduction better than the one we have now. It's not only more neutral, IMO, but it reads better. I say we add it. -- Clevelander 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't, IMO the first sentence has very poor readability. --Golbez 21:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying one last time.

Here is a new section.

Here are the rules for the section.

1. No putting words in anyone's mouth.
2. No more repetition. This means that you are only allowed to mention 'international recognition', "16%", "ethnic cleansing", et.al. once per entry.
3. No more discussion about the CIA ethnolinguistic map, which some people have decided to use to ascribe motives and actions to me that did not exist.

Now, let's discuss the Wikipedia article on Nagorno-Karabakh, including the chart of provinces and the map therein. Nothing more. Nothing less. Can we do that? --Golbez 08:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So should I summarize my points about the NK map on the Wiki NK page and the table, or it's all cleared up by now and we reached an agreement? Best, --AdilBaguirov 08:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned things up for you, I hope you do not mind. I just want that nasty fight behind us. Any complaints with the article, map, chart, whatever, discuss here, just please, no repetition or other debating techniques. Also, please no large pastes - we know what the international community has said, we don't need to be reminded. --Golbez 16:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to intro, the ultimate result of the edit wars was the replacement of the words a region of Azerbaijan with the words a region within Azerbaijan. This is wrong, the intro should say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan. That’s the accepted international status of the region, there’s no other. All UN Security Council resolutions refer to NK as a region of Azerbaijan, and so do other international organizations and countries. This is not just a position, this is the internationally accepted status of region, which the intro should reflect as it is a fact. Therefore the current revision is POV and the original version should be restored. Grandmaster 07:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And add "self-styled" or "so-called" or "unrecognized" at least every other time that NK is mentioned, replace the "NKR" with simpler "NK", change the map to reflect the official, recognized toponyms, and of course stress that it is de jure part of Azerbaijan and recognized as such. --AdilBaguirov 07:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We're going to mention that it is unrecognised in the lead. We will not be putting "self-styled", "so-called" or whatever in front of every mention of the name. It isn't encyclopaedic. This is an encyclopaedia article, not a UN, or other political document. - FrancisTyers · 10:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But why was removed the mention that it is a region of Azerbaijan? Grandmaster 10:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, that's why I say "every other time" to mention so-called, etc. But there is an easier way -- you don't have to say it more than once in the article if all instances of "NKR" are replaced with "authorities of NK". This solves the problem fairly. --AdilBaguirov 12:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone says it, it's a position. I don't care if it's UNSC. Unless you can touch it, measure it, feel it, it's not a fact--it's position. Stating it as a fact is POV.

Golbez, about the "within borders." If we say "within Azerbaijan", we have to add de fact without the de jure--that's how it is in s. Oss. article. "Within Azerbaijan" alone is too much like "region of Azerbaijan," which was what I originaly objected to. "within borders of azerbaijan" states your point exactly--the need to provide the geographic context (that it's an enclave)--TigranTheGreat 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a de facto enclave, but de jure part of Azerbaijan. To call it an enclave is Karabakh POV; to call it part of Azerbaijan is Azeri POV. The fact is simply what I stated, it's a de facto enclave but de jure part of Azerbaijan. The best solution is to state the region or territory's (I think region is a better word, but to each their own) location, which is in Azerbaijan, without saying outright it's PART of Azerbaijan. That is a difficult balance to make. --Golbez 23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, that's why we didn't use the "encalve" word but your choice of "within." What's wrong with "within borders of Azerbaijan?" It's your intended point--geographic context.--TigranTheGreat 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I was the one with the problem with "within the borders of". --Golbez 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think your compromise solution actually had "within the borders of" ([11]), then you immediately removed the "borders." It think your first version clearly states the point. This is the best way to avoid the "de facto/de jure/de mojo" mess. And this is the best way to reach a middle point and get over the intro.--TigranTheGreat 23:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, though I still agree with my next edit. --Golbez 00:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we restore the original intro, which was a compromise, achieved after many months of disputes. Check the last 2 archives. The fact is that NK is de-jure part of Azerbaijan, not region within the borders, but a region of Azerbaijan. It has no other status. The current version is Armenian POV and is not neutral. The position of international community is clear: NK is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and it’s not just a position, the status of NK is based on it. Therefore removing that fact that it is a region of Azerbaijan is absolutely unacceptable. It is actually considered a good manner to discuss the changes to controversial articles with other users and don’t make unilateral changes. But the way you guys change the intro based on your own vision without making account of the position of the other side is no good at all. I attach a totally disputed tag, as the current version of intro is not neutral. Grandmaster 07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"it has no other status"? What about 'de facto'? Your own POV is leaking, Grandmaster. --Golbez 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian POV would be "NK is independent." That's not what the current version states--it says the pure facts--declaration of independence, and non-recognition. Therefore, it is a nice neutral middle ground between the Armenian and your POV. Your version goes the other way, and therefore is POV.

As long as there are more than one POV's on the status, any statement regarding the status is by definition a position. Under NPOV standards, it's absolutely unacceptable to assert positions, including "NK is part of" or "not part of" Azerbaijan. If that's what "unrecognized by others" means, let the readers draw the conclusion.

Your refusal to compromise, and your continuous insistence on reverting without even trying to discuss has been the reason behind the edit wars. I suggest you adopt good manners in editting before telling others to do so.--TigranTheGreat 07:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit war started as soon as you returned here and made changes to the intro without discussing it with others. Before that this article was stable for many months. It is a fact that the current legal status of NK is a region of Azerbaijan, which is confirmed by international community. Removing that from the article and introducing POV vision of things will not help to keep this article neutral, stable and balanced. I once again suggest we restore the version of intro that existed before you changed it. Grandmaster 08:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the edit war resumed after you automatically started reverting without even attempting a discussion. My edit had nothing to do with you--it modified a line that was so POV that even you had never offered it. I never introduced a POV version--my POV would be "NK is independent." As long as the status is disputed by principal parties, their positions are just that-positions. I suggest we leave it at the current factual, non-POV version. It's the best deal possible for this kind of article.--TigranTheGreat 09:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here’s your first edit: [12] You introduced a POV edit to the intro, which was stable for many months, and did it without discussing it with other users. And I don’t remember you calling for discussion, you just made that edit and reverted any attempts to restore the status-quo. Current version is absolutely unacceptable and we will have to go through dispute resolution process again. Grandmaster 10:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that dispute resolution is required when the only person voicing a totallydisputed dispute is someone who himself has a clear POV. A more valid suggestion may be a request for comment; get the community in here to see if they consider it neutral or not. --Golbez 16:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Stable doesn't mean neutral. Articles are continuously editted and get improved. Your uncompromising stance prevents any improvement to this article. I saw a blatant POV phrase, I modified it, and I discussed it on the talk page. You started a revert war without discussion, which is your habit. The current version is the best middle ground between the various POV's. If we are to keep improving this article, this is the best deal.--TigranTheGreat 10:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, your version is good. I have two objections though. 1) "Armenian military control" is more neutral than "control by Armenian Military"--the second implies Armenia's military (which is disputed), and the first is more general and doesn't choose between "local Armenian forces" or "Armenia's forces". 2) I think "control" is more neutral than "occupied" whether with respect to NK or the surrounding Azeri lands. Also, we might want to specify that we are talking about "surrounding regions of Azerbaijan," so the reader will know that it's not just the NK being occupied. Thanks.--TigranTheGreat 17:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know if the Armenian military is in actual control of Nagorno-Karabakh, or merely - at least in word - assists the local self-proclaimed NKR military. Can someone clear this up for me? As for #2, I still think we should mention that the non-NK portion of Azerbaijan is occupied, as it has not declared independence, has not been annexed, making it de facto and de jure part of Azerbaijan, but with foreign military in control of it. You will note that I specified that only the area around N-K, not N-K itself, is occupied; N-K was noted as controlled. But a clarification on my question here about the Armenian military in N-K would be very helpful, thanks. --Golbez 20:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Azeris say it's Armenia, Armenians say it's local forces, PACE resolutions say 'local separatists control NK', and for the occupied territories, they use the general "Armenian forces" term. So, it's all over the place. Even if Armenia's soldiers are there, it's unknown how much are they mixed with local soldiers, what's the ratio, who is subordinated to whom. Therefore, I believe "Armenian military control" is the most neutral, non-controversial.

My objection to "occupied" with respect to actual Azeri territories is that "occupied" is more judgmental than "controlled".

By the way, the current revert by El_C puts the intro back to its prior POV version and is unacceptable. The latest version is (with some variations) accepted by most users. Grandmaster, who has been blocked for revert warring, asked El_C to intervene ([13]) clearly because El_C's version has been the most pro-Azeri one (even more so than those previously offered by Grandmaster). I don't think it's appropriate for El_C to make such a sweeping unilateral change without being familiar with the issues and history of discussions here. To bring the intro to a more compromisable point, I think we should restore the prior neutral version.--TigranTheGreat 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oy vey. NPOV is going to be difficult when things are that confused. --Golbez 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't then "Armenian military control" more appropriate? It contains the implication of both the local forces, and Armenia's military. "Control of Armenian Military" sounds too much like Armenia's army.--TigranTheGreat 00:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with NK article is that it still diverges with the NPOV of the international community and real unbiased facts. The so-called "NKR" has to be preceeded by either self-styled, or unrecognized or so-called as is the norm (I've cited a dozen or so varied sources that clearly show it's the norm). Again, this is not a wish or some nice suggestion -- this is the standard terminology and is consistent with other Wiki pages (see Abkhazia, S.Ossetia, etc. pages), and hence must be implemented. Meanwhile, in order not to mention any of these 3 choices preceeding "NKR" then it itself should be replaced with simply "NK", and instead of "government" it should be "authorties", which is again consistent with the language and terminology used by authoritative publications and sources, of which Wiki considers itself as well. The term "NK authorities" is also used by all, including official Armenian, US, UN and OSCE sources, thus no one can object: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18].

Then, the sentence "predominantly Armenian population declared independence" leaves one thinking that perhaps some Azerbaijanis have stayed and joined those Armenians in proclamation of "independence". Instead, it should say that only the Armenian population declared independence -- and clarify what happened to the Azerbaijani population, which was ethnically cleansed from NK and are now all refugees/displaced. This is also a must, since NK, as all of Karabakh and all of Azerbaijan belongs to the people who have traditionally lived there -- which includes a very sizeable Azerbaijani population, which was in majority until the begining of 20th century, yet still even in 1989 was sizeable.

A surprisingly reasonable statement, I'll try an edit. --Golbez 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, while it is a nice mythology, where is the proof that "Tsakh" is Armenian for Woods, "Ar" is abbreviation for Aramanyak? It is false -- "tsakh" does not mean woods (or forest, as some also allege) in Armenian! Moreover, since after I've reminded that the area was called Orchistene/Orkhistene, and Armenian users have further improved it by adding the Urartean name of Urtekhini, then Artsakh definitely cannot be from not-yet-existing Armenian language -- whether modern (since 15th century) or ancient, grabar (since early ADs), especially since Armenians are not autohtonous to the Caucasus and have invaded later, in the waning years of Urartu, and took over their culture, some vocabulary, etc. But what is clear is that Artsakh simply cannot be an Armenian name -- it is a modern-day attempt by some Armenians to do what Russians describe as "force smth by its ears". Therefore, this explanation "from Armenian language" unless our Armenian friends can provide a dictionary showing that "tsakh" means woods or forests, and not the word "brush". And of course, it would be nice to see how did ancient "Ar/Er/Ur" suddenly became Aramanyak! Maybe Armanyak (Armagnac), the brandy/cognac producing region in SW France, is also land of Armenians? What about Saskatchewan in Canada? --AdilBaguirov 08:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, as already said many times, saying "under the control of the Armenian military" or otherwise using the word "control" instead of "occupation" is total POV - despite what some might think and others wish, international law, terminology and standards are clear, and clearly specify occupation. Whilst some sources, mostly media, do not see much difference, they do not apply in our case, since 1) everyone here clearly understands the difference and 2) this is an encyclopedia, which means more precision, more research and more neutrality and unbiasness. In addition to all other sources I've cited before, here are some more from international media, NGOs, and some governments that clearly use the factual and precisely defined term "occupation" instead of more vague and attempt to conceal the situation, and thus POV, "control": [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. The word "control" should be replaced with the internationally defined and precise term of "occupied". --AdilBaguirov 09:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is about compromise, and to me, it seems "control" is a perfectly valid compromise word. By trying to force "occupied", you are inserting a particular NPOV, whereas "control" has no POV at all, from how I see it. --Golbez 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the leader of the Azerbaijani community of NK must be mentioned, Mr. Nizami Bakhmanov, and his portrait, like that of Ghoukasyan, should be provided too. He participates in relevant sessions and meetings of the OSCE Minsk Group, and his signature is also on the 1994 cease-fire agreement. He is the head of the executive power of Shusha region. --AdilBaguirov 09:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, mention him. --Golbez 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, not that it makes a world of difference (re: your question: "if the Armenian military is in actual control of Nagorno-Karabakh, or merely - at least in word - assists the local self-proclaimed NKR military") since occupation is occupation and doesn't matter if assistance is 100% or 50%. What matters is that the world community have recognized it as military occupation, and have refused to recognize the so-called "NKR" with Azerbaijan not only refusing even a thought about legitimizing the Armenian occupation, but hinting without any double-speak that it has full right to start the liberation campaign at any time, that patience of Azerbaijan is not indefinite and that the current massive reforms and weapons procurement of the Azerbaijani army are aimed for one purpose -- if the peace talks will fail in the next few years, then military solution will be the only left, unfortunately. Meanwhile, all experts know that the assistance of Armenia to the occupation effort is total and the fact that both Kocharyan and Sarkisyan are President and Defense Minister/Security Council Chief respectively of Armenia, whilst being leaders of NK separatism a decade ago, as well as reported parading of T-80 tanks and S-300s in NK, that were given only to Armenia, make it abundantly clear. If you monitor press, then you will see that each time there is shooting on the Line of Contact, it is generally either Defense Minister of Armenia, Sarkisyan, or the Chief of Staff of Armenia, Harutunyan, who give interviews, explain, claim, make threats, assessments, etc., and not "president" Ghoukasyan. However, just to satisfy your curiosity, here are either neutral or Armenian reports that shed a lot of light on just how well "integrated" the NK units are with the Armenian army:

What matters is what is accurate, not what the "world community" says. --Golbez 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Army of Karabakh is deeply integrated with the Armenian military, and the unrecognised NKR state depends on the Armenian army to ensure its survival as an independent national entity. Armenia considers any act of aggression against Karabagh as an act of aggression against itself." [27]

"Physical abuse and poor conditions plagued the Armenian army, resulting in the deaths of several conscripts. They include the death on April 7 of Vahagan Alaverdyan, an eighteen-year-old resident of Yerevan drafted into the Armenian army in November 1997. Alaverdyan’s family stated that they identified him at the Khojaly Military Hospital in Nagorno Karabakh, covered with extensive bruises on the chest, stomach, and back. They further accused officers and other members of the military unit in which he served in Nagorno Karabakh of beating him to death. The Armenian government routinely denies that it conscripts troops and requires them to serve in Nagorno Karabakh." [28]

"Jehovah's Witness conscientious objector Armen Grigoryan faces a six year jail sentence, after his illegal deportation from his own country, Armenia, and his refusal to do military service in the unrecognised Nagorno-Karabakh republic, Forum 18 News Service has learnt. But Armenia's Human Rights Ombudsperson, Larisa Alaverdyan, denied to Forum 18 that Grigoryan had been deported. "You can't call it illegal deportation – there's no such term. I'm a specialist on this. Perhaps it might have been illegal removal from the country." She defended what she claimed was the right of the Armenian Defence Ministry to send Armenian citizens to Nagorno-Karabakh, which international law regards as part of Azerbaijan." [29]

"Seda Mkrtchyan watches news of the war in Iraq and thinks of conflict closer to her home in the Pokr Vedi village of the Ararat region. ... It has been more than five years (February 1998), since Seda's only son, Armen, disappeared from his regimen while encamped in the Martakert region of Nagorno Karabakh. He had been called to service 10 months earlier, and his letters home were mostly optimistic about his life as a conscripted soldier." [30] --AdilBaguirov 10:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, Wiki policies and policies of international bodies are not the same. Wiki is not UN spokesperson. Under the policy of Wikipedia, we use neutral words--for example, even if someone is terrorist, we say "militant." Similarly, we say "control", not "occupation."

Also, under Wiki naming conventions, we use internal names--if someone or something calls itself this or that, we adopt that. NK calls itself NKR--we use that. These rules are clearly explained in Wiki policies. There should be links from your user page--follow, it's easy to find.--TigranTheGreat 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I note that "NPOV" does not mean "offering all points of view" - it means "offering a neutral point of view", one that I think has been offered here. Statements of fact without judgment. --Golbez 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So why then the fact that NK is a de-jure region of Azerbaijan was removed from the intro? Grandmaster 21:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It already says "noone recognizes NK's independence." If that's what de jure means, it's already there. We shouldn't repeat things more than once in the intro.--TigranTheGreat 22:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't say conclusively the other way, that it's internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. We say it's a region in the borders of Azerbaijan, then say it declared independence from Azerbaijan - neither statement conclusively saying that it was part OF Azerbaijan beforehand, and is recognized as such today. It may seem like a subtle, minor point, but if it helps cool the dispute, then I'll try it. --Golbez 22:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --Golbez 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, thanks for the explanation, but it does not differ from what I say, since the position of internatinal community is NPOV - there is no other way. Wiki cannot be avoiding terms like "terrorist" -- it has pages on Terrorism, on Terrorist organizations, etc. So while there are some disputes about some, there are no disputes about others, and we have to call them by their true names. That's the objective of any encyclopedia - to be precise and objective and neutral, which means the position of the international community. As of "internal names" - NK is in Azerbaijan, and hence the internal name is what's used by Azerbaijan. Moreover, no one is opposing specifying dual names. --AdilBaguirov 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, what the "world community" says is what's objective - or are you trying to say that you or Tigran are more objective than UN, OSCE, PACE, OIC, US President, US State Department? The NK page must be consistent with other similar pages, whilst taking into account its lower legal status in USSR than Abkhazia, for example, and absense of borders with anyone, thus being fully inside Azerbaijan. These are all facts, that make a lot of difference and should be all reflected. So once again, as much as one might try to downplay or otherwise pretend they don't care, the position of international community is the most important, as that's the collective opinion of experts with advanced degrees and far more experience than anyone of us here. And certainly international law exists far longer than anything else you can cite in return. Thus, once more, this is a requirement - NK page must conform international law and norms. --AdilBaguirov 22:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What the world community is certainly not objective. It is the opinion of the world community. For example, is Taiwan independent? The world community, as embodied by the United States, the United Nations, etc., would say no - it's part of the People's Republic of China. But as we all know, it has been de facto independent for decades. They are not being objective, they are pandering to politics. I am saying I'm more objective, certainly, than the United States President and State Department, as I am not beholdent to politics. --Golbez 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, the intro already states NK declared ind. from Azerbaijan, noone recognizes it, and its' within borders of Azerbaijan. I don't think we should repeat the same idea twice in the intro.--TigranTheGreat 22:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but look at it this way - we say what the international community does NOT recognize. We should also say what it DOES recognize. Again, seems like a minor point, but I think it will be useful, and maintains NPOV. It changes things from passive to active. --Golbez 22:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez: "Yes, but it doesn't say conclusively the other way, that it's internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. We say it's a region in the borders of Azerbaijan, then say it declared independence from Azerbaijan - neither statement conclusively saying that it was part OF Azerbaijan beforehand, and is recognized as such today. It may seem like a subtle, minor point, but if it helps cool the dispute, then I'll try it."

I think if we make extra clarification of "part of Azerbaijan," we should make the same about "de facto independence." They both go together. But, I am against both--we mention pure facts speak for themselves, we let readers infer.

The intro makes it clear that it *was* part of Azerbaijan--USSR set it up as part of Azerbaijan, and NK declared independence *from* Azerbaijan.

As for "currently *is* part of Azerbaijan," you don't think "noone recognizes its independence from Azerbaijan" means "they recognize it as part of Azerbaijan?"--TigranTheGreat 22:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

look at it this way - we say what the international community does NOT recognize. We should also say what it DOES recognize. Again, seems like a minor point, but I think it will be useful, and maintains NPOV. It changes things from passive to active. --Golbez 22:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I think it's simply unbalanced to say that "int. comm does recognize nk as part of Azerbaijan" without clarifying that it's "de facto independent." After all we could argue "it says NK declared independence, but doesn't say that now it IS de facto independent."

Second, you don't think saying what the international community does NOT recognize actually tells the reader what it DOES recognize?--TigranTheGreat 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but - for the third time now - if it cools the POV issue, then it's a good thing to add. However, I'm adding de facto to try to offset it, so let's see how that goes. --Golbez 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore the cooling of POV point--got it the first time. My objection was to the imbalance. It looks better now.--TigranTheGreat 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The international community does recognize NK as a region of Azerbaijan. UN SC resolutions refer to NK as a region of Azerbaijan, which means that UN recognizes it as such. So does the Council of Europe. The government of NK is considered illegal by the CoE, who formally objected to staging the elections in the region. According to the US State Department, the United States supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, i.e. it sees NK as part of Azerbaijani territory. As you can see, the international community recognizes NK only as part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

UNSC is narrower and less representative than UN--UN General Assembly never took explicit position. So, UNSC's position is not necessarily UN's position. As an example, Pres. Raegan (executive of US) admitted the Arm. Genocide. The US Congress (legislature) hasn't, so US hasn't.

US is not the "international community." US is pro-Azeri (due to oil, Turkey, etc.)--and as a perm. member of the UNSC--it's influence was clear. In General ASsembly, it had less influence.

Council of Europe's position is your interpretation--never explicitly said "NK is part of Azerbaijan.

In sum, we state pure facts and let readers infer.--TigranTheGreat 08:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, the attempts to revise and misinterpret the position of international community are deplorable - why would you deliberately confuse and provide unreliable info? First off, only UN Security Council resolutions have the status of an international law and are mandatory - General Assembly is, to borrow from you, advisory. However, General Assembly did take position on the issue and has recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan, on several occassions, see for example [31], [32], [33], and especially on the "elections" in "NKR" [34] and [35]. To even try to claim otherwise is funny. Meanwhile, since when did US become "pro-Azeri" - with much more aid given to Armenia, with Sec. 907 against Azerbaijan, with the second largest embassy in the world being in Yerevan, it shows that US, especially the Congress, are very much leaning more towards Armenia due to its money and lobbyists, who can hire lawyers to write up empty reports like the one by New England School. Yet US is international community -- it is a very important member of it. But aside from US, many other countries have explcitly recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan -- both during voting in UN GA and at the level of their MFAs or Presidents, for example here are a few statements from Ukraine [36] and [37]. Same thing of Council of Europe/PACE - there is no interpretation, there is a clear position that NK is part of Azerbaijan, talks about "two communities" of NK, "occupied territores", "separatist forces", etc. --AdilBaguirov 11:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Economy

This article really needs a section on Nagorno-Karabakh's economy, which I'm sure is very stunted due to the war, but who knows, maybe I'll be surprised. --Golbez 16:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I actually have high hopes this could become a GA or even FA. Barring possible POV issues, it's really shaped up quite well, though it still has a ways ahead of it. --Golbez 23:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article is well referenced and very promising. Hopefully if Grandmaster adopts a more flexible stance to new additions and changes, we can all have a real breakthrough in improving the article.

I think the first place to look for economy would be the official NKR page (www.nkrusa.org) itself. If course we could state that it's from NKR page to make it more POV.--TigranTheGreat 07:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Golbez. There’s absolutely no way this article can make it to GA or FA status. The current intro, introduced by you and Tigran without discussing it with other interested parties reflects exclusively an Armenian POV, and articles with POV problems cannot have a featured status. I’m restoring the POV tag, which was repeatedly removed without any explanation. You cannot remove the tag until the dispute is resolved. And its not just me opposing your changes, Adil never supported them either. Also I have a question to Golbez. Would you be so kind as to explain why you reverted the original intro, which was restored by EI C? That intro was made by a consensus of the users, the current one has no consensus, still you repeatedly revert to it. You say that you are impartial, if so, why do you support one of the sides of the dispute and completely ignore what the other side says? Why do you oppose to restoring the status quo and agreeing on changes before making them? Thanks in advance for your answer. Grandmaster 15:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no "exclusive Armenian POV" here. You keep saying that, without explaining why. Is it the controlled vs occupied bit? Or the lack of "self-proclaimed" everywhere in the article? Or what? I hope I'm not repeating a question that's been answered, but I hope you can understand with the volume of talk on this page that I may have missed an answer, but can you cite a specific POV issue you have with the intro? I would say I am far more impartial than you. --Golbez 21:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I’m not saying that I’m impartial. But you removed the fact that NK is a region of Azerbaijan. It’s a fact that was in all the versions of intro. What is your problem with that? Grandmaster 21:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One, it matches the other regional separatists articles. Two, if you accept that the region is de facto independent (which I think most of us do), then how can it also be "a fact" (i.e. "de facto") that it is also part of Azerbaijan? --Golbez 21:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is de-jure part of Azerbaijan. I hope you are not going to argue with that? Grandmaster 04:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. --Golbez 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why then this cannot be reflected in the intro? De-facto and de-jure normally go in conjunction. Grandmaster 07:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The "status exists only in de-facto form" makes it clear that de-jure it's not independent. "Not recognized by Int. comm" hammers it even further. We don't need to keep hammering the point. Keep in mind that de-jure is a legal term and open to interpretation by legal experts. We state pure facts here.--TigranTheGreat 08:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus on the prior intro. Consensus means agreement, and as reactions of current users show, many didn't agree to it. It was blatantly POV. People sometimes move on to other articles, and leave an article alone--doesn't mean they agree to it. Before the prior intro, there was another version opposed by you that existed for a while. You can't just pick one "status-quo" version over another one that was status-quo at another point. The criteria is whether something is neutral.

Well put, there is disagreement, therefore there is no consensus. QED. --Golbez 21:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What does QED mean, Golbez? By the way, here is an official page on the NKR economy, from the NKR site: http://www.nkr.am/eng/facts/economy.htm. We can work from there. --TigranTheGreat 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

QED, quod erat demonstratum. It's a phrase used to show in mathematics that the result required for a proof to be complete has been attained; in other words, it's when you prove a proof. There is no consensus because there is disagreement, the statement proves itself - you can't disagree with consensus, because by the existence of the disagreement, there is no consensus. I probably used QED incorrectly, but I liked it. ;) --Golbez 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Shahumyan

Golbez, I think the Shahumyan paragraph should state, in one form or another that "the Shahumyan district, in a joint decision with NKAO, declared its independence from Azerbaijan and the establishment of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic on September 2, 1991, joining the NKR." Otherwise, it sounds like NKAO first declared its independence, then claimed an outside territory.

See, for example http://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf (the analysis by New England law school, mentioned in the Int. Status section): "the joint decision of the NKAO and Shahumian district to declare the establishment of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic on September 2, 1991"--TigranTheGreat 00:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the joint declaration: Joint session of the Nagorno Karabakh Oblast and Shahoumian regional councils of people’s deputies with the participation of deputies of councils of all levels

I also think the NK map should have the borders of the NKR, including Shahumyan--it's information and useful in the article. Golbez, you are good with photo programs, if you could add it, it would be great. Here is the map of the NKR--shahumyan is the top one: http://www.nkr.am/eng/map.jpeg.--TigranTheGreat 01:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact the whole mentioning of former Shahumyan should be removed as advised before -- it was neither part of former NKAO, nor were there any legitimate basis for that claim (or for "NKR" declaration of independence for that matter), nor is it occupied by Armenia, nor did that region have a Parliament or even council. There are many declarations of independence in absentia - for example, the Republic of Goycha and Zangezur [38]. --AdilBaguirov 03:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, we should have an article on that! --Golbez 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The source is dubious--I mean we don't even know whether they declared it while in Armenia, or outside--the page says "it is claimed that it was declared." It's not an official site of this "entity."--TigranTheGreat 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, based on the links helpfully proviced by Tigran, we really should mention it, though I'm not yet sure how. However, Tigran, I would really love links other than that singular declaration. I have no proof, for example, that anyone from Shahumian was actually involved in that (according to the ethnolinguistic map (uh oh), that region should be majority Azeri, so I don't know who is joining NKR here), and I would like ... not a verification, since that does appear to be an official document, but ... an independent telling of events? I guess what I'm saying here is, the only source I have for the Shahumian thing is the NKR declaration of independence - I'd like a separate report/document/story about it. --Golbez 07:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we include information, not exclude it. Someone interested in the issue would want to know what are the borders declared by the NK declaration. Especially an Azeri reader. Wouldn't you guys want to know "what is the exact land claimed by those freakin Armenians?" :) Be honest--TigranTheGreat 05:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is it Golbez. Two PDF files.

The Background Paper on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict prepared by Directorate General of Political Affairs of the Council of Europe

On 2 September 1991 the Regional Councils of NKAO and of the Shahumian district (on the Northern tip of N-K) proclaimed a new state - the N-K Republic. http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10364APPENDIX.pdf

The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution A Memorandum Prepared by the Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy

The actions of the USSR Constitutional Oversight Committee did not, however, annul 'the joint decision of the NKAO and Shahumian district to declare the establishment of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic on September 2, 1991, since that declaration was deemed in compliance with the then existing law. ( The April 3, 1990 "Law of the USSR Concerning the Procedure of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR," http://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf

I read the second one, it seems rather tilted towards the Armenian side. Perhaps with cause, perhaps not, I'm just saying. As for the first one, that's useful, thanks. --Golbez 08:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the borders of the NKR as declared by the NKR government, I think the official NKR page should suffice, since the caption says that it's the borders as declared by the NKR government.

We should also specify on the map which part is NKAO.

I think that's established by the text; I'm also considering adding the official Line of Control to the map. Sigh. --Golbez 08:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, to explain why you see no Armenians there--in June 1992, Shahumyan region, along with 40% of NKR, was taken during an Azeri offensive. All Armenians were expelled. In a few months, Armenians took all of the land back except Shahumyan. It was after that that they went on taking 20% of the surrounding Azeri lands.

Also, as the 1st paper correctly states, the region of Nagorno-Karabagh, or mountainous Karabagh, includes the areas of Shahumyan (which is mountainous) and NKAO. Karabakh includes Mountainous Karabakh and the lowlands to the east. --TigranTheGreat 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, but it wasn't part of the NKAO, hence part of the current confusion. --Golbez 08:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That first link is very interesting, actually, and supplies what appears to be a very neutral and comprehensive take on the issue. Good stuff. I particularly liked this line: "Comment: Depending on the viewpoint taken on ancient history, N-K can probably be seen as traditionally either Armenian of Azerbaijani land – or both." --Golbez 08:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, you still have not answered, why the intro does not mention NK being de-jure part of Azerbaijan? And also, the dispute has not been resolved, why did you remove the tag without even asking our opinion? Grandmaster 09:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"De jure" goes with saying "independence is not recognized". Now, the difference is, when we say "independence is not recognized," that means it's de jure part of Azerbaijan, but it says nothing about its de facto status - it could be both de facto and de jure part of Azerbaijan. Which is why we then need an additional comment on the de facto status. Making a further comment about the de jure status seems to be doubling up - "It's unrecognized, AND it's part of Azerbaijan!" Put the notice back if you like, I removed it only in good faith, but I must insist specific complaints be made. I thought the de facto/de jure issue had been resolved, I apologize if it had not, you can understand that this talk page is long and convoluted. --Golbez 09:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, that’s why I asked you. I have no doubts you did it in good faith. Please see the way BBC describes the status of the region: Status: de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, unilaterally declared itself an independent republic in 1991. [39] Now I think the first line should reflect the current status, de-jure part of Azerbaijan, de-facto under the control of separatists and Armenia. Grandmaster 09:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, here are some interesting news related to de jure recognition of NK as Azerbaijan's: Amnesty International: PUBLIC STATEMENT AZERBAIJAN: Journalist detained in self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic -- a blow to freedom of expression[40]. Thus, anything negative that happens in the occupied territories, also gets placed in Azerbaijan folder, which however unfortunate, shows responsible approach taken by such a well-known NGO consistent with international law and obligations. --AdilBaguirov 11:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro 2

Golbez, the intro has become way too confusing and complicated. It also overstates the "part of Azerbaijan" point while completely downplaying the de facto independence (buried in the end, and reduced to "de facto status" only). I still think the best way to avoid it is to remove loaded words both de facto and de jure, and stick to pure, undisputed facts.

De jure is a legal term--anything to do with law can be interpreted. There are legal experts who agree that NK is not part of Azerbaijan under international law (as the "International Status" section mentions). That's what the Int. Status section was originally created for--to present the points on this issue. "NK is de-jure part of Azerbaijan" is therefore one position (whether majority or minority, it's irrelevant--we don't adopt positions here).--TigranTheGreat 12:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved de jure down, though I disagree that it belongs at all. I think that, at this point, including either the de facto or de jure status in the first sentence is non-negotiable, as it simply creates strife. Furthermore, I don't think we should say that it is recognized de jure as part of Azerbaijan - I would not be surprised if there were many nations around the world who did not care one way or another, and had no specific recognition of it as part of Azerbaijan. However, we DO know that no one recognizes the independence. OK, that epiphany is going in the article. --Golbez 19:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The biased "legal experts" who write paid-for analysis cannot and will not be put on the same level as UN, PACE, OIC, OSCE, State Department, and other authoritative international organizations and institutions. The latter's position is unequivocal, clear and not subject to interpretation -- NK is part of Azerbaijan and is occupied. So the current intro is the best compromise between hiting all the points about both de jure/de facto, independence yet unrecognized due to being part of Azerbaijan, etc. There are many more essential undisputed facts that could be included, such as ehtnically cleansed entire Azerbaijani population from NK; preceeding each mention of "NKR" with the necessary "self-styled/so-called/unrecognized" disclaimer; military occupation instead of control; that aside for most of NKAO's proper also 7 regions are occupied; but as a compromise, it is not being included in the intro. --AdilBaguirov 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Adil. There’s not a single country or international organization that disputes NK being de-jure part of Azerbaijan. The opinion of private persons is different from the opinion of international community and cannot be considered equal to it. If some law school came to a conclusion that NK is not a de-jure part of Azerbaijan, this opinion cannot be given weight equal to the position of the entities, recognition by which is required to become an independent state. It is a fact that NK is internationally recognized as a de-jure part of Azerbaijan, and this fact should be reflected. Grandmaster 13:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is wrong, many if not most do rather refer to it as a disputed territory 'officialy' recognized as part of Azerbaijan. This was the problem if you remember correctly. Claiming it is part of Azerbaijan is also claiming somehow that it has no de facto independence, both are contradictions. Because I can claim it is independent, it depend what point I am taking more into consideration, while the term officialy tell us that officially indeed it is recognized as such, but it is de facto independent. And we already discussed about de Jure part, it is far from being encyclopedic, since there are various publications that dismiss the legality. They even dismiss the changing of vote which resulted to its transfer, calling it illegal. Fad (ix) 14:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back GM. First of all that's not disputed and nobody has said that it should not be reflected. The dispute surrounds the fact that the 100% de facto independence is not stressed enough and that it should be the primary sentence in the intro. Cyprus exercises more control over TRNC than Azerbaijan does over NKR yet the articles looks very different.--Eupator 14:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TRNC is a de jure recognized entity, and its leader Mehmet Ali Talat met with both UN Sec. General Kofi Annan and US Sec. Condoleeza Rice. Who met with Arkady Ghoukasyan aside from President Kocharyan? So this rests the case of international legitimacy. Moreover, what "NKR" are we talking about -- Cyprus, especially the Greek one, has a vibrant economy, tourism, banking -- whilst "NKR" is being depopulated (even according to its own "census"), constant shooting on the Line of Contact and every year increased threat of resumption of mass-scale warfare, all making sure that neither any type of legitimate economy, nor civil population could sustain? Let's be real here. Meanwhile, what is de facto "independence" for some, is also a military occupation for all others, which keeps being reaffirmed by the international community from day one until now -- just days ago OIC Sec. General reaffirmed once again that NK is part of Azerbaijan and is occupied. And of course there cannot be "de facto" without "de jure" usage -- encyclopedia's are an academic and scientific publication, that require precision and spelling out of important terms, conditions, etc., where "important" means whatever is important for the international community and authoritative organizations, is certainly important enough for Wiki. --AdilBaguirov 16:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Recognized entity doesn't mean a thing, because according to the same logic so is Karabakh, it recieves monatory funds independently from both Azerbaijan and Armenia, including the US has a different package for Karabakh.So recognizing some entity is a very vague concept. What matters is if TRNC is officially recognized as a state by the international community, the answer is no. So it is not much different than Karabakh. Fad (ix) 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, GM and Adil, but we don't dismiss one position and adopt another. Armenia says it's not legally part of Az. NK says the same. There are legal experts saying the same. If there is a dispute that it's de jure part of Az, we can't assert it.--TigranTheGreat 15:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, we are not asserting anything - we state real and legitimate facts, not twisted opinions. Indeed, it is those who try to equate Armenia's POV position to the NPOV of the international community, which includes both sovereign countries and institutions, are trying to assert things, dismiss legitimate and only correct position. Meanwhile, per continuation of the claim about UN General Assembly never taking a position on NK, Armenia itself accepted and recognized the fact that the Nagorny Karabakh region is a part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, having unconditionally joined the consensus in adopting, for instance, General Assembly resolution 49/13 (1994) entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe”, paragraph 8 of which reads as follows:

"Fully supports the activities of the Conference aimed at achieving a peaceful solution to the conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic and to alleviate the tension between the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijani Republic" [41]

In addition to this explicit recognition of NK as part of Azerbaijan by Armenia, the Armenian Prime Minister Armen Darpinian also signed the Baku Declaration in 1998, which also clearly specified NK as a region of the Republic of Azerbaijan. He did get a lot of heat for that back in Armenia, though. --AdilBaguirov 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about positions, we are talking about facts. NK is a de-jure part of Azerbaijan, it is a fact, acknowledged by the whole world. Armenian separatists and folks in some legal school may think otherwise, but it does not change the fact that NK is recognized only as a region of Azerbaijan. So this fact should be stated in the intro, and opinions are reflected in the text. Grandmaster 17:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Can any veteran explain to Grandmaster that words such as 'facts' 'proven' are alien to Wikipedia? I have attempted to explain him this for months and he still refuse to listen. I already referred to Universalis the French encyclopedia which refers to it as a disputed territory. As long as it is recognized as disputed by various groups, words like 'it is a region of' is POV. On the other hand, it is officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but there is a clear contradiction between 'being' with its de facto statut. De Jure is a very strong word, and I disagree with it, it has used a relevant Soviet law to declare its decision after a referundum, a law also referred here in Quebec by some when requesting a recognition based on such a referundum. Also, words like the Jure are problematic in international law, because the decision to allocate Karabakh to Azerbaijan was the result of a changing of vote of one man after he took the decision. We are not jurists here, even if we were, it would not change a thing since there are many that do question the legal legitimity of Karabakh by Azerbaijan, we already discussed here. Also, I thought the exclusion of the word de jure was settled. Fad (ix) 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, we are not jurists, we are not experts in determining whether under the law a region is independent or not. For example, NK seceded in accordance with Soviet law--Azerbaijan SSR seceded, and NKAO had the right to secede from SSR, before SSR was recognized as indep. Azerbaijan. Hence, by law, it's not part of Az. That is the position of NKR, Armenia, and reputable legal experts. Maybe others have other positions. We don't take positions.--TigranTheGreat 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So what if someone refers to it as a disputed territory? We report facts only, the fact is that NK is legally recognized only as part of Azerbaijan. Opinions of some people or entities are just opinions, but the position of the international community is a fact. To become an independent state a certain territory needs to be recognized by independent states and accepted to international organizations. Since this has not happened and the region is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, NK is not a state and is de-jure nothing but a part of Azerbaijani territory. If we include de-facto, we should include de-jure as well, because every entity has two aspects, de-facto existence and legal existence. Sometimes these two don’t match, as in the case with most self-proclaimed entities with no recognition. So this is what the lead should reflect, that NK is legally part of the country it tries to break away from and that that country has no effective control over that territory. I think both sides should accept these facts, which is hard to do, but we have to if we want to put an end to this dispute. I actually thought that this dispute was over long ago, but it looks like it’s gonna go for many more months. Grandmaster 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, Fadix, who told you that “words such as 'facts' 'proven' are alien to Wikipedia”? I just want to know the source of your information. See Wikipedia:Verifiability:

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. Grandmaster 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevancy of even discussing with you, when after months and thousands of words of answers have gone to be simply waste. 'FACTS' are 'de facto' entities in Wikipedia, and only terms recognized as facts are names, things which no one could reject(like the sky is blue) and perhaps mathematical equalities. The de facto independence of Karabakh is recognized by everyone. De Jure is rejected by many, Karabakh consider to be de jure independent, Armenia does not recognize it as part of Azerbaijan. I have already told you that in the French press the term 'disputed' was used, and Universalis encyclopedia prefer this word. You can not decide which position is the truth, Wikipedia does not take position. I already told you that I have no problem with 'officially recognized as a region of Azerbaijan.' But bogus terms like De Jure are simply misleading and POV. You aren't disputing its de facto independence, while I dispute its de Jure statu as being part of Azerbaijan. It used legal means under Soviet Laws, it can answer back and claim De Jure independence. Also, you are misunderstanding 'facts' as 'truth' and facts as relevant materials. If I write a paper with the results of a study, I publish the results I have obtained, the facts are that I have obtained those results. Or facts as in, if someone say A, I report that indeed he/she said A and not B. This is a representation on the accuracy of presenting each positions. But what you are requesting rather is facts as in truth. And this is in contradiction with the NPOV policy. Fad (ix) 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

NK being de-jure part of Azerbaijan is a fact such as the sky is blue. One can dispute that the sky is not blue and this opinion can be reported, but it does not change the fact. If NK is not recognized as an independent country, and is recognized only as a part of Azerbaijan, it is still legally part of Azerbaijan. No one can deny that it is not recognized internationally in any capacity other than a region of Azerbaijan. Not a single international organization disputes this. Opinions of some mass media cannot change it. And the term de-jure is used in other similar articles in Wikipedia. You can dispute the de-jure status of NK as part of Azerbaijan as much as you want and so can do all the law schools in the world, but as long as NK is not recognized internationally as an independent country it is irrelevant and does not change the its legal status. And what is your problem with stating that NK is a region of Azerbaijan? You seemed to agree with that before. Grandmaster 18:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't complicate things Grandmaster, many have in the past tried to reasonate you on why de jure is not applicable, if you are seriously comparing this with the sky being blue, I don't give much worth to your comprehention of the NPOV policy. The blueness of the sky is associated with a wave in the spectral range and established as such. Karabakh on the other hand is a disputed territory, its statue is disputed while officially recognized as within Azerbaijan, 'de jure' is a taking of position, facts can not apply when applying a legal concept, and no one that I know of acting as an outsider from the past to now as I have witnessed has accepted that term to be OK as an encyclopedic article. Karabakh recognize itself as de jure independent and this de jure independence it recognize is not recognized, this has as much worth as claiming that Azerbaijan recognize it as de jure a part of itself. Also, it does have a partial recignition, it has its own network, registered in the World bank and its government is given the ligeitimity to manage the international fund. One can not equal an official recognition with a de jure exclusion, it is its de jure independence that is not recognized and not only a position, it being de jure part of Azerbaijan on the other hand is simply an opinion. Like I said hundreds of times, I don't make the rules. Fad (ix) 23:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, NK is not really a disputed territory, but an occupied territory. Disputed is Kashmir - and officially denoted as such. NK is militarily occupied and separatist -- and also denoted as such. Also, Karabakh does not "recognize itself as de jure independent" - this is complete abomination of the terminology, facts and logic, and an insult on the intelligence of the people here. I do not have to go too far to disprove this play of words, just look at the website of the "Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic" in US: "The presence of the office in the US capital enabled us to significantly raise awareness of the legal aspects of Nagorno Karabakh conflict and to work on de jure recognition of our independence from Azerbaijan" [42] --AdilBaguirov 00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, you hit it right on the nail--that's PRECISELY what I have been saying all this time. We know that noone has recognized NK's indepence. We we don't know if every single one, or even the majority of 200+ countries have taken an explicit position of "NK is part of Azerbaijan." As you said, maybe they don't care. I will give you another reason. Maybe they refrain from taking a explicit position for fear of affecting the negotiation process. Here is an example of what I mean.

There was this British parlamentarian named Atkinson. He prepared a report for PACE on NK. The report was widely regarded as a very pro-Azeri document. It talked about "NK being part of Azerbaijan" etc. Russian ambassador Kazimirov criticized Atkinson for deviating from neutrality, and jeopardizing the negotiation process. There was a heavy lobbying by both Azeris and Armenians regarding the adoption of Atkinson's report by PACE. Guess what--when PACE adopted a resolution based on the report--there was no explicit mention of "NK is region of Azerbaijan." They talk about general principles of "territorial integrity" and "self determination," they call NK's forces "separatist forces" etc--in other words they are dancing around the issue, carefully avoiding a mention of "NK is a region OF Azerbaijan."

In sum, saying "International Community recognizes it as part of Azerbaijan" is unsupported statement based on insufficient evidence. Most countries could be avoiding taking a direct position.

Oh by the way, links to most of the documents mentioned above are in the article. Kazimirov's objection was in British journalist De Waal's article which I linked in the Archives. GM should remember it, otherwise I will dig into the archives to find it.--TigranTheGreat 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So what? Kazimirov is a private person, whose opinion has not much weight, plus his bias is obvious, everybody knows who supports separatism at the territory of former USSR. PACE resolution still calls “NKR” separatist forces (i.e. forces who try to separate the region from Azerbaijan), which means that they support territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, otherwise they would call them something else, like legitimate government. And Council of Europe considers the elections in the region illegal, i.e. “NKR” is illegal to CoE. And the reference to 200+ countries is not really relevant. Each country can express its their disagreement at the UNO General Assembly or otherwise, even by recognizing “NKR” as an independent state. Since that is not happening, NK is still legally part of Azerbainjan. Grandmaster 05:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So is Atkinson's bias (obvious). I can reverse your argument and say "If PACE really wanted to take a position and say that NK is part of Azerbaijan, it would say so, just like UNSC resolutions did. Since it didn't, it does not take such position." In sum, you are making your interpretation of words used by PACE.

Kazimirov has been a Russian ambassador and Russia's rep in the OESC peace negotiations. I am not saying his opinion is fact, I am just saying the very existence of that opinion shows that there may be motivations behind not saying "NK is part of Azerbaijan"--TigranTheGreat 06:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It’s just your interpretation that the PACE resolution does not say certain things. Calling “NKR” separatists is equal to supporting the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. If it was not so, they would have chosen more subtle wording. And also, there’s a difference between Atkinson and Kazimirov. The former is an official Rapporteur, the latter is just a private person. You try to give equal weight to official positions and positions of nobodies, while they don’t have it. The position of states and organizations is one thing, and position of private law schools is another. The same is with the position of an official Rapporteur, who was entrusted to make a report, on basis of which the official resolution was passed, and the position of a retired Russian diplomat. Grandmaster 06:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me, Tigran, which country or international organization officially disputes that NK is part of Azerbaijan and recognizes its independence? Position of private persons is irrelevant to the status of NK. Grandmaster 06:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second - Amb. Kazimirov accused British PM Atkinson of bias?! Wow! Look who is talking - the most notorious and biased of all Minsk Group negotiators, who constantly visits, speaks and publishes in Armenia, attacking an MP who doesn't have a horse in the race and is clearly unbiased and neutral (why would PACE be biased in favor of Azerbaijan, really puzzles me). PACE bases its position on UN - simple. --AdilBaguirov 08:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Answering your question below in the "Current Version" segment. The discussion is getting too segmented.--TigranTheGreat 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil

I seriously get the impression from your chats that you would prefer if all mention of the NKR were removed from this article, including its self-declared independence. Am I correct? --Golbez 19:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I do not mind any mentioning as long as it's balanced. Why do you think it is fair to mention "NKR" 10 times, but precede it with "so-called/unrecognized/self-styled" only once? While I am not asking tit-for-tat, but if there was at least some symmetry, i.e, 3:1. The article is about Nagorno-Karabakh, and that's a land, which belongs to all people who have been born or lived on it, and which is historically part of any one country. Thus, why should it ignore all that and please only Armenian POV? Why can't it say de jure, occupation, ethnic cleansing, if that's accepted and correct terminology? Nothing of what I am asking -- I emphasize, nothing -- is based on wild unsusbstantiated claims. Everything is based on precedents, consistency, and international law and acceptance. That's how I approach all the other conflicts too -- such as Abkhazia, S.Ossetia, Transdniestr. --AdilBaguirov 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Why do you think it is fair to mention "NKR" 10 times, but precede it with "so-called/unrecognized/self-styled" only once?" Because once we've defined it as such, we can trust the reader to remember what he read earlier in the article. --Golbez 00:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, it's a lengthy article and some people would read only certain parts of it. Also, what if we reverse the argument, and say, OK, let's define "NKR" only once, and use NK authorities, since we can trust the reader will remember and make the right judgement? --AdilBaguirov 00:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean about reversing it. As for people who only read part of it, that's not our problem, we cannot constantly repeat definitions because we're worried people will skip parts of the article. --Golbez 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, under Wiki policies, we use self-names instead of outside names when it comes to organizations or entities. There is a whole example of "skinheads" in Wiki policies. People call them skinheads, but we use "white supremacists." Same goes for your "separatists" objection--TigranTheGreat 05:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, what is the "self-name"? A self-name is what people of the land can call it, and did it occur to you that those people are not only ethnic Armenians, but Azerbaijanis. Per your white supremacists/skinheads example -- the official designation used in official government reports is generally "white supremacist groups". Since I advocate using the official language, your example is in agreement with the right way of approaching NK page, that is the official, internationally-recognized and applied terminology. --AdilBaguirov 08:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The self name is what the entity calls itself. NKR calls itself NKR. You may advocate using official language, but Wiki advocates using self-name.--TigranTheGreat 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Current version

The current wording “region within the borders of Azerbaijan” makes no sense, as I said before. If it is just a region within Azerbaijan without any connection to Azerbaijan, then why Armenian population was declaring independence? There are two aspects of such self-declaring entities, de-facto and de-jure, and they normally go in conjunction. You state one, you should state the other. And no matter what Armenian side thinks NK is still considered a territory of Azerbaijan, which is the fact that should be mentioned. Basically, the problem is how to say that it is legally part of Azerbaijan and effectively under the Armenian control without hurting anybody's feelings. Grandmaster 19:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, maybe we should revive our old RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nagorno-Karabakh We are going in circles anyway, so why not asking the communities opinion? Grandmaster 20:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the problem is that whether "legally" (i.e. under law) NK is part of Az or not is matter of dispute among legal experts. If you can't touch it, feel it, measure or observe it, it's not a fact. To tell you the truth, the only real fact is that Azerb. has no control over NK--i.e. that it is de-facto independent.

AS to your "no connection to Azerbaijan"--come on, when we say "declared independence *from* Azerbaijan"--you think the reader is gonna say 'could it have been part of Mosambique?" It's clear that it was (de facto and de jure) part of Azerbaijan, then declared independence. Even more so, Golbez' latest reordering makes it even clear--the "NKAO PART OF AZerbaijan" is mentioned first, so the reader will never think of Mosambique.--TigranTheGreat 05:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as prior experience with RFC's showed, there is virtually no interest in this article among the community. The voters were mainly either Azeri or Armenian. The number of outside voters was marginal. The reason I think is that the article needs much improvement--and we should really get over this intro and work on overall, constructive improvement of the article, so people will start showing interest in it--TigranTheGreat 05:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, it sounds strange that it is a region within the boundaries of Azerbaijan, that declared independence. If it is just a region within borders, why it was declaring independence? It is not clear from the first line, while it should be. Later explanations just make things more complicated. I will not support the current intro, unless it states the fact that NK is a region of Azerbaijan. It is a fact that the region was recognized as a region of Azerbaijan only, therefore it’s legally part of Azerbaijan. The opinions of legal experts have no value, they are just opinions and not facts. The fact that no one can deny is that the status of NK as part of Azerbaijan is not disputed by international organizations, who actually decide whether the region should be independent or not. Therefore it is part of Azerbaijan, until its independence is recognized by anyone at all. The first line should be restored to say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Noone says "it's JUST a region within borders." We explain that it was part of ASSR, declared independence from Azerbaijan, noone recognized. No confusion that it belonged to Mosambique. By the way, a statement like "until it's recognized as independent, it's part of Azerbaijan" is precisely a matter debated by international experts. Maybe it's true if Azerbaijan was always independent. In case of ASSR and NKAO jointly seceding from Soviet Union--it's less certain. You may think it's not--but again, it's your opinion, and by definition not a fact.--TigranTheGreat 05:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, opinion of experts is irrelevant, it’s just an opinion, the only thing that matters is position of states and international organizations. Only states and international organizations decide whether a certain territory would be an independent country or not, and not “experts”, who you can hire to say that the globe is square and not round. And the opinion of international community is very well known, Azerbaijan was recognized independent within the boundaries of former Azerbaijan SSR, and it is a fact that law schools cannot change. Since NK is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, it remains such until (if ever) it is recognized independent. Grandmaster 05:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Globe can be felt, measured, observed. Its roundness is factual. Legal issues are never factual. States have no monopoly over what legal terms mean. I agree, only states can recognize independence. But the issue whether such non-recognition automatically means recognition of a region within another country is a matter of legal discourse. So, the FACT is a state's recognition or non recognition of another state. An OPINION is about what such fact (in this case non-recognition) means.--TigranTheGreat 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See Atkinson: The borders of Azerbaijan were internationally recognised at the time of the country being recognised as independent state in 1991. The territory of Azerbaijan included the Nagorno-Karabakh region. [43] It is a fact that NK was recognized as part of Azerbiajan and remains such until is recognized otherwise. Grandmaster 06:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and atkinson was heavily criticized for taking a pro-Azeri position and affecting the negotiation process. Statements such as these were excluded from official PACE resolution.--TigranTheGreat 06:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact reported by Atkinson that Azerbaijan was recognized within the borders of former Azerbaijan SSR. He was not proposing to include it to the resolution, he was just presenting the background to the conflict. His bias is nothing but an opinion, he was entrusted with preparation of this report by PACE, and not Kazimirov, and for a good reason. Atkinson was criticized only by the Armenian side and Kazimirov, who had an obvious bias themselves. Grandmaster 06:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It was his opinion (and quite likely resulf of his bias)--it never made to the PACE resolution. Doesn't matter if he is an official person--he is British parlamentarian--one member of the Parliamentary Assembly. There are individual Congressman who say the Armenian Genocide happened, doesn't mean the whole congress recognizes it.

Earlier you asked who disputes that NK is part of Azerbaijan. Noone needs to dispute--they may just refrain from taking any position whatsoever for fear of affecting the negotiations. They don't recognize its independence, but they don't say it's part of Azerbaijan as well.

"Separatists" in PACE resolution could have the purpose of saying that NK's independence is not recognized. Again, if they wanted to go as far as UNSC did, they would actually state "NK is region of Azerbaijan." Not once is that simple phrase mentioned in PACE resolution.--TigranTheGreat 20:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, Tigran, it’s not an opinion, it’s a background information, collected by his commission, and it says that Azerbaijan was recognized in the boundaries of former Azerbaijan SSR. And he never proposed to include that information into the resolution, so it never was rejected. Also PACE resolution supports the resolutions of UNSC, and those resolutions as is known refer to NK as a region of Azerbaijan. And Atkinson’s bias is not a proven fact, but just an opinion of the Armenian side, not supported by any credible source. Also, non-recognition is a position too, if NK is not recognized as independent, it remains a region of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, statements made by Atkinson in the "background info" is "information" as he sees it--which by definition is his position. You may be right that "region of Azerbaijan" was never mentioned in PACE since Atkinson never proposed it, but again you may be wrong--they may have done it to refrain from taking a position. We will never know, all we know is that not once does the resolution state "region of Azerbaijan." If it doesn't, any inference is an interpretation of the language of the resol., and hence an opinion.

Non-recognition is a fact. It is a fact that "noone recognized NK's independence"--it is something that can be observed. Saying that this fact implies that "everyone recognizes it as part of Azerbaijan" is an interpretation, hence an opinion. Which excludes the possiblity that, as Golbez said, most states might not care.--TigranTheGreat 07:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Tigran, everybody sees it the same, it’s just you in denial of facts. See Britannica:

Nagorno-Karabakh

Britannica Concise

Region (pop., 2002 est.: 144,300), southwestern Azerbaijan. It occupies an area of about 1,700 sq mi (4,400 sq km) on the northeastern flank of the Karabakh Range. The region was formerly part of Iran but was annexed by Russia in 1813. In 1923 it was established as an autonomous province of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. In 1988 the region's Armenian majority demonstrated against Azerbaijanian rule, and in 1991 (after the breakup of the Soviet Union) war broke out between the two ethnic groups. Since 1994 it has been controlled by ethnic Armenians, though officially it remains part of Azerbaijan. [44] Grandmaster 10:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes - according to the UN, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, it remains officially part of Azerbaijan. Do we have a declaration, however, from Paraguay that it is part of Azerbaijan? If not, then we cannot say it is universally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. We can only say it is universally not recognized as independent. --Golbez 15:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Map

Oops, I did it again. Updated map, lemme know your thoughts. --Golbez 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good map, Golbez, nice job. Color names might be abit gay (just kidding :) What is fushia anyway?).

The only objection is the "disputed region of Shahumyan."--I think it's misleading, creates impression as if NK already is an independent state, and Azerbaijan and NK are fighting only over Shahumyan. There is nothing disputed about it--Azeris never dispute that it declared independence from Azerbaijan jointly with NKAO, Armenians never dispute that it's ethnically cleansed from Armenians and under Azeri control. I think it should say "the shahumyan region, claimed by NKR, is in pink"

I also think the "NK is green" should be replaced with "former NKAO is in green,"--I think it gives useful clarification to the reader as to what former NKAO looked like.--TigranTheGreat 05:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, unlike the bulk of the former NKAO, Shahumian has never been de facto part of the NKR, only de jure (de jure part of an entity which does not de jure exist, heh). As for fuschia, I realized it was more maroon. :P --Golbez 05:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not part of NK, neither de-facto, nor de-jure. If something does not exist de-jure, how can another region be a de-jure part of it? Grandmaster 05:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Funky, isn't it? Yet the proclamation of the NK Republic mentions it, so IMO the map should reflect this. As for "de jure", yes, from everyone's point of view except the NKR, it's not de jure part of the NKR, but from the NKR's perspective - they can have de jure stuff within their own sphere of influence - it is. I think, also, that we are heavily overusing the terms "de jure" and "de facto". --Golbez 06:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, it was de-facto part of NKR between December 1991 and June 1992. I mean "disputed" is itself inaccurate, since the whole region is disputed. What's wrong with "the shahumyan region, claimed by NKR while currently under Azeri control, is in pink" It's purely factual.--TigranTheGreat 06:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out my current caption. --Golbez 06:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

De-facto under Azerbaijani control sounds very bad, it is not only de-facto, but also de-jure under Azerbaijani control. I think it should be made as brief as possible. Grandmaster 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster here. "Azerbaijani control" is better.

Good, cuz I removed it around the time y'all made that statement. :) --Golbez 07:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I have a suggestion about reducing the length of caption. Instead of saying saying "The whole NKR is Shaumyan plus NKAO", why not draw the overall border claimed by NKR and just state it in the caption? It's standard practice in maps.--TigranTheGreat 06:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I could, but how would I delineate it? Just have a thicker line? Though I would still have to explain it, due to all the different colors involved. --Golbez 07:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran - Azerbaijanis very much dispute that Shaumyan region "declared independence from Azerbaijan jointly with NKAO". First, because it was impossible under the laws of the time or now -- how can a region declare independence? Do you imagine the City of Glendale in Los Angeles, or City of Watertown in Massachussets declare "independence"? Second, even if we assume for a second that there was such a legal right -- then there is no protocols left, no minutes, nothing! Armenians are unable to produce any documents about either Shaumyan region or that of NKAO voting and declaring smth. Third, the Azerbaijani population was not consulted, was ignored -- and that's a violation of people's, citizens, rights. Fourth - it is not "ethnically cleansed from Armenians" - if you refer to Ring, then it expelled several Azerbaijani villages too, and secondly, Armenians still live there as citizens of Azerbaijan (and they still live in Sumgait too, and in Baku). Thus once more, if Shaumyan declared some independence, then definitely so did Zangezur and Geycha in Armenia. --AdilBaguirov 08:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the matter of Geycha and Zangezur is irrelevant to this article, and I've already said we should have an article on it. As for "how does a region declare independence," what do you mean? My state declared independence twice, once from Britain and again from the United States. The first one took 6 years to be recognized, the second one never was. Regions can and do declare independence all the time, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. I was, however, hoping to find out more about it than the simple statement that it did - I too would, for example, like to know WHO declared independence from Shahumian. Who were the representatives that supposedly declared they were joining with the NKR, etc.? Was this backed up by a referendum? One of the major aspects of the NKR is that they held a referendum (yes, boycotted by Azeris, but it was held nonetheless), but I've heard nothing of the sort from Shahumian. The only links we have so far are the statements that Shahumian declared along with the former NKAO, but I have no corroboration of this. (Back to the United States example - I direct you to Conch Republic and Killington, Vermont)

The Shahumian issue seems to me to be, the folks of the former NKAO held a referendum for independence, then some representatives from Shahumian (or maybe it was only NKAO folks) said they were declaring independence as well, but as far as I know, there was no referendum, no individual declaration... basically, the only proof I have of Shahumian being part of the NKR is in the NKR's declaration and the COE's info document, nothing more. The first one has no source for the Shahumian party, and the second one is a secondary reference. Also, I note that the "political divisions" section is the ONLY one where Shahumian is mentioned - clearly, if it's part of the self-declared NKR, it should be mentioned at least in 'history' and 'current situation', yes? Basically, I still see it as "claimed but not administered by the NKR". I have not seen anything that tells me that a majority population, or majority of government leaders, of the southern Goranboy region declared independence. I don't know WHO did, that's the problem. I apologize for my rambling, it IS 5 am. --Golbez 09:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's alright, but Golbez, Shaumyan region was not an equivalent of any single US State -- US states have their own parliaments, flags, constitutions, army (National Guard), articles of accession to the Union, legitimate foreign (trade) representation, and have a right to succeed from the United States (well, in theory). Neither NKAO (which had of these only its own council, not parliament, unlike for example Naxcivan), nor especially former Shaumyan region had any of this. Instead, in terms of administrative and political rights and attributes, Shaumyan can be compared to a U.S. county, not country/state. This is quite important of a distinction. In other words, imagine St. Sarkis Armenian Church and its county in Charlotte, NC, declare "independence" from the rest of NC or USA - this would never be reported in encyclopedia's, instead in comic sections of local papers. Remember what happened to the successionists in Waco, Texas, in 1994 or so -- they declared themselves as president, ambassador, etc., of the Republic of Texas of 1848 (and at least Texas was an independent country at that time), but were all unceremoniously shot and killed by FBI, all shown on TV for any other potential "successionists" to take note. US did what either Soviet or independent Azerbaijan was unable to do, US never got criticised for this legitimate action, and yet all Texas successionists have more historic rights and political basis for their actions than anyone in either ex-Shaumyan or ex-NKAO. --AdilBaguirov 10:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet we still mention the new Republic of Texas. --Golbez 18:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, per Conch Republic and Killington, Vermont examples -- if the law of the land allowed them to do it, then what's the problem? Even if it didn't or they bent the limits of the law, they were still legitimate municipal, local authority, which was democratically elected, and can produce all records, such as minutes, voting records, roll-call, etc. Neither ex-Shaumyan nor ex-NKAO correspond to any of that. Also, USSR Supreme Soviet rebuffed ex-NKAO, as well as Armenia, and rejected those proclamations, stating firmly that NKAO is a region of Azerbaijan and has to remain as such. --AdilBaguirov 10:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, the CoE document clearly states that "On 2 September 1991 the Regional Councils of NKAO and of the Shahumian district (on the Northern tip of N-K) proclaimed a new state - the N-K Republic. http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10364APPENDIX.pdf

So, the legislative bodies of both areas declared independence. It is in the Background Paper prepared by Directorate General of Political Affairs of CoE. So, it is a reputable source. The sentence about Shahumyan and NKAO declaring independence is therefore sourced and I believe should be restored.

By the way, the only reason Shahumyan is under Azeri control is due to the movement of the military line--it moved quite alot during the War--Azerbaijan still controls some villages in NKAO itself.--TigranTheGreat 20:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Who was this legislative body of Shahumian, though? Did the NKR-forming referendum include voters from Shahumian? I guess that's my question - we know the folks in the NKAO had a referendum, but did the folks in south Goranboy? --Golbez 21:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Regional Council, as the quote states. They did hold a joint referendum with NKAO, but I am not sure we need to verify that. The removed sentence simply stated that "Shahumyan district and NKAO declared independence." That part is cited. IT didn't say "they both held referendum." So, the statement itself is cited.

By the way, about referendum, the CoE paragraph says:

"Validity of referendum. On 2 September 1991 the Regional Councils of NKAO and of the Shahumian district (on the Northern tip of N-K) proclaimed a new state - the N-K Republic. On 10 December 1991, a “referendum” on independence took place. On 6 January 1992, the “Parliament” of N-K officially declared independence."

I think it's clear from that the referendum was all over the NKR territory. If only NKAO held referendum, it would specify it. Instead, the paragraph says that both Shahumyan and NKAO declared it, and then referendum took place.--TigranTheGreat 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's a good quote and I like the fact that Tigran deems it reputable - it puts both "referendum" and "Parliament" in quotes, and that's how it should be done in Wikipedia too. Thank you Tigran! Meanwhile, once again Shaumyan region could not have declared anything, it had neither legal means or authority, or even sufficient Armenian population, who were in minority. Here's a good quote from "Black Garden" of Tom de Waal, that Tigran also seems to like: "He even used the phrase "all the population of Karabakh" when talked about the referendum. So what about the Azerbaijanis? Did he make no effort to consult with them or ask their opinions? Muradian's gaze hardened at this question. "Do you want to know the truth?" he replied. "I will tell you the truth. We weren't interested in the fate of those people. Those people were the instruments of power, instruments of violence over us for many decades, many centuries even. We weren't interested in their fate and we're not interested now." (p. 21) --AdilBaguirov 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

De-facto under Azerbaijani control

I think that the intro should say De-facto under Armenian control. It does not matter how it sounds but on the reality of the situation, this is an enclopidia and not a Public relations firm. Please keep all political POV outside. 69.196.164.190

Er, huh? It's not de facto under Azerbaijani control, and no one anywhere disagrees with that. You seem to not know what "de facto" means. --Golbez 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant Armenian 69.196.164.190

Oh. Uh, it does say it's under Armenian control. --Golbez 02:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Better wording could be in accordance with CIA World factbook:

Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan [45] Grandmaster 10:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster here. If we are going to be official then we should also insert the term occupation or else this is nothing more then a double standard against Azerbaijanis. Baku87 18:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

This week

I met an Armenian girl in Oslo, she was from Baku, but left with her parents shortly before the collapse of the USSR. She doesn't speak Armenian, but she speaks Russian, Azerbaijani, Norwegian and English. She was telling me how she had an Azeri girlfriend but they split up. Interesting world it is. - FrancisTyers · 11:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Typical story of NK war. There are hundreds of thousands of people with similar stories on both sides, many of them lost their friends or family members. Such is the world we live in. Grandmaster 11:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, very true Grandmaster :( - FrancisTyers · 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are up to 30,000 Armenians, according to US State Department and other diplomatic sources, living in Baku, Sumgait, Ganja, Sheki, etc., even today, with them and their children working in good places, from media to science, from oil to government (there are no Azerbaijanis left in Armenia or occupied territories of Azerbaijan aside from a few old people from mixed marriages). There are many joint ventures and businesses between the two peoples in countries like Russia. Thus life continues and people value relationships and human qualities. If there wasn't military aggression, occupation and ethnic cleansing, it would have obviously been far better. --AdilBaguirov 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, many Armenians don't make themselves known that they are Armenian in Azerbaijan. They too are the result of the mixed marriages. Also, Francis, the reason she doesn't know Armenian is because they were never taught Armenian. I spoke to an Armenian women from Baku, Azerbaijan in the United States and she too only spoke Russian with me because Armenian was never taught in Azerbaijan, much less Nagorno-Karabakh.--MarshallBagramyan 16:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You've been greatly misinformed. Perhaps that woman became a US citizen/resident by claiming unexistendpersecution and has to keep on doing that all her life unless she wants to be criminally charged for lying to INS/BCIS. Armenian language was taught, Armenian radio was and still is available, newspapers were published (e.g., Sovetakan Karabakh in Armenian), and in case of former NKAO the whole teaching process was in Armenian in many schools and at university, not to mention other details, like the head of NKAO was Armenian, many ministers were Armenian in Azerbaijan SSR. Some of this info you can read at the NKAO article in Great Soviet Encyclopedia [46]. In Baku and other cities today everyone knows well who is Armenian - so how would those Armenians make themselves unknown is not clear. Meanwhile, no Azerbaijanis remain in Armenia, all are refugees, none were allowed to occupy any prominent government posts, there were no schools or universities teaching Azerbaijani, much less conducting the whole teaching process in Azerbaijani. --AdilBaguirov 22:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kindly provide sources for your mythological insinuations, actually show me one, just one Armenian that currently lives in Baku... Here's an Azeri in Armenia named Felix Aliyev [47]. There are many others. I thought you said there are no Azeris in Armenia? I guess that was just like evrything else you claim.--Eupator 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By now, everyone should have realized that I never make any mythological insinuations - I leave that to others, who never cease to amaze me. I will show you not one, not two, not three -- or even a dozen or so ethnic Armenians I know myself in Baku -- but up to 30,000 that I already mentioned! Here's the US State Department: "Ethnic Azerbaijanis have fled areas of the country controlled by ethnic Armenians, and mosques in this area not already destroyed did not function. Animosity toward the Armenian population elsewhere in the country forced most Armenians to depart, and all Armenian churches, many of which were damaged in ethnic riots that took place more than a decade ago, remained closed. As a consequence, the estimated 10,000 to 30,000 Armenians who remained in the country were unable to attend their traditional places of worship." [48] I hope this satisfies the genuine curiosity arising from massive misinformation and misrepresentation about Azerbaijan that you and Tigran and Fadix, Marshall, etc., have been subjected by some unidentified Armenian women. --AdilBaguirov 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Same source: Some Armenians and persons of mixed Armenian-Azerbaijani descent complained about being unable to register their residences, find work, and get access to medical care and education due to their ethnicity. The approximately 30,000 citizens of Armenian descent complained of discrimination in employment, schooling, housing, and other areas. They also complained of workplace discrimination and harassment and of the refusal of local authorities to pay pensions. Most shielded their identity or tried to leave the country. Some changed their nationality, as reported in their passports. Authorities revoked some Armenian widows' permits to live in Baku. In September, the Government denied entry visas to three foreign citizens of Armenian ancestry on the grounds that the Government could not guarantee their safety in Baku. Some persons of mixed Armenian-Azerbaijani descent continued to occupy government positions. Public figures whose parents reportedly were of mixed-Armenian and Azerbaijani marriages, or had such marriages, were attacked publicly by colleagues in the press.

So it appears there aren't any Armenians after all. There are some of mixed descent and those that are Armenians hide their idnetity!--Eupator 23:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting conclusion - it says 30,000 Armenians, yet Eupator says "it appears there aren't any Armenians after all". also note that "Some persons of mixed Armenian-Azerbaijani descent continued to occupy government positions". As of the rest, it is a human rights report -- it obvously will list violations and allegations. This is just 1% of the report. The rest 99% talks about violations of rights of ethnic Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan - because once again, it is a human rights report. Same as in Armenia, where same violations occur everyday, and indeed more, as Parliament speaker and Prime Minister with others get gunned down in the Parliament building in the middle of the day, or Presidential bodyguards beat an Armenian to death in cafe Poplavok for shouting at President Kocharyan. So there are up to 30,000 Armenians, and they experience the same problems as their non-Armenian neighbors and friends. Which can't be said of Armenia -- where aside from a hundred token Azerbaijanis, who are all old, there is no one left. --AdilBaguirov 00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, you think a Soviet Encyclopedia is going to reveal oppression of a minority inside Soviet Union? Or any other form of opression for that matter?

Every Azeri village in Armeni had a school teaching Azeri. There were Azeri officials--I actually know the Assistant Minister of Education--his name was Sharifov.

Armenia has always respected the rights of its Muslim minorities, Kurdish or Azeri--even more so than other countries. For example, the first Kurdish language radio was set up in Armenia.--TigranTheGreat 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Opression GSE will not show, but GSE will reveal various facts that are being supressed or twisted nowdays, such as the fact that Armenian language was taught, newspapers, radio was available, etc. And that's what was questioned. Not a single Muslim Kurd remains in Armenia -- all were expelled and had to run to Azerbaijan along with 200,000 Azerbaijani refugees. Is that the respect of rights of Muslim minorities? --AdilBaguirov 23:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You've been greatly misinformed. Perhaps that woman became a US citizen/resident by claiming unexistendpersecution and has to keep on doing that all her life unless she wants to be criminally charged for lying to INS/BCIS. No, don't make unsubstantiated charges without knowing what you're talking about. She has been living in the United States for only a brief time, her English is near non-existant and she legally immigrated from Russia. Her Armenian is non-existant because she wasn't taught Armenian while living in Baku and Karabakh. And she, among a few others I have met who are from Azerbaijan, can only say a few broken fragments in Armenian until concluding our conversations in Russian. I mean, what do you think were the major complaints by Karabakh leaders in 1988? They were that they weren't taught, like Armenians living elsewhere, the Armenian language and alphabet, that there was no Armenian television broadcasting. Implementing all these for Armenians living in the NK were one of the concessions offered by Gorbachev in an effort to compromise with Armenian leaders.--MarshallBagramyan 04:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In Baku back in Soviet times everybody spoke Russian, including Azeris. I myself finished a Russian school. There were Armenian schools in Baku, but they were not popular with Armenians, who preferred Russian language. And it was not only Armenians, many Azeri people also preferred Russian, because without good knowledge of Russian you could not make a career in the Soviet system, so people tend to send their children to Russian schools. Grandmaster 05:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro 3

As we discussed before, the current intro has very awkward wording. The words "region within the borders of Azerbaijan" show no connection of that region with Azerbaijan, and therefore it's unclear why the Armenian population declared independence from it, if there was no connection. Golbez seemed to be agreeing with that, but then again restored the current version. This article is very inconsistent with the way other similar articles are written here and reflects only Armenian POV, which claims that NK is not legally a part of Azerbaijan, while the whole world thinks otherwise. It also contradicts the articles about NK from other encyclopedias, such as Britannica and Columbia.

Nagorno-Karabakh

Britannica Concise

Region (pop., 2002 est.: 144,300), southwestern Azerbaijan. It occupies an area of about 1,700 sq mi (4,400 sq km) on the northeastern flank of the Karabakh Range. The region was formerly part of Iran but was annexed by Russia in 1813. In 1923 it was established as an autonomous province of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. In 1988 the region's Armenian majority demonstrated against Azerbaijanian rule, and in 1991 (after the breakup of the Soviet Union) war broke out between the two ethnic groups. Since 1994 it has been controlled by ethnic Armenians, though officially it remains part of Azerbaijan. [49]

Nagorno-Karabakh

Encyclopædia Britannica Article

also spelled Nagorno-karabach, region of southwestern Azerbaijan. It occupies an area of 1,700 square miles (4,400 square km) on the northeastern flank of the Karabakh Range of the Lesser Caucasus and extends from the crest line of the range to the margin of the Kura River lowland at its foot. [50]

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.

Nagorno-Karabakh

(ngôr´n-krbäkh) (KEY) , region (1990 pop. 192,000), 1,699 sq mi (4,400 sq km), SE Azerbaijan, between the Caucasus and the Karabakh range. [51]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Nagorno-Karabakh

A region of western Azerbaijan between the Caucasus and the Karabakh range. It was ceded to Russia by Persia in the early 19th century and organized as an autonomous region within Azerbaijan by the Soviets (1923). Conflict between Azeris and the majority ethnic-Armenian population in the 1980s resulted in Nagorno-Karabakh's unilateral declaration of independence in 1991. A ceasefire was declared in 1994. [52]

Once again I suggest to restore the statement that NK is a region of Azerbaijan, otherwise the intro is illogical and contradicts NPOV policy. Grandmaster 11:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What part of NPOV policy does it contradict? NPOV means stating a neutral point of view, not stating all points of view. The neutral point of view seems to be that it's a region in the South Caucuses - this is not in dispute. The POV creeps in when we try to tell people who owns this region. --Golbez 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to describe a situation when a certain region legally is part of a country, but is de-facto out of its control. This is the way things are, the situation is not unique, there many places like that, and the articles about them contain a similar description. Normally the first line explains the situation. If we ignore one part of the equation, NPOV balance is upset.

I think the intro really is not worth such a lengthy dispute, see the way Britannica describes it, NK is a region of Azerbaijan, controlled by ethnic Armenians, who declared its independence. That’s quite accurate. Grandmaster 17:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, de-facto normally goes in conjunction with de-jure, either we use both, or use none.

The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.

De jure is a Latin phrase meaning “by right” or “legally” that English has taken over first in legal jargon and then adopted into the general language. It usually contrasts with de facto, which means “in fact but not in law.” A de jure government is one legally in place; a de facto government is one effectively in power and operating, but without legal authority. Spell both locutions as two words, and pronounce de either dee, dai, or di, stressing the first syllable of the second word in each phrase, JOOR-ee (or JOOR-uh) and FAK-to. [53]

So I suggest to re-add de-jure status of NK to the intro. Grandmaster 11:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"while the whole world thinks otherwise." I again await your info from the government of Paraguay. --Golbez 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How about UNO? They represent the world, united nations. I'm not sure about the governemnt of Paraguay, but I'm sure that if they had any diplomatic contact with Azerbaijan, the official documents contain a line about the respect of territorial integrity of both countries. Grandmaster 17:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The UN officially recognizes Israel - 39 of its member nations do not. The UN does not officially recognize Taiwan - but 25 of its member nations do. The UN does not recognize the TRNC - but Nachichevan has, but the whole of Azerbaijan has not because Greek Cyprus threatened to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh. In other words, what the UN says is not gospel, and these things are very complex. The point here is that to say the entire world says it's part of Azerbaijan is ascribing words to people who haven't said them, while we know quite easily that the entire world has not recognized the independence. Subtle. --Golbez 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan and Israel are different. Taiwan has partial recognition, Israel is a member of UNO and has international recognition, NK has no recognition at all. We seem to agree on that. Now I suggest we make the intro of this article consistent with other encyclopedias. All serious sources refer to NK as a region of Azerbaijan, see Britannica, Columbia, etc. So should this article. I don’t think that Britannica does not have a policy of neutrality in controversial issues, still they say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan. I support the current version. Grandmaster 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was, the United Nations clearly does not speak for everyone. --Golbez 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the latest version by you is OK. Grandmaster 17:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I very much want to hear Tigran's opinion on it. --Golbez 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he will like it. I on the other hand don't mind it; however, my problem is the order. The intro should start with 1) de facto Republic of NK, 2) de jure region of Azerbaijan, 3) was an AO of ASSR.--Eupator 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro does go in a different order than the other breakaway places. Here's a chart:

Region	First statement	Second statement	Third statement
Chechnya	"is a federal subject of Russia"	Location	"declared independence, but unrecognized"
Abkhazia	"self-proclaimed republic"	"de jure part of Georgia, de facto independent, but unrecognized"	(very short intro)
S. Ossetia	"self-proclaimed (de facto) republic"	"declared independence, but unrecognized"	More status info
N.-Karabakh	"de jure part of Azerbaijan"	"declared independence, but unrecognized"	Much more status
Transnistria	"a region of Molvoda"	"de facto independent"	more status
TRNC	"break-away de facto state"	Turkey recognizes it	general info

So this brings up a few questions:

• S. Ossetia and Abkhazia both begin their articles by calling the regions self-proclaimed republics; Nagorno-Karabakh does not ever call N-K a self-proclaimed republic, but rather, calls the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic a self-proclaimed country. Is this a minor issue, or should this be harmonized?
• The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria has a separate article; perhaps the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic should as well? Especially considering that the borders of the former NKAO do not match the self-proclaimed borders of the NKR.
• Or, should we harmonize N-K towards the Georgian ones, and have the first sentence be "Nagorno-Karabakh is a self-proclaimed republic in the South Caucuses"? Of course, the Azeris would probably be very unhappy with that, but the Georgians seem to not have had too big a beef over it - there's no NPOV notice on either Abkhazia or S. Ossetia.
• I note, however, that Transnistria's article also begins by saying it's part of Moldova, and there's no NPOV notice.

It really should not be this complex. --Golbez 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, as you correctly noted, saying "de-jure part of Azerbaijan" puts words in the mouths of 200+ countries. We know they haven't recognized NK. We don't know whether they actually recognize it as part of Azerbaijan or just refuse to take position. Also, as you correctly noted, "De jure" is a legal, complex term on which experts may disagree--we should limit the intro to pure known NPOV facts. "de jure part of Az" means "part of Az under the law"--there are legal experts who believe legally it's not part of Azerbaijan--since it's legally followed the Soviet Law of seccetion.

In the countries and organizations involved in the conflict, though, it is de jure part of Azerbaijan. We don't say it's universally recognized as de jure, simply that the parties involved say it's de jure. And good point about reminding me (yes, I'd noticed that) that not everyone believes it was ever legally part of Azerbaijan. --Golbez 22:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that not only NK itself, but Armenia too does not regard NK as part of Azerbaijan--the official Armenian position is that it's never been part of independent Azerbaijan (since NKAO and ASSR split from USSR simultanously). So, saying "de jure part of Az" makes a legal interpretation to which some may or may not agree.

Can you link me to a document stating this official position? If you can, then that negates the de jureness. Though according to the dates, they did not split simultaneously - Azerbaijan declared independence Aug 30 1991, the proclamation of the NKR is dated Sept 2 1991 - which is actually a lot closer than I thought, so yes, this could be considered simultaneous. The Soviet Union was dissolved Dec 26 1991. --Golbez 22:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

However, you say the Armenians say it split from the USSR - but doesn't the PACE paper state that it had the legal right only to secede Azerbaijan, or to join the USSR, but not secede from the USSR? I'll have to look at it again. --Golbez 22:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a stricter NPOV policy than other encyclopedias, including Britannica, and we should be proud of it. We don't assert opinions, even if its the majority--we assert neutral facts, and ascribe opinions. Perhaps Britannica decided to take UNSC's word for it--we don't do it that way. To adhere to NPOV, we should restore the intro to the prior version.

In February Fadix quoted French Encyclopedia saying "NK is autonomous enclave within Azerbaijan"--so, not all encyclopedias state the "part of Azerbaijan" position. We should not take positions from other Encyclopedias--we have our neutrality policy, and we should follow it. "Not recognized by anyone" is a perfectly neutral way to put it.

By the way, the new sentence about "Armenia occupying land between NK and Armenia" is POV too. Armenia denies it. The PACE resolution uses the neutral "under Armenian military control" phrase. We don't know what's the ratio of soldiers from NKR and Armenia, we don't know who subordinates who--the sentence merely takes the opinion of some over others. It's much more neutral to state "Armenian military control."--TigranTheGreat 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenia denies it? What's the Lachin corridor then? Again, all of these edits are tests, just to test the waters and poke POVs to see what sticks. --Golbez 22:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously each article has followed its history of editting and discussions and has come up with somewhat different results. I think we should adhere to NPOV policies and give our best shot to this article. Perhaps others will take example from this article.--TigranTheGreat 21:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the "de jure" is not supported by Fadix too, as he explained earlier, pretty much using the same explanations given above. He is unable to contribute since he is currently blocked for after getting reported by Grandmaster.--TigranTheGreat 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix is blocked not for “getting reported by Grandmaster”, but for incivility and personal attacks. Grandmaster 04:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, the following two quotes are from the Armenian Foreign Ministry's official website--i.e. they reflect the official position. This is the Foreign Minister's statement:

In addition to the duration and depth of its self-determination, Nagorny Karabakh’s situation is further reinforced and made complete by the following facts. First, it seceded legally, according to the laws of the day. Second, the territory in question has never been within the jurisdiction of independent Azerbaijan.

http://www.armeniaforeignministry.am/pr_06/060127_the_limits_of_leadership.html

So, the Armenian position is that legally (i.e. under the law i.e. "de jure") NK has never been part of independent Azerbaijan--after collapse of USSR, 2 states were established in former AzSSR territory--Azerbaijan and NKR. The position is reflected in the following legal analysis on the Foreign Ministry website:

Nagorno-Karabagh has never been part of independent Azerbaijan... This study has demonstrated that the independence of Nagorno-Karabagh was conducted in conformity with the requirements of internal and international legal norms. ...In 1991, Nagorno-Karabagh initiated the process of its independence in compliance with the USSR domestic legislation. ...After the collapse of the soviet Union, two states were formed: the Republic of Azerbaijan on the territory of the Azerbaijan SSR and the Republic of the Nagorno-Karabagh Autonomous Region. ... The establishment of both these states has similar legal basis... The establishment of the State of Nagorno-Karabagh was carried out in conformity with the principles and attributes required by international law for the creation of an independent state.

http://www.armeniaforeignministry.am/fr/nk/legalaspects/legalaspect_text.pdf

Moreover, this position is reflected in an article by a noted human rights activist Galina Staravoitova's on USIP (which is a reputable site): "Moreover, Nagorno-Karabakh had actually seceded from Azerbaijan before the latter became an independent state and a member of the United Nations." http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks19/chap3_19.html

Also, let's not forget that NKR itself does not see itself as legally part of Azerbaijan, and we cannot ignore its opinion.

Regarding your comment on the PACE paper saying that NK had no right to secede from USSR--first, it was not the official PACE resolution--it was a background paper attached to Atkinson's report presented to PACE. It says that European legal experts believe that NK had right only to stay within USSR. However, the New England legal analysis takes into account the fact that NK split not from USSR but from Azerbaijan, and still, they say it conformed with law and legally warranted NK's independence:

On August 30, 1991, Soviet Azerbaijan's Supreme Soviet adopted its "Declaration on reestablishment of the national independence of the Azerbaijani Republic." Four days later Nagorno Karabagh initiated the same process through the joint adoption of the "Declaration of the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh" by the local legislative councils of Nagorno Karabagh and the bordering Armenian-populated Shahumian district. The only difference was that, for Karabagh, independence was declared not from the Soviet Union but from Azerbaijan. This act fully complied with existing law. Indeed, the 1990 Soviet law titled "Law of the USSR Concerning the Procedure of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR," provides that the secession of a Soviet republic from the body of the USSR allows an autonomous region and compactly settled minority regions in the same republic's territory also to trigger its own process of independence.

http://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf

So, European and New England legal analysts may disagree, but we don't adopt one's position over the other--as long as reputable sources disagree, we have opinions, and we don't assert opinions.

As for Lachin corridor, obviously since Armenia denies its involvement in the 7 Azeri regions, its position is that they are under NK control. This is reflected in the USIP article as well:

After a series of offensives, retreats, and counteroffensives, Nagorno-Karabakh now controls a sizable portion of Azerbaijan proper (about 20 percent of the whole territory), including the Lachin corridor.http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks19/chap3_19.html

Again, we may agree with one and disagree with another, but we can't take one as fact. Therefore, "under Armenian military control" is most neutral--it doesn't say "under NK control" or "Armenia's control"--it takes the middle road.--TigranTheGreat 23:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez--the "independence from newly declared Azerbaijan" may not be accurate. As of 12.10.91, Azerbaijan had declared independence, but was not recognized as such by the UN. And Soviet Union as an entity continued to exist till the end of 1991. (i.e. it was dying, but not completely dead)--TigranTheGreat 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The current version is fine and makes perfect sense. It states declaration, and nonrecognition. By the way, Grandmaster's objection that "there is no connection to Azerbaijan" is answered as well--right in the beginning it says NKAO was part of Azerbaijan, and then declared independence.--TigranTheGreat 02:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, it says it was part of the Azerbaijan SSR, then that it declared independence and that Azerbaijan claims it - but not who it declared independence from. An exercise left to the reader, so to speak. --Golbez 02:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided a single credible source. Starovoytova was a well-known Armenian lobbyist and deputy of Armenian parliament, and obscure law schools, who apparently were hired by the Armenian diaspora, don’t have prevalence over CoE and other organizations. I object to the current awkward and illogical statement that NK is a region within borders of Azerbaijan. The intro should be consistent with other similar articles in wiki and other authoritative encyclopedias. I don’t understand why Golbez keeps on restoring it when he himself agreed that it does not make much sense. Even Britannica and Columbia say that it is a region of Azerbaijan, why can’t we? Grandmaster 04:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fickle. I'm also trying out all types of different statements and orders to see what sticks the most. As for "credible source", what are you referring to, a credible source about what? --Golbez 06:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean that I refer to states and international organizations, and Tigran refers to private persons and law schools. Those opinions don’t have equal weight. Grandmaster 10:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And also, the statement that Azerbaijan claims the region is not accurate, it creates the illusion that it claims something that is not its part. When Azerbaijan was recognized as independent country, it was recognized within the borders of former Azerbaijan SSR, same as other former Soviet republics. It legally is part of Azerbaijan, which the intro should reflect. Grandmaster 04:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying it claims a region it does not control seems to be the most NPOV, rather than saying it owns a region it does not control. --Golbez 06:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Suppose you own an appartment, someone breaks in and lives there, you own it, but don't actually control. Or you own a car, and it gets stolen, you own it, but don't actually control. Such things happen. Grandmaster 10:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A far more apt analogy would be if the people .. who live in the apartment and own the land there .. decided I didn't own it.. ? Who owns the land, the people, or a government somewhere else? And I heavily disagree that it can be simplified as much as you did, a region is not a commodity. When a government claims land it does not control, that usually means it's a spurious claim, unless the land was taken recently. But I figure they lost their claim to it when they signed the cease fire. Pardon if I'm not sympathetic to the hubris of governments who think they can own dissenting people. Maybe it comes from my American ideal of a government deriving its power from the consent of the governed - the people in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1991, pogroms or not, did not consent. Yes, I will admit a POV towards separatist regions in general. --Golbez 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

People of NK are not only Armenians, but also Azeris, who made 25% of population. They were killed (like in Khojaly) or expelled. The areas around NK had almost no Armenian population, and they were ethnically cleansed of Azeri and Kurdish population, etc. It is not about the government, it is about the people, about million of whom live as refugees in camps. And I noticed that you lean towards a separatist POV, but still the rule here is NPOV, so we should take into account all aspects, and not only those that suit a certain POV. But I'm sure we can still make an NPOV version of intro. Grandmaster 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I have proven that I am very able to overcome my own biases and write a neutral article. And perhaps 25% of the population, but ... no, that's not a battle that's relevant to improving the article, that's a fight over the subject, not the article. Need to steer back towards the article, rather than the subject. --Golbez 21:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the best one is Transnistria, I think we can make a similar intro and put an end to the dispute. Grandmaster 05:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't judge sources, as long as they are published through reputable channels. New England School of Law is pretty reputable. So is USIP. I could say "The CoE document by Atkinson reflects his bias, which was noticed by Kazimirov." We can go forever searching for bias. The point is that there are positions, and we don't dismiss them.

The Internatinal Status section compares the various positions, with much prevalence given to the CoE position than the New Englands'. The reader can read and decide who is right.

Each encyclopedia has its own policy on reflecting positions. We are not governed by Britannica. We have our own strict NPOV policy. We should follow it.

"Azerbaijan claims" does not create any illusion. The sentence clearly states that NK was part of Az, and now is not recognized. However, for the sake of compromise, I am willing to agree to exclusion of that statement, if you agree to the rest. "NK legally part of Az." still cannot be mentioned in the intro--it is disputed, and open to interpretation. By the way, speaking of illusions, the opening sentence "within borders of Az." creates an illusion of "part of Azerbaijan," but I am not objecting to that. Again, for the sake of compromise, I will agree to removing the "claimed" part, if you agree to compromise.--TigranTheGreat 05:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No doubt it's an awkward statement, but I don't know how more neutral to put it. --Golbez 06:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If we have our own policy, which is different from Britannica, why intros of other self-proclaimed entities state the same thing? And why this one should not? And no, I don’t agree to your proposal. I suggest we say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan, but it is de-facto independent, as other encyclopedias and articles do. Grandmaster 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

They don't. Britannica says "region of." Other articles on Wiki are all over the place--some say "de jure part of," some say "within," some say "part of." Each article on wiki is an evolving experiment. The best wins. We can be the best by strictly adhering to NPOV.--TigranTheGreat 06:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Or the worst by violating it. All those articles state the well known fact that those regions are legally parts of the states they try to break away from. Ours does not. Grandmaster 06:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian Foreign Ministry and its paid-for propaganda from some cash-starved unethical institutions, whether in the West, or in Russia or elsewhere, do not represent anyone and anything except for Armenian POV. Meanwhile, there are such recognized multi-lateral institutions such as UN and position of the international community, as well as its separate, influential members. And despite what anyone might want to think, UN does represent the NPOV view of international communnity -- and that doesn't mean that 100% of countries should agree. Obviously, Saddam's Iraq didn't agree with sanctions of UN, neither did Libya, Syria, N.Korea, etc., agree with various sanctions on them. Even though I've posted this already -- and was first assured that "we all know this and there is no dispute", and then accused of spam and had the page quickly archived, here's again a selected repost showing that NK was recognized as part of Azerbaijan even after the 1991 independence by the international community and neutral organizations -- and nothing will ever change that, as Azerbaijan will never agree to occupation, and never give up its rightful pocession of NK and other 7 currently militarily occupied regions:

"The actions taken by the government of Armenia in the context of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh are inconsistent with the territorial integrity and national sovereignty principles of the Helsinki Final Act. Armenia supports Nagorno-Karabakh separatists in Azerbaijan both militarily and financially. Nagorno-Karabakh forces, assisted by units of the Armenian armed forces, currently occupy the Nagorno-Karabakh region and surrounding areas in Azerbaijan. This violation and the restoration of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan have been taken up by the OSCE." Source: Presidential Determination (PD) PD No. 98-11 of January 26, 1998 and No. 99-8 of December 8, 1998, “Memorandum for the Secretary of State Re: ‘Assistance Program for the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union.’”

"More than 568,000 persons from western regions of Azerbaijan under Armenian occupation since 1993, including 42,072 from Nagorno-Karabakh, remained displaced within the country. Most were displaced from regions just outside Nagorno-Karabakh, including Fizuli (133,725 persons), Agdam (128,584 persons), Lachin (63,007 persons), Kelbadjar (59,274), Jabrayil (58,834 persons), Gubadli (31, 276), Zangilan (34,797), Terter (5,171) and Adjabedi (3,358)." Source: U.S. Committee for Refugees (USCR), 31 December 2000, World Refugee Survey 2000, Washington D.C.: Country Report Azerbaijan.

"Armenia is not a significant exporter of conventional weapons, but has provided substantial support, including materiel, to separatists in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan."

Source: CRITERIA FOR U.S. ASSISTANCE UNDER SECTION 498A(a) OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT. ARMENIA. U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Eurasia -FY 2003, Released by the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, January 2004, http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rpt/c13148.htm --AdilBaguirov 06:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

“The U.S. and EU recognize the challenge to security and stability of the South Caucasus and Black Sea regions posed by the unresolved conflicts in the area of Eurasia. We support the territorial integrity of Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan and cooperate to facilitate international efforts to achieve peaceful political settlements to the conflicts over Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh;”

Source: “U.S.-EU Cooperation on Reform in Eurasia”, Fact Sheet, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Washington, DC, February 17, 2005, http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/42562.htm --AdilBaguirov 06:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"And despite what anyone might want to think, UN does represent the NPOV view of international communnity" It's NPOV that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China? And of course the US and EU recognize territorial integrity - it's like giving diplomatic immunity, you want them to do the same in a bunch. It's no surprise that the only nation to consider recognizing Karabakh is one involved in a major split itself, it has little to lose. And if I may insert my own theory, I think they also don't want to piss off Baku and all it's sweet, sweet crude. --Golbez 07:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You might be right about their motives, but no matter what their position is what creates new states, and not declarations of independence. People can declare whatever they want, but until the proclaimed entity gets an international recognition it does not legally exist. Grandmaster 10:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, this is NK page - is it NPOV to write the totally POV stuff that has been misrepresenting the NK region of Azerbaijan? --AdilBaguirov 07:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And here's the icing on the cake - this is not just the position of the international community, but being a UN SC resolution has the status of international law, and is of course NPOV -- anything that contradicts it in terminology is POV:

1) "Nagorny-Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic" From: RESOLUTION 853 (1993), Adopted by the Security Council at its 3259th meeting, on 29 July 1993

2) "conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic" From: RESOLUTION 874 (1993), Adopted by the Security Council at its 3292nd meeting, on 14 October 1993

3) "conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic", "Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic". From: RESOLUTION 884 (1993), Adopted by the Security Council at its 3313th meeting, on 12 November 1993 (All these resolutions are assembled together for quick view at: http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/13508.htm)

So this once again shows that the paid-for propaganda posted and disseminated by the Armenian Foreign Ministry is unacceptable due to its completely false and wrong position. The Wiki page must reflect the NPOV view of the international community and law, and use this precise terminology. Nothing else is acceptable, everything else is POV. --AdilBaguirov 07:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Official words?

Since some members want to get official and use the term de jure in the intro for this article then we should also use the term occupation instead control, that is also official but yet not accepted here on wikimedia? If term de jureis added anyways and the term occupation is left out then this is nothing else then just a double standard against Azerbaijan. Baku87 18:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

You probably misunderstood. NK is de-jure, i.e. legally part of Azerbaijan. The intro was correct. Grandmaster 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Military

A facts paper on nkrusa.org states that it is the NKR Defense Army that controls the whole or portions of the 7 nearby rayons of Azerbaijan, and not the Armenian military - should the intro be changed to reflect this, or is this simple NKR propaganda trying to help out Armenia, or what? --Golbez 22:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, NKR is a party in the conflict. Under NPOV guidelines, we can't adopt one position and dismiss another as a propaganda. Therefore, as explained above, it should state in neutral wording "Armenian Military Control." This position is reflected in the USIP article as well.--TigranTheGreat 23:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The link now, however, is "[[Military of Armenia|Armenian military]] control". Should this be delinked? And by "Armenian military", you mean Armenian by ethnicity and not Armenian by nationality? i.e. Armenian people vs people of Armenia. --Golbez 23:52, June 21, 2006

I was inclined to ask you to remove the link, but I guess it's a good way for a reader to find out about both the Armenian and NKR military, which is in that article. I think perhaps we can leave the link, as long as the Military of Armenia page has a statement in the beginning that "this article is about both the militaries of the Republic of Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." And link the NKR there back to here.--TigranTheGreat 00:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the current version still says "Armenia occupied the Azeri regions." Per reasons mentioned above, it should be changed to the prior NPOV version.--TigranTheGreat 00:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I also believe the phrase "culminating in the Nagorno-Karabakh War between the two nations" should be replaced with just "culminating in the Nagorno-Karabakh War." It wasn't just between Armenia and Azerbaijan--in fact initially (when NK was totally cut off from Armenia) it was between NK and Azerbaijan. Those who agree with Armenia's involvement in the war actually agree that the involvement increased towards the end. We don't have to mention all this in the intro--just "Nagorno-Karabakh War" should do. Then a reader can click on the link and find out more about parties to the war. The sentence says that it was the "dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan" that culminated in the war--so the reader will have a clear idea that both were involved.--TigranTheGreat 00:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Nagorno-Karabakh War, the parties were the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan. However, true, removing it wouldn't get rid of too much. --Golbez 00:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, about the question "Armenian by ethnicity and not by nationality?" I think saying the general, neutral phrase "Armenian military control" covers the the possibilities of "ethnic Armenians from NKR" or "Armenian volunteer nationals" or "Armenian soldierss" or "mixed NKR and Armenia military"--without asserting one over another.--TigranTheGreat 00:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

HAHA, I Just read your brainstorming on calling up the NK rep. It would be indeed a good idea. As long as he could provide a published document, it would pass the No Original Research test.--TigranTheGreat 23:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The role of Armenia is mentioned by everybody, except our article. I already cited many sources, including CIA factbook, US state department, etc, here’s a quote from Britannica:

Armenia

Administration and social conditions > Armed forces and security

The Armenian military, formed partly out of forces that had belonged to the Soviet Union, includes an army and an air force. Military service is compulsory, though draft evasion is common. Armenia supplies weapons, matériel, and troops to the Karabakh Self-Defense Army in Nagorno-Karabakh. [54] Grandmaster 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You already provided Lynch's and HRW's quotes. That position is well reflected in the article. There is also a disputing position--by Armenia and Staravoitova. We are not choosing one position and denying another. We stay neutral.--TigranTheGreat 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Which means that we are removing any mention of Armenia to reflect position of the Armenian side? What’s neutral about it? Grandmaster 05:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's neutral because we are not asserting the disputed position that "Armenia occupies Azeri territory." The phrase "Armenian military control" contains the possibility of troops being from Armenia. In other words, we use a phrase that does not exclude any of the contrary positions.--TigranTheGreat 05:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, once again, trying to supress the word "occupation" is a total POV. The neutral way is to reflect the position of the international community, and not that of Armenia or Azerbaijan. The international community is using the precise terminology, "occupation". That's why the word occupation must be used in the article, as NK and 7 other regions are occupied by Armenian forces. --AdilBaguirov 06:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A chart.

Let's chart things.

#	Question	Azeri POV	Armenian POV	Neutral POV
1	Who owns Nagorno-Karabakh?	Azerbaijan	The locals	???
2	Who is in control of Karabakh?	Armenia	Karabakh	???
3	Is NK under control of occupation?	Occupation	Control	???
4	Who is in control of the 7 rayons?	Armenia	Karabakh	???
5	Are the 7 rayons under control or occupation?	Occupation	Occupation	Occupation
6	What matters more, de jure or de facto?	De jure	De facto	???
7	Whom the NKAO secede from?	Azerbaijan	USSR	???
8	Was it a legal secession?	No	Yes	???
9	Where is NK?	In Azerbaijan	Surrounded by Azerbaijan	???
10	Is it internationally recognized as de jure Azeri?	Yes	No	???
11	Is it internationally recognized as de facto Armenian?	Yes	Yes	Yes
12	Is it internationally unrecognized?	Yes	Yes	Yes

If anyone can think of other questions, please ask them. The two I filled in are the ones where, in my perception, all sides agree, and seems to be the neutral and factual statement. My thoughts:

1. We don't say who owns Karabakh - this is the neutral statement, to put out the claims and facts.
2. We state Karabakh is in control of it - most of what I'm seeing says it's the local NK army (with substantial Armenian support).
3. We state that is control, not occupation - you cannot occupy yourself. If it is the Armenian army, then we say occupation.
4. We state that Karabakh is in the 7 rayons - does it have to match? Can Armenia be in the 7 rayons, but the NK army in Karabakh?
5. We state Karabakh (or Armenia) occupies the 7 rayons - you can, however, occupy others.
6. De facto matters much more than de jure long-term (and fifteen years is more than long enough). After while, de jure just fades away.
7. The NKR says it seceded from the USSR, that's good enough for me
8. Whether or not it could legally secede from the USSR is up in the air, so I have no answer for this one
9. This is the most complex question and the one that's caused the most strife, so no answer at the moment.
10. I don't think so, as this requires an active acknowledgement. We cannot say "every nation recognizes it as part of Azerbaijan" without having quotes from every nation.
11. I think even Azerbaijan acknowledges they have no control over the area, and have not for the better part of 15 years.
12. No nation has acknowledged it, so yes, it is internationally unrecognized.

Thoughts? --Golbez 06:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There’s a difference between the words "universally recognized" and "internationally recognized". NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, UN does that, other organizations and leading countries of the world do. Opinions of small countries don’t really matter in this world. Grandmaster 07:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they do. They have just as much a vote in the UNGA as most of the big ones. And so do big ones - Can you cite me where Russia (being the local heavy) has de jure recognized Nagorno-Karabakh? I would say they de facto recognized it by having them as a party at the cease fire agreement. According to diplomatic recognition, there is a useful difference between de facto and de jure recognition. But OK, I'll change it to internationally. One more thing - we need citations here. Can you cite me someone saying "NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan"? Not saying "the NK region of Azerbaijan", but specifically saying that international opinion is that it's part of Azerbaijan? (and yes, it's an opinion) --Golbez 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Russia recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan, as did all other major players. I think we have opinion of Russia in the archives. So did France, US, UK, Germany, etc. And see Atkinson quote below. Grandmaster 09:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that removing the fact that NK is legally is part of Azerbaijan is a violation of NPOV rules, as it supports only Armenian POV, which is that NK is not legally part of Azerbaijan. But there’s no other country or international organization in the world, who says so. So if we don’t mention it, we support only a certain POV, which is a view of minority, which we cannot do according to the rules. Grandmaster 07:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, see my above quotes from UN et al -- Azerbaijan "owns" Karabakh no matter what, and that's the NPOV. NK and other regions are occupied by Armenian forces, not merely "controlled". The area was ethnically cleansed from Azerbaijanis and others. The regime in NK and other occupied regions is separatist. It is not a government, but an "authority". USSR, Azerbaijan SSR and any other legitimate authority such as UN never accepted Armenian claim about "NKR succession", and that works much better for me than "NKR"s claims. Every nation -- such as Tuvalu -- is irrelevant in this respect. UN had a membership of perhaps 189 nations in 1993 and they both through the General Assembly and especially in Security Council (which had 15 members) recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan -- and in case of UN SC, that's automatically an international law. And as I've shown to my opponents, even Armenia inadvertedly or not, recognized the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan both in General Assembly and by sighning an EU document. --AdilBaguirov 07:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you own that which you do not control? Does the People's Republic of China own Taiwan? --Golbez 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Golbez, you have in your chart only Azeri and Armenian POV, how about reaction of international community? Grandmaster 07:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Adil has a habit of calling the international community neutral, clearly whatever we determine to be neutral will match the international community. Right? And I would say generally the international community agrees with Azerbaijan. Recognized nation-states agreeing with recognized nation-states. No surprise there. --Golbez 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So? NK is legally part of Azerbaijan, until is recognized otherwise, isn't it? Grandmaster 07:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Legally"? There is no world court here, nor a world lawmaking body. Only treaties between sovereign nations. You two keep saying "legally", but legally according to whom? Either the secession was legal according to Soviet law, or it wasn't - I don't think any other legality enters the fray. And, finally, did Armenia ever recognize the NKAO as being part of the independent Azerbaijan? --Golbez 07:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this, then realized that I'm probably being too demanding, needy, or specific. There are generic considerations of legality at work here. --Golbez 07:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The country becomes de-jure (in accordance with international law) independent, when it is recognized. If it’s not recognized, then it’s still a part of another country. So far not a single country stated that it does not consider NK to be a part of Azerbaijan. Also, Atkinson in his report to PACE stated that “the borders of Azerbaijan were internationally recognised at the time of the country being recognised as independent state in 1991. The territory of Azerbaijan included the Nagorno-Karabakh region”. [55] PACE is a serious organization, do you think that Atkinson lied to the Parliamentary Assembly? Such lies are easy to catch in such an organization, but no one disputed this statement, even Armenian deputies. We don’t dismiss reliable sources of information in Wiki. Grandmaster 07:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Western Sahara is neither recognized as part of Morocco, nor an independent nation, by the U.S. State Department. It's not recognized, but is it part of another state? No. And yes, so far as I can tell (I welcome being corrected), Armenia has said they do not consider Nagorno-Karabakh to be a part of Azerbaijan, but they have not recognized its independence. I don't think Atkinson lied, no, and your statement borders on a logical fallacy. Please do not be confrontational. (I was starting to become such, which is why I issued my retreat above) I think this whole section was a mistake, it's much better to deal with each issue individually rather than in a big chart. If no one complains, I'll just archive this now. And I'm not saying dismiss Atkinson - but don't post his word (or anyone's word) as gospel, either. Say "Atkinson said". --Golbez 08:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Western Sakhara is different. It was a former colony, occupied by Morocco, and has a special status with UN. NK has not. And I’m not being confrontational, I was just wondering why such a serious source as Rapporteur of PACE is being dismissed without any serious reason. No one has ever proved his bias. Even if we consider it as his opinion, he’s still a person, who knows the conflict very well, as it was his job to research the background of it. Also, I always presented it as his words, and nothing else, but please note that UN refers to NK as a region of Azerbaijan, which means that it still is, because it is a collective position of its members (General Assembly and UNSC). I understand your sincere desire to help resolve the issue, but this case is better compared with similar cases on the territory of former USSR. The issue we should reflect is that while NK is a de-jure region of Azerbaijan, it is de-facto controlled by Armenian separatist forces. It is exactly the same in Abkhazia, S. Osetia and Transnistria. I think that we cannot ignore neither legal, nor factual aspects of this conflict, because if we do, then we breach neutrality. Grandmaster 09:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, there was an interesting outside view in our previous RfC, which was endorsed by others. See [56] Grandmaster 07:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, man, this is really becoming surreal - you are questioning the authority and applicability of the international law and specialized international institutions, despite this being unconstructive, nihilist and not in line with the obligations of any country on which Wiki hosts its pages, primarily servers in the United States. The authority of UN and world community and international law are well-known and affirmed and taught at any International Relations 101 class in any college. --AdilBaguirov 11:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the complete chart:

#	Question	Azeri POV	Armenian POV	Neutral POV
1	Who owns Nagorno-Karabakh?	Azerbaijan	The locals	Citizens of Azerbaijan, Republic of Azerbaijan
2	Who is in control of Karabakh?	Armenia	Karabakh	Armenian forces which includes Armenia and separatists, but up to 15% of NKAO is still free and under sovereign control of Azerbaijan
3	Is NK under control or occupation?	Occupation	Control	Military occupation
4	Who is in control of the 7 rayons?	Armenia	Karabakh	Occupied by the same "Armenian forces"
5	Are the 7 rayons under control or occupation?	Occupation	Occupation	Occupation
6	What matters more, de jure or de facto?	De jure	De facto	Depends on what, both, but 'de jure' has more importance in terms of international law
7	Whom the NKAO secede from?	Azerbaijan	USSR	Nobody -- it could not, didn't have such a legal right, plus how did it succeed if it's still recognized de jure as part of Azerbaijan?
8	Was it a legal secession?	No	Yes	No
9	Where is NK?	In Azerbaijan	Surrounded by Azerbaijan	In Azerbaijan
10	Is it internationally recognized as de jure Azeri?	Yes	No	Yes
11	Is it internationally recognized as de facto Armenian?	Yes	Yes	Conditional - de facto under the occupation of "Armenian forces"
12	Is it internationally unrecognized?	Yes	Yes	Yes

--AdilBaguirov 11:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"still free"? Adil, you just removed yourself from any possible discussion about NPOVifying if your POV is that strong. I see no willingness whatsoever in you to accept a compromise. I would change the header of your table to match, very little of what you just said is neutral, and I don't like my idea being transformed like that. :P --Golbez 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone can be removed from discussion here. People have a right to express their opinion, and it does no have to match opinions of other people. We just need to find a way to reconcile different views on the situation. But anyway, I think the intro is quite good, it takes into account all aspects of the situation, both de-jure and de-facto. Grandmaster 19:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, but there are ways to disregard the extreme POV of certain users - my favorite is User:Haham Hanuka on Adolf Hitler, who comes along every few weeks attempting to get the "6 million Jews" line removed from the intro. It never sticks. He never gives up. We tolerate him. Adil has every right to express his opinion (so long as he does not become disruptive), but that does not mean his opinion will get in to the article. --Golbez 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, "de jure" is a legal term, meaning "under the law." Now, even domestic law is often ambiguous, complex, and contradictory--when we get to international law--as you correctly noted, there is no single court, no central mandatory source of law--despite what Adil says, UNSC resolutions are not mandatory for states (unless passed under Chapter 7, as in case of inasion of Kuwait). So, when we say "NK is de jure part of Azerbaijan," we are making a legal interpretation to which experts in international law may or may not agree. And we are not even experts.

Now, maybe, just maybe, if this was a simple case of region seceding from an already independent, long recognized country, maybe it would be more clear cut. In this case we have Soviet law on secetion, we have NKAO and Azerbaijan seceding while that law is active, and while USSR is collapsing. Did it give legal right to NK to secede? In other words, is NK's independence legal, i.e. de jure? Again, we would be making a legal interpretation, and choosing it over other opinions. That kind of discussion is appropriate for Int. Status section. Not Intro. In intro we state pure facts--it declared independence, and its' unrecognized.

Grandmaster claims that excluding de jure supports Armenian POV--actualy Armenian POV is that NK is not part of Azerbaijan. We are not saying that in intro. We are giving the facts--non-recognition and declaration, and letting the reader decide whether it is de jure part of AZ or not (the reader may further consult the Int. Status section as well).

The "de jure" part needs to be removed as it is an interpretation i.e. position. If the "Azerbaijan claims NK" is awkward, we can remove that and say that "NK declared ind. from Azerbaijan"--factually I suppose that's what happened. That will perfectly show the connection between NK and Azerbaijan that Grandmaster is worried about.

By the way, we are not dismissing Atkinson's opinion. Not asserting an opinion doesn't mean dismissing it. We actually state it in the Int. Status section. We are merely not adopting his position, since it's required under NPOV. And by the way, despite Atkinson's comments, not once does PACE state "NK is region of Azerbaijan" or use the phrase "NK, the region of Azerbaijan," which would be so simple and natural to do, if that's what they meant to. --TigranTheGreat 23:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"we are making a legal interpretation to which experts in international law may or may not agree." Can you site an expert who disagrees, though? And I didn't like "declared independence from Azerbaijan" because I'm still confused, did they specifically declare from Azerbaijan or from the USSR? Note my section below. If I can put "declared independence from Azerbaijan" without any ambiguity, then that would likely remove the need for 'de jure'. --Golbez 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since they first declared the NKR, and created a republic equal to other Soviet Republics, they seceded from Azerbaijan, so it was from Azerbaijan. The 2nd step was from USSR. Since NKAO was both part of Az and USSR, it was a 2 step secetion, first from Az, then from USSR. We can confidently restore "from Azerbaijan."

The New England analysis actually states that "The only difference was that, for Karabagh, independence was declared not from the Soviet Union but from Azerbaijan."

As to experts disagreeing to NKR legally being part of Azerbaijan, the New England school of law experts, whose analysis I quoted in length, say that NKR legally seceded from Azerbaijan--it's secetion is compliant with law. Therefore, under the law, they are not part of Azerbaijan (since they seceded before Azerbaijan was even recognized as an independent nation).

Also, Armenia itself holds the position that NKR has never been part of independent Azerbaijan (again, quoted by me). So, we have sources disputing the statement that legally (de jure) it's part of Azerbaijan. Therefore, to comply with NPOV, we can't assert that position.--TigranTheGreat 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, can you cite an expert from any international organization, such as UNO, PACE, etc, who would say that NK is not legally part of Azerbaijan? Private law schools don’t have the same authority and can be hired to state a certain opinion. Grandmaster 04:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For the hell of it

I don't know if I will add this to the war article, but I just whipped this up (It's as much a test of new mapmaking skills as anything, I haven't made a map as complex as the N-K ones before), and I thought I'd whore it out for opinion like the last one. Any comments? Except that it's kinda huge. :| --Golbez 06:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it accurate though? I mean the borders seem abit distorted. Also, it seems the line of contact chops off too much territory from NKAO (there are some territories under Azeri control in NKAO, but I don't think that much).--TigranTheGreat 18:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The base map is simply my Azerbaijan rayon map zoomed in, so if the borders are distorted, then they are in all of my maps; please check them. [57] was one of my sources for the line of control; other sources say the whole of Jabrayil is occupied, so I discarded that. --Golbez 21:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the line is ok, we will never get precise--I mean it's right there on the ground, without any pre-set political boundaries.

I think it's more NPOV to replace the "controlled by Armenia and Karabakh" by "under Armenian military control." All agree (including UN resolutions) that NK's forces are there. Whether Armenia controls it is disputed by Armenia and NK. PACE and UNSC, in their official resolutions, use the neutral "Armenian forces" terminology. Using "under Armenian military control" doesn't exclude the position that Armenia's troops are there--it's actually all inclusive.--TigranTheGreat 22:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How about I change it to "or"? I don't like assuming that people know Armenian can mean Karabakh, at least in that context. --Golbez 22:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Same with "occupied by Armenian forces." I think a more neutral way is "under Armenia military control." By the way, the word "occupied" was replaced with "control" by Francis about 200 years ago (i.e. last January). The reason given in the edit summary was "more neutral terminology.--TigranTheGreat 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My feeling on this has never wavered - while the NKR declared independence, or what not, the other rayons of Azerbaijan did not, nor have they been annexed or abandoned - that sounds like military occupation to me. Wikipedia does not shirk from using the word "Occupation" where appropriate - Occupation of Iraq timeline, etc. However, since it is not listed on List of military occupations, it would be contradictory to add it. And maybe there's a reason it's not on there, some subtlety I'm missing? Hrm. --Golbez 22:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure "by Armenia or Karabakh" a good writing practice for Encyclopedia. It sounds awkward, like "we don't know, you figure out." UN resolutions, when they spoke of NK's forces, said "local Armenian forces." I think it's reasonable to say "Armenian forces," given that it's generally known that NK's forces are Armenian by ethnicity.

But when you say Armenian, you mean ethnic Armenian; when I hear "Armenian forces", the first thing that comes to mind is "military of Armenia" - which you said isn't involved. --Golbez 22:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenians generally strongly oppose the word "occupation" in any resolution due to its negative connotation (it connotes "result of aggression.") The hidden POV is not that the lands are Azeri or not Azeri, but that Armenians did something bad. It's subtle, but "military control" leans more toward a non-judgmental middle. It's the reasoning of "terrorist"--the whole world may call someone a terrorist, but here we use "militant." "Occupation of Iraq timeline" is good since it's a name of a program itself, and its used by the US as well. I think even in Iraq's case, when using within an article, "Iraq is under Allied military control" is more neutral. At any rate, in case of Iraq, the US uses the term occupied. Armenians never use or like "occupy," not even for the surrounding Azeri territories.--TigranTheGreat 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Occupations are not necessarily bad, they're just drawn that way. For example, following WW2, several belligerent countries were occupied, but almost no one says France, the USA, etc. did anything wrong there. (The Soviets, maybe) --Golbez 22:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)