Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Proposed change Apr 4

Here's the proposed change:

From:
The predominantly Armenian region became a source of dispute between the republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence from the Russian Empire in 1918. After the Soviet Union expanded into the South Caucasus, it established the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

To:
The historically Armenian region became a source of dispute between the republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence from the Russian Empire in 1918. After the Soviet Union expanded into the South Caucasus, it established the the predominantly Armenian region as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

My thoughts: Calling it a historically Armenian region definitely requires a cite, but it also goes against our philosophy that we know nothing about Nagorno-Karabakh prior to 1923. (Or is it 1918? Either way, no one knows what was going on there prior to the 20th century). Secondly, Grandmaster's old point have become clearer and clearer to me over time, you can't really 'establish a region' in this fashion. Maybe if you rearranged it; "Established the NKAO in the predominantly Armenian region"? The problem here is generally this, I think: - we have to mention that the region was predominantly Armenian when the NKAO was established, but I can see the point of view of people who say we also need to mention that it is still predominantly Armenian.

Discuss please. There will be no mentions of the arbitration or attempts to create or quash POV here. This is on the merits of the entry; you can say that it introduces a POV, but please do not accuse editors of that. This will be civil, damn it. --Golbez 16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to inclusion of such POV claims as "historically Armenian", etc. It was explained in much detail here: [1] Karabakh was part of Caucasian Albania in antiquity, and Karabakh khanate at later times. Inclusion of such claims and ignoring real history of the region is against the NPOV rules. Grandmaster 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the current verion is alright, it says that the region is predominantly Armenian, and it is clear that it was predominantly Armenian in 1923. We don't have to fit everything into one sentence, there's a whole article about history and demographics of the region at variuos times. Grandmaster 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000498698/0000498698_0009.gif de-classified CIA file calling NK "historically Armenian". This could be used as a citation. - Fedayee 16:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I can cite many other sources, including the US government, stating otherwise. Grandmaster 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither NK (a 20th century creation), nor Karabakh can be a historically Armenian region when Armenian's didn't make up a majority there, nor did it ever belong to Armenia (see the section below, (Karabakh has been part of Caucasian Albania and later Azerbaijani (Muslim) dynasties and empires). --adil 18:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, your argument about rearranging it to "Established the NKAO in the predominantly Armenian region" make sense, but it brings up a question of precedent: the reader might assume that Azerbaijan has ALWAYS controlled or even laid claim to NK, and that's why it's important to state that the region was "historically Armenian" in the beginning of the intro... I would personally accept the rearrangement as long as the "historically Armenian" portion was added to the first line, which would set a clear basis for introducing Azerbaijan's influence in that second sentence and wouldn't leave room for misinterpretations.
Adil, your argumentation is totally biased and completely fictious. I won't even bother refuting it since Azerbaijan can't even pretend to have as much historical claim on NK or even Karabakh as Armenia.
As for the real debate about whether the region was historically Armenian, I think that all editors who are neutrally informed about NK know very well that Armenians have been the only omnipresent nation in the region regardless of other occupiers (needless to say that there have been other strong influences in the region), and that is what we need to convey to first-time readers in order to correctly set the current geopolitical context of NK. Now if we stick to Golbez's rule that we know nothing prior to the 20th century, the least we can do is set that context with "historically Armenian" in the first sentence... You can call it what you wish, but apples are apples, and most first-time readers will be confused if we don't give them a basic context right off the bat in that first sentence...
As for citations, I'd suggest the following neutral (non-Armenian or non-Azeri) scholarly sources:
  • http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a6.html NOVIKOVA Gayane, "Armenia and the Middle East", Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, December 2000 - "Azerbaijani diplomacy tries to convince Arab states that this conflict is a territorial dispute between Christian Armenia and Muslim Azerbaijan, exploiting the religious factor in an attempt to gain support of the Muslim world. However, some Arab states admit that the territory of Nagorno Karabakh is historically Armenian, and most prefer that the dispute be settled peacefully.".
  • http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/facts/karabagh.html "Fact Sheet: Nagorno-Karabakh", Armenian Research Center, The University of Michigan-Dearborn, April 3 1996 - The first line of the "Historical Background" section states "Historically Armenian, Nagorno-Karabagh was connected to Armenia in ancient times [...]".
As for CIA sources, an analysis of recently declassified CIA documents reveals a pattern over the past twenty-five years of official - although confidential — acknowledgment of the fact that Nagorno Karabakh is a historic part of Armenia:

http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000499607/0000499607_0009.gif A 1988 study on the Caucasus - the study confirms the historical record of Nagorno Karabakh's status as "Armenia's cultural and religious center.". The study specifically noted that, "Karabakh through the centuries remained semiautonomous under the rule of Armenian princes even when the rest of Armenia was under Persian and Turkish tutelage.".HyeProfile 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

HyeProfile, "your argumentation is totally biased and completely fictious", as the first two sources you bring Armenian POV, written by Armenians. Meanwhile, the latter two documents are outdated -- the newer documents from US Government, such as the 2001 NK History Background memo, say clearly that NK was a historic Azerbaijani region. As if we didn't know it ourselves -- show me at least one Armenian empire or independent state anywhere near Caucasus since the Tigranes the Great who was himself of Iranian origin? --adil 19:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the CIA documents aren't outdated as historical affiliation doesn't change from one year to the next, and my sources are NOT Armenian POV, they are from reliable scholarly authorities on the matter... HyeProfile 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Karabakh has been part of Caucasian Albania and later Azerbaijani (Muslim) dynasties and empires

Some editors here now started to raise issues and claim that Karabakh could have been a "historic" Armenian region. I wonder how would that be possible when even the Father of Armenian history, a 5th century Movses Khorenatsi clearly showed (Book I, Ch. 4) borders of Caucasian Albania and Armenia? Not to mention native historian, Moisey Kalankatuyski (Movses Daxuranci), who did the same (see Book I, Ch 4; Book II, Ch 21), and it is clear how much of history of Caucasian Albania was interlinked with Karabakh (Utik + Artsakh). Here are two encylopedia's speaking, both extremely favorable to Armenians and Armenia, and in fact, in the case of the first, edited by an Armenian:

"In the first century A.D. the region now occupied by Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was part of the province of Artsakh, which belonged to Caucasian Albania. Feudal relations developed in the third through fifth centuries, and Christianity began to spread. In the early eighth century the Arabs conquered Artsakh, as well as all of Albania, and Islam penetrated the area. (Until that time Gregorianism had flourished among the Christian population.) Artsakh was part of the Albanian kindgdom in the ninth and tenth centuries. In the mid-11th century it was invaded by the Seljuk Turks…. In the 1230's, Artsakh was conquered by the Mongols, and from that time most of its territory was called Karabakh."

(Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, 1973, "NKAO, Historial Survey")

"[Karabakh was a] part of Caucasian Albania called Artsakh."

(The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition. Copyright (c) 1993, Columbia University Press.)

The famous Russian historian of 19th century and beginning of 20th, V.L.Velichko, wrote: "Especially interesting is also the question of Caucasian Albania, or, in Armenian, Aghvank. This country, which incorporated contemporary Elizavetpol' Guberniia, as well as part of Tiflis [Guberniia] and Daghestan, was populated by nations of non-Armenian ancestry.... Until the beginning of XIX century a separate Aghvan or Gandzasar Catolicosat existed, which competed with the Echmiadzin [Armenian Catholicosat].... Currently, the Christians who were before of Aghvan Catholicosat, are considered Armenians, and after mixing with them [assimilating], adopted their character." (p. 66). Velichko later continues: "An exception were the inhabitants of Karabakh (Albania or Aghvania), incorrectly (in relation to history) called Armenians, who professed the Armenian-Gregorian faith, but were descendants of [Caucasian] Mountaneer and Turkic tribes, and who had gone through the process of Armenianization only three to four centuries earlier." (p.154)

V.L. Velichko, "Caucasus: Russian affairs and interethnic questions." St.Petersburg, 1904, pp. 66, 154. IN RUSSIAN: Vasilii L'vovich Velichko "Kavkaz. Russkoe delo i mezhduplemennie voprosi."

One of the most authoritative Armenian scholars, Ronald Grigor Suny described in his book "Looking Toward Ararat" (London, 1986, p.82) the borders of Arshakuni (Arsacid) Armenian kingdom (52 A.D.-428 A.D.), which was a Roman and Persian vassal, as reaching their most Northern point to the west of Gokchai (Sevan) lake whilst occupying only two thirds of present day Zangezur to the east.

Another Armenian author M. Belakian writes that mountaneous Karabakh was part of the Albania rather than Arshakuni Armenian kingdom until at least IV century A.D. (he also writes about Armenians constituting minority in Erevan until 19th century, and the inflow of Armenians during that time in the Caucasus).

Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal - Page 1, by Tim Potier - 2001 "Nagorno- Karabakh was part of the province of Artsakh, which belonged to Caucasian Albania."

Even a very POV book by A. J. (Agop Jack) Hacikyan, Nourhan Ouzounian, Gabriel Basmajian, Edward S. Franchuk, writes: [2]: "Vache was the prince of Artsakh and Utik and is often referred to as the "King of Albanians" by Armenian chroniclers." (p. 363) I think this is more than enough to prove that POV contentions of some editors are meritless. Karabakh, or rather, Artsakh (and Utik) were historic provinces of Caucasian Albania, whilst Karabakh (the name since 1230s) is a historic region of Azerbaijan. --adil 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, on the "Armenian" meliks and in general, about the "historic" Armenian "gavar" of Karabakh (Utik and Artsakh), you all seem to forget one of the most famous Armenian patriotic writers, a very nationalistic, pro-Armenian author, who relied only on Armenian chroniclers for his research, Raffi and his "Melikdoms of Khamsa" [3]:

Меликства Хамсы — это пять небольших гаваров, которые, соседствуя друг с другом, образуют целую область, ныне называемую Карабах, а в нашей истории известную под именем Арцах, или Малый Сюник. В более отдаленные времена она являлась частью страны Агванк. (Translation: "In more remote times [Artsakh] was part of the country of Aghvank [Caucasian Albania]."

...

Эти края, которые, как я упомянул выше, когда-то являлись частью Агванского царства, впоследствии стали пристанищем армянских меликов.

...

II

1. Происхождение Мелик-Бегларянов, владетелей Голистана*.

Мелик-Бегларяны — коренные утийцы, из села Ниж. Какие обстоятельства принудили их оставить родину, перебраться в Карабах и поселиться в гаваре Гюлистан, — об этом история умалчивает. Известно только, что первый переселенец, которого тюрки называли «Кара-юзбаши» («Черный сотник»), а армяне — «Черный Абов», был человеком не простым:** на своей родине он имел состояние и правил народом.

...

3. Происхождение Хасан-Джалалянов, владетелей Хачена.

Из пяти господствовавших в Карабахе меликских домов лишь правители Хачена были местными жителями, а остальные, как мы видели и увидим далее, были переселенцами из других мест(4). Происхождение меликов Хачена следует считать очень древним, они потомки князей Хасан-Джалалянов. --adil 18:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Adil, your point that other nationalities have either occupied or ruled over NK or Karabakh at some point or another in history are pointless. Even all the sources you mention clearly show that Armenians have been the only omnipresent nation in the region throughout history. Please play your pipes elsewhere, your disruptions are not welcome...
Furthermore, here are some other non-authoritive sources (non-Armenians & non-Azeris) who share the same views:

That's laughable, I quote you Encyclopedia's and even Armenian scholars, whilst you bring me two no-names who are no experts and are just undergraduate students (juniors)[4], who wrote not a paper or article but a PowerPoint presentation (in PDF format)? If they are, as you acknowledge, non-authoritative, then what for do you bring them here? Don't lower the quality of the discussion, it's bad enough that various socks and meats have appeared here. --adil 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pass the Kool-Aid this way Adil...--MarshallBagramyan 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

yet another example of a very smart comment from an undoubtedly highly-educated and intelligent person. Bravo. [loud applause] adil 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thats nice. Artaxiad 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Adil is absolutely right. Here's overview of the region's history from another third party source:

In the first century AD, the region that is today the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh was part of the province of Artsakh, which belonged to Caucasian Albania. Feudal relations and Christianity developed from the third through to the fifth centuries. In the early eighth century, the Arabs conquered Artsakh, as well as all of Albania, and Islam penetrated the area. Until that time Gregorianism had flourished among the Christian population. Artsakh was part of the Albanian kingdom during the ninth and tenth centuries, only to be invaded by the Seljuk Turks in the middle of the 11 th century. In the 1230s, Artsakh was conquered by the Mongols, and from that time most of its territory was called Karabakh. During the 17th century and the first half of the 18th century, Karabakh was the arena for continuous wars between Iran and Turkey. Panakh Ali-khan founded the Karabakh Khanate in the mid-18th century. To defend it, in the 1750s, he built the Panakhabad fortress (subsequently named Shusha, after a nearby village), which became the capital of the khanate. It was not until 1805 that the Russian Empire gained control over the Karabakh Khanate, from Persia. However, its new status was not to be confirmed until 1813 under the terms of the Treaty of Gulistan, when Persia formally ceded Karabakh to the Tsar, itself the culmination of the Russian-Iranian War of 1804-1813. In 1822, the Karabakh Khanate was abolished, after a few years of Russian tolerance towards its Muslim rulers, and a province, with a military administration, was formed.

Tim Potier. Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia : A Legal Appraisal. ISBN 9041114777

So I propose the following wording:

The region that historically was part of Caucasian Albania and Karabakh khanate, became a source of dispute between the republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence from the Russian Empire in 1918.

I think it is more factually accurate and is better than the current version of intro. Grandmaster 04:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, the point that "you can't establish a region like NK" was mine, not GM's. GM's point was "it wasn't incorporated, so let's say it was established." I hope you are not going to start blaming me now for all those things GM did, mixing up me and him :)

And no, GM's version is unacceptable. Let's keep the principle "we don't know what the hell was going on there before 1918." --TigranTheGreat 04:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tigran. Do you have problems with the current version of the intro? Looks like we are going to spend another few months debating proposed changes. Grandmaster 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Intl. Status

So, is anyone else willing to support moving the International Status section to its own page? very similar to Constitutional status of Kosovo? Golbez seemed amenable to the idea when I proposed it so are there any objections to such a move?--MarshallBagramyan 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a need for that right now. Grandmaster 09:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please elaborate. --Golbez 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the advantages of that. Why there's a need to split it? Grandmaster 16:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Because the article becomes too long because of it....We're always going to be adding new information so long as negotiations continue between the two sides. The length it has warrants its own page. That's why the Kosovo page has one.--MarshallBagramyan 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agreed, we should move it, this article is way too lengthy already... HyeProfile 15:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the table was removed again? It actually freed a lot of space, so space is not an issue, but I don't think that the info should be removed from the article, it should be improved instead. Even if you don't like the info, edit warring is not a solution. Grandmaster 09:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the text from the book didn't correspond with that of the table (Muslims, not Azeris; all of Karabakh not just NK, etc.). I'm not permanently removing that info, it can possibly come back. The table seems not to not fit too well in the article and that's why should just be converted into sentences that give a little background info. On the topic of the Intl. Status section, there's 3 block quotes this article has and all together, the section accounts for nearly 20% of the entire article. We should be focusing on things like the economy, geography or culture in the article rather than continuously update what happened two weeks ago in a peace conference in Paris, for example.

At most, we should just be discussing what are some of the significant propositions the sides have made and record any progress (or lack thereof) since 1994; otherwise, the article's name can just be changed to International Status of Nagorno-Karabakh since that is what it is focusing the most on (undue weight on a particular topic).--MarshallBagramyan 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bagramyan, NK is not a country to have "International Status". Using the word "international" in regards to a disputed territory of one country (as its internationally recognized so) is simply unencyclopedic and unrealistic. There is no one, including Armenia itself, who recognizes NK as "international entity". So the title of your proposal would sound the same as discussing the "international status" of say, Texas or California. I think the discussion should rather concentrate on population table within this article and coming up with consensus. I think the consensus is possible with realization of some POV pushers that 30% of NK's population prior to ethnic cleansing in mid 1990s was Azerbaijani (not simply Muslim). Atabek 06:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If Texas or California had a substantial separatist movement, with a declared capital, body of laws, foreign policy, ambassadors/missions, and de facto control of their territory, your comparison would be apt; as it is, it's a straw man. --Golbez 08:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo's not a country either yet its considered (nominally at least) a part of Serbia. They may not be similar in circumstance but your reasoning remains vague for why we should not move such a long section to its own page. Nagorno-Karabakh's Azeri population was roughly 23-24% Azeri (as opposed to its 73-76% Armenian population) with a handful of Kurds before the war but even still, "ethnic cleansing" (whatever its euphemistic meaning implies) occurred on both sides. Shahumyan used to have an Armenian majority, Sumgait used to have a population of 18,000 Armenians, Baku had a lot of Armenians, etc. I wouldn't put it past some users here who have nothing better to do but turn this into another conflict on nationalist lines.

Count me out if it does but I have became weary of hearing the word consensus on this page.--MarshallBagramyan 06:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"some users here who have nothing better to do but turn this into another conflict on nationalist lines"? How about assuming good faith? Grandmaster 09:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is academic article and here issues should not be politicized. Unlike Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh does not have any international status. Kosovo is UN administered territory which accepted as such by the international community as a whole. NK is occupied territory by UN definition, or at least uncontrolled territory - the term used by some media and academic sources. It has no recognizition by any government, including Armenia. It has no international status whatsoever. And here we should not engage in OR or political debate. Attempt to draw parallel line with Kosovo is absolutely groundless and unsubstantiated for above-mentioned reasons.--Dacy69 22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review?

Marshall remarked how annoying it is to see 'consensus' bandied about here, and he has a point - consensus here will either be very difficult to obtain, or at its worse, used as a weapon to keep valid edits and points of view at bay.

[removed a bunch of brainstorming]

I had a few ideas as to how to reorganize the article but then realized, maybe we need outside help. I'm going to throw this article at Peer Review and see what sticks. Maybe having a fresh perspective on issues might help us clean it up. I really think this thing could be featured someday, the prose is good, the information is good, and it has an awesome division map, we just need to get past these sticking points. --Golbez 09:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea is good, but we probably need to inform the reviewers what is actually being disputed right now. I for one am not happy with the way Marshall deleted the demographics table instead of trying to improve. I know peer reviewers may come with ideas about improvement of the parts that are not disputed, but they may also help resolve the ongoing disputes. Also, I think Marshall needs to assume good faith with regard to other editors. Grandmaster 09:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, I kind of like the idea of throwing it at them sight unseen and see what they have to say about it, without any prior knowledge. The demographics table is a minor part of the article as far as peer review is concerned (it has no prose, it has no bearing on the article at large, yet it is important for the subject; but Peer Review doesn't need to know that) --Golbez 09:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind, let's see what they say. However I think the dispute with regard to that table that is constantly being deleted by a certain party should be resolved too. Grandmaster 09:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, although your argument that consensus can be "used as a weapon to keep valid edits and points of view at bay" is somewhat well-founded, I must point out that we cannot just put months of discussions aside and take a radically different approach at everything... If those months of discussions were fruitless, I'd agree with you, but since they did come to a conclusion (one which you may not like, but a conclusion nonetheless), we need to give value to past achievements and try to work towards improving the article... Your "exclamation" was clearly targeted at me but I won't take it in a negative way (we're past that, right Golbez). I've always assumed good faith and I'd be damned if anyone can prove that my input has been anything but constructive... Happy Easter/Passover BTW, talk about a well-timed break for all of us... HyeProfile 18:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, I dunno what you mean about targeted, I simply saw Marshall's comment and brainstormed on that. It's not all about you. --Golbez 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, is there a way to detach you from the maps :) --MarshallBagramyan 19:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What, you want to get rid of me? :P --Golbez 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted an edit by anon account, which added unverified atatement. Grandmaster 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenian side

As a non-Armenian (third party), I'd like to mention a few points that Armenia has. First, regarding the claim that the "Caucasian Albanian" area included Nagorno-Karabakh, it doesn't look like it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Albania

Second, Azerbaijan benefitted tremendously from The USSR's attempts to crush Armenian independence in 1923 by using the 'divide and conquer' strategy. Areas that had previously been a part of Armenia were reassigned arbitrarily to Azerbaijan. As the numbers show, Nagorno-Karabakh was 94% Armenian in 1923. The UN principles of 'self-determination of peoples' are definitely underminded here.

Third, I believe the idea of a contiguous state is a good one. Might I suggest that Armenia trade a southern corridor to Azerbaijan in exchange for Nagorno-Karabakh (with a link to Armenia). Currently SW Azerbaijan is not connected in any way to Azerbaijan. It would be helpful to everyone in the long run to not simply adhere to arbitrary lines drawn by a third-party conquering power, but set lines that are more in keeping with historic, cultural, and ethno-linguistic tradition.68.211.77.10 08:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The article about Caucasian Albania does not say that Karabakh was not part of it. If you are referring to the map, its origin is unknown. I tried to find that out, but received no response. It should be deleted. The claim that "Areas that had previously been a part of Armenia were reassigned arbitrarily to Azerbaijan" are far from truth, Karabakh has never been part of the Republic of Armenia. As for the "set lines", they resulted in displacement of about 800 000 Azerbaijani people, who live as refugees in tents. I don't see how it is "more in keeping with historic, cultural, and ethno-linguistic tradition" Grandmaster 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster you are crazy if you think Artsakh was never part of Armenia, go back to playing your Dungeon Dragons or Runescape or whatever you play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.192.171 (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, that plan has been put forth, and either rejected, or simply not yet accepted, by both sides. --Golbez 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Local name of Nagorno-Karabakh

Altought South Ossetia and Abkhazia for instance are Georgian regions, the 'official' names of these regions in Wikipedia are written in local language. For consistency the 'official' name of the Nagorno-Karabakh self-proclamed Republic should be given in local language, ie Armenian: "Lernayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetutyun". Moreover, if the name is written in its Azerbaijani form 'Dağlıq Qarabağ Respublikasi' that could imply that Azerbaijan is recognizing that a "Republic" exists there. A fair solution would be, as for Abkhazia, to write something like:"Lernayin Gharabaghi / Dağlıq Qarabağ" (C. Nüssli 16:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

This page is about region, not republic. Self-proclaimed republic is self-proclaimed and can call itself whatever it wants. --Dacy69 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a point in that. Infobox should not refer to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, it should refer to the region, as it has no recognition from Azerbaijan or anyone else. The infobox should only state the name of the region in 3 languages. Grandmaster 05:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. We can begin with the TRNC, Abkhazia and all the other such articles.--MarshallBagramyan 05:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Abkazia does just that, and TRNC is not a region, it is an entity, which has some recognition. Grandmaster 07:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Right; if the article were at "Northern Cyprus" then we'd have an issue. Also, yes, it's partially recognized. --Golbez 07:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazia has no less than 3 "territory/country" templates including one that refers to as a republic also. Partial would imply some other countries besides Turkey.--MarshallBagramyan 05:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Census table

Adding Karabakh census numbers to Nagorno-Karabakh article is the same thing as adding California census numbers to Southern California article. P.S. I loved the question marks, very encyclopedic. Vartanm 10:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an agreement that the table was to remain. Both Golbez and Francis agreed to its inclusion. The table explains which territory the figures cover. Grandmaster 10:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Was that before or after Adil skewered the figures? Cornell states that asides from the 9% which made up the Armenians according to the census, 91% were labeled "Muslims". What the ethnic make up was of those Muslims is not written.--MarshallBagramyan 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not the reason to delete the table. Grandmaster 05:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the only reason why it was.--MarshallBagramyan 05:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What were the others? Grandmaster 06:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
See California example. Vartanm 09:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don’t think it is a good example. You had no problems with including figures for relocation of population by Shah Abbas that had nothing to do with Nakhichevan. I don’t see why we cannot do it here. Grandmaster 09:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I only included a sentence or two saying that Armenians were moved from the region. It wasn't me who turned that entire section into full-fledged paragraphs that wrote about random things. You're comparing apples and oranges; what was done on that article has no precedent for this one. --MarshallBagramyan 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And please stop removing the table. I hope Golbez will look into this issue again. Thanks. Grandmaster 06:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not children here to always ask someone to mediate our differences. The bottom line is that those census figures from the pre-WWI era only speaks about Muslims - not Azerbaijanis per se - and about Karabakh, not Nagorno-Karabakh. Even so, I prefer if figures are incorporated into text and to not use the census as the only gauge to measure demographics; obviously, its history dated before the Russians arrived.--MarshallBagramyan 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the existence of the arbitration showed just that - the overwhelming tendency for POV editors on this suite of articles is toward childishness and a need for an adult with a cluestick. That said, I am out of town, and generally have no opinion on the census table; it is a complex matter that should not, however, be fought over in the article itself, and if this continues, I will protect the article on the Wrong Version. (that is to say, if I get home and see the edit war has continued, I will protect it on whatever version it's on, as I don't care.) I will rephase what I just said - I do have an opinion on all this, but it's not "pick one or the other", which is what is being pushed. --Golbez 02:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, the table presents valid and bipartisan information, which Bagramyan keeps removing simply for POV position. I think for the sake of fairness, the census table should stay and let other users discuss it before allowing someone to just boldly get rid of it by claiming: "I prefer if figures are incorporated into text". The "prefer" part must be discussed and agreed upon before just editing the disputed article. Atabek 05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Again with your POV accusations? do you do anything else besides poison this atmosphere for the users? The table writes "Azeris" when in the source it says "Muslims". The table says census for "Karabakh" not "Nagorno-Karabakh".

I have expounded these points over and over to you guys yet you guys unabashedly add it back in and then accuse me of POV pushing. I have yet to see one reason as to why that table deserves to be there when you guys cannot even address the aforementioned points.--MarshallBagramyan 05:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So what? Muslims were Azeris and Kurds, the latter living in Kelbajar and Lachin regions. Change Azeri to Muslim for that particular section. Remember, that initially Russians did not make any distinction among various Muslim people. And NK never existed as a separate region before 1923, so you will not be able to find any statistics for that part of Karabakh only, but that does not mean that we should delete the info on population of the region. Grandmaster 08:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not the sole basis I am measuring this by. If we are treating Nagorno-Karabakh like a country article, then reference to statistics from 150 years ago, and even 50 years ago, seem mundane and unnecessary in the grander scheme of things. I couldn't think of any better place to put those statistics than under history of the region under Russian rule. Country articles like the recent FA, Japan, or Germany or France do not make much mention of what their historic demographics once were.

The demographic history of Japan and Germany and France are not terribly relevant to those areas, though, having been generally undisputed and mostly homogenous. For an article like, say...Iraq? With its three major groups? Then it would possibly be relevant. --Golbez 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Lebanon seems like a good example too considering the mix of its ethnic communities; others include the powderkegs Serbia and Kosovo and the rest of the former Yugoslavia such as Albania an Macedonia - all of which boast similar diverse ethnic communities.--MarshallBagramyan 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dağlıq Qarabağ Respublikası

Grandmaster Wikipedia is not the place to push Azerbaijani government views. Vartanm 06:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about the Azeri government's view, please calm the rhetoric, though I would agree GM's edit summary may have been a little off. The thing is, by putting "Republic" in Azeri, we are implying that is the official name within N-K; it is not, because Azeri is not the official language. And no nation that uses Azeri calls the region by that. So either you have to remove the Azeri altogether - which would be unacceptable, POV-wise - or remove all mentions of "Republic". South Ossetia does it that way; Transnistria doesn't, but it has three official languages, so it's less an issue. I think I agree with the new guy, we should remove "Republic" from the infobox header. There's no harm in doing that, and it removes the possible POV issues. --Golbez 07:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Golbez. To include the name "Dağlıq Qarabağ Respublikası" you should demonstrate that it is officially used, and you cannot delete the Azeri name, because the region is officially part of Azerbaijan and had significant Azeri population. Grandmaster 07:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't speak Azeri, but looks like its being used by Azeri government. [5], [6]. Who said I wanted to delete the Azeri name? --Vartanm 09:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No, its not. In the first source the name “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” used in the section that describes position of Armenia, the second condemns illegal elections in “so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic”. You can add “so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic”, it is the only context this name is used in Azeri. Grandmaster 09:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Vartan, NK "Republic" does not exist as far as Azerbaijan and the rest of international community, excluding Armenia, is concerned. So there is no reason to reflect POV of a single side, and especially doing so in Azeri language, which you do not speak. Atabek 11:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can the biased folks (yes, you know who you all are) not make edits like that? Leave it to the mediators like me, or we'll just end up in a revert war. That's why I went to the talk page first. I support this edit, but it probably wasn't your place to make it. --Golbez 11:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was following the rule of explaining my edit on the talk page and then making it. But since you took on the task of mediation, will leave the edits to you. Now, I have a problem with another statement here, which is untrue and wasn't referenced: "...referendum held in the NKAO and the neighboring district of Shahumian..." . There was no referendum in Shahumian district, it was never part of NKAO in first place, and was firmly under the control of Azerbaijan SSR in 1991. There were only two Armenian-populated villages in that whole district. Atabek 13:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Quoting from the declaration of independence: "With the participation of delegates from all levels of councils in a joint session of peoples deputies of the Nagomo Karabakh (NK) regional and Shahumian district councils, by the expression of the popular will supported by a documented referendum, and by the decision taken by the authorities of the NK autonomous region and the Shahimian district between 1988-91 concerning its freedom, independence, equal rights, and neighborly relations". The burden is now on you to show that the referendum did not exist in Shahumian. --Golbez 17:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, the so called "declaration of independence" of the unrecognized and illegitimate entity like "NKR" can claim whatever it likes, this does not establish neither legal basis nor ground truth. The fact is Shahumian was not part of NKAO, it is and was largely populated by Azerbaijanis and never controlled by the occupation forces of the Republic of Armenia (or in Armenian lingo called "NK Self-Defense Forces"). So to make this claim encyclopedic and reassert it as a fact, there needs to be some form of impartial evidence with census figures for the region, and unfortunately, any attempt to add any form of the regional census table is being prevented now for the reasons of hiding the ground truth. Atabek 07:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
We know Shahumian was not part of NKAO, and it was largely populated by Azeris, and it was never controlled by Armenians. However, the Karabakhis (is that the proper term?) claim that it held a successful referendum for independence and merger with the NKR. Can you find any fact beyond 'common sense' that proves this wrong? --Golbez 17:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, since this is an encyclopedic article, evidence of referendum held in Shaumyan district in the form voting bulletins and third-party (non-Armenian) observer conclusions and opinions must be present. Pending such evidence, I cannot see how holding referendum can be claimed as a fact in encyclopedia just based on the claim of separatists not recognized by anyone. And this is given the fact that majority of Shaumyan district was Azerbaijani-populated. Atabek 10:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course the majority was Azerbaijani. After Operation Ring, there weren't any Armenians left to comprise a formidable entity after they were deported.--MarshallBagramyan 16:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing proofs of referendum and validity of such if it was held in Shaumyan district. The Armenian propaganda, attempting to hide the fact of occupation of NK and 7 surrounding districts of Azerbaijan, deportation and ethnic cleansing of close to 800,000 inhabitants of occupied districts, while inventing some "Operation Ring" in the district which was majorly Azeri-populated, is absolutely irrelevant to the subject of whether or not referendum was held in Shaumyan. Atabek 10:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What bollocks. Inventing "Operation Ring"? The MVD and OMON systematically threw out thousands of Armenians from at least 16 villages under the pretext of a passport-regime and supplanted them with Azeris . Operation Ring was widely reported and condemned in both the Western and Soviet media before the Soviet Union even broke up; where do you come up with all this nonsense?--MarshallBagramyan 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the edit was that Armenian and English languages said it was a republic and Azeri wasn't. I have no problem if all 3 say the same thing. And Atabek judging by your edit on the Armenian sentence I see that you don't speak Armenian, so were even. Vartanm 16:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So is it a matter of a template issue? The region of Nagorno-Karabakh does not have such a flag or such a capital whereas the unrecognized de facto independent Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. What precedent or guideline are we precisely following on?--MarshallBagramyan 05:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent republic" thats the first sentence of the article. NK has what any other functioning democratic government has. President, parliament, constitution and army. Vartanm 17:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the article is on the region, it should have the names of it in 3 languages. As for flag and stuff, the writing under them should explain who they belong to. Grandmaster 06:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

No edit war! Sure, it was semi-protected, but that wouldn't stop any of y'all from editing. I'm happy! --Golbez 17:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nagorno-Karabakh Coat of Arms.png

Image:Nagorno-Karabakh Coat of Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

PACE

I restored the original version of PACE quote as per my discussion with Francis on Khojaly massacre talk. Grandmaster 16:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for making article more readable

I suggest spinning off parts of the article to other new articles and putting links in this article as it is getting to long. The best candidate IMHO is the international status section. There are some good stuff in it but it is getting long and will only get longer so spin it off into a separate article and beef it up in that article and put a summary and link in this article. Pocopocopocopoco 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Transliteration in infobox

Please add a transliteration of the Armenian name. Very few readers can read this alphabet. Valentinian T / C 12:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

International Status Recognition

I think it would be appropriate to add that Azerbaijan is reluctant to recognize Turkish occupied Cyprus (aka trnc) because they are afraid if they do, the government of Cyprus will be the first country to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state.--Waterfall999 11:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Find a citation and I'll put that in, I know that's the case but I don't recall seeing it officially mentioned anywhere. --Golbez 13:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Why would Azerbaijan wish to recognize TRNC and establish a dangerous precedent? I don't think Azerbaijan has ever seriously considered such an action, it would harm its interests. Grandmaster 17:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Nachichevan certainly has. It would be seen as Turkic unity, I suppose.--Golbez 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Listen Golbez, Nakhchivan, Karabakh, Absheron and all are Azerbaijani regions and there has never been a fight over Nakhcivan, they are part of Azerbaijan and they don't even question it. You should not study one-side of the story only. --12insan 17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12insan (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Before you talk down to me ("Listen Golbez"), please try to understand what I wrote. I never said there was a fight over Nakhichevan - I said Nakhichevan recognized the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. --Golbez 21:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing Stalin's pic

I'm all for keeping the information that is written under Stalin's picture but can we at least grace this article with some other picture that has something to do with Nagorno-Karabakh? Plus, we have to have an intervention and stop Golbez one and for all from adding any more maps on to this article :) --Marshal Bagramyan 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

er? I added one. Well over a year ago. :P --Golbez 20:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There are three maps. One is made by me, the other is made by someone else based on a map I made, and the third is just that city one further down. Don't blame me! :P --Golbez 08:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Irredentism

What would be your thoughts on adding something to the article to the effect that the initial Karabakh movement in Armenia was irredentist but the claim by Azerbaijan to reintegrate Nagorno Karabakh is also irredentist? Pocopocopocopoco 19:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Khojaly Massacre

I just removed some comments because this section was quickly spiraling out of control. The matter is resolved, the link is in the footer template where, so far as I can tell, it always belonged. If anyone disagrees, please bring it up, without accusing the nationality-not-yours of killing people, thanks. --Golbez 12:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yelena Alikhanyan Bonner

She was Armenian, and also took one side of the Karabakh conflict. So this reference, especially about history, is simply non-neutral and should not be on this page. Otherwise, we should also use references from Azerbaijani historians on this page, including Bunyadov, Mamedova, I. Aliyev, etc. Atabek 11:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

She was not Armenian, and never used Alikhanyan as her lastnme. She had an Armenian step-father. If we follow this logic then Steve Jobs is also Armenian (he isn't). VartanM 18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Vartan, Please try to be more serious, Steve is of Caucasian Albanian descent [citation needed]. ;)Hetoum I 04:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Hetoum, I inserted a fact tag to your claim. Please provide a third party source to support your claim. Just don't go overboard, one source will do just fine. ;) --VartanM 06:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How come, according to our Azeri co-editors, all ancient Armenian kings are Persian, Parthian, Albanian, but never Armenian? And yet, Yelena Bonner is suddeny fully and purely Armenian? --TigranTheGreat 01:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is she an ancient Armenian queen? :) But seriously, her maiden surname was Alikhanian, I don't think anyone can deny this fact. And she is extermely pro-Armenian biased in NK issue. Grandmaster 05:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, see de Waal, he says that Sakharov was pro-Armenian because of his wife’s influence:
Sakharov's pro-Armenian stance was shaped by his Armenian wife. Yelena Bonner's parents – whose surname was Alikhanian – were Armenians from Shusha who had been driven from the town in 1920. This family memory obviously made a deep impression, yet as Sakharov and Bonner heard both sides of the issue, they amended their positions somewhat.
Thomas de Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, p 66.
Grandmaster 09:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, is the quotation you marked from here http://www.azeri.ru/Anons/bbc_karabakh/blackgarden.htm ? Is it a reliable and neutral source supported by Azerbaijani community portal? Andranikpasha 13:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one, a neutral source, written by a British journalist, who travelled to the both sides of the conflict. Grandmaster 16:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

De Waal is pro-Azeri, which is obvious if you read his work--the Armenian side is systematically demonized. Plus, De Waal is inaccurate, which makes him unreliable--neither of her parents were Armenian--Bonner's mother, Ruth Bonner, was Jewish (which is all that matters if one is a Jew). Only her stepfather was Armenian, and an Armenian Communist at that, which is worse than an Azeri (from an Armenian point of view, not that Azeris are inherently bad). Check this Jewish Encyclopedia: http://www.eleven.co.il/article/10703. In sum, she is Jewish, fully and completely.

Ironically, had she been an ancient Armenian queen, our Azeri friends here would have insisted that she was non-Armenian. (And I am not saying you guys are doing it in bad faith--I am sure you fully believe you are improving the quality of Wikipedia while disrupting Armenian articles. I am merely making an observation on a well established pattern of edits).--TigranTheGreat 02:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith assumption of the worst kind. No one "disrupts" Armenian articles by mentioning Parthian origin of some of the Armenian kings. I don't understand why Tigran has problems with mentioning this fact, it is nothing unusual for the region, not only Armenian, but also Albanian and Georgian kings were of Parthian origin, since the region was dominated by Parthia for many centuries. I don't know how this is related to Bonner/Alikhanian, and de Waal does not make a mistake by saying that her parents were Armenian. No one can deny Mr.Alikhanian's ethnic origin, no matter if he was her actual or step dad, commy or not. And she was and still is extremely anti-Azeri and pro-Armenian, and thus not a reliable source. De Waal, on the other hand, is a third party source without any connection to the sides of the conflict. Grandmaster 05:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"without any connection to the sides of the conflict": - see below! Is this a connection or no (http://www.azeri.ru/Anons/bbc_karabakh/blackgarden.htm) ? His book were announced-advertised and represented by the Azeri community portal.Andranikpasha 07:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So what? Grandmaster 07:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a direct connection and support by a side of the conflict, isnt it? Andranikpasha 08:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. It is just an announcement of a new book about the conflict. Grandmaster 09:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a promotion... it seems to be very neutral source if an extremely pro-Azeri portal supports it. Also about de Vaal's professional "neutrality": Teymuraz Deniev (http://www.genshtab.chechnya.ru/) calls him an "expert-businessman" who is "making money on blood". He write that in 2003 this person meet the people reffered with famous extremist Ahmed Zakayev and received financial support for a pro-extremist talk in the court as a researcher on Caucasus. Deniev calls de Vaal a "Western and Chechenian agent".[1] Andranikpasha 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

His-pro western oil company/azeri goverment stance is rather clear. While he attempts to hide under auspecies of a neutral "western" journalist, he is nothing more than a paid propagandist who tries cry neutrality by equaling the Armenian Genocide to some non-existent azeri "genocides". Stupid Armenians are happy he uses the "g" word, and we see were Azerbaijain Tartars get satisfied.Hetoum I 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And who is this Deniyev who accuses the British journalist of being a "western spy"? How can anyone take seriously such allegations, especially considering that Deniyev provides no proof of him being an agent of the Western countries? Looks pretty much like old Soviet rhetoric, only the word "imperialism" is not used. Grandmaster 06:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

De Waal is a modern British linguist and journalist who "discovered" how many people were killed during the Shushi Massacres in 1920 without even asking any sources, despite a journalist need to be more careful to the historiographical facts. Deniev marks some incedents and asks de Waal is an agent (its Deniev's opinion about a living person, he has rights to represent it and he is fully responsible for it!). If Deniev lies than De Waal have all rights to ask for a trial considering Deniev's words as a personal harrasment, falsification etc. Than this material may be closed etc. Andranikpasha 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read de Waal, he cites his sources, and Hovanissian provides the same figure. I don't think de Waal is even aware of existence of Deniyev somewhere on chechnya.ru, and accusations of NGO's being agents of USA and "The West" are ridiculous. The source of criticism is not reliable, because it is clearly an attempt to get back at de Waal for his book about Chechnya. But it really has nothing to do with this particular article. De Waal's book on NK received only positive reviews from authoritative third party reviewers. Grandmaster 11:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I read the Russian one, he never cites any sources for the number of killed inhabitants of Shushi. And Hovanissian is unreliable as you marked many times: I cant understand why all the time you cite him? If to cite Hovanissian, lets then cite "The Armenian question" encyclopedia by EditBoard of Armenian Encyclopedia, mostly recognized source, etc.etc.. Deniev marks not the book about Chechnia but de Waals co-operation (as he says) with Zakaev during his trial.

"De Waal's book on NK received only positive reviews from authoritative third party reviewers"- It never makes him a neutral person and non his journalistic work- a historiographical research...Andranikpasha 14:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So, basically who disagrees with Dashnaksutyun ideology is not neutral, huh?--12insan 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Is Misleading

Nagorno Karabakh is a region, however the article does not seem to focus on Nagorno Karabakh region but on de-facto "NKR". For example, flag and map with Armenian names should not be included in an informational article about a region of another country. Since so-called "NKR" is not recognized by any country, the map should say Xankendi instead of Stepenakert, because that is what world map says. If anyone wants to describe de facto "NKR", then that person should either create another article with that title or describe it under a subheading. But this article is MISLEADING, if not manipulative. Also, information with biased sources (from both sides) should be deleted or the citation should be changed to a neutral third-party sources. Again this text is supposed to be informative article about Nagorno Karabakh, not political propganda. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has no place for any political propoganda. If the poposed changes are objected to without any reasonable explanation, we will ask Wikipedia to delete it completely if it wants to keep its credibility and impartiality. Thank you—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12insan (talk • contribs)

It's been discussed from time to time whether or not the article should be split between region and self-proclaimed republic; as of yet, we haven't really come to a conclusion, so it remained at the status quo. As for Khankendi instead of Stepanakert, that has less to do with the recognition of the region and what the city's own residents call it; this is a rare situation but for now I think we're going with that, especially since it's the capital of a self-proclaimed country - and like it or not, we have to respect that in some fashion, especially since the Armenians have de facto rule over the area. However, that's more of a question to bring up on Talk:Stepanakert rather than here.
The biased sources are necessary to show both sides of the conflict, so long as our own prose remains neutral, and I'm confident it is. The article will not be removed, and our credibility and impartiality are intact - so instead of making demands that are impossible to fulfill, like deleting the article completely, I welcome you to it, and ask you to make specific suggestions on where to go from here. I suppose this is as good a time as any to reopen the discussion on whether or not the article should be split. There's precedent both ways - Chechnya and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria are separate, but Abkhazia and South Ossetia combine the two notions into one article. Personally, I'm somewhat happy with how this article is, as it's the work of several years of collaboration from Azeri, Armenian, and neutral users. So instead of making blanket accusations of us being a place for "Armenian political propaganda", please familiarize yourself with the previous discussions that have taken place, and make specific suggestions on what to do with the article. For example, how is it misleading? It's a fact that the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is unrecognized and has de facto control over its territory; this much is not in dispute. So please, point out false or misleading statements in the article, and we will correct them if they are in fact false or misleading. As for myself? I'm American, with absolutely no connection to the Caucasus, and have been accused by both sides of being a patsy for the enemy. Which I think makes me rather neutral in this. --Golbez 08:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, thanks for replying. I apologize for posting the article right on the top of the page, I didn't know I was supposed to post to the bottom. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the discussion about splitting the article. Could you please show me where it is? It is important to know why the answer was "no". In addition, this way we won't discuss the same thing over and over again.
Also, note that I am going to reply your question and explain why I think article is misleading in a couple of days (I am kind of busy these days). If the discussion is in archive I'll post it again, so we can discuss everything clearly. Thank you.--12insan 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say the answer was no; I said we came to no conclusion at all. The discussion kind of faded away. And please be sure to read the full context of comments before you respond to them attacking someone for something they didn't even say, as demonstrated above. --Golbez 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive9#Shahumian.2C_split.3F is the best example I can find of a discussion on the split, so it probably should be brought up again. --Golbez 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, I obviously didn't read what you wrote carefully. But how exactly did I attack you????? The discussion you showed doesn't exactly discuss what I was talking about. I don't think we should "chat" here, so, I am going to bring this subject up later.--12insan 02:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The section I linked discusses - marginally - splitting the article into two articles, one about the republic, one about the region. the discussion never really went anywhere. It's happened a handful of times before but with the same outcome. --Golbez 03:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Splitting again

Time to resurrect this old argument, because if I recall correctly, we never really come to any conclusion, it just fades to black. So:

  1. Should there be two articles, one for the Republic, one for the Region?
  2. Should there be THREE articles, adding one for the NKAO, since that was a notable period in history, the last time it had official, concrete borders?
  3. Should there be two articles, one of the region/republic (as the article is now) plus one for the NKAO?
  4. Or, should there only be one article, this one, handling the aspects of all three? This is the current situation.

Personally, I've tended to support option #3 but I see the utility in option #2. #4 is how things currently are. Comments? This is not a vote, this is simply a request for comment. --Golbez 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think third choice is much better, since this way articles will be realistic, informational, and encyclopedic. But I think everyone should analyze previous discussions and clearly explain their arguments instead of just saying "I want this and that". So, I am going to give my suggestions later ( Sorry for the delay, but I want to learn Wikipedia's rules and look through previous discussions before suggesting anything, however for now I find choice 1 or 3 more appropriate and reasonable). --12insan 07:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood #3; #3 would be the same as it is now, with an additional article for the autonomous oblast. Earlier, you were advocating splitting the article into one about the republic and one about the region. --Golbez 13:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
There is already a Nagorno_Karabakh_Autonomous_Oblast I would support option #2 so 3 articles. The reason for this is that the NKR isn't the same area as the region. If I remember correctly, the census that they do includes people that live in what they call Kashatagh (I believe incorrectly redirected to Lachin(rayon) in wikipedia) and if I remember correctly, Kashatagh includes the Lachin, Kalbajar, Zangilan rayons. Also, the basis for negotiation seems to be that the Lachin corridor would remain with the NKR. Also the NKR claims Shahumian which is now part of the Goranboy rayon and this is also not part of the Nagorno Karabakh region. I think it also makes sense as whenever someone wants to refer to the republic they can refer to the republic article and when they want to refer to the region they can refer to the region article. We can make this similar to how there is an Abkhazia article and an Government of the Republic of Abkhazia and a Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. I also think that if the NKR were to ever be resubjugated by Azerbaijan or annexed by Armenia, the article could remain as a historical de-facto republic similar to the Republic of Serbian Krajina. I also think it might be worthwhile to have a fourth article on the international status of the NKR similar to the Status of Kosovo. - Pocopocopocopoco 15:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, I didn't even think to check if we had an NKAO article, I never knew it had been de-merged. --Golbez 21:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, sorry I meant first or second option,that's a typo. My previous answer should make sense now.--12insan 21:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Article should be splitted

The thing is that thousands of people read this article and it is perhaps one of the most controversial articles in Wikipedia. NK has created a huge tension between Azerbaijanis and Armenians, therefore maintaining neutrality and respect to each side is very important.
I suggest that this article be split to “Nagorno Karabakh”, “NK Republic”, and “NKAO” (which already exists). Also in every article two subsections called “Armenian Perspective” and “Azerbaijani Perspective” should be created and statements reflecting perspectives included there. This way readers of the article will not confuse facts and interpretations and both sides’ never-ending editing and arguing in discussions will slow down.
Now, I think everybody agrees that neither Azerbaijanis or Armenians enjoy arguing and changing passages all the time (this also damages Wikipedia’s image, because information is not reliable). I also think everybody agrees that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political arena or a newspaper editorial section. And people who read any article in an encyclopedia should not be forced to identify and analyze facts and interpretations in an informational article; they wouldn’t need an encyclopedia in the first place then. That’s why informational and perspective-reflecting statements should be kept separate and presented in a way that a readers knows whether it is a pure fact or just a perspective. That’s why source of information and relevance of any passage must be pondered. Of course, if a factual and agreed upon information is taken from a biased source, there is nothing wrong with that, but highly disputable information should either be cited from a totally disinterested, unbiased, and neutral source OR deleted and not shown at all OR shown under “Armenian Perspective”/ “Azerbaijani Perspective” section. This is peaceful.
What is particularly misleading about this article? Well, the question is what is NK. A region in Azerbaijan or name of a de-facto republic? This article doesn’t seem to make any difference and is misleading. It is like naming an article America and describing the USA; well America is the continent’s name. Whole world thinks NK is part of Azerbaijan, and world map shows it as a part of Azerbaijan. What is point of ignoring whole world, presenting “NKR” as a main subject and displaying its flag, using Armenian names but not the names used in world map and etc. in an article which is about a part of Azerbaijan? ([7] CIA factbook map) If one wants to describe “NKR” then he or she should create another article named “NKR” and describe it there. In addition, the flag should be included in an article called “NKR” not “NK”. If there should be a flag, that should be Azerbaijani flag. Again, what is NK? A region in Azerbaijan or the name of a de-facto republic? The same thing is true about names in maps. This is why the article is misleading and confusing. A reader interested in NK sees “NKR” flag and all and can hardly understand what is the article is about (Collected Quotations, part 1, part 2, part 3, psrt 4)
Below are statements I disagree with. Usually problems are Biased Source, No Source, Armenian Perspective (mixed with facts), Manipulative, Far from truth.
  1. “On December 10, 1991, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, a referendum held in the NKAO and the neighboring district of Shahumian resulted in a declaration of independence from Azerbaijan as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR),…” ----1.Armenian Perspective. This statement reflects Armenian POV, Azerbaijanis didn’t even know referendum existed, let alone participating. 2. No source. I understand that I don’t have source to prove that Azerbaijanis didn’t participate in this “referendum”, but Armenians have no proof either. The statement should either put in a subheading called “Armenian Perspective” or deleted.
  2. “It is often referred to by the Armenians living in the area as Artsakh (Armenian: Արցախ; Russian: Арцах), designating the 10th province of the ancient Kingdom of Armenia and a province of the Kingdom of Aghvank ("Caucasian Albania").” ----1. Armenian perspective. Azerbaijani historians would state that Artsakh was not an Armenian land or anything. Now, which POV is right? It is not possible to discuss it here, the statement’s adequacy is questionable and highly disputable. Putting this kind of controversial statement in an encyclopedic article without informing readers whose perspective it is from is far from NPOV (neutral point of view).
  3. “The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has six divisions within it, which correspond with the five districts of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO), and with the Shahumyan rayon of the Azerbaijan SSR” ---- 1.Armenian Perspective. What is The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, why not written inside quotation marks? Are you recognizing it while ignoring the rest of the world? 2. Armenian perspective. The name of the rayon is not Shamuyan. Why use this name instead of name used before and after all this dispute (khanates/Republic of Azerbaijan)?? This action is far from NPOV.
  4. “A comparative table of the current divisions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and the corresponding rayons of Azerbaijan follows”----Same as (3).
  5. “Representatives from Shahumian declared independence along with Nagorno-Karabakh, and the proclamation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic includes the Shahumian region within its borders.[1”----1. Armenian perspective. 2. Very disputable. Who were “representatives of Shahumian”?? 3. Biased Source. Why are you using biased and interested Armenian source (www.nkr.am) ?? Inserting this kind of statement without any warning of POV is wrong.
  6. “The territory of modern Nagorno-Karabakh forms a portion of the historic region of Karabakh, which lies between the rivers Kura, Araxes, and the modern Armenia-Azerbaijan border. In the ancient and medieval times, this larger region consisted of the historic provinces of Artsakh and Utik, which at various times alternated between the kingdoms of Armenia and Caucasian Albania” ----1. Armenian perspective. Again Azerbaijani historians would definitely disagree. The very same kind of statements increased tensions between countries. How acceptable is it to include this statement to this article? 2. Manipulative. Note that again nothing relating Karabakh khanate is mentioned.
  7. “The region of Nagorno-Karabakh falls within the lands occupied by peoples known to modern archaeologists as the Kura-Araxes culture, who lived between the two rivers bearing those names. Little is known of the ancient history of the region, primarily because of the scarcity of historical sources. At various times in antiquity that are difficult to establish with precision at this time, this area was part of Aghbania, or Caucasian Albania, and at others, of Kingdom of Armenia Armenians have lived in the Karabakh region since Roman times. In the early Middle Ages the native Albanian population of upper Karabakh merged into the Armenian population, and after 1300 Islamic Turks moved into the steppes of lower Karabakh. [14]”----Same as (5) and (6).
  8. “In the post-Soviet power vacuum, military action between Azerbaijan and Armenia was heavily influenced by the Russian military. Furthermore, both Armenian and Azerbajani military employed a large number of mercenaries from Ukraine and Russia.[32] As many as one thousand Afghan mojahedeens participated in the fighting.[33] Also there were fighters from Chechnya fighting on the side of Azerbaijan.[34][35]”----1. Biased source. Ermeni.org is not neutral or disinterested at all. Although the domain name is Azerbaijani (“ermeni”) it is created by nationalist Armenians.
  9. “At that stage the Government of Azerbaijan for the first time during the entire duration of the conflict recognised Nagorno-Karabakh as a third party of the war and started direct negotiations with the Karabakhi authorities.[citation needed]”----- 1. Far from truth. Azerbaijan has never recognized “NKR” as third party. This statement has no place in an encyclopedic article 2. There is no source. Putting [citation needed] doesn’t make it truthful.
  10. A quotation “Armenians feared that in Karabakh, Armenians would one day be a minority as they were in Nakhichevan, another lost part of historic Armenia ... yet now part of Azerbaijan[36]” ----1. Armenian Perspective. Nakchivan has never been part of Armenia and whoever used this quotation obviously has no knowledge of Caucasian history. And writing “Armenians feared that…blah blah” is irrelevant. If one insists to use this statement as argument, then he or she should include in a subheading named “Armenian Perspective”. The whole statement defends Armenian perspective instead of giving information as expected in an encyclopedia.
  11. (CURRENT SITUATION) “In his case study of Eurasia, Dov Lynch of the Institute for Security Studies of WEU believes that "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." Lynch also cites that 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."[38]”---Same as (10). This statement has no place in an encyclopedic article. If one insists using it then please put it under “Armenian Perspective” subheading.
  12. “Representatives of Armenia, Azerbaijan, France, Russia and the United States met in Paris and in Key West, Florida, in the Spring of 2001.[39] The details of the talks have remained largely secret, but the parties are reported to have discussed non-hierarchical relationships between the central Azerbaijani government and the Karabakh Armenian authorities.[citation needed Despite rumours that the parties were close to a solution, the Azerbaijani authorities — both during Heydar Aliyev's period of office, and after the accession of his son Ilham Aliyev in the October 2003 elections — have firmly denied that any agreement was reached in Paris or Key West.”— ]”----Same as (5), (6), (9), (10), and (11). 1.Purely Armenian perspective. It sounds like an Armenian newspaper editorial more than an informational article. This is totally unacceptable. 2. Putting [citation needed] doesn’t make it any right. You can’t just rely on someone who has received information from someone who in turn sets forth his or her arguments based on a rumor. I can just say that “the rumor is that Armenians and Armenian president wants to withdraw troops from NK but Armenian Diaspora won’t let it.” Is it rational now? 3. The last sentence has not citation. Rumors have no place in an encyclopedic article.
  13. “The major disagreement between both sides at the Bucharest conference was the status of Karabakh. Azerbaijan's position was a promise to give Karabakh the "highest status of autonomy adopted in the world."[45]”----1. Armenian perspective. 2. Far from truth and very disputable. 3. Biased source. Regnum.ru is pro-Armenian news agency and usually has this kind of “information” that no one else does. Regnum is not partial or disinterested at all.
  14. “Armenia favored a popular vote by the inhabitants of Karabakh to decide their future, a position that was also taken by the international mediators.[46]” –1. Far from truth. “A position that was also taken by international mediators” is not true and manipulative. International mediators have not taken that kind of position. And obviously only armenianliberty.org that has that “information”. 3. Biased source. Armenianliberty.org is ultra-nationalist and impartial. 4. Armenian perspective.
  15. “On June 27, the Armenian foreign minister said both parties agreed to allow the residents of Karabakh to vote regarding the future status of the region.[47]” ----Same as (14) far from truth and armenianliberty.org is not reliable in this particular issue. Azerbaijan will never think of referendum until IDP’s go back to their home. That would be stupid. It is like banishing republicans and then electing the president.
  16. “According to Azeri opposition leader Isa Gambar, however, Azerbaijan did indeed agree to the referendum. Still, nothing official has confirmed this yet.[49]”---1. Armenian perspective. Isa Gambar uses this kind of speech in order to defame government (he runs for the presidency for last 8 years). Besides, if officials have not confirmed it why use it as an argument here. The statement doesn’t prove that Azerbaijan has consented referendum, it says Isa Gambar says so. This can be put under subheading called “Armenian perspective”. This way readers will analyze the fact themselves.
  17. (INTERNATIONAL STATUS) “According to an analysis by New England School of Law's Center for International Law & Policy, as well as Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG), "Nagorno Karabagh has a right of self-determination, including the attendant right to independence, according to the criteria recognized under international law ... The principle of self-determination is included in the United Nations Charter, [and] was further codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ... The right to self-determination has also been repeatedly recognized in a series of resolutions adopted by the U.N. General Assembly." ... [as NKR's] independence was declared not from the Soviet Union but from Azerbaijan, ... [and as Nagorno Karabakh] at that time was part of a still existent and internationally recognized Soviet Union, ... NKR's declaration of independence fully complied with existing law. ... [In particular,] 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. ... [Furthermore,] the USSR Constitutional Oversight Committee did not annul the declaration to establishment the Nagorno Karabagh Republic, since that declaration was deemed in compliance with the then existing law".[60]”---- 1. Armenian perspective. There is nothing wrong with paragraph, but it is not informational, it is argumentative. What I mean is that the passage doesn’t describe anything, it just argues why NK should not be a part of Azerbaijan, but a dependent republic. Then, please put it under “Armenian Perspective” subheading.
  18. “At a recent press conference in Yerevan,Yuri Merzlyakov, the OSCE Minsk Group Russian Co-Chair stated, "At the press conference in Baku I underlined that Nagorno Karabakh was a part of Azerbaijani SSR and not of Azerbaijan. I perfectly know that till 1917 Nagorno Karabakh was a part of the Russian Empire. The history is necessary in order to settle conflicts, but it is necessary to proceed from international law".[64] Meanwhile, on June 10 2007 after US-Azerbaijani security consultations in Washington D.C. with Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov, Deputy Assistant Secretary of US Department of State, US Co-Chairman of OSCE Minsk group Matthew Bryza in a joint press conference announced: "In the circles of international law there is no universal formula for the supremacy of territorial integrity over the right of self-determination of people.".[65]”----1. Armenian perspective. Same as (17)
  19. (HUMAN RIGHTS ) “The Azerbaijani government has been unwilling to integrate the IDP's into the rest of the population as this could be interpreted as acceptance of the permanent loss of Nagorno-Karabakh.[citations needed]”----. 1. Armenian Perspective.2. Far from truth. How do you know this?? 3. No source. Where is citation? Again putting, [citation needed] doesn’t make it any right. For one thing, IDP's in Azerbaijan, refugees don’t pay anything for utilities and schools/universities. How come then Azerbaijani government doesn’t want “to integrate the IDP’s into the rest of population” then?
  20. (CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM) “The outcome was also criticised by Turkey, which traditionally sides with Azerbaijan because of common Islamic faith and ethnic Turkic roots.[73]”-----1. Armenian perspective. How do you know that Turkey helps Azerbaijan “because of common Islamic faith and ethnic Turkic roots”? This claim is absurd. Besides, does it mean that Russia and the USA aids Armenia because they are Christians?? 2. Biased source. kafkaz.memo.ru is not a reliable source at all. They don’t even have a decent domain name.
As you see there are many interpretations and POV mixed with facts. In order to solve most of the problems, I suggest that the article be split into 3 (NK, “NKR”, NKAO) and each one of them have subsection called “Armenian Perspective” and “Azerbaijani Perspective” in them. This way readers will be given more accurate and reliable information and they won’t have to analyze every single sentence and paragraph they read. Also, I hope, arguing between Azerbaijani Wikipedians and Armenian Wikipedians will at least slow down. Very reasonable and peaceful. Thank you--12insan 03:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, where do we even begin...--Marshal Bagramyan 04:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

12insan raised many valid points. But they should be discussed one by one. I agree that the present version has many flaws, better sources and better wording for certain passages would be really helpful. Grandmaster 04:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
12insan, thankyou for your lengthy contribution, splitting the article into a "Azerbaijani perspective" and "Armenian perspective" is a non-starter, not a chance. - Francis Tyers · 09:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
With regard to point 1, the quote that you provided comes from the intro, however the text of the article actually says:
On December 10, 1991 in a referendum boycotted by local Azerbaijanis,[2] Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh approved the creation of an independent state. A Soviet proposal for enhanced autonomy for Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan satisfied neither side, and a ground war subsequently erupted between Armenia and Azerbaijan. [8]
So the intro may need to be synchronised with the text of the article to reflect the fact that Azerbaijani population took no part in the referendum. Grandmaster 09:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Francis, I didn't suggest to split the article into "Armenian Perspective" and "Azerbaijani Perspective". You must have misunderstood. I suggest to split article in terms of content (NK, "NKR", NKAO) and insert "Armenian Perspective" and "Azerbaijani Perspective" into each article. --12insan 18:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Francis, Golbez, good luck to you both... You'll need patience...HyeProfile 00:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, it's been more than 10 days. What do you say? No one is responding. What is going on? Hyeprofile, it would really come handy if you tried to contribute something to discussion instead of implying things. --12insan 04:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I moved just after this, so give me a little time to catch up. --Golbez 23:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I greatly appreciate uploading original photos but they are of very poor quality. please consider editing them or replacing them with better pictures. Bassenius 16:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I would also like to clarify the notion of being "officially" part of Azerbaijan. I think this is a confusing formulation. Some countries recognize NK as part of Az. but some refuse to take position or retain a stance which is not revealing of their stance. Bassenius 15:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bassenius, which are those "some countries" exactly? --12insan (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent attempts to change the intro

The following has been proposed to be the first graf of the intro:

Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent republic located in the South Caucasus. The international status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a source of dispute. Some countries and international organizations, especially in their interactions with Baku, consider it to be part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. However, most foreign entities officially admit that the final status of the region should be formulated in the process of ongoing negotiations.

Utterly unsourced, and tries to make a roundabout statement that, while it's generally considered part of Azerbaijan, it's wink-wink-nudge-nudge considered independent. I don't think this is going to fly, as it's unsourced in the article. Yes, while saying "officially" part of Azerbaijan may be kludgy, it's the best method that was agreed on, and matches the position of the United Nations. At best, we could change it to "a de facto independent republic within the borders of Azerbaijan", which was a proposal I made sometime last year I think, and would make it match the articles on the similar regions of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria; however, if I recall, that was considered a little unwieldly; but since it's been adopted on the other articles, it may work now. However, as with all changes to the intro, these need to be discussed extensively on the talk page before being made. This intro is the result of many months of mediation between the two sides, and it will not be changed on a whim. --Golbez 23:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The original statement was unsourced as well, and for a good reason - there is a chapter below that provides details. I tried to be nuanced and factual about the status. Every entity and state admit that NK's status should be determined in the process of negotiations mediated by the Minsk Group. As there is no agreement yet, there does not exist any "official" status that has been determined. That is the position of the United Nations, by the way, which reflects the position of the Minsk Group. The UN does not have a position of its own. There does not exist even any interim "official" status - but the previous formulation falsely claims that there is one. This is untrue. However, I agree that the formulation may reflect the fact that some states and some organizations assumed stances or made claims that NK is part of Azerbaijan even if Baku does not factually control it. There is no need to mock the "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" position - "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" attitudes rule the world ever since diplomacy was invented. The US officials or websites for instance at times admit that NK is part of Azerbaijan but minutes later they turn around and claim that there is no consensus or agreement on interim or final "official" status. I appreciate your work to come to a consensus for the last 18 months, but there should be a new formulation. Your work guys was not good enough. Bassenius 04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the new version above. I haven't thoroughly read the wiki style guide but my impression is that the intro is left unsourced and the body of the article is sourced and the body of the article supports the intro. I believe there is enough in the article as it stands to support this new intro. If not, those that disagree should indicate what they dispute in the new version. Pocopocopocopoco 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The intro is left unsourced but everything in it needs to be sourced later; since the later article article was not altered, either it had an existing problem, or the change was not met with an appropriate change in sourcing. --Golbez 05:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Before any addition goes in, it needs to be considered by folks on both sides, though they were rather well pruned after the two arbitrations. Hrm. I need to review the section above about splitting, that may help any problems here. And IIRC, the official stance of the United States - unofficial statements by individuals notwithstanding - is that the borders of Azerbaijan include Nagorno-Karabakh. Likewise, the official stance of the United Nations, as seen in multiple resolutions, is that Nagorno-Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan. What we have to do, is balance this general (but not total, since many places don't care) international stance with the de-facto independence, without stating which one matters more. It's a delicate dance. --Golbez 05:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There are more than 10 archives dedicated to the discussion of intro, please read them before trying to change what was agreed after many months of heated disputes. Grandmaster 09:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussed with who- Bassenius, me? or between a group of users from the same counrty? its amazing to see these diplomatic reasons in a site called an "encyclopedia". -Its not right?, we hadnt sources?, its a biased info?, yes, but we have an agreement with users you dont know... so good bye!:). we need to chenge the motto to "free for some users who "discussed" it earlier".Andranikpasha 15:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. Obviously not with you two, since you weren't around. I'm welcoming you to the discussion. I never said or indicated your contributions weren't desired - but they have to be discussed like all the previous contributions were. Every change was discussed, the old ones and the new ones. You are not a second class citizen, nor are they better than you. I didn't say goodbye - I said the changes need to be discussed by anyone around when it happens. Which is what's happening. Is there a problem with that? --Golbez 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This change is not acceptable. Especially this comment: "Some countries and international organizations, especially in their interactions with Baku, consider it to be part of the Republic of Azerbaijan" -- ridiculous! There is no country which officially recognizes "NKR" as independent entity, including Armenia itself. This unsourced claim must provide reference as to which "other" countries "do not consider it to be part of the Republic of Azerbaijan". And the word consider has to be also sourced with reference to a formal document claiming so. Atabek 16:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, you're not right! Not all the countries are recognizing Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan! For example Armenia never recognized it as a part if Azerbaijan (NEVER, you hadnt such a fact). Surely not only Armenia, some countries never ask if they recognize or no. And many organizations (for example, Red Cross or even IWPR with "expert" de Waal) cooperating with Karabakh never asking if they're recognizing it as a part of Azerbaijan. Pls do not put the words on the mouths of all the states and organizations. The status of NK is a subject of discussions.Andranikpasha 20:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The status is this:
  1. No country officially recognizes the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh - even Armenia.
  2. Several countries and organizations, including the United States and United Nations, explicitly consider Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.
  3. Many, perhaps most, have no official stance.
  4. Organizations like the ICRC don't care what the official status of an area is, they are only there to help everyone, so I don't see how this is a helpful distinction.
Is any of this incorrect? --Golbez 20:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Golbez:

  1. No country officially recognizes the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh - even Armenia (TRUE; however Armenia would like to do so; therefore it is permanently on the edge of recognition)
  2. Several countries and organizations, including the United States and United Nations, explicitly consider Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan (TRUE, e.g. Turkey, but it is NOT TRUE about United States and United Nations; UN does not have a definite stance, and the USA cannot possibly recognize it as part of Azerbaijan or Armenia because it is a key member of the Minsk Group which is supposed to facilitate arriving at any intermediate or final ("official") statuses. However, sometimes, to placate Baku, Americans say what Baku wants to hear.)
  3. Many, perhaps most, have no official stance (TRUE)
  4. Organizations like the ICRC don't care what the official status of an area is, they are only there to help everyone, so I don't see how this is a helpful distinction (TRUE) Verjakette 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I rephrase #2: The UN itself may not have a position, but the security council does, as multiple UNSC resolutions call it a region of Azerbaijan. And the state department's website in several places calls it a region; it's far better for them to keep Baku happy so long as it's pumping out that sweet, sweet crude. However, in practice their negotiators are neutral. --Golbez 22:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Something else to consider WP:WEIGHT with regard to international recognition

I believe we may be dwelling too much on international recognition in this and other articles related to "de facto" states. There is really no such thing as "international recognition" and the UN or the UNSC is not an arbiter on what constitutes a state. I believe that it should be de-emphasized in this and other articles related to de facto states. Taiwan is every bit a state as the PRC. Just because the US doesn't say publically that it recognizes the NKR means very little as it gives direct foreign aid to the NKR. Iran might publically state that it recognizes the NKR but it has trade ties with the NKR. Many companies Canada/England, US, Lebanon and soon possible Georgia have/will have operations in the NKR. Making official statements of recognition aren't really as important as wikipedia articles make them out to be. Pocopocopocopoco 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It matters when a state isn't recognized by *anyone*. Taiwan is recognized. You have an excellent point about the U.S. not recognizing Taiwan, yet obviously having a, using a term I mentioned before, "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" recognition of it. However, Taiwan is not wholly unrecognized like NK is, so it has some de jure status, also the fact that it was recognized in the past, which NK never has been. --Golbez 01:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Recently the International Crisis Group published a paper about NK, where it states in the chapter Referendum, right of return, interim status: "The final status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the main cause of the conflict, remains the biggest disagreement." ICG states explicitly that NKR does not have any institutionalized international status, be it interim or final (Nagorno-Karabakh’s final status to be determined eventually by a vote, with an interim status to be settled on until that time ...). We can say that NK is a self-governing territory with all attributes of an independent state; it seeks international recognition, a quest sponsored by Armenia but rejected by Azerbaijan. In essence, NK is a de-facto independent state whose official status (final/interim) awaits definition by the Minsk Group. The international community's and individual states' official position boils down to supporting the Minsk Group.

See: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5157&l=1 Bassenius 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing at a time

Current first paragraph:

Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent republic located in the South Caucasus, officially part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, about 270 kilometers (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, but very close to the border with Armenia.

Bassenius wants to insert a mention of the diplomatic conflict right here, with an apparent emphasis on weakening Azerbaijan's tie to NK by removing any mention of it being within the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan. Thus, the issue appears to be the "officially part of" clause. Perhaps this should be changed to "within the internationally-recognized borders of Azerbaijan"? Any thoughts? And this may stem back to the whole splitting the article issue. I'll whip up a few ideas and present them later, but considering all of the issues involved, in the end, maybe it will be best to make this a glorified disambiguation page.

Discuss, please, and stop testing things out on the article itself. I will protect it. You can complain if you want, but considering that this article has been the root of two arbitrations and I am the only neutral party involved in it, it's my job to keep things calm. If you start editing the header, Azeri editors will reciprocate, and I'll end up protecting to end the edit war anyway. --Golbez 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think neutrality is a key here: NK is a disputed territory. Let's state it clear: it is a de-facto independent state (empirical fact) whose international status is disputed. There is nothing "official" yet. Below there is an entire chapter that discusses the details (for instance, that there were claims by states and int. institutions that NK is still part of Az. or is within Az.'s supposed borders, and counter-claims about self-determination of NK with a possibility of its internatinal recognition). The phrase "within the internationally-recognized borders of Azerbaijan" is a POV because it contains anticipation (bias?) regarding NK present and future status. If Golbez wants to mediate he must stay neutral. Verjakette 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, no one disputes Azerbaijan's international orders with respect to Turkey, Iran, Armenia, Georgia, and Russia; and since Nagorno-Karabakh does not intersect these, it is perfectly reasonable to state - similar to our articles on the three similar regions - that it is within the internationally-recognized borders of Azerbaijan. I don't think it includes an anticipation bias, for if NK became fully independent, we would change the article (though note that it would still be, unless other areas like Lachin switched hands, still completely within the borders of Azerbaijan, an enclave like Lesotho or San Marino).
Neutrality is of course the key. The main aspects are already in place - it's generally (not universally because we haven't polled every country, but it's notable that no country has officially disagreed with this) considered part of Azerbaijan, and is de facto independent of Azerbaijan; the latter holds no power over Nagorno-Karabakh nor the remaining rayons controlled by Armenia. The intro, as it currently is, takes the following structure:
  • Describe the location and state the major facts about it - de facto independent but, apart from where people are silent, considered part of Azerbaijan.
  • Explain why there's a schism between de facto and de jure.
  • Explain the current status and resolution process.
I think it does this very well, really the only conflict it should have is whether or not we say it's "officially part of Azerbaijan". If there are other conflicts I'm missing, please state them, but I haven't seen anyone yet complain about paragraphs 2 and 3. --Golbez 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
We should avoid wording like "internationally-recognized borders" because I see no evidence that there is such a thing. What is it supposed to mean? Even the border between Georgia and Azerbaijan hasn't yet been fully agreed upon by the two nations so what is the internationally recognized border between Georgia and Azerbaijan? Pocopocopocopoco 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The specifics may not be agreed upon; the broad strokes are. There may be a disagreement on the scale of a few kilometers, but the general gist of the borders is widely accepted. There are only a few macro border disputes in the world, like between Egypt and Sudan, and none are in the Caucuses. (except, of course, for the disputed borders of the breakway republics of Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia) Unless you know something that I don't about the AZ-GE border being more disputed than I'm portraying. --Golbez 02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
But where does this concept of "internationally-recognized borders" come from? Is this something in international law? If not we should simply refer it as disputed borders and leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocopocopocopoco (talk • contribs) 03:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question, actually. Not international law, it's not codified, but when you find most nations agreeing with a certain interpretation of borders - as well as the United Nations - and no recognized nation disputes it, then it's ... recognized. It's reciprocal. --Golbez 03:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If the borders of a state are recognized by any other states and international organizations, then they are internationally recognized. It is very simple. Grandmaster 10:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But are the borders of Az... this is getting way too technical and hypothetical. At some point, we need to stop asking if something is recognized or not and just look at the broad picture - countries recognize Azerbaijan with its particular borders, and they do not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh. At a certain point, we're going to alienate a lot of people with our needless whinging over terminology. ---- Golbez (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on the later, that countries do not recognize NKR but it doesn't automatically follow that they recognize the current borders of Azerbaijan and they will leave it up to Azerbaijan to agree with their neighboring countries on what its borders are. For the article, we should simply state that the NKR is unrecognized as an independent state and that it's a dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan and we should leave it up to the reader to decide whether most countries (what we normally refer to as the international community) recognizes the current borders of Azerbaijan or if they nudge nudge wink wink favor the independence of the NKR. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as the winking and nudging, that doesn't really apply. All that really matters is 1) the official statements of state departments/foreign ministries/international organizations, and 2) the actual actions of their representatives. In other words, the official statements of the US State Dept. versus the actions of its representative at OSCE Minsk. My guess would be they're equal - they recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan, but desire and are working to find a peaceful solution, which may even include independence. Put another way: the United States needs Baku's oil more than it needs to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh, so its official statement will be, until Azerbaijan agrees or the situation changes drastically, that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan. --Golbez (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
If you check the archives, you can find the official statements from many leading countries of the world, who consider NK to be a part of Azerbaijan. Among such countries are USA, UK, Russia, Turkey, etc. Also such international organizations as UNO, OSCE, PACE, EU, etc also officially recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan. So NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, as long as no one officially recognizes independence of NK. Grandmaster (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
So we can put all the official statements in the article and leave it up to the reader. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
While there is no official recognition, de facto the US government does consider NK independent, like many other nations. US like some other nations has a different aid package for NK, and it is managed by the authorities. Wasn't the Northern Cyprus blocked and it took how many years before the US lifted its blockage? Does the World Bank deal with Azerbaijan for NK matters? You see, it's not as simple as it seems. Officially recognized does not warrant region of, officially maybe, but the de facto independent goes before what is official, because the de facto in this case does not only mean that it is self declared, but that there is some de facto recognition of its independence and its authority, and this is no matter what is said officially. --VartanM (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Having a different aid package does not mean recognition; the Palestinian Authority has long been a healthy recipient of U.S. foreign aid. As for the TRNC, I'm not sure what point you're making there. --Golbez (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is why Palestinians are de-facto recognized by the international community. "de-facto recognized," the expression is itself awkard, as "recognized" inherently implies de-jure. But the expression exists, and is so far the best way to say "US doesn't say it's independent, but treats it as if it were independent."--TigranTheGreat (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Palestine is actually de jure recognized by 108 countries, which is more than even Taiwan, and 108 more than Nagorno-Karabakh. When it comes to control, actions (de facto) matter more, as you can only control land you actually stand on. When it comes to recognition, words (de jure) matter more, since there's no action to recognition beyond having your state department say the words. --Golbez (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So, does the expression "de-facto recognized" have any meaning? Or is it an oxymoron?--TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would call it generally an oxymoron, the one exception being Taiwan which has a very complex relationship with the world at large. N-K's relationship is not nearly so complex. --Golbez (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the USSR law is crucial to the legal status of NKR, no analysis of the legal status can be complete without the relevant paragraph of the actual NKR declaration.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the second quote from declaration of the Armenian separatist leaders. How many quotes from one source should be used in the same section? We can insert even the full text of declaration here, but it would not make it more legitimate. Reader gets an idea from the quote by their attorneys, some law school, which is also included. Also, if we quote the Armenian side, the official position of the Azerbaijani side should be presented as well. Grandmaster (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely we should include the Azeri side, though I suspect it would simply boil down to "ours." I've trimmed the citation greatly, fitting it into the context of the previous paragraph, with which it dealt with directly. --Golbez (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the prior quote. The quote itself is not a different interpretation or the Armenian side--it's a primary source, it's THE source about which Europeans, Azeris and Armenians argue about. If Europeans are saying "NK declared independence, and it had no right to do so," the primary source should reflect that, well, NK did not declare independence, it remained within the USSR initially. The readers can then compare and make up their minds. Considering that NKR.am is the official site of NKR, using it for the primary source is valid.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Grandmaster has always insisted that we should not edit quotes from sources, and this should apply here as well. I agree to trimming it somewhat for aesthetics, but the main point should not be trimmed away--i.e. that the declaration states that NKR remains within the USSR pursuant to its laws.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute. I never realized this aspect, let me quote: "proclaims: The Nagorno Karabakh Republic within the borders of the current Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and neighboring Shahoumian region." Does that mean that, rather than declaring independence, it declared itself to be a Soviet republic? And thus, upon dissolution of the Soviet Union, itself became independent? This goes along with my question below - just who did Nagorno-Karabakh declare independence from? The Soviet Union or Azerbaijan? --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct. It's not just based upon the part that you just quoted, but also the part where the declaration states "NKR enjoys the rights of other Republics, and can negotiate with the USSR leadership for its final status." NKR declaration declared the indepence from Azerbaijan and establishment of a republic within the USSR. Then in January, when the USSR was already toast long ago, it declared the final independence. Whoever among European "analysts" didn't see this was an idiot (actually, the Euro document admits they didn't check original texts). Which is why we need a primary source, so the readers can consult it and ask "what the hell did the declaration say anyway?"--TigranTheGreat (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So they actually declared independence from the Azeri SSR? Or had Azerbaijan already declared independence at that point... lemme see... hrm, Azerbaijan declared in August, Nagorno-Karabakh in December. So basically, what the NKR was declaring was that they were leaving independent Azerbaijan and joining the USSR as a constituent republic, and then when the Soviet Union dissolved only two weeks later, then Nagorno-Karabakh became independent like all the other Soviet republics? This needs clearing up. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Kinda. The NK followed the USSR law to the letter to ensure that the secession would be fully legal. The USSR law says if a Soviet Republic secedes, Autonomous Regions can secede from the Republic and remain within the USSR. So, on August 30, AzSSR declared its independence. 4 days later, NKAO says "we are leaving AzSSR, we establish NKR as a regular Union Republic." By December 10th, almost all Soviet Republics have declared independence, so USSR de-facto does not exist any more. On December 10th, NKR conducts a referendum (and doesn't yet declare independence). Then, on January 6, after USSR doesn't exist de-jure, the NKR parliament issues the declaration of independence. This was a well thought-out and careful process to ensure the legality of the secession. The New England Law School paper available in the article provides individual dates.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Because we are talking about 4 days of difference (8/30-9/2), I am not sure whether the secession was from AzSSR or Azerbaijan. The important point is the compliance with the law--when SSR secedes, AO can secede from the republic.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll review these dates. It could be that our statement that the Dec 10 referendum resulted in a declaration of independence from Azerbaijan is not entirely accurate, since there was an earlier declaration and a later issuance... --Golbez (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The law referred to by the separatists has no application in this case. It had this one line: "In a Union republic containing autonomous republics, autonomous provinces and autonomous regions, the referendum had to be held separately in each autonomous unit, the people of which retained the right to decide independently the question of staying in the USSR or in the seceding Union republic, as well as to raise the question of their own state-legal status". The law on secession from the USSR (which was called by the journalists “The law on non-secession”) actually provided a very complicated procedure for secession of a Soviet republic from the Soviet Union, which made secession impossible. That was the real purpose of that law. It stated that if a republic wanted to secede from the USSR, it needed to hold a referendum on its territory and separately in each of its autonomies. If people of an autonomy did not want to secede from the USSR, they could remain within the USSR. But the important point is that neither Azerbaijan, nor any other former Soviet republic followed this procedure, they all became independent after the USSR ceased to exist at the end of 1991. The law did not give the autonomies any right to stage their own referendums, all the referendums needed to be executed by the legal authorities of a Soviet republic, therefore this law has no application in this case, as is correctly noted by the Council of Europe. Grandmaster (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Even the Council of Europe document stated that NK had the option to remain within the USSR (unless it joined the seceding republic). This contradicts the Azerbaijani position. The only mistake Europeans made was that NK did actually choose to stay within the USSR. Azerbaijan initiated the "complicated" secession process by declaring its independence. I had never read this official Azerbaijani position (i.e. that it never seceded from the USSR), I can see why noone outside Azerbaijan has taken it seriously--it's a laughable suggestion.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, its not. NK could join USSR only if Azerbaijan followed the procedure stipulated in this law, which Azerbaijan never did. Azerbaijan never conducted any referendum on its territory, and former USSR republic became independent only after the collapse of the USSR. That’s when their independence was recognized, and they were accepted to UNO and other organizations. And NK was never made a USSR republic, thus it could not become independent. Grandmaster (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet law didn't say NK had to wait until Azerbaijan completed its secession. Once Azerbaijan declared its independence, it initiated the secession process, and NK started its own. Not even the CoE claims that Azerbaijan didn't start secession.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It did actually say that. But Azerbaijan never followed the formal secession procedure, therefore this law is not applicable. The countries of former USSR gained independence after the collapse of the USSR. NK was not one of them, thus it remained part of Azerbaijan. Also, the quote from that obscure legal school is given an undue weight. It should not be included in the article at all, since it is not a party to the conflict or international organization, and now that quote takes more space than any other. That's not appropriate. Grandmaster (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If we can quote fully the Azeri position, we should be able to quote the pro-Armenian position fully as well. The law school is a non-partisan source that expresses the pro-Armenian view. The three main points of the Armenian view are 1) self-determination is supported by international law, 2) it trumps territorial integrity, and 3) NK legally seceded. Excluding those, or making them unclear by truncating them, would be POV. The quote occupies less space than the rest of the section, which is pro-Azeri. You are free to add further quotes, but the Armenian position should be expressed fully to the readers. And the readers should know that there are non-Armenian entities out there that agree with the Armenian POV.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

One point of view should not take more space than the other, considering that this law school is not any organization or state, whose position has any weight in international arena or affects the status of the region. I added another source for balance, now your one quote takes as much space as two others. Grandmaster (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, you can add the ridiculous Azeri position ("Azerbaijan never seceded") or the equally ridulous opinion in the latest opinion (no law for autonomy to secede? Even CoE wouldn't be this absurd). There are really two POV's--"NK is legally independent" or "NK isn't legally independent." The second point is covered in the rest of the section, and is more than the law school's opinion. So, there is no undue weight issue.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Independence from...

I know I'm probably reopening a can of worms here, but I can't find in the archives where we discussed whether or not NK declared independence from Azerbaijan, the Azeri SSR, or the USSR. Is this a point that's remotely disputed, or is there something I can review? --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there has been a focused discussion on the issue (remember that 99% of our energy was spent on "officially/de-facto" and "esbaslishment/incorporation"). There may have been sporadic statements here and there. Mainly Grandmaster kept insisting that, according to the European document, NKR didn't follow USSR law, and he kept objecting to inclusion of any quote from the NKR declaration on the grounds that it's a separatist entity etc.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT on International Recognition part 2

IMO all the disputes on the legality of the current republic and international recognition are an artificial controversy. The republic is perfectly legal because there is no international law against secession. There are international laws against ethnic cleansing which both Armenia and Azerbaijan both performed. Also, as I've mentioned, there is no such thing as international recognition and internationally recognized borders. There is only recognition by individual countries and by international organizations such as the UN and OSCE etc. Non of these are arbiters of what constitutes an independent state. Also, just because a country doesn't officially recognize another country, if they do business in that country that is recognition, not de facto recognition. Saying de facto recognition is like saying de facto pregnant. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no international treaty that bans secession, but individual countries - the United States and Soviet Union included - have and had specific rules for secession, and if a section left in violation of those, that could be considered an illegal secession in the context that it happened. Diplomatic recognition only occurs if a state ministry says so - to say any other would be original research. No one is saying "de facto recognition", such a term makes no sense, as diplomatic recognition is by its nature a solely de jure exercise. The exception is Taiwan, where nations that do not recognize it nonetheless deal with it and even defend it against the nation they do recognize. The China situation is very much a geopolitical anomaly. --Golbez (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

About Poco's, Andranik's, and Verjakette's comments on the intro. Wordings like "officially," "formally," "generally" are rough attempts to describe something for which cannot be a precise one word description. What if we state that it is unrecognized, and that the UN, USA, and a number of other organizations and countries have officially stated that it is part of Azerbaijan? Noone disputes those facts.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, as it is a legally part of it. Since all those folks recognize this fact, this fact has an international recognition. No one denies it, not a single state or international organization stated that it does not recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan, and NK officially being part of Azerbaijan is a verifiable info, see Britannica. Therefore resuming this dispute after many months of discussions is not a good idea. Whatever could be said about that has already been said many times. Grandmaster (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's "internationally" recognized as part of Azerbaijan, we can state specifically who recognizes it (the UN, the USA, and a few others). It's better than vague terms such as "internationally."--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a vague term, most of the sources use the words "legally", "formally", "officially", etc. It is verifiable info and as such should remain in the article. Grandmaster (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
How about, "it is unrecognized by any country, and explicity recognized by various countries and international organizations, including the US and UN, as part of Azerbaijan"? --Golbez (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, there is no country or international organization which recognized NK as anything but part of Azerbaijan. Even Armenia, a party in the conflict, does not recognize NK though stops short of explicitly naming it part of Azerbaijan. Also per your comment above about U.S. and USSR having specific rules on secession, those rules in Soviet constitution applied to 15 constituent republics of USSR. Azerbaijan SSR was one of those constituent republics, NKAO was not a constituent republic but an autonomous district within Azerbaijan SSR. So secession of NK in legal context must have first of all followed the appropriate (if any) clause of constitution of Azerbaijan SSR or its successor state the Republic of Azerbaijan. Pending such, the NK claim of independence is not only unrecognized it's also illegal. Moreover, one quarter of NK's population prior to the conflict and in 1991 when NK "claimed independence" were ethnic Azeris and were cleansed during the course of the war. Their opinion was never considered in the "secession" process. Hence, NK is not only illegitimate from international point of view, it's also not constitutional per its own statutes. Atabek (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The article says: Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), which remains unrecognized by any international organization or country, including Armenia. That's pretty much accurate. And the word formally should remain, it was a compromise, we agreed to replace de-jure with formally. Grandmaster (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a point in changing the intro. It has been a comprise for a fair few months, and I don't see a more reasonable suggestion here. Better to spend the time finding citations for those {{fact}} tags. - Francis Tyers · 11:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I agree, I think the intro is fine as is, it's clear, unambiguous, and any needed detail is laid out later in the article. But I don't control the article, I merely mediate it. And make maps. --Golbez (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

strange Hnarakert (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything else to add? --Golbez (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There was ample evidence presented that NK does not have any "official" status. All those diplomatic pronouncements about "part of azerbaijan" are made to fill the inconvenient vacuum created by the lack of any temporary or final "official" statuses. NK is a disputed region that exists as a de-facto independent province with fully functioning state institutions; some think now it has become just another marz of Armenia. Its secession from Azerbaijan was based on the law of secession adopted by the USSR in 1991. Bassenius (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, international recognition - or lack thereof - does matter. Maybe not as much as de facto control, but it's still a major aspect in the geopolitical situation. --Golbez (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate Golbez's mediating initiative, unfortunately Golbez does not follow the logic of the debate, thus gradually undermining his legitimacy of a moderator. I and others above agree that international recognition - or lack thereof - does matter. NKR is an unrecognized state (that's why the text in the article says it is unrecognized). The argument here is (if I understood Bassenius correctly) that the lack of recognition does not automatically mean the existence of an official status of any kind. This nuance is dealt by the international community with difficulty. All countries and organizations agree that NKR's present status is disputed and its final status should be decided via negotiations. "Tongue-in-cheek" pronouncements that NKR's is part of Azerbaijan cannot be dismissed; they, however, are attempts to cope with the awkwardness of the situation, and thus should not be taken at face value. Verjakette (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for impugning my work and then going on to not back up your attacks whatsoever. If Poco's analysis is correct, I expect a clarification from you. --Golbez (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It was I not Golbez that was arguing that "international recognition" doesn't matter as much as the article portrays, also I was calling into question whether such a thing as "international recognition" even exists. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please everyone cope with criticism professionally. ... in fact I appear supportive of Golbez's own argument that the word "official" is problematic (see above references). Verjakette (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I cope with criticism when it's valid; above you are saying I am not following "the logic of the debate" without justifying your comment. Please justify your comment, what logic am I not following? --Golbez (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Golbez: I and others are saying that the overarching political dynamic that would define statuses in the NK dispute is the Minsk Process; therefore various statements by the US or UN (which are part of the process) about NK should be discounted as incidental incongruities. NK - as strange as that may sound - does not have "official" international statuses. You should explain if you agree or disagree with this. And remove the "official"/"de-jure"/"within the borders of Azerbaijan" qualifiers, and just state that NK is a disputed self-governing province that functions as a full-fledged albeit unrecognized state; in the chapter about international status the arguments about "official" status etc. with all the incongruities and controversies will be discussed. I think my criticism is valid but I apologize nonetheless. Verjakette (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm following that just fine, but I note that your statement seems to contradict your previous statement - you just implied that recognition doesn't matter by saying that all that matters is that it's self-governing, whereas above you just said the lack of recognition DOES matter. Please clarify. --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I do agree that we need to give more weight to OSCE Minsk, since they're the organization contributed to by both sides that's actually working on a solution. --Golbez (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, understand the nuance. Recognition does matter (we may state that NKR's recognition is pending) but not nearly as much as the current wording in the article implies. Given that NK is totally independent of Az. for as many as 20 (!) years, it is absurd to give too much weight to the point that some countries or organizations foolishly, out of special interests or frustration pronounce sometimes NK as part of Az. Verjakette (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We are just stating facts here. It is a fact that NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and no international organization recognizes independence of NK. Whether they do it "foolishly" or not is just a personal opinion. And they do it not sometimes, but always. This fact needs to be reflected. This was discussed so many times over and over, and suppressing the position of the international community is not an option. Grandmaster (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are not exactly stating facts. "Officially" is not a factual statement--there is no official version of a reality in the international arena, because there is no world government. It's just some word that we hoped would reflect actual facts--that some organizations and states have issued statements explicitly stating that NK is part of Azerbaijan. Given that this awkward choice of word is creating controversies and will do so in the future, I don't see why we shouldn't just state the facts mentioned earlier that the word "formally" is supposed to reflect.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I mostly support TigranTheGreat and Verjakette. The "international community" (please note that it is not an empirical category but an abstraction if not a rhetorical term) does have only one opinion - NKR is a disputed region and its official (temporary and permanent) statuses are being determined in the course of Armenian-Azerb. negotiations. Bassenius (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well put. However, it is also true that no member of the international community recognizes the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic's existence/legitimacy, for one reason or another. In most cases this means a tacit recognition of Baku's sovereignty over the region; in Armenia's case, it's more complex. Both have to be mentioned; to simply say "disputed region" is, I could see, a tip of the hat towards Nagorno-Karabakh, as it means that they have equalled Azerbaijan's claim to the region - which is not true, in the greater geopolitical context, and would therefore be considered POV towards Karabakh. --Golbez (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, I think saying "noone recognizes NK, so its tacit recognition of Baku's sovereignty" is an assumption. It could very well be that they don't recognize either way to avoid affecting the negotiations. In the talk archives, I quoted the Russian ambassador to OSCE who criticized the report by the British parlamentarian in PACE for saying that "NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan." His objection was that such statements prejudice the negotiations. That it's not recognized by anyone is a fact, and we can state it.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What about changing it to "Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent republic located in the South Caucasus, within the officially recognized borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan". That was the intro used for TRNC and worked well there. Also NPOV, imho. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that suffers from the POV that extending diplomatic recognition to Azerbaijan and not extending diplomatic recognition to NKR means that the country officially recognizes NKR within Azerbaijan. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean like Lesotho as for South Africa? I don't know... I still think that "de facto independent" already implies that it's "de jure" not recognized. Kerem Özcan (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we not over this yet? It took us many months of discussion to settle on the current version. I don't think it is worth wasting time on repeating what has already been said million times, read the archives, please. Grandmaster (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's being discussed because, they feel like discussing it. Mind the WP:OWN please. VartanM (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What does WP:OWN have to do with it? I must remind you that Wikipedia works by consensus. The current intro had consensus. Proposed changes in favor of separatist POV do not. What's the point in further discussion of the same de fecto/de jure stuff? I mean, of course you are free to discuss it as much as you like, but we have like a dozen of archives dedicated to this topic. How about taking care of other parts of the article? There's more to it than just the intro. Grandmaster (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is always being updated and improved. You are telling users to stop discussion and read archives. If you don't wish to be part of the discussion then you are in no position to tell others to stop discussing it because it has been discussed before. Besides some of the new users were not part of the archived discussion, maybe they have something genuine and interesting to add to the project. Please don't suppress them. VartanM (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot suppress anyone, nor I'm in position to. I merely suggested to move ahead from this endless cycle of intro change attempts. Grandmaster (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, if you don't like the discussion, ignore it. Your negative comments are not helpful, neither are mine. So let them discuss it, maybe they will end the endless discussion. VartanM (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

About Northern Cyprus (I was actually born there:). In case of Turkish Cyprus the international community has made it more clear what it expects from Turkish Cyprus (it is re-merger with the rest of Cyprus). The international community was more involved there, for a much longer period of time. At this moment it is more difficult to imagine that TRNC can become an independent state. In case of NKR this amount of certainty does not exist - everything is up in the air. Remember that in 2000 Azerbaijan was pretty close to be persuaded to cede NKR to Armenia in exchange for a land link to Nakhichevan (or something like that). What we have is a casual ("lazy") attribution (I would not even call it recognition) of NKR's territory to Azerbaijan. The only thing we can say is 1. there are no official statuses 2. the region is disputed 3. the region functions as a state 4. NKR is unrecognized although Armenia is more ready than anyone to recognize it. Hence my suggestion: to substitute the word "officially part" to "usually/habitually attributed to Azerbaijan until the determination of final status (which may involve complete re-integration and independence." Actually calling NKR "officially part of Azerbaijan" is an empirical mistake - it has not been "part" of Azerbaijan in any meaningful sense for 20 years. For the same reason it is awkward to call Turkish Cyprus "officially part of the Republic of Cyprus." Bassenius (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Britannica and many other sources say that NK is officially, formally or de-jure part of Azerbaijan. This is verifiable info, and not a personal interpretation. You can pick any of the above 3 words, but it should be in the article as a verifiable fact. Grandmaster (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Officially, formally or de-jure have nothing to do with NK's status. This is likely to be your personal, largely wrong interpretation of Britannica and other sources. Many other sources (including diplomatic sources) beg to differ. I favor this softer, smarter and more realistic formulation of Bassenius. You have to understand: many issue that Wikipedia deals with are controversial (like NK status) and you should appreciate people's effort to deal with the shades of gray. Most pieces of evidence in cases like NK's status do not add up to a simple definitions. All Minsk process documents run counter to simplistic words like officially, formally or de-jure. Everyone: pay closer attention to what Bassenius suggests. Verjakette (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

NKR name in Infobox

The "Republic" was deleted by Atabek in May without consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=130065523&oldid=130065333. I don't see how this was allowed. While we don't need to say NKR in Azerbaijani, the English and Armenian versions have to state the self-name of the entity. The infobox contains the flag and CoA of this entity, so it's only consistent to use the self-name above them. The same approach is used for the Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus (in an article named Northern_Cyprus). At least until we have a separate article on NKR, the flag and CoA refer to the entity, not some amorphous region.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, this Republic factually exists 16 years already and even the common practics support the using of full name (especially if we're marking its status as unrecognized). We need to represent the maximum reliable, factual and realistic information. Andranikpasha (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it would be quite confusing to have two different names in the infobox, separated solely by language. The most NPOV solution is to omit "Republic," especially since this article is about both the region and the self-proclaimed republic. --Golbez (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with TigranTheGreat. We are already calling it a republic in the body of the article so the country box should have republic in the title. Calling it a republic is not POV, anyone who thinks it's POV should read the article Republic. Furthermore, even if Azerbaijan were able to resubjugate the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, they claim that they plan to give it the highest level of autonomy. Hence it may be called the autonomous republic of Nagorno Karabakh even if Azerbaijan were to somehow take it over assuming that Azerbaijan doesn't simply take it over and ethnically cleanse the Armenian population. See also Autonomous Republic of Adjara and Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The first mention is sans Republic, and any attempt to add that would be considered heavily POV. I see the infobox the same way. Calling it "autonomous republic" would be making up words for it. --Golbez (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The entity itself is calling NKR, so I think the article should be renamed to Nagorno Karabakh Republic. Now granted it is not recognized de jure, but it exists de facto and has representation in other countries (In US Washington : http://www.nkrusa.org/), these ALL facts need to be reflected in Article. This is article about political entity and reference to it should be politically correct. Steelmate (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, the article Northern_Cyprus is both about the region and the entity, and the infobox mentions the self-name of the entity.

Here, the entire article may be about both NK and NKR, but the infobox itself is about NKR. The region doesn't have an anthem or a flag--it's the entity that has those. The purpose of the infobox is for readers to get basic info about the entity.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about the POV issues brought up by having different names for the entity in different languages. I would think there would be fights - the Azeris saying "it's not a republic", and the Armenians saying "why does the Azeri version get to omit 'republic'?" All or nothing, I think. The TRNC is also much older and more recognized than the NKR. --Golbez (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
What means much recognized? This is an encyclopedia and no need to hide significant info from the reader. This Republic exists, tourists are going to see it, students are writing researches. If it is unrecognized we can write about it but no any Wiki rule asking we cant make a separate article on this republic. if a tourist wants to see it he should know what countrie's visa he need, what the codes are real (not "de jure" useless ones), what postal codes are operating, the real borders of NKR (not the "politcorrect" archaic ones from USSR time), who is the factual president, what money he can use, etc. why to hide all this info? Andranikpasha (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, I am not sure there is a POV issue with the mention of the self name. On one hand, Armenian users never complained about the Azeri name not mentioning the Republic--that's how the former Azeri population of the region refers to the entity. As for the Azeri POV concerns--the infobox doesn't state that it's a republic--only that the name of the entity contains the word republic. It's a basic info about the entity along with flag and anthem. It is inconsistent to have a flag for the entity without the self-name of the entity above it. I realize that the Azeri users would prefer not to have any reminder that the entity exists, so exluding the self-name in fact is complete giving in to the Azeri POV. And this edit was made by Atabek unilateraly, without consensus. We have agreed not to make such major changes lightly.

As for TRNC, there is no logical explanation as to why a recognition by one country (Turkey), or 4 decades of existence instead of 2, makes the use of "republic" legitimate in one case and not in the other. Such recognition is a detail that seems more proper for the intro.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of this dispute is that it all boils down to the fact that nobody says "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" in the Azeri language and so we can't put it in English or Armenian. I see this as a classic case of the tail wagging the dog:
a) This is english wikipedia, are the Armenian and Azeri translations really all that important to this article?
b) Nobody in Azerbaijan says "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" but do they even say "Nagorno Karabakh"? Remember that in the Azeri world Nagorno Karabakh doesn't exist at all as they believe that they disolved it and absorbed that region into neighboring provinces. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the current version does create POV issues--we are completely using the Azeri version of the name (i.e. NK without a mention of the "Republic). --TigranTheGreat (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's also the name of the region. It's less POV than including Republic. --Golbez (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
TigranTheGreat mentioned the TRNC. Another example would be Transnistria where the infobox says Prinestrovian Moldovan Republic. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is about the region, isn't it? So it needs to spell the name of the region in 3 languages. The information about the de-facto authorities should go into the relevant sections of the infobox, but the title should remain as it is, since its POV free. NK has no recognition whatsoever and is considered illegitimate by the international community. Grandmaster (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You took longer than expected, I was wondering if I could stall long enough for the Azeri contingent to arrive. (I kid, I kid.) --Golbez (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 :) You are gonna get yourself in trouble. Grandmaster (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is NOT about the geographical region, it is pure political article about political entity, granted non recognized de jure, but existing de facto and is calling itself NKR as a full name. Like Azerbaijan is it a region or political entity called Republic Azerbaijan?, the regions (geographical) are things like Mountain Ararat, Erevan Valley, Causasus ... I think it is a very clear distinction and shouldn't be confused. Steelmate (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Andranik, edit wars will not help you to get it your way. Reach consensus first. Grandmaster (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way similar situation exists Abkhazia. I think it has more NPOV coverage in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia . If everyone agrees maybe we can do the same in this article about NKR? Steelmate (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, Grandmaster, if you are considering this article as about the region, then we will need another one about the independent de facto NKR. The thing is Wikipedia is not supposed to decide the status of the region, it should simply state both facts: 1) de facto NKR, 2) de jure part of Azerbaijan. Now if the question is about the name of the article then maybe we can do this : Nagorno Karabakh Republic de facto, Nagorno Karabakh province of Azerbaijan de jure. It will be correct in every way and NPOV. Steelmate (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, here is why removing "Republic" is actually POV. Regardless of what the article is about, the infobox itself is about the entity. By removing the Republic, we are saying "the Azeri version of the entity is the only one that we choose." And this is POV. We could say "Republic" in all three languages. We actually compromised by dropping the "Republic" from the Azeri name. Dropping it from the other 2 goes completely in the other POV direction.

And the POV issues are further compounded when we have the "Republic" for TNRC and not for NKR. When I looked at your earlier comments, you said that if the article on TRNC was about the region, then it would be problematic. Well, in fact, the article is Northern_Cyprus, and it is about the region. Yet, the infobox, as it should be, is about the entity. Regions (whether Caucasus, Siberia, or Balkans) do not have infoboxes.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What is this article about?

Folks, we need to agree what is this article about first before going into much detail.

  1. Nagorno Karabakh (region), like Caucasus, Siberia, Balkans and so on.
  2. Nagorno Karabakh Republic (de facto), like other republics Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia
  3. Nagorno Karabakh, part of Azerbaijan (de jure), same like Shusha (rayon), Tartar (rayon), Stepanakert

Maybe we need all three articles plus some disambiguation pages? What do you think? Steelmate (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way if there is no such thing as Nagorno Karabakh, part of Azerbaijan - as part of administrative division. then we can skip that, and just have two articles 1. & 2. with a disambiguation page Nagorno-Karabakh. Steelmate (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Number 3 is impossible for the simple reason. Azerbaijan abolished the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast in 1991. There is no entity called Nagorno-Karabakakh in the Republic of Azerbaijan. And the articles for the rayons already exist, see Nagorno-Karabakh#Divisions VartanM (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we end up now with two others and diambiguation page. So here is a plan :

  • Rename current page to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (de facto) or just Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, or even better Nagorno-Karabakh (republic) with explanation that it is de facto in the leading section.
    • Remove Azerbaijanian transliteration from the infobox at all, as Azerbaijanian isn't offical language of that self-declared republic, or it may exist in Azerbaijanian Wikipedia only.
  • Create page Nagorno Karabakh (region), like Caucasus, Siberia, Balkans and so on.
  • Make page Nagorno Karabakh a disambiguation page with links to those articles.

Therefore all claims of what this article is about (about Republic or about Region) will be automatically resolved. Does everyone agree on that? Steelmate (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

cackle, my plan worked, you people are finally doing a good discussion on splitting it! Okay, so it wasn't a plan, merely a happy change. I suggest:

  1. An article on the region, noting the republic, but mainly giving the neutral history of the region up to the present day, omitting the bulk of recent political history.
  2. An article on the republic, focusing on the politics and government and history of the republic itself, i.e. since 1991. Demographics and geography can go in both articles, though I'd prefer to have a stronger treatment of them in the region article.

I agree that there shouldn't be an article on Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan because there is no Nagorno-Karabakh unit in Azerbaijan anymore, merely the rayons. --Golbez (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I Support splitting this article into two : (region) and (republic) Steelmate (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Now now, this isn't a vote, not yet at least. The Azeri contingent still needs to present their views. --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That is all right, there was no proposal from them whatsoever they just didn't want to put word republic on what they consider region on territory of Azerbaijan. So this solution puts their concerns away. But I would love to hear their opinion as well of course. Steelmate (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying we shouldn't hear the Azeri views, but we know what they are going to be. Same as they have been for the past years. That NK is a de-jure non-existent illegitimate state. The point is, even if we assume this to be true, the illegitimacy of an entity is properly discussed in the lead. Infoboxes are for the basic info, including the self name, of an entity, whether it's illegitimate, unrecognized, or extraterrestrial.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Once the article is explicitely called NRK, then all those claims will be gone. Because 1. The republic exists de facto(Azeris may not like that fact, but it is a fact). 2. It is not recognized. That is what we will need to write article about: an unrecognized Nagorno Karabakh Republic. Steelmate (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There are apparently two ways of doing this on Wikipedia, I was erring towards the second until I realized my fault. For the de facto independent republics, we treat it as if it was independent, with heavy mention that it is not recognized. I was starting to suggest maybe we have a separate article only for the government of the NKR, like the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria - until I realized that we have an article on the government alone because Chechnya isn't even de facto independent, it merely has a rebel government in exile. --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Once the Azeris chime in, I think I'll pop up an RfC about this, just to bring in the wider community, moreso than a 'requested move', since this is a split. --Golbez (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Nagorno-Karabakh even notable as a region?

When Golbez first asked the question about splitting these articles between the republic and region I was in favour of it but now I have some doubts. Karabakh is notable as a region but we already have an article about it. Is Nagorno-Karabakh notable as a region? It sounds like it's an artificially constructed region created by Stalin in 1923 as part of a plan to Divide et impera while at the same time keeping Turkey happy. That is why I now question splitting the article and that is why I also believe that this article must primarily be about the republic and the infobox should reflect that the article is about the republic. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So what you're suggesting is, instead of an article about Nagorno-Karabakh the region, merge all of the relevant info into Karabakh? --Golbez (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Nagorno Karabakh (region) is very notable as region where the conflict took place, that can go into history section of the region. Steelmate (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything in that that couldn't be handled in History of Nagorno-Karabakh, an already-existing article? --Golbez (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks pretty comprehensive to me, encompasses all the events. Basically I am ok with both ways, making Nagorno Karabakh (region) article, and not making a seperate article and combining it into Karabakh (region). Also this current article needs to be decidedly about Nagorno Karabakh (republic). We still didn't hear opinion of Azeri side, but I think it is a common sense that an article about republic should include word republic. I think Azeri got complacent as they were able to modify article under pretense that it was about region (although all look and feel and content would lead to believe that the article was about republic) and now don't take any participation in discussion. We need to take some action. Steelmate (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"I think it is a common sense that an article about republic should include word republic." I don't know what you're talking about, since there are no other articles on Wikipedia which follow such a rule, save Macedonia, which has a conflict based solely on its name, and Ireland, which is a complex naming matter because it merely shares the island of the same name. Certainly none of the de facto breakaway republics - Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia - have it in their name. Nagorno-Karabakh in that respect should not have it in the name, at most as a disambig. --Golbez (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If you are saying about the name of the Article, I agree they don't, as anme of article of republic or country usually misses word republic or country. But it is a mere defacto standard of Wikipedia how to name articles about republics, the article still remains article about republic and inside the article ,under full name, all of the republics you mentioned have word republic in them : "Transnistria, also known as Trans-Dniester and Pridnestrovie (full name: Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic)". So removing the word of republic from the infobox from the areticle about republic is against of common sense and against how all other articles about republics are written. That is what I meant, including word republic inside of article, not necesseraly the name of article. Steelmate (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess what I was suggesting was that United States of America is to North America as Nagorno-Karabakh is to Karabakh. The difference is that Nagorno-Karabakh doesn't have official diplomatic recognition. We don't currently have a separate article for United States of America (region) and a separate article for United States of America (republic) so why do we need them for Nagorno Karabakh? Note also that we have an article for Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. The distinguishing feature between Nagorno Karabakh and the rest of Karabakh is that it has mountains. Is this enough of a reason for it to have a separate article? If you do decide to have a separate article for the Nagorno Karabakh region I have no problem with that but will the article progress beyond just being a stub? I see it containing the Geography section of this article , what other information would go into a Karabakh.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"United States of America is to North America as Nagorno-Karabakh is to Karabakh" - yes! if we agree to have that name for the article about Nagorno Karabakh Republic. I am fine keeping that name, the concern was that Azeri were referring to this current article as article about region not the republic. So my concern is to avoid that in the future by disambiguating the article. Maybe in the current article we can write under the name of article something like This is article about Nagorno Karabakh Republic, to see article about Nagorno Karabak region see Karabakh. I saw this methof of disambiguation in other articles, f.e. in Armenians. Steelmate (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on Infobox Naming?

Obviously this article doubles as both an article on the Nagorno Karabakh Republic as well as the Nagorno Karabakh region. Hence I propose two infoboxes. One for the Republic which will be in Armenian and English and one for the Region which will be in English Armenian and Azeri. Please see User:Pocopocopocopoco/sandbox/Nagorno-Karabakh/. Another advantage of this is that the de facto officials don't necessarily agree with the area of the republic having the same area as the old NKAO and claim Getashen,Kashatagh, and Karvajar so the area numbers can be put in the region infobox. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about that. Regions do not have infoboxes--they are physical areas without a flag or a president. Infoboxes are usually for entities. Which is why using the Azeri version for the entity in the infobox and pretending that we are just using the name of the region is misleading and POV.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly why we need three separate articles as I mentioned before, to avoid any "doubling" or "tripling" of article and avoid confusion. And Nagorno-Karabakh article should be only a disambiguation page with links to all three other real articles. Steelmate (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I am leaning towards allowing "Republic" in the infobox; I've tended to treat this article as standing on its own, but people have pointed out that the trend on Wikipedia is to have the local de facto name in the infobox, regardless of recognition or de jure status. The rename, by the way, of the TRNC to Northern Cyprus, happened without me noticing, which is why I continued referring to it as such. --Golbez (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek's unilateral removal of the term should have followed a detailed discussion, as agreed for the rest of the intro. It seems it has caused more disputes. That's why important fundamental changes need go through the fine filter of debates. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, the "NKR" entity does not exist as a republic as far as the international community/organization and the main mediator, OSCE Minsk Group, are concerned. In this light, usage of NKR term in Wikipedia is simply unencyclopedic, if not an open non-neutral stance taken by encyclopedia. Using NK without "republic" is neutral, because according to Azerbaijani version, even "NK" term does not exist as a standalone district. It's part of 5 rayons of Azerbaijan. So the compromise is to show NK as an entity but without using the term "Republic", which is clearly POV. Atabek (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, what are your feelings on Transnistria and the TRNC using the full name in the infobox? (the TRNC being a notable case because it is explicitly recognized as part of Cyprus by the EU) --Golbez (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, the feelings about Transnistria and TRNC, as well as Abkhazia and Ossetia, are the same. Invasion of one country against the other, then using the reasons of "self-determination" to legitimize the acts of occupation and aggression are not legitimate, create wrong precedents, and run counter to the international law. There are 30% of Nagorno-Karabakh population who have been expelled from their homes and live in shacks outside of NK as refugees, just because they're Azeris. No one ever asked for their opinion when declaring this occupied region as so called "republic". Atabek (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, this is article about NKR as a self declared unrecognised republic, that is a fact. And encyclopedias state facts, they don't discuss them, just state them. What you are suggesting is because Azerbaijan and every other country doesn't recognize it as republic then there is no republic. Those are two different things. If there is no republic then all we are talking here is science fiction without reality. The NKR - is reality, like it or not. And Wikipedia is encyclopedia about real things. Non-recognition is also real thing, so those two realities should be put together. The article should state real world facts like : republic and non recognized, look for examples how it is done in other articles in Wikipedia about non recognized republics. I think here you struggle against your feelings rather then against your mind. Steelmate (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Steelmate, some entity can be recognized as legitimate if it's based on the expression of will of its people. NK is an illegitimate racist entity, comprising and established solely by the will of sole ethnicity as a result of cleansing 30% of the regional population of another ethnicity. So any kind of entity created after that without opinion of residents, whose homes are actually being destroyed by current occupants, is simply not legitimate. Atabek (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If the other disputed regions can have "Republic", I do not see why NK is not allowed. Please reach a consensus before making such removals in the future since "Republic" was the term used before its unilateral deletion awhile back without reaching consensus. It is what Armenians (aka the natives in the country) refer it to by so it would be totally wrong to leave out the Republic. - Fedayee (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ohh..., still I see possible point of confusion here, the disputed region is still named NK even after it is disputed, it is a name of region, the NKR - is a republic declared on the territory of disputed region, and this article is about NKR , not NK region. The article about NK region is in Karabakh.Steelmate (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dağlıq Qarabağ

Why do we have Azeri transliteration of the name of the NKR in infobox? Azeri language isn't official language of NKR. It's offical language is Armenian only, and it is not Azeri Wikipedia where it would be appropriate. I think for English Wikipedia we need to have translations in English and offical languages of the country. Just like it is for any other country/republic. I vote to remove it. Steelmate (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is another problem we have with infobox. NK is de-jure part of Azerbaijan and this fact is internationally recognized, so Azerbaijani name has to be there. But Azerbaijan never refers to this region as NKR, so if you make it an infobox for self-declared republic, how are you going to add the Azerbaijani name? Grandmaster (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The TRNC is far more explicitly internationally considered part of Cyprus, yet its infobox contains no Greek. However, I tend to agree, that since Azerbaijan has a valid (that is to say, recognized) claim on the region, that the infobox should include the Azeri name, just as the TRNC box should include Greek... but then again, how can you include the "Republic" in Azeri? I think the simple truth of the matter is, that in the case of the long-running, truly de facto independent republics (TRNC, Transnistria, NKR) we simply have to give the nod to the de facto status. The TRNC was first; the NKR is the next one in line, apparently. Many of these changes appear to be inspired by recent moves on the TRNC article. --Golbez (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is the article about the region. What is it called in Azerbaijani, the official language of the country to which it de-jure belongs? TRNC is sort of different, it has partial recognition (by Turkey). Grandmaster (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This is NOT about region, it is about republic. The article about region is part of article about Karabakh and Azeri translation IS there. Steelmate (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no problem with the infobox, there is problem with understanding what this article is about. It is about republic, hence all the info in the article, including the infobox. Steelmate (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is called Nagorno-Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh is a region. Very simple. If it was called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, you would be right, but it is not called so. Grandmaster (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a rather belligerent point of view; are you suggesting that an article named India cannot be about the country India? --Golbez (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, it was up to Golbez who is an impartial mediator to decide that article about NKR should be named Nagorno-Karabakh. I think this decision is in tone of other decisions done in Wikipedia where words republic and country are not included into the name of article about country or republic (as a rule), and otherwise words like region are included so I would say there might have been a need to make another article called "Nagorno-Karabakh (region)" in case article about Karabakh didn't serve it's needs already. Anyway make your case if you think otherwise. Steelmate (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey now, don't put all this on me - it was mostly you and the other in the Armenian contingent who made this decision while I was sleeping, I simply shrugged and went along with it when I woke up. I think I've been maybe trying to keep this article too neutral, while ignoring the overall trend on wikipedia. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, if you want to create a new article Nagorno-Karabakh (region) it is all right with me. I actually did create it yesterday when someone, without consulting me, deleted it later. I also put a disambiguation phrase at the top of the article stating that this is article about NKR, to see NK (region) see Karabakh, it was also removed. Why it was removed? Because you decided it is clear enough, so disambiguation is redundant, right? Steelmate (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I deleted it because it was a faulty redirect; you had "Nagorno-Karabakh (region)" redirecting to "Karabakh". That would be like redirecting "North Africa" to "Africa". --Golbez (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
How about if there is no article on "North Africa" and all information about it is inside of article on "Africa" would it still be considered a faulty redirect? Also here Azeri users see ambiguity of the name for the name of the republic, what is your position on that? Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Region or Republic

Folks, we have had an unproductive discussion so far. Let's make clear distinctions. Totally different approach is need when writing article about regions and about republics. In regions we state more things about territory, geography and history and then some politics. In republics first goes politics then history then some geography. Untill we decide what this article is about nothing will be accomplished. In my opinion the tone of article, it's composition and content lead to perception that this is article about political entity (republic), not geographical entity (region). So let's decide if we all agree on that. The fact that it is non recognized republic - is a fact that should be stated in the article. If there is a need for a seperate article about region - that is a separate question. The statement that because it is non recognized it doesn't exist is simple a false statement and wishful thinking. The existence of NKR is real. Many casualties of war are arguments how real is the republic that is ready to defend it's borders. So the reality of the republic is fact, and the non recognition is another fact. Steelmate (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


I would also vote for two separate articles, one about on Nagorno-Karabakh as a region and have all its history and geogrpahy from ancient times to 1991, and then another one on unrecognised Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and have its history and relations from 1991 to present. --Aynabend (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Except it has been aptly stated that we do not, for example, have any article in Germany the region, Russia the region, or even Abkhazia or Transnistria the regions; why should NK be different? --Golbez (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, please see my comment below. Steelmate (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You are one of the few thinking people on this planet!Steelmate (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Steelmate, please slow down and stop adding "region" links to all the articles. --Golbez (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Russia is a name of country named after Rus people, Abkhazia abter Abkhaz people, Germany after German people... Transnistria I am not sure, but, NKR is a name of a country named after the name of the region NK. Isn't it so? If not what was it named after? There are no Nagorno-Karabakh people, and no Nagorno-Karabakh language - it is region! And we do have a special pages for Russian people, Armenian people, German people, why not have article about NK region? Steelmate (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Because any information can be handled in this article or its children articles (history of Nagorno-Karabakh, demographics of Nagorno-Karabakh, geography of Nagorno-Karabakh, what not). --Golbez (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Many Azeri pages are stating f.e. this city or this region is part of NK and require link, what link shall we privide? The link to NKR? Not necesseraly correct way as they wanted to reference the region not the republic. Especially those geographical articles, the more appropriate way to link them is to another geographical articles, don't you think so?Steelmate (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Link to Nagorno-Karabakh, sure, and have the explanation in the text. --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I see this approach creating confusion again, linking one thing, meaning another..... NK is region/area in Karabakh, NKR is republic in this region. See f.e. Europe, they provided link for disambiguation at least. Just like it was done before, some Azeri users will come and change the name to NK under pretense that it is not a republic but is a region, part of Azerbaijan and logically they are right, as we don't give them chance to have an article about region. Steelmate (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say link one thing, mean another. Simply say, "this town is in the breakaway/unrecognized/de facto/whatever Nagorno-Karabakh". Actually, wait, just give me an example of a page where you think linking to a region would be easier/better than linking to this here article. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Any geographical article, f.e. Khojavend is located in Nagorno-Karabakh. Granted the territory of NG (region) is same as territory of NG(republic), maybe they are not only interested in territories, maybe some other geographical factors will be of more interest, like temperatures, flora / fauna. Why to link them to the country and only the country why not give flexibility to choose what to link to, depending on the context what is more appropriate. In other cases f.e. War in NK region between NKR and Azerbaijan, we need link to NKR - as a combatant, and additionally maybe the NK as region where battles were held. Steelmate (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a simple enough situation: "Khojavend is a rayon of Azerbaijan, all of which is claimed by Nagorno-Karabakh" etc etc. It doesn't seem that confusing to me. As for the NK as a region, that's not needed because in that context, it was still the NKAO - and that's linkable. Really, I think you're thinking way, way too hard about this. This is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. As for geography, flora/fauna, we can do that the same way we do the others - "animals of germany" "trees of the united states" or what not. Nagorno-Karabakh as a region is not inherently notable nor large. Karabakh is, and a lot of this can go into that, but Nagorno-Karabakh is not really a region for the purposes of Wikipedia. (Now, had it not declared independence but was merely a notable region populated by Armenians, THEN that would count - but in this case, the country IS the region, so... really, I think you're putting too much thought into something that isn't remotely an issue. --Golbez (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, and we can also remove confusion by making this article more similar to articles about other republics, so the question if it is article about republic or about region will never pop up again. Steelmate (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC on how this situation should be handled

Seeking wider input on the matter of handling a de facto independent breakaway republic, particularly the infobox, and particularly on Nagorno-Karabakh, though perhaps the discussion could spread to the other breakaway republic articles as well. --Golbez (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this might be helpful. Thanks for doing it. Grandmaster (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster I think you are trying to find a solution for something that is not a problem, but matter of common sense. We talked yesterday with Golbez and he explained to me that NK (region) is not notable enough to make an article about it and it is ok for me, if someone interested making a separate article about NK (region) - go ahead. Now this article is about NKR - the republic, so that is why all the corresponding information that is similar to all republics existing. De facto de jure - doesn't matter, it is a matter of international recognition and can be in foreign relation section with all the other relevant information. If it will never be recognized so be it, the information in this article will inform readers about that fact. Steelmate (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind more input from third party editors, a fresh look might be helpful. Grandmaster (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, thanks for the mediation effort. I think it's important to look into whether the grounds for the establishment of so called "NKR" were legitimate. The Armenian side claims that it was based on referendum. By definition, the referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. How can this vote be legitimate if a substantial (30%) part of this electorate is simply ethnically cleansed and then only representatives on one ethnicity vote? How is this different from what Nazis were doing during World War II? Atabek (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats interesting comparaison Atabek, didn't the Nazis considered Austria as an integral part of the Reich? It was basically the same thing that happened when the Azerbaijani government abolished the different status of NK and made it no different than lets say Baku. Legitimate comparaison indeed, Also the Azeris didn't leave during the referendum, it wasn't until Azerbaijan counteracted to the referendum and the NK independence by blockading the entire region. It was basically a siege which brought NK to its knees, and yes, significant portion of the population left including Armenians, the only difference is that Armenians returned after Baku's fascist government tasted its own medicine.
Ethnic cleaning is what the Azerbaijani government attempted, and there is enough newspaper coverage to prove that Azerbaijani government was attempting to force the entire Armenian population to leave so it can repopulate it with Azerbaijani's. It wasn't until the Khojaly fabrication, admitted by the Azerbaijani president not Armenian doing, did this turn in the world press as a two sided both guilty parties. Which I am sure you know. If it wasn't of unscrupulous journalists who are active politically correctionists like De Waal--balancing the two sides as equally guilty, even going as far as by comparing the fabrication of Khojali with the Armenian genocide (which again speaks volume of the credibility of De Waal)-- the world would have still gotten the true story behind the event. Check Wikipedia for instance, how many claims are covered by De Waal only? This single journalist estimated the number of Azerbaijanis leaving Armenia and Armenians living Azerbaijan, and his statistic of Azerbaijanis leaving is higher than the one provided by Yunus and those Armenians having left Azerbaijan lower than this same Yunus, people should start having some doubt about the author who should have cut his ties from Thomas Goltz when investigating, which apparently he hasn't done.
Also, be kind enough to provide a source for your claim about 30% population being Azerbaijani. Even during the pick of the Azerbaijani government policy to play with NK demographics, by implanting Azerbaijani's there, or when they played with the statistics of population by manipulating Soviet Census. Azerbaijanis never represented 30% of the population, thats a known fact. VartanM (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Both of you, stop it. This isn't about origins or accusations or comparisons to the Nazis or any of this bullshit, calm down and discuss the article. --Golbez (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think how the NKR came about is relevant for this RfC, this is more a matter of how to handle a generic breakaway de facto independent republic, regardless of how it came about - if it's de facto independent, that's a special status. According to what you and Grandmaster are saying, we shouldn't have an article on the Confederate States of America as a country (its secession later ruled entirely illegal and moot), but rather only discuss the region its rebel government claimed - which obviously we don't do, and couldn't possibly do and still be a useful encyclopedia. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the main question is what is the problem with these de facto independent republics to use the same template as countries as long as we state that they don't (yet) have diplomatic recognition? Also, to answer Atabek's question. Putting aside the rhetoric about the Nazis, perhaps the referendum wasn't ideal as well as the constitutional referendum and elections that have occurred in the NKR. However, the same can be said about any election in Azerbaijan, or any municipal election in Baku, Sumgait, Ganja, etc. due to the ethnic cleansing of Armenians from Azerbaijan. If you claim the NKR illigimate due to the fact that Azeris that use to live there no longer have the ability to take part in that democracy, you also need to claim that Azerbaijan is also illegitimate. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think using republic does not make any sense. The entity, internationally not recognized, can be called anything by its inhabitants, but it doesn't mean everyone should call it that, or a third party learning about the conflict, learn to call it "republic" . The very fact that you gentlemen want to add the word "republic" to the name is already a start of information battle targeting a neutral and unaware user. Let me give you an example for you to understand the same pro-Azeri effect if one creates an article on Geycha and Zangezur Republic, or whatever a group of Azeris may call it. I think it even has some sort of an official name. That group of Azeris claims these territories, i.e. Zangezur, or Syunik province of present day Armenia, and Geycha district, or Sevan province of Armenia today, are Azeri territories and historically have been. True, they might have been, and maybe, they haven't. Who knows? there is too much information from both sides. The bottom line is that from the emergence of contemporary international relations and international law guarantors, these areas were and are a part of Republic of Armenia. Azeris may claim it and call it whatever they wish too, but does that mean we have to create and add the word "republic" to the article now even though the area is not populated by Azeris today as it was 100 years ago? Seizing a territory by military occupation and calling it a republic to make it independent is illegal. Also, Vartan, Khojaly Massacre is not fabricated. It is a recent history, covered by mass media and recorded by international video cameras. I think you should be careful with your statements about genocides. How do you think you would feel if you're told that there were no massacre of Armenians in 1915 and that it is all fabricated by Armenians? Ehud (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, it sounds like your making a WP:DONTLIKEIT argument. Republic is used in wikipedia for these types of nations, even for micronations. To repond to your example look at the Araxi Republic. In 1918, the Ottoman Empire seized land from the Democratic Republic of Armenia and set up a puppet state. We call it a republic in Wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow!!! I was sure you would answer Ehud. Good to have back Adil Baguirov theories about Zankezur, Syunik, Geycha, Sevan etc..., I'm sure we all missed them. As for Khojali, International video? Do you mean those from youtube? Or those from Thomas Goltz? I'm sure we all know how credible they are. The President of Azerbaijan's admission, or the mysteriously killed Azerbaijani journalist who brought the news and weeks before his death claimed to have uncovered information placing the blame not on the Armenians. Or what about the other Azerbaijani journalist for simiar admissions? I have various sources to add to that article. But all this is off-topic, NK was not seized, it's population declared independence, period. And whether you or UN like it, its a functioning independent democratic republic, not some claimed territory. VartanM (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, why don't you once assume good faith and discuss actually topics, instead of targeting contributors by names. And please, provide references for your statements above. Regarding your comparison to "anschluss", that is exactly what Armenia has been trying to do with Karabakh, i.e. ethnically cleanse non-Armenian population and then claim the region to be Armenian by "self-determination". Same as Nazis were cleansing every region they occupy from Jews, creating concentration camps for their elimination or simply deporting them. And I don't see any difference between Khojaly or Auschwitz, both were aimed at elimination of people only due to their ethnicity. And VartanM, "NK" cannot be "independent democratic republic", because a) it's independence is not recognized by anyone; b) it's dependent on Armenia for its very existence; c) it's not democratic because the establishment of it is not based on the will of its original population.

Now, addressing Golbez's note, we are discussing whether the term "republic" should be included in encyclopedia or not. My points are:

1. The term "republic" is only recognized by the separatist puppet regime and their masters in Armenia, whose forces are occupying the territory, and no one outside of those two recognize "NKR" as a "republic" or any form of legitimate government entity. Azerbaijan does not recognize it as republic and not even as a distinct region. Mediators and international community, including United Nations, PACE, EU, Russia, Iran, Georgia Turkey and other international or regional entities don't either. So why should "republic" term be included if not for pure POV of a single side.

2. The term imposed by so called "expression of free will" and "self-determination" of Armenian population of NK cannot be legitimate, because considerable part of population was actually cleansed and did not participate in defining this term. The very claim of self-determination in this case is ridiculous, because Armenian population in Caucasus has already self-determined itself in the state of Armenia (which comprised itself of the lands known as Muslims Iravan khanate of Qajar Persia and later Erivan governorate of Russian Empire). How many times does one ethnicity self-determine itself on the territory of another country?

Finally, if you use de-facto as an argument, check out the Wiki page for Kosovo, does it say "de-facto" republic anywhere in introduction? It says province of Serbia governed by UN since 1999. So is NK province of Azerbaijan, occupied by Armenia, which infused a separatist regime which governs it de-facto. Portrayal of this fact in a different light only adds legitimacy from Wikipedia to acts of aggression and ethnic cleansing by which so called "NKR" was established. Atabek (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion just entered the realm of the absurd. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Kosovo is different, it doesn;t have it's own government, it is governed by United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, so it cannot be republic by definition, not de facto, not de jure. For similar situation to NKR look for TRNC - which says Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus right from the beginning. Steelmate (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The term "republic" is only recognized by the separatist - Not the term republic , but the whole republic itself isn't recognized officially. So in order to not recognize republic we need first to have a republic and then not to recognize it, so logically the mere fact that it is not recognized proves that it exists. Steelmate (talk)

Steelmate, Kosovo does not have its own government?? How about this [9]? It's a de-facto republic, with elected president, but nevertheless, it's called a province of Serbia, because that's the official designation. And regarding your comment on "republic" term just above, this is not a theoretical proof by contradiction. The facts are clear, NK is officially a region of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenian forces (not governed by international body), where the aggressors, after cleansing Azeri population in entirety, installed a separatist puppet regime, declaring itself a republic and claiming a public vote without major part of population. The regime is dependent wholly on Armenia, both financially and militarily (they use Armenian dram and they need corridor to Armenia to continue existing) and hence is NOT independent de-facto. The very establishment is illegitimate and not recognized by anyone, hence not existing de-jure also. Adding "republic" would only contribute to violation of neutrality, expressing only Armenian position. Atabek (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The local governement helps the official UN but it just helps, not governs itself. You see Kosovo cannot do things that NKR can : have own functioning government (not controlled by UN like in Kosovo), have own military (not the one provided by UN). And the status of Kosovo is being decided by UN again, it is not declared yet (contrary NKR declared it's status as republic and the official status is being discussed by Armenia & Azerbaijan, not UN), and by the way very soon UN is going to declare Kosovo an official independent republic. So Kosovo is very different politically then NKR : NKR - is self declared republic, Kosovo - is (status being decided by UN) now , that is why the difference in articles. For more similar situation please refer to TRNC. Also just because NKR has tight economic and military relationship with Armenia doesn't mean it is not independent. Continuing your logic Azerbaijan is not independent as well as huge portion of its total economic and therefore military power comes from oil reserves of Kaspian region and help from Turkey. There is no oil in NKR but there is a friend - country Armenia.Steelmate (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Assume good faith? Well sorry, he provided Adil Baguirov, Javid Huseynov and the lobbyists myths and claimed Azeri territories. NK had 94% Armenians living there according to the official Baku records at the beginning, the Armenian population dropped to 70's% by the 80's, analysts were claiming that it would have taken two decades or even less to turn the Azerbaijani population into a majority. And you have the audacity to compare Auschwitz with Khojali, but it isn't to me you have to apologize, but the Jewish contributors here on Wikipedia for having compared a killing factory such as Auschwitz with Khojali. Good job, you have turned from worst to just plain ridiculous.
And BTW, Armenia does not recognize the boundaries of Azerbaijan, neither does Georgia. It still has territorial claims over Azerbaijan and does not define Azerbaijan boundaries just like Armenia. According to international standards on the defining of boundaries, since the countries bordering Azerbaijan have territorial disputes we can not claim the republic of Azerbaijan boundaries and indisputably recognized.
We should probably remove it. Also do you expect to be credible when you have no problem with Northern Cyprus claim of republic. Is it again:One rule for the Turks, and another for others? VartanM (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, broken tape starts to play :). Adil Baguirov Adil Baguirov. What's these theories have to do with Adil Baguirov? If you are so impressed by Adil Baguirov, why don't you start an article about him? Yes, international media with international journalists videotaped, took pictures of the bodies of the victims of Khojaly massacre. What do you have against Thomas Goltz? Is Armin Wegner more credible than Thomas Goltz? It's pretty amusing to see you gentlemen give stats about Armenian majority in NKAO before 1990's. Why do you fail to mention relocation of thousands of ethnic Azeris from Zangezur and Sevan province of Armenian SSR to Sabirabad, Azerbaijan SSR in 1943-53? Why do you also fail to mention that the very same Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians enjoyed higher investment in NKAO in comparison to the rest of Azerbaijan? This is history too. Ehud (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

NK is not independent

I would like to see some opinions in favor of claiming NK is "de-facto independent". This qualification is not appropriate, because NK economically and militarily is dependent on the Republic of Armenia. Also, before commenting, please, note the Independence article: The term independence is used in contrast to subjugation, which refers to a region as a "territory" —subject to the political and military control of an external government.. In this case, I think NK would qualify more as a subjugated rather than independent territory. Atabek (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a poor attempt to do some original research. VartanM (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, I only asked to provide opinions and references, not counter productive comments. Please, provide references and justify the claim that NK is "de-facto independent republic" and not a puppet establishment under the control of Armenian forces. Independence symbolics (flag, symbol, anthem, etc.) are necessary but not sufficient conditions for independent statehood. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, no flaming please, it is not under Azeri control. Period. So it is independent from Azerbaijan. What is here to argue about? Steelmate (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, it order NKR to be subjugated Azerbaijan needs to have military control over it according to the article you quoted, which it doesn't. Steelmate (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It is a territory occupied by Armenia. It uses Armenian currency, stations the troops of the republic of Armenia, etc. Even CIA factbook says that it is occupied by Armenia. So as an occupied territory it cannot be independent. Grandmaster (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
We treat Iraq as an independent nation... --Golbez (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani title

Golbez, can you please, look into Steelmate's removal of Azerbaijani-language name of the territory, which is officially part of Azerbaijan. Such attempt is rather unencyclopedic, because this is a page about Nagorno-Karabakh region not about the puppet "NKR" created by Armenia. Atabek (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The TRNC is officially part of Cyprus, but its infobox has no Greek. Go bitch at their talk page, I'm tired of you all. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, please, use appropriate language in your comments. What TRNC is, and whether that page lists Greek name or not is the business of editors interested in that page. My concern is the article on Nagorno-Karabakh, which is officially part of Azerbaijan, just like Abkhazia is part of Georgia, and the name is not allowed to be listed, with arguments from mediator. I am yet to see neutrality in your arguments, after all, I am not calling for removal of Armenian title, but simply for addition of Azeri title to the region that is part of Azerbaijan disputed by neighboring country only.
Please, take a look at Qazakh, another example of region of Azerbaijan, where Armenian title is allowed to be listed. Why? Thanks. Atabek (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course you're yet to see neutrality in my arguments, I'm Armenian after all. Or am I? Of course, many Armenains have told me I'm Azeri in the course of all this, so really, does it matter if I'm neutral or not to either party? No matter what, the other side will be wrong. You children need someone with a strong hand to TELL YOU how this article is going to be, rather than sit down and hear you pratter away mindlessly for weeks and weeks on end about occupations and origins and utter illogic. --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, it's frankly irrelevant to me what ethnicity you are. The neutrality is expressed by position not by background. And instead of "YOU children", please, answer my simple question, why does the box list Armenian name of the region of Azerbaijan, and not the Azeri name? Atabek (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek would you vote to rename article to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in order to understand that this is article about Nagorno-Karabakh Republic? Or what disambiguation methods would you like to be employed to make you and everyone in doubt understand that this is article about NKR and article about NK region is in Karabakh, which has Azerbaijani title in it..... ? Steelmate (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
TRNC is different, it is about the republic of Northern Cyprus, and not Northern Cyprus. This article is about Nagorno-Karabakh, the region. There's no state called Nagorno-Karabakh, and no, this article should not be moved to another title. We need an article about the region, its history, geography, etc. Grandmaster (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "TRNC is different" - how different?
  • "it is about the republic of Northern Cyprus, and not Northern Cyprus" - this article is also about Nagorno-Karabkh Republic not Nagorno Karabakh region (similar to TRNC, not different)
  • "This article is about Nagorno-Karabakh, the region." - no it is not, it is about republic (similar to TRNC, not different)
  • "There's no state called Nagorno-Karabakh" - there is no state called Northern Cyprus (similar to TRNC, not different)
  • "We need an article about the region" - I agree, go ahead make one and call it Nagorno Karabakh (region), Golbez has nothing against it. So far I only counted commonalities with TRNC so what is the difference then?

Steelmate (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Very simple. That article is called TRNC, not Northern Cyprus. So it is about the republic. This one is not called NKR, it is called NK. Therefore it is about the region. The region should have its name written in Azerbaijani, as it is officially part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Stop being so belligerent. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but the TRNC article got renamed "Northern Cyprus" some time ago. --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
yes very simple, there is no article named TRNC, the TRNC is REDIRECT to Northern Cyprus... it simply means you never even read that article, aren't you Grandmanster? And by the way we have a redirect fron NKR to NK (similar to TRNC, not different), so what is different then? Steelmate (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
First, do not change infobox without consensus. Second, TRNC has partial recognition, NKR has none, so it is de-jure non-existent. And third, what's done on Abkhazia makes a lot more sense. Grandmaster (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The TRNC is internationally specifically recognized as part of Cyprus, except for Turkey; not even Azerbaijan's ownership of NK has that kind of affirmative recognition. --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "First, do not change infobox without consensus." - agree, but same applies to you. The version now is supported by Golbez - third part mediator, so untill we have some decision here don't change ANYTHING (except maybe syntax or punctuation) in the article please.
    • Mainly I've given up, I'm mostly seeing what you folks come up with before I dip back in, if at all. Don't assume I'm supporting anything. --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Second, TRNC has partial recognition NKR has none" - now that I can see is a difference, 1 country out of 168 recognized TRNC, 0 countries out of 168 recognized NKR, so they differ in 1 country. But we can say also that 167 countries out of 168 didn't recognize TRNC and 168 out of 168 didn't recognize NKR, so there is similarity in 167 countries. I would say 167 overweighs 1 so predominantly that this aspect of difference can simply be ignored to the favour of significant similarity of how both are not recognized.
  • "what's done on Abkhazia makes a lot more sense" - how so? You think it is more close to NKR then TRNC?
  • Fourth - read the articles before referring to them.

Steelmate (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Steelmate, both TRNC and Abkhazia are similar to "NKR" in their illegitimacy. There is only one distinction from TRNC, that the Greek population actually voted against reunification with Northern Cyprus before entering EU, while Azeri population of NK has been simply ethnically cleansed from their homes, while a group of separatists claims ownership over their rights as well. And if you're so keen on comparisons, I see that Abkhazia article also lists the Georgian name of the territory, which is officially part of Georgia. So I don't see why you're removing Azeri name of the territory, which is officially part of Azerbaijan. I am sorry, with all due respect, I don't see which mediating role does Golbez take, if even the Azeri title of the region cannot make it to the article. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, you disagree with me so I must not be neutral. It makes perfect sense. Wait, what? --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, lets be more correct and to not call each other's sides "a group of separatist", "ethnically cleansed" etc. If you remember we had a talk about it! And the "Daglic Qarabakh" is a name for region, not even that for the Republic (DQ Respublikasi). Andranikpasha (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, I looked at that article, now the structure of it is different then from NKR or TRNC. It is about georgaphical region of Abkhazia with added political information about the governments. The NKR & TRNC are build as articles about republics (de facto) with additional information about georgaphy.Please also note that they have a seperate articles about the Government of the Republic of Abkhazia which we don't have. It is just a different structure. I also encourage you writing an article about Nagorno-Karabakh (region) and would love to see it build on the manner of Abkhazia. Steelmate (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well then, I don't see why article titled "Nagorno-Karabakh" should be pointed to "republic" and not the "region". Do we have separate articles about Armenia (region) and Armenia (republic)? Atabek (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
For the info: there isnt geographical region officially called Armenia: there is Armenian Highland (sometimes abridged- Armenia), Lesser Armenia, or f.e. Transcaucasia, Syunik. No such a region - Armenia. Andranikpasha (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now we are talking. The name is point of confusion - agreed. How do disambiguate it is point of seperate discussion, please see below. Steelmate (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh (republic) will be the same story, because the republic name is simply not legitimate and is non-neutral POV. Atabek (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok stop here, Wikipedia writes articles about facts, agree? The fact is NKR is a political entity (republic) declared independence, right? Second fact that folowis the first one is that it was not recognized after declaring indepemdense. So those facts need to go into Wikipedia. What you want to do is HIDE the fact that there is a self proclaimed republic, now that is more then POV that wishful thinking. Steelmate (talk)

Steelmate, I proclaim my userpage to be an independent republic as of today :). I will have all attributes of independence with flag, anthem and national symbol. Yet I am still going to rely on economy and physical life in another country. Is that independence? :) And please, assume good faith in your correspondence. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, you are not discussing anything here, it is more like vandalism and trolling the talk pages. Steelmate (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

CIA is a political source which is influenced by billions of petrodollars. The evidence is that the top secret CIA documents present NK as completely different than public records. And the declassified CIA files on NK are a testament of that. Public CIA sources are political and the evidence is that while the US placed an embargo on Turkey for its invasion of Northern Cyprus in the past, it made a 180 degree turn and you will find nothing in the CIA factbook on Turkey anything about the fact that Turkey still occupies the northern Cyprus. The reason is obvious, the most vocal allies who are aggressive and dare making threats for everything they disagree with have a piece of the cake, more civilized governments who are not cheap enough to make stupid threats and accept other nations freedom to hold opinions, lose. This is the pathetic reality.

And your argument about Northern Cyprus makes no sense, Nagorno Karabakh is not just a region, it has a clearly defined boundaries. VartanM (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think no one would disagree that by now Northern Cyprus also has de-facto clearly defined boundaries. And what does CIA have to do with a basic fact, NK is occupied by Armenian forces, its Azeri population is ethnically cleansed. Do you disagree with these facts, VartanM? Atabek (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

De facto republic

It functions just like any other republic with the exception it is not officially recognized. So that is why we call it de facto republic. What is not clear here? Steelmate (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let's say I force my neighbor from his side on my backyard, open a little garage there, hang a flag and proclaim it a republic with its own symbolics, while using US dollar as my currency and local police as my self-defense force. Does that mean I should cite that as a republic in Wikipedia? It's still an illegitimate entity. Atabek (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If your garage's size is 5000 km2 - yes you can! Steelmate (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there is a state called Vatican, which consists of one church building and its compound. What is important is not the size, but recognition and legitimacy. NK is a separatist puppet regime created as a result of aggression by another country (hence subjugated not independent territory) and not recognized by anyone. Hence unfit to be presented as "republic" in encyclopedia. Atabek (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What matters for Wikipedia is notability, Vatican is very notable , 5000 km2 is notable, your non recognized garage is not. Steelmate (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And why is Nagorno-Karabakh Republic notable? It's not recognized by anyone, lives off the budget of Armenia and its financial and economic system, military, administration and so forth. NKR lacks basic attributes of independent statehood, while claiming itself "independent republic". Atabek (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm back in this mediation game, and my first executive decision is to ignore Atabek. The above statement betrays an absolutely warped view of reality and he has shown to have no interest in coming to a consensus. Hey, this is suddenly fun again, maybe we can get somewhere? --Golbez (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, good luck with "mediation effort" while ignoring one side point of view and listening only to the other. If you don't want to even listen to opposite point of view to Armenian, what are you actually mediating? Atabek (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'll absolutely listen to the Azeri side. Just not when expressed by you. You've forfeited that. --Golbez (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Atabek's behavior is pure water trolling the talk pages. Steelmate (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, your sentence above is absolute non sense, not worth even discussing. Steelmate (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Steelmate, assume good faith and some form of civic discussion. I think arguments presented shall usually get responses with other arguments, instead of words like "non-sense", "not worth discussing", etc. :) Atabek (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How to name the article about NKR

Looks like the name "Nagorno-Karabkh" for article about "Nagorno-Karabkh Republic" is point of confusion for some Azeri users, as argumants are made that this name should be reserved for the name of the region, not the republic. Please post here your comments what would be better method to disambiguate the name of the article. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the confusion is by Armenian contributors, who believe in their own idea that Nagorno-Karabakh is "a de-facto independent republic". This is regardless of the title of the article. Please, provide facts and establish that Nagorno-Karabakh is a) a legitimate republic; b) an independent state. Use references in your arguments, please. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, you are switching topic. Nobody is in doubt that NKR is de facto republic which is independent (de facto) from Azerbaijan. It proclaimed independence on January 6, 1992 after a long war. Read more here if you really didn't know that fact: http://www.nkr.am/eng/facts/about.htm Steelmate (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing us a fact from the website of separatists, hosted in Armenia. Apart from being non-neutral, the fact of ".am" extension for "NKR" official website, is quite indicative of the "independent" part :). Atabek (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what do you want - the fact that NKR is independent? Buy a ticket and go visit that official part of Azerbaijan and if you come back alive then go ahead and write all those NKR talks is just imaginary the territory is fully under Azerbaijan control and all Wikipedia information is dope induced imaginatory illusions... Steelmate (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, once again! pls stop call the Karabakh side "separatists". such a POV words (then maybe not separatists, but Liberators of Artsakh, Freedom fighters for oppressed people's rights?) are not the better style to have discussions. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What we should do is follow the same format for naming for all articles in Wikipedia be they for a country or a company. You name the article with the most popular name, you put the official name in the info box, and you could put both names in the article. See France or United Kingdom. So we should leave the names the way they are now with the article called Nagorno Karabakh as I believe it's the most popular name and the infobox stating Nagorno Karabakh Republic. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Andranik, "separatist" is not a POV expression, it's a title of group that's trying to secede from another country sovereignty of which over it is recognized internationally. Similarly there are Chechen separatists, Abkhaz separatists and even Kosovan separatists were called as such. Atabek (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, this is called separatism. NKAO was a part of Azerbaijan and all territories under Armenian countrol are internationally recognized as Azerbaijani territory. There is no "liberators of Artsakh". These were the people who tried to separate basing their claims on ideologies of Dashnaktsutsun, just like Andranik talks about "liberation" basing his claims on the so called "greater Armenia". Let's assume there was an Armenian state on the territory of the present day Karabakh. It doesn't mean though that the Armenians were always the majority. It also doesn't mean that it should be independent or united with present day Armenia. There were Azerbaijani states and khanates on the territories of present day Republic of Armenia. Does that mean we should want to claim these lands now too? Should Italy claim all of the territories Romans once ruled? Should Mongols claim half of Asia? How about Arabs, Turks, Greeks? Let's ask then the Arab, Greek and Italian users if they want to add the word republic to articles related to territories they once dominated. Ehud (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
So dear Ehud Lesar, would you also call Israel a separatists from Palestine? And USA separatists from England... list continues... Or you have a double standards for different situations? Steelmate (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Steelmate, the case of Israel and USA are quite different from Karabakh issue. The realities of international relations back then were quite different from those of today. If you're so interested in my opinion on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I can tell you that I am one of the supporters of seeing Palestinian state on territories assigned for Palestinian Arabs, and seeing Palestinians recognize Israel as a state. --Ehud (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Mediation

Since Golbez is claiming and trying to be a mediator, I propose the following:

1. This article is about a disputed geographic region not a republic, so the title Republic should not be used in infobox.

2. NK is not de-facto independent, so that POV needs to be removed. It's very much dependent on the state of Armenia.

3. NK is not just a region in South Caucasus, it's recognized officially as region of Azerbaijan.

4. Name of the region in infobox should also list Azeri title, because there are refugees who originate from that region and due to return to their homes.

I would like to ask that Golbez only provides his inputs as mediator, as I know what the rest of contributors will have to say, repeating pretty much the same old. Before your next comment, let's realize that the objective here is not just commenting for the sake of it but to reach consensus. Atabek (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to reach a compromise by telling others not to comment? I bet you didn't know I was gonna say that. :) VartanM (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, exactly, because your comment above is not an attempt to compromise and discuss specific listed points but only trying to pinpoint wrong in my words. That's why I asked only for Golbez to respond. Again the purpose is to reach consensus, and not continue in perpetual discussions with diametrically opposite points of view. So I would like to see Golbez mediation points instead. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would dearly love to see the Azeri position presented - by someone other than Atabek, who has shown to be entirely illogical and resistant to any form of compromise. It IS neutral to say, frankly, that one side in this conflict has been far more belligerent and unhelpful than the other. A proper mediator has to understand that, and work around it when necessary. This is how I'm doing that. --Golbez (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, I hope you will consider the opinion of other Azeri contributors instead of mine at least. Just a small note though, the reason why one side seems to be "belligerent and unhelpful than the other" to you is because the page in its current version is full of one-sided Armenian POV and is not much different from nkr.am propaganda page. And if you're resistant to even listen to opposite opinions, I don't know how you could mediate on this page? Also, as I said earlier, calling someone "entirely illogical" is not quite constructive or receptive of views in mediation process. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That you think its "full of one-sided Armenian POV" does not make it so, and just shows how unsuitable you are to be editing this. --Golbez (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Nagorno-Karabakh is not a republic and is not referred to as one in any of the reports or documents coming from third parties, such as the UN or Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Despite the abolition of Nagorno-Karabakh as an administrative unit, parliamentarians in their reports still refer to it as "the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan" [10], in the context of "separatist forces <being> in control" of the said region. Which makes sense, because a region does not necessarily has to have prescribed administrative borders.
Nagorno-Karabakh's "de facto independence" has a big question mark to it. It does not seem wise to speak of independence when what is claimed as "independence" was achieved much due to the intervention of another state, Armenia (De Waal, chap.11):
  • whose parliament in 1988 issued a decree proclaiming the incorporation of Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) into Armenia;
  • whose passports are issued to the non-expelled population of NK as official ID;
  • whose currency NK uses;
  • whose "official" citizens (as in, not residents of NK with Armenian passports, but those from Armenia) constitute 10,000 of the 18,500 troups claimed to be the "army of NK" [11];
  • which provides 70% of NK's budget [12];
  • where the head office of NK's "national bank" is based, being in fact an Armenian closed joint-stock company [13]
  • whose slightly modified flag is used as a "state symbol" of NK;
  • which today remains the only means of communication of NK with the outside world;
Together, there are characteristics of a typical puppet state, with one difference: Nagorno-Karabakh is not even a state. Independence is not present in any aspect of the region's existence, so why should it be defined as such? Clearly not because a nice little piece of writing entitled The Constitution of NKR says so. Parishan (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I must say that I was not happy with Golbez's mediation here in the past, and I'm not now. Mediator should be neutral, if he cannot do that, he should be just an editor of the article with his own vision of the things. Mediation is aimed to help parties to the dispute find a common ground, and not push them towards a certain position. Nothing personal, I always said that Golbez is a good admin, but he openly admitted his sympathies for separatist movements in the past, so this seems to affect his position in this issue. I actually think (and I said that before) that we need more than 1 or 2 mediators here, the more is the better. This issue is very complex and will always be a subject for heated discussions. I would like to see more input from third party users. Grandmaster (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is how I see this conflict:

  • Armenian point of view: "Nagorno-Karabakh is an independent country from Azerbaijan that only wants to choose its own destiny, away from Azerbaijan which has shown to not particularly like Armenians."
  • World point of view: "Nagorno-Karabakh is a region that declared independence but the world does not recognize it, and we generally think it would probably be better off as part of Azerbaijan - territorial integrity and all that, don't ya know."
  • Azeri point of view, as portrayed by the contributors here: "Nagorno-Karabakh is an illegal region of illegal people who killed thousands of Azeris so they could be part of Armenia illegally, I mean, honestly, it doesn't even really EXIST, it's just a phantom in the minds of some Armenians, and it's also illegal and evil."
  • World point of view: "Er... that... seems a bit harsh..."
  • Azeri point of view: "You clearly don't know what you're talking about and are not neutral, and possibly an Armenian sympathizer."

Thus my frustration. To say that the Azeris are far less helpful than the Armenians doesn't mean I support the Armenians - it just means they express their positions a lot better. Maybe the Azeris should learn how to calm down and not sound like raving maniacs - stop treating Nagorno-Karabakh like it killed your damn puppy. --Golbez (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, I think you are confused about the definition of the word "mediation". This example below has nothing to do with you, but just to make it a bit more clear - there is a notorious Russian "mediator" on Karabakh conflict - Vladimir Kazimirov, whose mediating position was to simply always generalize and bash on Azeri point of view, but who was caught once receiving a bribe from an Armenian in a Moscow restaurant and is never taken seriously by his own Russian government.
Mediating position is always choosing a middle ground not simply taking one position, I believe that's the intention and scope of Wikipedia as well. I don't know what else do you expect from Azeri side, when: 1) Azeri territory is occupied; 2) Azeri people are deported and ethnically cleansed from the territory; 3) Azeri people are sitting at negotiation table for peace after all of the above. So what else do you expect and how else do you want to insult this group by further generalizing about them in the manner you do above? Thanks. Atabek (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting far more from that. The Azeris here seem to have a personal stake in the existence or lack thereof of Nagorno-Karabakh, which confuses me greatly. The Armenians seem to take a more distant point of view, whilst the Azeris are rabid in their calls and repetition that it is illegal, illegal, illegal, and let's not forget illegal. If the Azeris are failing at mediation it is because they are not presenting a point of view that is amenable to compromise and consensus. As long as the Azeris are so stuck on repeating the same arguments over and over and over again, they're just showing that compromise is not possible, and therefore, neither is consensus. Meanwhile, the bulk of the Armenians HAVE been shown to be willing to compromise and work towards a consensus. --Golbez (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"Nagorno-Karabakh is an illegal region of illegal people who killed thousands of Azeris so they could be part of Armenia illegally, I mean, honestly, it doesn't even really EXIST, it's just a phantom in the minds of some Armenians, and it's also illegal and evil.
Hahaha. I have no idea what the hell is going on with the article at this point, but this was the best and the funniest statement I have ever read on a Wiki talk page.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, your above post shows why Azeri users do not like your mediation. You simply fail to get our point. Look at all you exaggeration of Azerbaijani position. Please tell me when me or any other Azerbaijani contributors used the words like "illegal people", "phantom in the minds of some Armenians", "evil", etc. We merely pointed out the fact that NKR does not exist de-jure, nothing else. If you can prove me wrong, please go ahead, but I only refer to the position of the international community, which does not recognize legitimacy of any elections and referendums in NK and local separatist authorities. What's wrong with stating these facts and trying to get them properly reflected in the article? This is the reason I'm not happy with your mediation, and I think we need more input from other neutral editors. Grandmaster (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You folks have repeatedly pointed out that the Armenian population of NK, and their votes, are illegitimate because the Azeris were forced out. As for "phantom", Atabek himself said that the government of the NKR is not notable because it doesn't really exist, it's just some uppity Armenians with rifles. If that post shows why the Azeri users do not like my mediation, perhaps it is the Azeris' job to change, not mine. --Golbez (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
He merely points out to the exaggerations used by the Azeri users themselves, and you will be wise to take it as a useful advice. Yes, the Council of Europe's publication has said that it doesn't consider the latest elections in NKR as legitimate. You conclude, from this carefully constructed diplomatic statement, that the "international community considers NK as an illegitimate, illegal entity"--that is an exaggeration reflecting severe insistance on an extreme POV. Similarly, a UN non-binding resolution uses, in a fleeting manner, the expression "Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan," a statement qualified by individual members of the UN, such as Egypt. You conclude that "NK is a de-jure non-existent state," which is as much of an oxymoron as saying "de-facto recognized." Don't blame others for pointing out the grotesque arguments made by your side.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, my understanding of mediation is when a third party assists in reaching compromise over a disputed issue. You are being presented with quite serious and solid arguments, but all I see you doing in response is emoting, exaggerating and ridiculing the Azerbaijani position. You cannot simply deny the presence of illegality in the current situation with NK, otherwise it would have long been a recognized and fully functioning state. It lacks some key principles that define an independent state, as seen in the examples above. I am not sure, how well you have familiarized yourself with details of the conflict. The Azerbaijani contributors here are far from expressing themselves like "raving maniacs" considering the fact that according to the more common Azerbaijani position, Armenia as a state is a lot more involved in the conflict than this article tells us. Parishan (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The exact moment when I snapped was when Atabek questioned the notability of the NKR because it was an illegal government that doesn't actually exist. That kind of ranting is not helpful, at that point he was essentially trolling. Perhaps you should watch HOW he expresses his views; Grandmaster does a better job. I made it perfectly clear that I was willing to hear the Azeri point of view, so long as it was from someone other than Atabek. --Golbez (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did make an attempt to summarize the Azerbaijani point of view (see my point-form response), and so did Grandmaster, but all we got from you was that Azeris are unhelpful raving maniacs, who need to calm down despite the fact that Armenians killed their puppy. Parishan (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Grandmaster is presenting his views in a logical manner, so it is possible to work with him and make progress in discussions, as opposed to illogical Atabek, or Atabek with a single logic "as long as NKR is illegal - The consensus should always be my POV position, which is : NKR doesn't exist". Steelmate (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So Azeri's are "raving maniacs"? Not the ones I've met. Neither are Armenians. Some interesting language choices going on here. --Bobak (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

lol, listen bud, you can keep misconstruing my comments, have all the fun you like with that. --Golbez (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Split

The article has been split between the Republic and the disputed region. Use it wisely. - Francis Tyers · 10:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this final? I just want to confirm this before going around a bunch of articles and changing links. Was consensus reached to split? My impression was that we were going to make the Karabakh article the region article and the Nagorno-Karabakh article the republic article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've unilaterally decided, I don't think anyone will have any major complaints and it might (just might) bring an end to the various stalemates around here. If anyone has any major complaints I guess they can bring them here. - Francis Tyers · 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region, "NKR" is so called "republic", is this hard to distinguish? Nagorno-Karabakh is only part of Karabakh, both are regions. Atabek (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

VartanM, the page was divided exactly because of the conflict, and now you're pushing the same POV again which you further proclaim here [14]. No Nagorno-Karabakh is not a disputed territory between Armenia and NKR on one side. "NKR" does not exist as entity as far as Azerbaijan, mediators and all other international parties are concerned. So naturally the conflict cannot be with a non-existent side. The negotiations are carried out between Azerbaijan and Armenia, not Azerbaijan and "NKR" or Azerbaijan and Armenia with "NKR". "NKR" is not a party to any form of negotiation over Nagorno-Karabakh status. Atabek (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[removed ethnic attack Francis Tyers · 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC) ] I only see one option here, from now on I will introduce the Armenian pov everytime you present the Azeri, this will solve the problem of mediators being called Armenian sympathizers. --VartanM (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Vartan, stop ethnic attacks. You undid the neutral intro added by Francis and replaced it with your own POV. That is not acceptable. Please restore the original and let's discuss your proposed changes. Edit warring is not gonna work, it could simply result in another arbcom. Grandmaster (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats not true, the current version of the lead is the original version without pov's first with yours then replaced with mine. My proposal is to make this article as neutral as possible, not Armenia says this Azerbaijan says that. Present this article from a neutral point of view, without any OR. The medium I was talking about. And that medium is simple. This article is about a geographic location so we should give geographic definitions the priority and limit the politics as much as possible.
Nagorno-Karabakh is a region in the South Caucasus. The region is disputed between the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic on one side, and Azerbaijan on the other.
How's that? VartanM (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds more correct! Steelmate (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not acceptable, represents the Armenian POV only. Please restore Francis's original version, it was balanced and neutral. Grandmaster (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It was neither. It doesn't state "de-facto independent republic" at the start of the sentence. That's what achieved the balance in the prior article. Without it, mentioning the Azeri position would be biased.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It actually mentioned de-facto republic, read carefully. It was balanced and POV free, unlike the one installed now. Grandmaster (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I call this phenomenon "blowback." --Golbez (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Alot of blood was spilt to come up with a compromise wording of the intro in 2006. This is why I never liked the idea of splitting the article, as we would have to come up with an intro for the new article. The only reason Armenians agreed to use "formally part of Azerbaijan" was that the sentence would start with "de-facto independent republic"--that was the balance. Since we can't use the latter phrase in the region article, we can't use the "part of Azerbaijan" part either. We leave the one, we leave the other--unless you want to continue the edit wars for months to come.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are pluses and minuses but this article needs more clarity then other regular articles, so two is more clear then one, therefore I see benefit splitting them... Steelmate (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Two articles

Here are my 2 cents. I think we have two different things(not calling them articles yet): one describing the political entity - unrecognized country called Nagorno-Karabakh republic, and the other is about geographical region Nagorno-Karabakh. So those things need to find represntation in Wikipedia format - that needs to be decided. I see solution now was to have a seperate articles, I think it is the highest level of seperation allowed in Wikipedia for two different things (other less strict form include f.e. : one article but different heading/section) and for the benefits it provides I think it was worth it. I think still to fine tune it for the purposes of consistentency of Wikipedia articles we need to decide how to name them. I propose those names:

  • For republic : Nagorno-Karabakh (country)
  • For region : Nagorno-Karabakh (region)
  • For disambiguation page : Nagorno-Karabakh (see Georgia f.e.)

As name Nagorno-Karabakh Republic goes against naming conventions for other republics and coutryies, take any of them. Steelmate (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Take it up with Francis. =p --Golbez (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, a few statements: No, it doesn't; when we have a disambiguation between a country, we'll include Republic if it wouldn't be false. Examples: Republic of Ireland and Republic of Macedonia. We don't do this for Georgia (country) because "Republic" is not in that country's name, whereas it is in the NKR's name. So it actually does NOT go against naming conventions.
Second of all: We need to remember, folks, that the NKR and the NKAO - which most people figure is Nagorno-Karabakh do not have the same borders. Shahumian, if you recall, is part of the NKR but not the NKAO. (but IS part of Nagorno-Karabakh the region, but that region has no hard borders, whereas the NKAO did) confusing! --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Explanation accepted, I am withdrawing my proposal regarding republic naming Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The rest of the proposal still valid. Steelmate (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh or Nagorny Karabakh ?

I think the name of region will be "Nagorny Karabakh" as translated from russian and in english will be "Mountanious Karabakh" we don't have a hyphen there. The only reason for hyphen is when referring to republic according to russian syntax rules. And if there is no republic then it must be corrected to "Nagorny Karabakh" or to "Mountanious Karabakh" without hyphen there. By the way there already exists a redirect from "Nagorny Karabakh" to "Nagorno-Karabakh", so we can just move page there. Steelmate (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The name "Nagorno" is far more well-known than 'mountainous' I think. Either way, "Nagorny" is right out, as Nagorno is again more well known than that. Nagorny Karabakh is the Russian name; Nagorno-Karabakh is the well-known English name. --Golbez (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I see... Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro

The exact wording of the consensus intro was critical in achieving a long-lasting consensus after a long mediation. "Within Azerbaijan" was outright rejected by Armenian users as implying "part of Azerbaijan." "De facto independent republic" was the condition of mentioning that the region was "officially part of Azerbaijan." And the "covered by Azerbaijani divisions" was never discussed or agreed to, and it would have been rejected in the first place--it sounds definitively like "it is part of Azerbaijan." Unless we want to continue the edit warring forever, we need to keep the consensus wording. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tigran here. We should return to the original intro, otherwise we will have to go thru many months of debates all over again. This is the original version of the intro that was stable for many months:
Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent republic located in the South Caucasus, officially part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, about 270 kilometers (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, but very close to the border with Armenia.
We can use it with minor tweaks for the article about "NKR", and for this one also make a minor change, replacing "republic" with "region", as this article is about the region, and add the links to the articles about NKR and Azerbaijani administrative divisions of the region. The intro would look then like this:
Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent region located in the South Caucasus, officially part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, about 270 kilometers (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, but very close to the border with Armenia.
And we need to decide on how to add the links to the other 2 articles. We can avoid using any additional words by simply linking "independent" to "NKR" and "officially" to the article on divisions. Grandmaster (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "republic" was a crucial part of the intro. "df independent region" was discussed for a long time and rejected by Armenian editors. The only reason they agreed to "officially" was that "republic" would be mentioned. They wanted the relatively strong "republic" to balance the relatively strong "officially." We can still make the intro about the region, and still have the consensus wording. Such as the current one--"NG is a region, and it has a de-facto independent republic which is officially part of Azerbaijan."--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, de-facto was balanced with officially, as for this article, it is about the region, so it should refer to the region. Everyone is welcome to propose better wording, I think we can find a working solution here. But it should describe the region of NK, as it is the topic of this article. Grandmaster (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"de facto republic" was balanced with "officially part of Azerbaijan." We can still describe a region, and mention the crucial fact that there is a de-facto republic inside of that region.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)