Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 7

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

Official positions

Please feel free to alter these positions as you see fit, although keep them to one sentence. Please add direct sources that state the position. I have added these as the major players as I see them. Note that the Council of Europe is not the same as the European Union. The point of this exercise is to try and get a concise statement of the positions of the major players and not to discuss anything. - FrancisTyers 12:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent article for reference, http://www.regnum.ru/english/polit/581596.html talk on referendum etc.--Eupator 15:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

During the Soviet Union

After the Soviet Union

I disagree with Tigran’s interpretation of PACE position. We may refer this issue to dispute resolution. Grandmaster 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OSCE

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Lisbon Summit 1996.

ANNEX 1 STATEMENT OF THE OSCE CHAIRMAN-IN-OFFICE [5] (see page 15)

You all know that no progress has been achieved in the last two years to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the issue of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan. I regret that the efforts of the Co-Chairmen of the Minsk Conference to reconcile the views of the parties on the principles for a settlement have been unsuccessful.

Three principles which should form part of the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict were recommended by the Co-Chairmen of the Minsk Group. These principles are supported by all member States of the Minsk Group. They are:

- territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijan Republic;

- legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh defined in an agreement based on self-determination which confers on Nagorno-Karabakh the highest degree of self-rule within Azerbaijan;

- guaranteed security for Nagorno-Karabakh and its whole population, including mutual obligations to ensure compliance by all the Parties with the provisions of the settlement.

I regret that one participating State could not accept this. These principles have the support of all other participating States.

This statement will be included in the Lisbon Summit documents.

Grandmaster 10:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

These are principles suggested by OSCE for the final determination of NKR's status. They are not recognition of NK's current status as part of Azerbaijan--OSCE cannot make such determination, as it would undermine the very negotiation process which it itself monitors.--TigranTheGreat 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Armenia and NKR respect Azerbaijan's right of territorial integrity too. They just hold the position that Azerbaijan's territory does not and has not contained NK ever since its independence. So, the principles of territorial integrity and NK's self-determination are not contradictory.--TigranTheGreat 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

PACE

Resolution 1416 (2005) [6]

1. The Parliamentary Assembly regrets that, more than a decade after the armed hostilities started, the conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region remains unsolved. Hundreds of thousands of people are still displaced and live in miserable conditions. Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

2. The Assembly expresses its concern that the military action, and the widespread ethnic hostilities which preceded it, led to large-scale ethnic expulsion and the creation of mono-ethnic areas which resemble the terrible concept of ethnic cleansing. The Assembly reaffirms that independence and secession of a regional territory from a state may only be achieved through a lawful and peaceful process based on the democratic support of the inhabitants of such territory and not in the wake of an armed conflict leading to ethnic expulsion and the de facto annexation of such territory to another state. The Assembly reiterates that the occupation of foreign territory by a member state constitutes a grave violation of that state’s obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and reaffirms the right of displaced persons from the area of conflict to return to their homes safely and with dignity.

Grandmaster 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

PACE Recommendation 1690 [7]
recalling its Recommendation 1251 (1994) on the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, place at the disposal of Armenia and Azerbaijan, if they so wish, experts who could help draw up a political status for Nagorno-Karabakh
One of many examples of PACE's position that NK's status is indeterminate, and is awaiting a final resolution.--TigranTheGreat 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

US Department of State position:

The Republic of Azerbaijan is a country of great physical variety and complicated boundaries. Its territory of 33,774 square miles (about the size of Maine or Portugal), includes one autonomous region, Nagorno Karabakh (currently occupied by Armenian forces); one autonomous republic, Nakhchivan

Azerbaijan’s history since independence has been dominated by the conflict with Armenians over Nagorno Karabakh. Violence began as ethnic strife in 1988, but escalated into full blown war after the collapse of Soviet power. Armenian forces made sweeping gains, and the May 1994 ceasefire left Armenians in control of the southwestern fifth of Azerbaijan. Fighting resulted in some 800,000 internally displaced persons, most of whom have yet to be resettled. As many as 120,000 ethnic Armenians live in Nagorno Karabakh and other Armenian occupied territories of Azerbaijan. [8]

Grandmaster 12:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Russia’s position

Boris Malakhov, Deputy Official Spokesman of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs Answers a Question from Russian Media Concerning Upcoming So-called Presidential Elections in Nagorno-Karabakh [9]

1597-07-08-2002

Question: What could you say apropos of the so-called presidential elections in Nagorno-Karabakh, scheduled for August 11?

Answer: I would like to stress that Moscow supports the principle of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, just as the other underlying rules and principles of international law.

It is well known that we do not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state.

In our conviction, its future status should be defined without the use of force, as a result of political negotiations between all the parties within the Minsk process.

Yet Moscow does not think that the course of the peaceful settlement of the conflict could depend on the elections in Karabakh.

As for Russia, in close cooperation with its partners in the Co-Chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group (the USA and France) it will further help energetically the Azerbaijanis and Armenians to reach a solution untangling the Karabakh knot as soon as possible.

Discussion

Quotes from UN Security Council Resolution # 884

Expressing its serious concern that a continuation of the conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic, and of the tensions between the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijani Republic, would endanger peace and security in the region,

Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic and of all other States in the region,

Reaffirming also the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory,

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1993/scres93.htm

Grandmaster 12:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you condense the position of the UN down to a single sentence? - FrancisTyers 12:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
UN Security Council considers Nagorny Karabakh a region of the Azerbaijani Republic, supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic and of all other States in the region and the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory. Grandmaster 12:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

More quotes from UN Resolutions

Noting with alarm the escalation in armed hostilities and, in particular, the latest invasion of the Kelbadjar district of the Republic of Azerbaijan by local Armenian forces. Res 822

Demands immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan. Res 822 April 30, 1993

Noting with alarm the escalation in armed hostilities and, in particular the seizure of the district of Agdam in the Azerbaijani Republic 853 Res 853

occupation of Zangelan district and the city of Goraiz in the Azerbaijani Republic Res 884

Calls upon the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with resolutions 822, 853, and 874. Res. 884

Relevant for de facto status: "local Armenian forces" etc.

Relevant for a status for the region that's different from other areas of Azerbaijan: "NK region vs. districts," and the fact that the first resolution was passed on April 30, 1993, a year after NKR Armenians took the last Azeri stronghold in NK (Shushi, 5/9/92), bringing NKR under their full control. Suggests Armenian authorities have greater leeway controlling the territory of NK than those outside NK. Also, in April 30, 1993, "recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan" not likely to include the areas brought under Armenian control within NKR 1 year ago.

Quotes from COE reports:

Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. [10]

The official line of Armenia and the N-K de facto authorities ... [11]--TigranTheGreat 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that. The position of UN is clear, it recognizes NK as a region of Azerbaijan, and supports territorial integrity of the Azerbaijan Republic and inviolability of international borders. The word de-facto was never used, and no special status of NK was recognized. Local Armenian forces are Armenian paramilitaries of NK. Grandmaster 21:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's hilarious and sad, each time you spout the "paramilitaries" when referring to a democratically elected president and parliament that governs, adopts and enforces laws.--Eupator 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Not just me. PACE did not recognize the results of elections in Karabakh, because Azeri population could not participate in them. So its an illegal regime. See this: [12]
Council of Europe urges Nagorno-Karabakh to refrain from elections'
Strasbourg, 24.08.2001 - The 43-nation Council of Europe today called on the Nagorno-Karabakh de facto authorities to refrain from staging the one-sided "local self-government elections" in the province, planned for 5 September.
"These so-called 'elections' cannot be legitimate," stressed Council of Europe Committee of Ministers' Chairman and Liechtenstein Foreign Minister Ernst Walch, Parliamentary Assembly President Lord Russell-Johnston and Secretary General Walter Schwimmer. They recalled that following the 1991-1994 armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a substantial part of the region's population was forced to flee their homes and are still living as displaced persons in those countries or as refugees abroad.
Grandmaster 07:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, your source goes against your claim that PACE doesn't see it as de-facto independent. The COE Press Release refers to the NK authorities as "de facto authorities." Just because the elections are not recognized by COE does not make the elections illegal--COE's position is not legally binding. "not legitimate" does not mean illegal, it means "not representative" and "not recognized by us," and at any rate is the opinion three individual members of COE and again is not legally binding. PACE never refers to them as "paramilitaries," instead here and in other documents they are referred to as "de facto authorities" who are "in control of the region." NK's status as different from other districts of Azerbaijan can be implied from UN Resolutions differentiating between "NK region" and "districts," as well as from the fact that it didn't respond to the liberation of the territory of NK itself (in 1992), but only to the liberation of the districts surrounding NK. Plus, UNSC condemns only the liberation of the outside districts, and not the NK territory.--TigranTheGreat 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, PACE refers to the local Armenian forces not as "paramilitaries" but as the army of Nagorno-Karabakh:
It welcomes the efforts of the CSCE's Minsk Group, the United Nations Security Council, the Government of the Russian Federation and the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS to encourage the warring parties to sign a peace agreement, as well as the agreement signed on 26 July 1994 by the Ministers of Defence of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the commander of the army of Nagorno-Karabakh
http://assembly.coe.int/documents/AdoptedText/TA94/EREC1251.HTM PACE Recommendation 1251]
PACE considers NK a territory of Azerbaijan, de-facto annexed by Armenia, and considers this a grave violation of Armenia’s obligations as a member of the Council of Europe. Grandmaster 21:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
PACE said no such thing. In fact PACE considers NK to be in control of "separatist forces," which in other documents are referred to as "de facto" authorities, or a "government" established by local Armenians. This is not de facto annexation, it's de facto independence by definition.--TigranTheGreat 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Then why the following sentence was included in resolution?
The Assembly reiterates that the occupation of foreign territory by a member state constitutes a grave violation of that state’s obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and reaffirms the right of displaced persons from the area of conflict to return to their homes safely and with dignity. Grandmaster 11:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Your interpretation is "because they recognize NK as part of Az." Mine is "they are talking about the territories outside NK, which NK never really claimed as its own" Again, either one is an interpretation, which makes it an opinion which cannot be asserted as fact.--TigranTheGreat 15:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, instead of discussing in that section could you just change the wording and provide a source if there is not one. If the wording is radically different could you create a x position (2): and provide a sentence. Thanks - FrancisTyers 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Tabib introduced new version of the intro, which makes perfect sense. It takes into account all aspects of the current status and is close to the intro for other self-declared entities. I suggest we accept it and stop the revert wars. Grandmaster 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed is redundant, all states declare themselves, noone else does it for them. What we mean is unrecognized, and it's already stated in the paragraph. Even if we accepted "de-jure," it would be "autonomous region within," just as your US State Dep't article mentioned. We still don't know if it's de jure part of Az, other than UNSC (Legally non-binding) and US, no other major document has stated "region of Azerbaijan." It's status is subject to ongoing dispute--it's a disputed region.--TigranTheGreat 12:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Self-declared (самопровозглашенный in Russian) is an international term, used by Atkinson, for example. It is widely accepted and used. You may have problems with it, but it’s a legit term. As for international recognition, whether binding or not, UN Security Council resolutions are international recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, especially considering that nobody recognized independence or annexation of Karabakh by Armenia. If you revert this new version, I will apply for arbitration. This can’t go on forever. Grandmaster 13:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll jump in this later today but GM, I think you mean mediation (like on the Nakhijevan page) :) Arbitration is something else.--Eupator 14:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually mean arbitration, because Francis and Mikka tried to mediate, but despite their efforts compromise wasn’t found. So the next step would probably be arbitration. Grandmaster 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
They wotn even look at it.--Eupator 19:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Grandmaster 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't make much sense to have de jure before the term de facto. The authonomy of Karabakh was accepted even during Soviet times and its authonomous statue precede generally it's accepted as part of Azerbaijan. Also, de jure uses is problematic, there was no injonctional cases or legal system that presented that, the legality is open to debate, while the de facto is clear. There are legal bases for Karabakh to be independent. Also, in all similar articles, the de facto precede the official territorial integrity, I don't see why this should not be the cases here. Even Britannica uses the term 'officially' and not terms open to reinterpretation such as de jure. Dove Lynch in his text: Separatist states and post-Soviet conflicts (International Affairs Volume 78, Issue 4, Page 831-848, Oct 2002) call it the Karabakh Republic inside Azerbaijan, again the de facto preceding anything else. Also, he uses the term de facto without adding other terms to reduce its importances. Tabibs version simply add-on to give an impression of "The alleged said to exist so called republic..." following the, don't forget it is part of Azerbaijan. Also, it is a convention that the locality precede, any works about authonomous regions or enclaves goes as this: 'an enclave x of the y." Comming to de jure part, Regional Power Rivalries in the New Eurasia: Russia, Turkey, and Iran by Alvin Z. Rubinstein, Oles M. Smolansky; M.E. Sharpe, 1995 in their section The Case of Nagorno-Karabakh present this as more complicated.
So, I think that my proposition was a better compromise because this version is even more problematic than the previous one. Fad (ix) 18:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
All the articles about such unrecognized entities state that they are formally or legally part of the states they claim independence from. I don’t see why this article should be different. There are two aspects of the situation – de-jure and de-facto. Both should be reflected. Since independence of Karabakh is not recognized, it remains de-jure part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That's false. Not one, not a single one has an intro like the one you want and the current absurdity. I will not accept anything short of what it's like on the Abkhazia and S.Ossetia pages. Nada.--Eupator 19:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The article for Abkhazia says: It is formally an autonomous republic within Georgia but is de facto independent, although not recognised as such internationally. Formally, legally or de-jure, but it’s recognized as part of Georgia. The same here. Grandmaster 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It had about the same statue as Karabakh, but it is you who refuse to have a similar sentence. Why should Karabakh be different than the rest? Fad (ix) 22:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
If it is the same, then you wont mind if we change the current intro to: It is formally an autonomous republic within Azerbaijan but is de facto independent, although not recognised as such internationally :) --Eupator 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It’s not the autonomous republic, and never was. It was an autonomous oblast, now just a region. Grandmaster 21:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Grandmaster, feel free to show me where in Azerbaijani constitution there is such a thing as an Obslat division. Obslast the last time I have checked only remains as subdivisions in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus. Karabakh was an Obslast during the Soviet times and had the same autonomous statue as Nakhichevan, which article clearly state it as autonomous republic. also, an enclave in such cases is a synonym to country within, which is about the same thing as autonomous republic within. It has its unofficial embassies in many corners in the world, including the US. Britannica uses the best compromise in its uses as officially. De Jure can not fit there because legally speaking Azerbaijan changed Karabakh statue against the Soviet and its own constitution, also, Karabakh did use legal means to get out of the Soviet Union as an independent state, it has to be a cases on records and a conclusion to have that word there, to not forget that Azerbaijan already recognized Karabakh as part of Armenia during the first years of the Bolshevic rules before the Soviet made of it a protectorate of Azerbaijan. Such statues can not apply when the Soviet union does not exist anymore. On the other hand, it is officially accepted as a region of Azerbaijan, but the locality goes first as it is the standard, its autonomous statue goes first, and then that it is officially within Azerbaijan. So again, my version was a better compromise. Fad (ix) 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I did not say that it is an oblast within Azerbaijan. It was during Soviet times, and it was not the same as autonomous republic. An autonomous republic had more privileges than an autonomous oblast. The current constitution of Azerbaijan does not provide for existence of any autonomy in Karabakh. Secession of Karabakh from Azerbaijan was not recognized by Soviet authorities and was even considered illegal. As for locality going first, look at the article about Abkhazia, to which you were referring. And also, the article of BBC, which was also used as a reference in our article, says almost exactly the same as current version, minus de-facto status.
Status: de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, unilaterally declared itself an independent republic in 1991 Grandmaster 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Also have a look at this, it’s an interesting article: [13]
In order to understand the de facto state, several points must be made. First, Pegg’s definition is based on a distinction between empirical and judicial notions of statehood. The de facto state is not recognised by other states or the international community. As a result, it has no judicial status in the international arena. The de facto state has no judicial right to claim a certain territory, as this land already is part of a recognised state. Grandmaster 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Also from the same article:
The separatist areas depend on other sources of external support for their existence. In the case of Karabakh, independence is really a sleight of hand which barely covers the reality that it is a region of Armenia. In February 1988, the Supreme Soviet of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region in Azerbaijan voted to unite with the Armenian Republic. Subsequently, the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was declared on 2 September 1991. Karabakh’s independence allows the new Armenian state to avoid the international stigma of aggression, despite the fact that Armenian troops fought in the war between 1991-94 and continue to man the Line of Contact between Karabakh and Azerbaijan. The strength of the Armenian armed forces, and Armenia’s strategic alliance with Russia, are seen as key shields protecting the Karabakh state by the authorities in Stepanakert. Grandmaster 06:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Azerbaijans constitution as written after the fall of the Soviet Union, that it permits the independence of Karabakh or not is irrelevent. Armenia could write in its constitution that Karabakh is part of it, it won't make it part of Armenia. It has become standard in Wikipedia and is in other historic works(I guess not in many newspapers, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper) that the locality goes first..., and the other examples do present the locality first. And like I said, it is illegal under the subsequent treaties for Azerbaijan to annex Karabakh and Nakhichevan, while Azerbaijan left untouched the statue of Nakhichevan, which gave them the statue of an autonomous republic and an exclave of Azerbaijan, Karabakh statue was changed by Azerbaijan contrary to treaties. De Jure should be based on legal records such as treaties. If I preresent documents and treaties attesting to that, the term de jure can therefore not be presented as an accepted fact. Besides, given the clear impact of Goltz for years on anything one can get from the BBC, BBC can not be presented as evidence to establish the generality. Also, it is kind of amazing that you selectivally quoted a work(Lynch), which generally support what I have been saying. Also, not to say that the League of Nations which was the UN of the 20s and 30s (before the UN came to existance), has never recognized and refused to recognize in all the years of its existances as Karabakh being in one way or another part of Azerbaijan, even a refusal on its protectorate statue. De jure for all thos reasons mentioned can not be used. As for the Soviet refusal to grant Karabakh its independence, the decision was accepted and retracted soon after after threats that it may start a war. Fad (ix) 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, let’s start from the beginning. How do you now that locality goes first is a standard in Wikipedia? Why then the article on Abkhazia is different? Under which treaties it is illegal to Azerbaijan to annex Karabakh? Have you read any such treaties? Do you have any evidence that the article on Karabakh in BBC was written under the influence of Thomas Goltz? When did the Soviets retract their refusal to grant Karabakh its independence? You made so many false statements, and did not provide a single proof for any of those statements. It’s not even worth discussing them, until you provide evidence that what you wrote is true. Also, how does Lynches work support what you are saying, when it clearly states that the de facto state is not recognised by other states or the international community. As a result, it has no judicial status in the international arena. The de facto state has no judicial right to claim a certain territory, as this land already is part of a recognised state. How does this prove your point? Grandmaster 18:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Assume good faith, you can not claim that I am making false statments and in the same time claiming that I should source what I am saying. The second is to assume good faith but it could not be coupled with the first, it is contradictory and is assuming bad faith.
Under the Soviet constitution article 87. (1977), Karabakh is an autonomous region, the consitution permitted the instoration of law to Azerbaijan and not a changes of its statue, while Azerbaijan changed the statue of Karabakh. As for the Soviet.
From Mikhail Gorbachev Memoirs (Mikhail Gorbachev: Memoirs by Mikhail Gorbachev, Bantam 1997)
What could we do? What was the way out of the situation? [Andrei] Gromyko suggested the usual solution: `The army will appear on the street and order will be restored immediately.' [Viktor] Chebrikov objected. Yakovlev proposed that the administration of Nagorno-Karabakh should be transferred to Moscow. [Eduard] Shevardnadze was in favour of immediately giving Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous republic status. Ligachev tried to synthesize all of these ideas: `There are already 20,000 refugees. People are homeless. If republic status for Nagorno-Karabakh does not help, we must bring in the troops, dismantle factories, dismiss the Party organizations and Soviet executive committees and establish order.
I supported the proposal to set up an autonomous republic, but I felt that this matter had to be resolved by the conflicting sides themselves.
...
The other position was to ask: since the people of Karabakh wished to reunite with their motherland, and we recognized the right of nations to self-determination, why not allow this? After all, the Nakhichevan autonomous republic is a part of Azerbaijan, even though separated from Azerbaijan by Armenian territory. The Nagorno-Karabakh question could be solved in exactly the same way.
At some point it seemed that a possible solution was to give Karabakh, like Nakhichevan, the status of autonomous republic, while keeping it as part of Azerbaijan. There was a time when this proposal was on the point of being implemented. However, it was just at this moment that the Supreme Soviet in Yerevan passed a resolution to incorporate Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia and so everything fell apart.
Comming to the de jure part, both Azerbaijan and Karabakh held a referundum on the issue of independence in December 1991, the previous declaration of independence from Azerbaijan was not according to the law, as those repeated declarations from Karabakh of secession or union with Armenia. Azerbaijan also adopted its constitution under the Soviet Act governing procedures for the secession of a republic from the Union adopted on April 3, 1990, and it was according to this procedure that both Karabakh and Azerbaijan held their referundum to declare their official independence. Azerbaijan had always refused Karabakh government to take part in negotiations, which in part is due to the fact that Karabakh government has legal bases over the independence of Karabakh, they have used the same legal soviet means to brake from the Union. Until the cases is not on international courts, the term de jure can not be applied, because even when ignoring the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan already recognized Karabakh as part of Armenia in December 1, 1920 and that both Armenia and Karabakh have legal means to support their points.
And here is the request before the referundum [14]
Also the declassified files from the CIA also gives legal grounds. [15], [16], [17], [18].
Comming to Lynch article, reread my version and propositions, you are puting words in my mouth. I have never denied that Karabakh is officially a region of Azerbaijan, what I said was that it was an autonomous region a de facto republic officially an enclave of Azerbaijan. The de jure can not apply, because there are more legal grounds for it to be independent or part of Armenia than being part of Azerbaijan. As for Abkhazia article, if you don't think it is different, I don't think you will have any problem having a similar introduction in Karabakh cases, will you? Fad (ix) 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, you referred to some treaties that make it illegal for Azerbaijan to annex Karabakh. Any references? Further you claimed that Goltz had impact “for years on anything one can get from the BBC”. How about proof? Then you said Soviets retracted their refusal to grant Karabakh its independence. How did you establish that? Then what this long citation from Gorbachev is supposed to prove? That Karabakh was an autonomous region of Azerbaijan SSR? I never denied it, some of you claimed that it was an autonomous republic like Nakhichevan, and this citation proves that it was not. Soviet rules may not allow to abolish the autonomy, same as they did not allow to unilaterally annex the territory of the neighboring republic, but an independent country can make its own decisions about its administrative division. Current Azerbaijani constitution provides only for one autonomy, which is Nakhichevan. Then the issue of independence. All the independence declarations in Soviet Union were illegal by Soviet laws. Republics of the former USSR gained independence after Belavezha Accords were signed and USSR was dissolved. After that the former Soviet republics were internationally recognized as independent states within their existing borders. It had not so much to do with the declarations of independence and Soviet laws, as much as it had to do with the collapse of the federal state. Even those republic who did not adopt independence declarations were recognized as sovereign states. Karabakh was never recognized as an independent state by anyone and remains de-jure part of Azerbaijan. As for recognition of Karabakh as part of Armenia by Azerbaijan in 1920, that was retracted by both Azerbaijan SSR and Soviet government. In fact, there were two different versions of that proclamation, one for Azerbaijan, and one for Armenia, and they stated different things. It was not a legal act anyway, since it was a declaration and not a decision, adopted by the government, and was aimed to attract public support of people in Armenia for the Bolsheviks. Then files from CIA, what are they supposed to prove and who wrote them? And finally, what in your opinion is the difference between the words de-jure and officially? Grandmaster 06:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am really not accepting your recent behaviours Grandmaster, this is the last time I am going to tell that. ASSUME GOOD FAITH!!! Goltz impact? In how many articles was he referred to? The theory vehiculated in some press of Russian hands over the conflict was Golz thesis, and before asking me for ‘proof’ go read in the history of this talk page and I even believe that you were discussing with me when I brought out that thing. For further information read Goltz ‘Letter from Eurasia: The Hidden Russian Han’ published in the Foreign Policy No. 92 (Autumn, 1993), pp.92-116. Besides that Goltz had an impact or not on the BBC would not change the fact that you can not rely on a newspaper article to establish notability and that it is known that when conflicts such as this are covered and that the subject at hand is ignored by most in the press people rely on those that have covered it, and in the UK, I hardly know someone who has covered more than Goltz. Also, stop asking ‘proof’ for things I do not request to be included in the article, sourcing is required for references included in the article while I source more in the talk page than many sections in the article.

Citing Gorbachev? Please read a second time, I don’t think you have read carefully what is written there, he agreed to make of Karabakh an independent republic, even with greater independence than Nakhichevan before he retracted and concluded that both could have the same sort of independence. As for the same statue, you don’t get it do you? I was talking about the statue of Nakhichevan before 1924, before the year of Kemalistic negotiations after that Karabakh was made an autonomous Oblast in 1923. This was what I was talking about when I said they previously had the same statue, the Soviet negotiated with the Kemalists to place Nakhichevan in more Bolshevic controls to assure that its annexing by the Kemalists would be illegal under any later decision, that’s where its statue was revised.

Coming to the 1920 decision, I doubt you really know of what you are talking about there Grandmaster. Karabakh was in fact recognized for months, and this officially as part of Armenia SSR. Karabakh was sliced with other territories recognized as part of Armenia and distributed to Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, because Karabekir the companion of arm of Ataturk wanted a guaranty that Armenia will be sliced in a way that it will be impossible for the Armenians to build an Armenia in the future. Karabakir in his campaigns there writes: “Armenia… destroy for eternity” In his memoirs. The decision to slice territories in 1921 was against any recognized treaties, and is against illegal. You can not change the bordering of a state without that states agreement. The Bolshevics only for 1921 have granted in exchange of the agreement to the Kemalists, 6.5 million rubble, 33,275 guns, 57,986,000 bullets, 327 machine guns, 54 canons, 129,479 canon bullets, 1,500 sabre, 20,000 gas mask and many other equipments in hope to convince Turkey to join the federation.

Coming to the de jure part, again, you are clearly wrong. Does Red Kurdistan ring a bell? What happened to it do you remember? And where was it situated, do you even know? De Jure is legal, while as I said, records and treaties and agreements are what is de jure. Karabakh is not de jure part of Azerbaijan, since limiting ourselves on legal records, Karabakh legally, with legal means, under the same rules as Azerbaijan has become independent, became independent. Also, while Azerbaijan agreed Karabakh to not be part of its soil, Armenia never agreed, neither Karabakh. The League of Nations, the then, UN…, refused to ever agree Karabakh being in one way or another part of Azerbaijan, and this in all its years of existence. As for CIA files, you should read them again, and I am again not surprised that you request who wrote them everytime it doesn’t satisfy you. And lastly, for the term officially, it is different than de jure, because while one is about legality the other is about what is official. In fact, Azerbaijan knows that Karabakh has legal grounds to request independence, this is why it restrict its government to take part in any negotiations or defend its position as an independent state.

Oh and, can you be more specific as to which treaties you want me to source? Thanks. Fad (ix) 18:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, our discussion grows and includes absolutely irrelevant things that you keep bringing up. If you use an argument in the discussion, you should back it up with facts, regardless if you are going to include it in the article or not. You tried to dismiss BBC by claiming that Goltz had impact “for years on anything one can get from the BBC”. And then you ask “In how many articles was he referred to”? I don’t know, you tell me. Was it any article ever published by BBC? It’s quite possible that he was referred to in one or two articles, but it’s certainly not anything one can get from the BBC.
Then you say with regard to Gorbachev: he agreed to make of Karabakh an independent republic, even with greater independence than Nakhichevan. Do you even know the meaning of the word independent? Unlike me, you are native English speaker, you should know such things better than me. Nakhichevan was never independent, it was an autonomous republic within Azerbaijan.
Then this de-jure thing, main point of our discussion. Whatever happened between Russia and Turkey back in 1920s does not really matter. Same as League of Nation, which did not refuse to agree on Karabakh being part of Azerbaijan, by the way, it left the final decision to be made in Paris Peace Conference. But what matters for de-jure part is the status of Karabakh within Azerbaijan during Soviet times and after collapse of USSR. It was legally part of Azerbaijan SSR and Soviet government rejected Armenian claims to transfer it to Armenia. Then after the collapse of the USSR, according to Atkinson, the borders of Azerbaijan were internationally recognised at the time of the country being recognised as independent state in 1991. The territory of Azerbaijan included the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Since it’s internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, it is de-jure part of Azerbaijan, as BBC claims. Lynches article also explains that de facto state has no judicial status in the international arena. The de facto state has no judicial right to claim a certain territory, as this land already is part of a recognised state.
As for the treaties, you said it was “illegal under the subsequent treaties for Azerbaijan to annex Karabakh and Nakhichevan”. What treaties you were referring to? Grandmaster 20:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I am not a native English speaker, English is the fourth language I have learned.
Coming to Goltz and the BBC, you are entirely wrong here, not only has he been used as a source in various coverage’s of the situation, but also prepared many documentaries for the BBC, not only has he been involved for the BBC, but he even wrote for the Washington Post, New York Times, US News, World Report, Forbes Electronic Mailbox, Businessweek, the Nation. Also, the LA Times, National Georgraphic News Service, Pacific News Service, the London Sunday Times. He is just working on a documentary for the BBC about the Pipe Line and mark my word on it, that the ‘bad bad’ Armenians will be there.
Now my comment about independence, please stop trying to find bugs in my writings, read again what I wrote, I did not say that Nakhichevan was independent, but rather that Karabakh was to have a greater independence, this does not necessarily assume that it is independent, in fact, this was why I used the term ‘greater independence’ because Nakhichevan is not that independent, but rather dependent as an exclave.
De Jure, again, you are only reading in my writings what you want to read Grandmaster. De Jure means according to law, and this is the entire point, officially is NOT to be equated with de Jure, as I said, Karabakh declared its independence ACCORDING TO LAW, the same rules instored by the Soviet Union to brake from the federation that Azerbaijan used to held its official referendum in December, about the same time as Karabakh did and from it declared its independence. And here, what happened in 1920 is also VERY RELEVENT, because as I said, de Jure is about laws, and the fact of the matter is that Azerbaijan recognized that land to be part of Armenia, and that Armenia never recognized it to be part of Azerbaijan. In international laws as well as civil laws, no one can take from what is recognized to be yours without your consent. It is from this same reason that Turkey forces Armenians to drop their land claims over Turkey to start relations, because Turkey knows that while its predecessors signed a Treaty recognizing the existence of Armenia, Armenia never signed to recognize its lands taken away. It is like me deciding to sign papers taken away your properties without your consent. As for the League of Nations, please check when it was founded and when the conference was actually held. The League attempted to work on the formation of an Armenian nation even while Armenia was in the confederation and that it had to deal with the Armenian refugees, they did not recognize and refused to recognize it as part of Azerbaijan when the British without agreeing with the others in the allied side have taken the decision to place it temporarily under Azerbaijani jurisdiction in hope to get their Azeris version of the Chestler concession.
As for your quotes from Lynch, I don’t see what you are trying to show me there, and I don’t see how from it we could conclude that De Jure apply, it is a legal term, and until Azerbaijan refuse to accept the Karabakh government to participate in the negotiations and defend its position by legal grounds(as it attempted to do before Azerbaijan closed the doors and refused it to be part), there is no way to know where the de Jure claim apply. Fad (ix) 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Goltz’s track record that you have provided only proves that he is a reputable journalist. I would like to see any proof of him being involved in creating the article I was referring to.
I have sometimes difficulties with understanding your writing, sorry. I mean, phrases like he agreed to make of Karabakh an independent republic, even with greater independence than Nakhichevan are open for various interpretations. So you meant to say by that that he wanted to make NK an autonomous republic within Azerbaijan like Nakhichevan? OK.
As for Armenian SSR recognition or not recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan SSR, of course it did recognize it as part of Azerbaijan. Both countries were part of the USSR, the borders of the republics were defined by the Soviet Constitution, and Armenia accepted it. Then again this League of nation thing, which is really irrelevant, because both countries were made Soviet republics, and the world accepted and recognized this fact. So whatever their reaction was doesn’t really matter, since Soviet rule created new legal realities. But I must note that you did not make any reference to any source in support of your statements about League of Nations. As for de-jure status, not only BBC, but many other sources also use this word to describe the status of the region. For example:
Karabakh must remain de jure in Azerbaijan, in accordance with the principle of the territorial integrity of states and the inadmissibility of changing borders unilaterally through the use of force. [19]
Nagorno-Karabakh is de jure a part of Azerbaijan, but is de facto controlled by Armenian forces, from both Nagorno-Karabakh itself and Armenia proper. [20]
Even an Armenian analyst refers to the status of Nagorno-Karabakh as "de facto independent state-de jure part of Azerbaijan". [21]
Regards, Grandmaster 11:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I never said that he had a role, on the other hand his position has influenced the press in UK.
Comming to legality, you are wrong. According to the Soviet Laws Karabakh became independent because it has used the same legal means instored by the Soviet Union to brake as an indepedent republic as Azerbaijan did. Furthermore, while Azerbaijan accepted Karabakh as part of Armenia, Armenia did not, you are wrong about the constitution, when a federation does not exist, you can not rely on its existance to apply its laws, for this reason you can not clame in any way that Armenia ever recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, while it was recognized part of its own territory by all the parties involved. Karabakh legally speaking should be independent [22] but is officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan. You rely on articles to establish a written on stone fact, which is against Wikipedia policies, just the fact that I can argument and present records supporting a de jure not accepted(and NOT an original research), shows clearly that de Jure certainly does not apply. Also, I ask again, why should Karabakh not have the same introduction as other similar articles? Fad (ix) 18:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Soviet laws don’t secure the independence. The countries of the former USSR became independent not because Soviet laws supported their independence, but because USSR ceased to exist. Since it was a federation of 15 countries, each of them became independent within the Soviet time borders. This fact was accepted by the international community. If Karabakh used the same legal means as Azerbaijan to become independent, why its independence is not recognized by anyone, while Azerbaijan is recognized as an independent state? I find your source pretty biased and really wonder who sponsors these guys, but since we don’t check the sources I agree that there can be various views on this subject, like on any other. You probably know the popular saying about opinions being like a certain part of human body and that everybody has one. It’s hard to find a point that is not disputed in this conflict. In opinion of these guys Karabakh should be independent, but in reality its not, and international organizations and leading countries of the world support territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Most of reputable sources use the words de-jure, formally or legally part of Azerbaijan to describe the status of NK. Since de-jure is used by such reputable sources like BBC, I don’t see why we can’t use it as well. Grandmaster 13:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is where you are wrong, most sources that use the term 'de jure' claim that Karabakh is not de jure independent, which is not to be equaled with de jure part of Azerbaijan. As I said, this term means legally, and Azerbaijan always refused to take part with Karabakh on a mediation about whatever or not legally speaking Karabakh should be independent because it knows that it will lose Karabakh from this process. That there are legal grounds to make Karabakh an independent republic clearly shows that the term de jure as an established fact can not be included there. Again, see my proposition, and you'll see that there is no such terms. Fad (ix) 19:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Most of sources that use this term claim that NK is a de-jure part of Azerbaijan. This is the latest article from BBC [23]: Nagorno-Karabakh is legally part of Azerbaijan but has been controlled by Armenians since a war of 1988 to 1994. Indeed, since it was recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and international laws and conventions provide for inviolability of international borders, it is legally part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 06:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
You are simply making this up and you know it. Most claim that Karabakh is not de jure independent, not be be confounded with de Jure part of Azerbaijan. They claim that it is officially part of Azerbaijan, or that it is an enclave within Azerbaijan, de jure is a strong legal word. Also, again BBC, as I said, the BBC doesn't establish a truth.
Just for comparaison, Agence France Presse in its covering of the same situation writes this about the statue of Karabakh.
Le Nagorny Karabakh est une enclave arménienne qui a fait sécession de l'Azerbaïdjan à l'issue d'un conflit qui a fait près de 25.000 morts et des centaines de milliers de déplacés, entre 1988 et 1994.
It says that Karabakh is an Armenian enclave which separated itself from Azerbaijan and present the land as disputed, even Universalis in its map of the region highline Karabakh. The French press is very different than in the British press and respect a more neutral language, and the CIA text that I have posted about the enclave nature of the region is in the middle right side(more closer to a French interpretation of things than British), but you don't even accept the type of language the CIA maintains.
Making up what? I cited a number of sources that said that NK is a de-jure part of Azerbaijan. You say that they say that NK is not de-jure independent, so what even if they say so? If its not de-jure independent, it is de-jure part of Azerbaijan. It’s never been internationally recognized with any other status. Also, the article on Abkhazia to which you were also referring says it is formally an autonomous republic within Georgia, but as I said our case is different. NK currently does not have any formal status within Azerbaijan. Enclave is also not an accurate description, enclave is normally a part of a state, surrounded by the territory of another state. As for your files, there’s no indication that these files reflect position of CIA. It is not clear who wrote them. Grandmaster 08:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
WHAT??? Are you testing how far you can stire this up? I repeat, this time I hope for the last time. I already ADMITTED that Karabakh is officially part of Azerbaijan. But officially does not necessarly equal to DE JURE. What part of this do you not understand? You claimed that most sources say that it is de jure part of Azerbaijan, and to this I have answered that you are making this up. The term de jure is a legal term and in a disputed territory people prefer to not use it. Secondly, I was NOT talking about CIA files I have posted, but rather this one [24] for the official entry for Azerbaijan, in which the term enclave is clearly mentioned. In fact, the term enclave is used generally to refer to the region while you refuse its inclusion, on the other hand you accept the term de jure, when it is not used that often. -Fad(ix)
The words officially recognized sound not accurate to me. How can something be internationally officially recognized without legal consequences? And also with regard to the legal grounds of separation of NK from Azerbiajan, this is from CoE file:
The Armenian side maintains that the N-K independence referendum was conducted in accordance with the USSR law on the “Procedure for Solving Issues of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR" of 3 April 1990. Article 3 of this law provided autonomous regions within the Soviet republics with the right to determine independently, by referendum, whether they wished to remain within the USSR or join the republic seceding from the USSR. It would however seem that according to this law N-K would have the choice of two options – to remain within the USSR or to join independent Azerbaijan; N-K independence does not seem possible. [25]Grandmaster 14:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Karabakh was never part of an independent Azeris republic, the separation revert to either official positions or de Jure previous to the Soviet drawn borders. You can consult any documents to that effect. De Jure in a conflictual territory is not used. Again, I repeat, the term enclave is used very often, you refused because you establish what you consider a truth and judge from what you have established as truth to permit what to include, on the other hand you accept a term that the majority don't even use. I'd qualify this as double standard. Not only you can't make any compromise but you even want included concepts not used. -Fadix


Ok, I spent an hour reading the discussion that I had missed since Tabib's edit. Grandmaster, you simply have no proof that as a matter of undisputable fact NK is de jure part of Azerbaijan--and if you can't prove it as a fact, it doesn't go as a fact on Wikipedia. And you can't have any such proof--all your sources are opinions, and in Wikipedia, we never assert opinions (WP:NPOV). I don't care if most sources say "de jure part of Az," you put that in the International Status section and you put it as an opinion, not as an assertion. De jure means under the law, and here we have no governing law, and all your professors' and scholars' and politicians' comments are by definition an interpretation of the law, which is also by definition an opinion.

You are basing your arguments on several statements that you simply can't prove. For example:

since it was recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and international laws and conventions provide for inviolability of international borders, it is legally part of Azerbaijan

You don't know this as you are not the ultimate authority on international law. Just because it was part of Azerbaijan in USSR doesn't mean it's part of Azerbaijan now. For example, there are legal experts that say that under USSR law, if Azerbaijan got independent, NK got independent too, which makes NK's independence legal, and its status legal. (http://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf) Both your and my interpretations are just that--interpretations and can't be stated as fact in the intro. Also, another assumption of yours:

UN Security Council resolutions are international recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan

You don't know that--UNSC is one body, and in fact it's only a part of UN--you don't know that a mention in a UNSC resolution means "international recognition." It's your opinion, and here, we state facts as facts, and opinions as opinions. Also:

especially considering that nobody recognized independence or annexation of Karabakh by Armenia

Again, you don't know that this means "de jure part of Azerbaijan." Just because it's not recognized as de jure independent doesn't mean it's legally part of Azerbaijan. It could be in a legal twilight zone, with several legal principles (territorial integrity/self-determination/USSR law on sessation/NK declaring ind. before Azerb. was recognized) coming into play. Same with your quotes.

Lynches article also explains that de facto state has no judicial status in the international arena. The de facto state has no judicial right to claim a certain territory, as this land already is part of a recognised state.

I don't care who Lynch is, his opinion is not the truth. You can put his opinion there, and I can put the New England legal analysis, and that's fine, as long as we put opinions. Let's take a look at some of your other quotes:

Karabakh must remain de jure in Azerbaijan, in accordance with the principle of the territorial integrity of states and the inadmissibility of changing borders unilaterally through the use of force. [26]

Actually, this was an article in the Middle East Policy Journal by two professors, and the quote is part of their "framework for a negotiated settlement." Moreover, it doesnt' necessarily say that NK is now de jure part of Azerbaijan. "remain de jure in Azerbaijan," as part of their plan, could mean "remain" not with respect to the current legal status, but the legal status prior to 1988. So they say "keep it as it was in 1988," and not necessarily "now it's legally part of Az."

Another quote:

Nagorno-Karabakh is de jure a part of Azerbaijan, but is de facto controlled by Armenian forces, from both Nagorno-Karabakh itself and Armenia proper. [27]

seeurope is a business-related site launched by some "Bulgaria Economic Forum." I don't know who they are, their opinion is not fact for me or for Wikipedia.

Let's take a look at your "Armenian analyst."

The status of Nagorno-Karabakh as "de facto independent state-de jure part of Azerbaijan" no longer constitutes a major problem and a remaining hurdle in the peace process is the issue of land corridors.. [28]

First, Tigran Martirosyan is not an analyst, this article was published in a journal called "CENTRAL ASIA - CAUCASUS ANALYST." Second, I don't care if he is Armenian, his opinion is not fact, there are many Armenian analyst (I have cited some earlier) who say that legally NKR is not part of Azerbaijan. Third, he put the expression in quotation marks, which tells me he is using the term cautiously, giving an "approximate terminology" not intended to be a legal characterization. Again, this does not establish as a matter of fact that NK is de jure part of Azerbaijan.

We need to guide ourselves with the guidelines formulated in the NPOV policy and the NPOV Tutorial. The guidelines are formulated in its "Jerusalem" paragraph:

As a political example, take the status of Jerusalem. The government of Israel considers it to be that nation's capital, but many other governments do not, and have gone so far as to place their embassies elsewhere. Disagreement about what city is the capital of Israel caused heated arguments on Wikipedia. But the facts as stated above were ones that all could agree on. The solution? Stick to the facts

Same here--we don't put interpretations as facts, we put them as opinions. "So and so says NK's status is so and so" is indisputable fact, and we can stick to them. That's what the "internatioal status" section is for.

For the "self-proclaimed" part. I don't care what Atkinson says, just because a term is legit for him, doesn't mean it's legit for Wikipedia. He is not governed under the same rules as Wikipedia (NPOV, no nonsensical words etc.). There are numerous stupid words used by politicians, doesn't mean we use them. Bush says "nukelar," doesn't mean we put it that way. There are many words that may be legit in the outside world, but are forbidden in Wikipedia for a variety of reasons (such as "alleged," "claim") To maintain good style and neutral tone in Wikipedia, we shouldn't use "self-declared," because it's redundant and silly--any state declares itself. What we mean is "unrecognized," and we already use that term in the intro, and there is no reason to repeat it (actually repetition violates NPOV).

Finally, it's way too early for Arbitration, we havn't even gotten to Mediation. What Francis and Mikka did was informal guidiance. Under the Dispute Resolution rules (WP:DR), we first need to use "extensive" and "prolonged" discussion in "good-faith" before moving forward. And "moving forward" doesn't mean mediation, there are a number of other steps--surveys, polls, RFC, third party opinion, informal mediation--that all must be followed before going into formal mediation and then Arbitration. I don't think we need to even attempt that, as the Wiki policies are clear on interpretations and facts--we never assert interpretations or opinions.--TigranTheGreat 07:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, to strictly abide by the Wikipedia rules, I think we shouldn't even say "officially part of Azerbaijan. My proposal would be

Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed region in the South Caucasus. It is an enclave lying inside the official borders of Azerbaijan and is de facto independent, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku.

Here is Fadix' proposal:

Nagorno-Karabakh is an autonomous region, officially an enclave of Azerbaijan but de facto independent, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku.

Now, I am nitpicky, and Fadix' approach is more "let's be more reasonable, let's do what others say etc." To come to a final resolution, I may agree to Fadix' approach, if that is preferred. Therefore, I want to ask (including Fadix and Eupator), which version (of the 2 above) is more preferable.--TigranTheGreat 07:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t find any of these versions acceptable and suggest to try dispute resolution under the corrsponding procedure. Grandmaster 07:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to do better than that. Wiki rules are clear that we don't assert views, we report and attribute them.

  • throughout the above discussion, none of your sources state that NK is de jure part of Azerbaijan.
  • They say it's not de jure independent. You are making the mental leap that "not de jure independent means de jure part of Az," ignoring alternative views that perhaps its de jure in the twilight zone. Under NPOV rules, we are not allowed to make mental leaps (i.e. interpretations) and report them as facts. We report them as views (among others). Plus you are not qualified to make that mental leap first place, not being an expert in international law.
  • Your BBC article makes such mental leap by saying "its legally part of Azerbaijan"--it makes its own legal interpretation. Fine, we report them as its view, in the International status section (as I did).

In the intro, we stick to facts, and let the readers draw their own conclusions. That's the basis of NPOV policies.--TigranTheGreat 01:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

New edits

The new edit to the article states:

The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world, however this issue is one of the negotiation points between Armenia and Azerbaijan as the countries search for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

What is the negotiation point between Armenia and Azerbaijan? Recognition of the sovereign status by international organizations and countries of world? How can this be discussed between two countries? I’m removing this for the moment, if we need to add a line about negotiations between the two parties, it should be better formulated. Grandmaster 07:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of deletion, the wording could be improved quite easily by moving "key points of negotiation" after "status" and before "not recognized":

NKR's soverign status, which is one of the key negotiation points between Armenia and Azerbaijan, is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world.

That this is the key point in the negotiations is stated in most analyses of the conflict, including the one cited in the article:

The sticking points were the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh and whether Armenian forces would withdraw from the border town of Kelbajar (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021101632.html)--TigranTheGreat 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Azerbaijan does not discuss sovereign status of NK, it discusses its status within Azerbaijan. It makes difference. Grandmaster 07:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does. In the 2001 Key West negotiations Aliyev offered to give up de jure Azeri soverignty over NK. This was even in your De Waal book:

Алиев предложил важнейшие уступки по самому чувствительному вопросу, а именно по поводу статуса Нагорного Карабаха. "Он, в сущности, предложил, чтобы Карабах стал частью Армении", - сказал один чиновник, участвовавший в переговорах.
Aliev offered the most important concessions on the very sensitive issue--namely, the issue of the status of NK. "In essense, he offered that Karabakh be part of Armenia,"--said one man participating in the negotiations. [29]

So the issue is not off limits. At any rate, NK doesn't want to hear about being inside Az, Az may not want to hear about giving up NK--that's the whole point of negotiations. The fact that NK offers the soverignty and Az rejects it means that it's one of the key points of negotiations. Putting that inside the intro sentence makes it brief, clean, without the need to prolong it with an extra sentence. --TigranTheGreat 00:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Aliyev officially denied that. Azerbaijan is not considering sovereign status of NK, that’s the official position of Azerbaijan. You push your POV again. I added that the countries hold talks with mediation of Minks Group and discuss possible status of the region, that’s quite NPO. Grandmaster 07:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

De Waal was chosen by you as a source, you have used him, so if you believe him, you should believe when he says "Aliyev offered to give up the Azeri soverignty over NK" Plus, even if Azerbaijan refuses to discuss NK's soverign status, the fact that Arm presents the issue, means it's part of negotiations. If both sides agreed to either inclusion or exclusion of the issue, then it would not be part of negotiations. You try to make it sound as if Armenia has given up the issue of NK's independence from Azerbaijan, which is clearly false. Now, your version makes the intro disjointed, shifting the focus of the intro from soverign status to negotiations--the intro talks about soverign status of NK, and adding "which is part of negotiations" makes it brief, and the transition smooth. --TigranTheGreat 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

More on "Weapons Delivery"

The following statement by Radionov about Russia giving Armenia weapons in 1994-96 (after Rokhlin's claims regarding 1993-96) is irrelevant:

Russian Minister of Defense Igor Rodionov in his letter to Aman Tuleyev, Minister of cooperation with CIS countries, said a Defense Ministry commission had determined that a large quantity of Russian weapons, including 84 T-72 tanks and 50 armored personnel carriers, were illegally transferred to Armenia in 1994 – 96 for free and without authorization by the Russian government

The time segment referred to by Radionov is after the Karabakh war, so it has no relevance here. It only confirms those parts of Rokhlin's claims that refer to the period irrelevant for this article. It's also misleading, since the paragraph in the article concludes that "the weapons played crucial role in Armenian victory"--obviously weapons in 1994-96 couldn't play vital role in Armenian victory.

Interestingly, Radionov's statement uses the range 1994-96 and "the last 2 years" interchangably ([30], [31], these links were provided by Grandmaster). The statement was made in march 1997, so last 2 years would be 1995-97. I guess 1994-96 means end of 1994 till 1996. At any rate, this "confirmation" is not relevant here.

Also, it's important to add (in addition to Rokhlin's death in "unknown circumstances") that his claims were turned down by the Russian Duma, and that Rokhlin was considered lobbyist for Azeri interests (this is from the article provided by Grandmaster during the whole Staravoitova debate):

в апреле 1997 года благодаря усилиям именно Г.Старовойтовой, Н.Рыжкова и некоторых других депутатов, после дебатов в Государственной думе РФ, был фактически закрыт так называемый вопрос о "незаконных поставках оружия Армении на сумму более чем в 1 млрд долларов США", который был вынесен в повестку дня председателем одного парламентских комитетов генералом Л.Рохлиным. Последний, как известно, открыто лоббировал интересы Азербайджана.

In April 1997, thanks to efforts of G. Staravoitova, N. Rizhkov and a few other deputees, after debates in the State Duma of Russian Federation, the so called question of "illegal delivery of weapons to Armenia in the amount of over 1 bln US dollars" was factually closed, which was presented to the agenda by the head of one of the parliamentary committees, general L. Rokhlin. The latter, as is known, openly lobbied for the interests of Azerbaijan.

[32]. Noyan Tapan (Noah's Ark/Noev Kovcheg) news agency, Davit Petrosyan, 11.4.01.--TigranTheGreat 03:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It was Armenian lobbyists like Starovoytova and Rizhkov, who claimed that Rokhlin was lobbying for Azerbaijan. No one else did. Rodionov’s statement is important for the situation, it partially officially confirmed the claims of Rokhlin, so it is important to show that. Plus it has relation to the current situation. Grandmaster 07:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
They are Russians, if they accused him of being an Azeri lobbyist than that is good enough. According to which Russians are Rizhkov and Staravoytova Armenian lobbyists? You are starting a revert war again. I'm going to re-add all the info you removed.--Eupator 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Read your own source. It’s Petrosyan who thinks he was lobbyist for Azerbaijan. So you should say that an Armenian journalist thinks that Rokhlin was Azerbaijani lobbyist. Grandmaster 16:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The latter, as is known, openly lobbied for the interests of Azerbaijan. It is known to unidentified sources that he lobbied the interests of Azerbaijan. Very compelling proof. Grandmaster 16:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
WOW, I can't believe I didn't pay attention to those dates (94-96). That line was clearly missleading and was placed there with mischievous aims. Good catch my philhellene son in law.--Eupator 03:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, if you actually read the edits that I made before your hasty reversion, you would see that the information was well attributed to the Armenian side and sourced. Besides providing sources, my edits are well explained and obvious attempts to make the wording NPOV. In the process you even reverted an edit made by another user (Skinsmoke). Clearly, you didn't even read those edits. Wholesale reversion of entire edits with sourced information without reading it borders on vandalism--it's bad faith, it shows that you you are reverting not because of problems with the content, but just for the sake of reverting it. I never make entire reversions to your edits--I am careful to leave the words that I have no problems with, and modify the POV portions. You must do the same. If you got problems with the content, read the edits, see which parts you disagree with, and explain it here. I didn't expect this from you. Whatever problems you got with me from the Nakhichevan mediation, lose it.

By the way, the whole "de jure" thing was introduced by Tabib who didn't even participate in the discussions and just changed a wording established by a neutral editor (Codex), so there is no need for you to take his obviously POV addition so personally. Mind you, I am not excluding the de jure information, I am putting it as a view where it belongs. None of your sources establish it as a fact, they are opinions. If you got problems, go up, and discuss it.

As for the weapons--after-the-war delivery of weapons has no relevance to the war in Karabakh and especially to the paragraph which states that "it contributed to the victory of Armenians." We don't add information that's relevant to something contained in the article, we add info that's relevant to the article itself. Otherwise, we could add Rokhlin's penis size (after all, we mention Rokhlin, and it's relevant for him).--TigranTheGreat 00:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Weapons supply has relevance to the conflict, even after ceasefire the conflict is still not resolved, and it shows how certain forces are trying to change the balance in the region, plus it is important that Russian authorities officially confirmed a part of weapons supplied. Stop removing that info, you yourself agreed to its inclusion, when we were discussing this part. The issue has never been officially closed, it’s still open to this day, Russian authorities simply don’t want to investigate it any further, but that’s a different thing. As for weapons contributing to victory, that’s the opinion of western intelligence, and is clearly attributed. As for the intro, your version is more POV than anything there was before, and I’m going to replace it with the existing version until we agree on something else. I already suggested trying dispute resolution. Grandmaster 06:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Eupator, why are you removing Washington Times citation? It is a source that should be included. We don’t judge, we just report, remember? WT basically says that Western intelligence sources confirm Rokhlin’s claims. Grandmaster 20:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Because the alleged weapons delivery was after the war was won already. I want to see the exact quote by Washington Times with the link in your reply here.--Eupator 20:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Rokhlin claimed the weapons were supplied in 1993 – 1996. Rodionov confirmed part of his claims, apparently because he was afraid of diplomatic scandal. See below the beginning of the article, I can e-mail it to you in full.
Russia secretly has shipped more than $1 billion worth of arms to Armenia, apparently to be used against pro-Western Azerbaijan and to force the Azeris and their strategic oil reserves into Russia's orbit.
Aman Tuleyev, minister for relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States, has acknowledged that Moscow supplied Armenia with 84 T-72 main battle tanks, 72 heavy howitzers, 24 Scud missiles with eight launchers, 50 armored personnel carriers and millions of rounds of ammunition.
Lev Rokhlin, the chairman of the Defense Committee of the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, told a closed Duma session April 2 that Moscow had shipped $1 billion worth of weapons to the tough, nationalist government of President Levon Ter-Petrosian in Yerevan. His report was similar to Mr. Tuleyev's acknowledgment.
Between 1992 and early 1994, when the conflict was at its height, Russian heavy transport aircraft were said to have ferried 1,300 tons of ammunition across the Caucasus to the Armenian capital. Most of the tanks were flown in aboard giant Antonov planes from the city of Akhtubinsk.
The Azeris say Russia also supplied 1,000 hand-fired Strela-2 and Strela-3 anti-aircraft missiles, which were moved by ship across the Caspian Sea, then sent overland through Iran to Armenia. Iran has denied playing any role.
Western intelligence sources said the weapons played a crucial role in Armenia's seizure of large areas of Azerbaijan, which created a million refugees, more than from any other conflict in Europe since World War II.
Although Russia's military support for Armenia in its long conflict with Azerbaijan has been well-known, the extent of the arms transfers came as a surprise. Grandmaster 20:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Excerpts from Rokhlin’s speech in Duma [33]:
From August 1992 through January 1994, 66 Il-76 flights and 2 An-12 flights airlifted around 1,300 tonnes of ammunition from Mozdok Airfield to Yerevan.
I will remind you that air deliveries of ammunition from Mozdok to Armenia began in late 1992.
I would like to quote one of the documents as an example. This is a letter from Republic of Armenia Minister of Defense Sarkisyan to Minister of Defense Grachev of 2 November 1993: Dear Pavel Sergeyevich! Considering existing difficulties in restoring armored equipment of the Republic of Armenia Armed Forces, I ask you to give assistance in procuring spare parts in accordance with the enclosure. I guarantee payment. And Grachev's resolution of 4 November 1993: "I authorize sale in accordance with the established procedure."
So we should correct that He had claimed that munitions (worth 1 bil. US dollars) had been illegally transferred to Armenia during 1992-1996. Also note that Russian officials never denied Rokhlin’s claims, and he was soon killed in very strange circumstances. Grandmaster 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


No we shouldn't. Your source (nisat) says 93-96. In the WT, it never says Rokhlin said 92-94. In fact it doesn't give dates to Rokhlin's claims. Rodionov's claims are still irrelevant. You are trying to say the weapons are used in NK now. It's still problematic. Rodionov doesn't say in his claims that they were used in NK (after the war that is). So it's irrelevant for this article. Whatever is given to Armenia after the war is irrelevant to NK, unless you can show a link. I am sure Turkey now gives economic assistance to Azebaijan, which Az. *may* use to fund a future war against NK. Again, without establishing the connection, that would be irrelevant too.

By the way, I never agreed to the contents of the paragraph, I only told you to make it as NPOV as you can, and then we will edit more if needed. I actually told you that "Exposed" was POV, you ignored it, I ignored that you ignored it until I had time to read your sources. Now I do, there are POV problems, and they need to be addressed. As for intro, my version would be POV if it said "NK is not part of Azerbaijan," which is my POV. It doesn't say it, it states the basic facts. You try to put your POV (de jure part of). Until there is agreement, it needs to be in the least POV form, which is my version (or the one suggested by Fadix). Readers dont' need to suffer from a POV article while we are talking about it.--TigranTheGreat 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you take the time to read the citations from NISAT file just above your posting, you’ll see that Rokhlin claimed that the weapons were supplied in 1992 – 1996. You didn’t even read it, did you? You just argue for the argument’s sake. Rodionov’s statement is extremely relevant, first, because he officially confirms part of Rokhlin’s claims, and second, because the conflict is not resolved to this day and supply of weapons to the conflict zone is intended to change the military balance in the region. It should definitely be reflected in the article, and I won’t agree to deletion of this info. And note, Western intelligence actually confirms Rokhlin’s claims. So leave it alone. Grandmaster 13:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

According to an excerpt from Thomas de Waal's book, Lev Rokhlin states "most of the heavier weaponry in the operation had been sent to Armenia only when the fighting had ended, in 1995-1996....From 1992 to 1994 there had been mass deliveries of ammunition from warehouses in the Russian military base at Mozdok in Armenia." Something to consider.--MarshallBagramyan 20:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, Marshal. Now, Grandmaster, I have thoroughly read the entire document, apparently you haven't. Rokhin refers to 1993-96 when he talks about the illegal sales of arm. Before 1993, it was legal, since the local Soviet military property was being divided bewteen Russians, Azeris, and Armenians (after USSR breakup). Since we are talking about the claims of illegal sales, the period starts with 1993, and that's what must go in the article:

Thus,after the [property] division any kind of mutual claims by Russia and Armenia in matters of arms ownership are precluded as of 1 January 1993. Despite this, however, in the period from 1993 through 1996 the Group of Russian Forces in the Transcaucasus transferred an enormous quantity of arms and ammunition to Armenia. [34]

Now, I totally understand that it's relevant to the "region," (your "balance of powers" argument), but not to NK. You can put it in an article about the "region" (i.e. Caucasus, in a section devoted to "How Foreign Powers try to Influence balance of powers), and we can put there how Turkey attempted overthrow of Az's government to establish more hard line government, how Turkey trained the Azeri officer who in 2003 murdered an Armenian officer at a NATO summit, how Turkey provides economic aid to Azerbaijan--all these are relevant to how foreign powers try to tip the balance in the region. But assistance to Armenia after the war--that may be connected to "region," it's not connected to NK (unless your sources state it, which they don't). The countries in the region are being influenced in variety of ways (I listed some above), but unless it's connected to NK (and Rodionov never said it would be used in NK), it must go.

As for "confirming" part of Rokhlin's claims, unfortunately for you, it "confirms" the part that's irrelevant to this article. I am tempted to remove the dates 94-96 from Rokhlin's claims too, since it's irrelevant, but I will keep it for now as it's part of Rokhlin's claims, and for the sake of compromise.

By the way, the "84 T-72 tanks and 50 armored personnel carriers" mentioned in your passage, Rokhlin makes it clear that according to his claims, those were given to Arm. in July 1996--that's 3 years after the conflict, so it's totally irrelevant, and no need to mention it.--TigranTheGreat 00:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as MarshalBaghramyan said, most of the weapons were delivered (according to Rokhlin of course, most likely all a lie) in 1995-96:

Если верить Рохлину, большинство поставок тяжелого вооружения в Армению было осуществлено уже после окончания боевых действий, то есть в 1995-1996 годах
IF we believe Rokhlin, most of the delivery of heavy weaponry to Armenia was done already after the end of military actions, i.e. 1995-96. De Waal, [35]

This should be reflected in the article.--TigranTheGreat 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct, there was a supplement of 84 T-72 tanks and 50 armored BMP-2s (1995-1996) which are the real piece of hardware that make all the difference in fighting the war and De Waal himself says "it is debatable if [Russian arms transfers] it was the primary cause of the Armenian victory in 1993-1994." Asides from this there were shipments of small arms and spare parts and fuel.--MarshallBagramyan 05:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

De Waal also says in his book:
Однако ряд поставок был осуществлен уже летом 1992 года. С августа 1992 года по июнь 1994, по утверждению Рохлина, масштабные поставки в Армению боеприпасов шли со складов российской военной базы в Моздоке. В тот же период Россия поставляла Армении запчасти и горючее. Он, правда, не уточнил, когда именно были отправлены в Армению другие виды боеприпасов, в частности 350 тысяч ручных гранат.
So Rohklin exposed the facts of supply of ammunition, spare parts for tanks, etc in 1992-94. Western intelligence says that Russian help played significant role in Armenian successes. As for the later supplies of arms to Armenia, it should also be reflected, because Armenia is a party to the conflict (otherwise why would Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents discuss Karabakh issue), and the presence of the troops of the Republic of Armenia on occupied Azerbaijani territories was confirmed by D.Atkinson in his report. So this information is more than relevant and should remain in the article. Grandmaster 06:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The weapon transfers in 1992 were not illegal. They are not part of the 1 billion transfers that your paragraph is talking about, so it should not be there. The article already talks about Russia supplying arms to both sides during the war (presumably "legally" according to agreements to divide Soviet property). By the way, you yourself changed the range from 92-94 to 93-96 after being told that Radionov's range (94-96) does not confirm 92-94. Here is the table at the end of Rokhlin's report. He is talking about January 1993-96--and the 1 billion refers to that period (the table on the site can appear garbled, depending on font and format differences of your browser)[36]:

Table of Cost of Selected Models of Combat Equipment, Arms and Military Property Transferred to Armenia (average free market prices in U.S. dollars) (Data from January 1993 Through December 1996) ... GRAND TOTAL (with transport movements and other expenses) Around 1,000,000,000

His data of "illegal transfers" of 1 billion refer to the period 1993-96. The paragraph in the article talks about those "illegal" transfers in the amount of 1 billion. We must give the proper time range.

As for Armenia being party of conflict, the conflict is over in a military sense (where weapons are relevant), Armenia is a party to the *dispute* because Azerbaijan refuses to talk to NK. So Armenia acts as proxy to Azerbaijan. Doesn't mean anything happening in Armenia are relevant to NK. Atkinson's never said Armenia put weapons (especially heavy ones) in NK, he says Armenian soldiers are stationed there. At any rate, Radionov never says the weapons were used in NK, so it's not relevant. Otherwise, we would include everything happening in Azerbaijan (including Turkey's involvement in its politics) here.--TigranTheGreat 01:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


MarshallBagramyan is right. De Waal says:

Причем, что еще больше усложняет общую картину, российская сторона продолжала помогать в это же время и Азербайджану. Так что, хотя российская военная помощь, несомненно, сыграла важную роль в преодолении отставания Армении от Азербайджана в 1992-1993 годах, еще надо доказать, стала ли эта помощь решающей предпосылкой для победы армян в 1993-1994 годах.
What makes the entire picture more complicated is that the Russian side continued to help Azerbaijan as well at that same time. So, though Russian military help, undoubtedly, played important role in overcoming Armenia's "left-behindedness" (couldn't find a better word) compared to Azerbaijan in 1992-93, it still needs to be proved whether this help was a decisive precursor for Armenians' victory in 1993-94.--TigranTheGreat 01:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is also important to add that the new post-Soviet government supplied Armenia with weaponry as a way of keeping a balance in the region. They didn't want to arm Armenia to the point where its weaponry outnumbered those of Azerbaijan's according to Boris Yeltsin and other Russian leaders. Furthermore, the claims that Armenia was heavily favored initially, are false:

Until the Soviet Union's collapse, the Kremlin tended to favor the Azeris in the conflict, largely because Azerbaijan was the last bastion of communist orthodoxy in the Caucasus. Soviet army and Interior Ministry troops alternately tried to keep the peace or assisted the Azeris in military operations. Though the Azeri government in Baku accuses Russia of helping Armenia, it is the Azeri fighters in the region who are far better equipped with Soviet military weaponry than their opponents.

TIME Magazine, 13 April 1992.--MarshallBagramyan 02:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Armenia is a party to the conflict, and arms supply to the conflicting parties are relevant to the article. Therefore this information must remain in the article. Grandmaster 08:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Here’s an interesting article about Rokhlin and Starovoytova. One of the versions that links murders of both politicians. Too long to translate, but you speak Russsian.
Версия третья, фантастическая
И, наконец, версия третья, судя по всему, самая невероятная, но, тем не менее, не отрицаемая нашими собеседниками из следственной бригады питерского УФСБ. Согласно этой версии, убийство Старовойтовой связывается с убийством депутата Госдумы Льва Рохлина, которое произошло 19 июня 1998 года, за 4 месяца до роковых выстрелов в подъезде дома Старовойтовой в Санкт-Петербурге. Но обо всем по порядку.
Любое убийство аморально, а убийство Льва Рохлина было к тому же еще и бессмысленным. Политиком генерал был никаким. Рохлин был депутатом декларативного свойства, то есть вся его публичная деятельность строилась на парадоксальных ситуациях, драматургии сенсации. Одна из последних сенсаций Рохлина - преданные им огласке подробности незаконных поставок в Армению российской военной техники. Справедливости ради отметим, что информация эта была неопровержима. Сенсация породила некоторую напряженность вокруг российско-армянских отношений и двусмысленность в истинной, а не витринной позиции Москвы в Карабахском вопросе. За долги у нас не убивают. Убивают за информацию.
Рохлина убили для того, чтобы он больше не говорил о незаконной российской военно-технической помощи Армении. Организаторы и исполнители этого преступления не могут быть схвачены или даже просто названы, поскольку Рохлина убили, скорее всего, руководствуясь иной логикой - логикой национальной безопасности Армении, для которой депутат российской Госдумы генерал Рохлин представлял реальную угрозу. Если это действительно так, можно быть уверенными: убийц никогда не найдут.
Итак, согласно третьей версии, Лев Рохлин и Галина Старовойтова стали жертвами спецоперации секретных служб другого государства, реальную угрозу безопасности которого они представляли. Рохлин в силу причин видимых, Старовойтова - неизвестных.
Связь Галины Васильевны с националистическими кругами в Армении прослеживается еще с 1987 года. Она вместе с коллегой и товарищем, бывшим замминистра иностранных дел России Федором Шеловым-Коведяевым, вплоть до середины 90-х годов при каждом удобном и неудобном случае декларировала проармянскую позицию в Карабахском вопросе, откровенно лоббировала интересы определенных кругов в Ереване и в Москве. А Шелов-Коведяев в начале 90-х даже написал широко растиражированную монографию, смысл которой сводился к тому, что территория Российской Федерации от Ростовской области и до самых границ Дагестана - родина древних армян.
Некоторые заявления этнографа Галины Васильевны Старовойтовой по поводу армяно-азербайджанского конфликта вокруг Карабаха также не отличались объективностью и, вероятно, формировались под влиянием ее армянских друзей. В этой связи полная утрата Старовойтовой интереса к армянскому вопросу бросилась в глаза наблюдавшим за ее общественно-политической деятельностью и вызвала удивление. Это, в свою очередь, могло быть связано либо с утратой Старовойтовой интереса к армянской проблематике в целом, либо с утратой интереса к Старовойтовой со стороны ее ереванских "друзей". Но, так или иначе, убитая располагала информацией, в том числе и такой, которая не должна была стать достоянием широкой общественности. Некоторые наблюдатели не исключают, что Старовойтова могла быть завербована иностранной спецслужбой, агентом влияния которой долгое время была и сотрудничество с которой резко прервала в силу неведомых нам пока причин. [37] Grandmaster 10:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I’m going to include into the article that according to this source there’s a version that Roklin was killed by Armenian intelligence. If we include the opinion of Noyan Topan that Rokhlin was an Azerbaijani lobbyist or an supported by real evidences rumor that Hattab fought in Karabakh, this one should be OK as well. Grandmaster 13:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is a party to the dispute too, doesn't mean we should put here everything that's going on in Azerbaijan. If Rodionov said the weapons were related to NK, we would include it. He didn't, so it goes out.

Your Russia source is clearly tabloid and has little reliablility. Plus, even that source states that the opinion is the "most improbable." Such conspiracy tabloid theories have no place in Wikipedia.--TigranTheGreat 12:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? How about unidentified sources saying Hattab fought in Karabakh? Noyan Tapan thinks Rokhlin was an Azerbaijani lobbyist? This is as good as those. Grandmaster 16:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Noyan Tapan is a major news agency in Armenia. Eurasianet is not a tabloid source. Investigate.ru? Come on, the whole site is filled with conspiracy theories. --TigranTheGreat 23:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Int. Status Section

According to the paper, "Where Secretariat views are given, the are clearly marked as Comment" (pg. 12), [38]. Plus, the segment on NK's legal status says "seems impossible" instead of making firm statement that it's de jure independence is impossible--it's making a remark based on the text of the law. By the way, as the footnote to that very sentence states, "References to legal texts are taken from various sources without independent check against the original legal texts - except where explicitly presented as quotations." so whether this is the view adopted by the authors or not is suspect. At any rate, in Wikipedia, we let the readers conclude if it disagrees or not, we don't impose our interpretations.

The PACE resolution never directly states "NK region of Azerbaijan," this is a basic fact that needs to be mentioned.--TigranTheGreat 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You attribute your views to them, it against the rules, I think that they confirmed NK being part of Azerbaijan. We should just cite the source and let the readers judge. Grandmaster 06:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I do no such thing. I am not saying "Res. doesn't consider it." I am saying "it doesn't state it" which is a fact, and it's not apparent from your quotes of the text. Whether it implies/means/considers, the readers will decide from the text that you added. --TigranTheGreat 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It is your POV you try to push into the article. Just cite the source and let the readers decide. Resolution claims that the region is under control of separatist forces. Separatist forces are those who try to separate a region from a country, which means that the region in question is part of the country. Don’t give your own interpretations, nobody needs them, let the reader decide. Grandmaster 13:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I do no such thing. We don't just cite the source, we provide facts and then let the readers decide. One fact is the ommission of a statement "NK, part of Azerbaijan." Readers don't need to search the entire document to find out that it's not there, we provide this basic fact, and let them decide. Now, this: "Separatist forces are those who try to separate a region from a country, which means that the region in question is part of the country" is your POV. Mine is "control under separatists" means "the region *used* to be part of the country, but now they have already separated the region from it" As you see, you are trying to push your POV, while I am not. The ommission is a fact, and that fact shall be stated.--TigranTheGreat 00:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Your “provision of facts” is simply an attempt to present your POV as a fact. I’m telling you again, just give the citation and let the readers judge, nobody needs your interpretation. Grandmaster 06:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and nobody needs your POV pushing either. I agree that we give facts and let users interpret them as well. Omission of a statement stating "NK is part of Azerbaijan" is a fact. It's important fact, since Atkinson says "NK is part of Azerbaijan," and the PACE resolution does not. I added both Atkinson's and PACE statements. We will give these facts (including the omission), and let readres decide whether to agree with your interpretation or not. I am not saying your interpretation is wrong (though I think it is), I am just saying let readers decide whether PACE is confiriming that NK is part of Az. or not.--TigranTheGreat 00:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don’t give my interpretation, you don’t need to either. Just cite the course, let the readers judge. Grandmaster 06:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see you don't know the meaning of "cite." "Cite" means giving the name of the author. Quote means actually copying the text. We never just cite or quote. Saying that PACE doesn't refer to NK as part of Azerbaijan is a fact. Wiki rules state that facts should be included. So that info should stay.--TigranTheGreat 12:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This is another point for dispute resolution. I don’t think you should include your personal comments into the text. Grandmaster 16:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the resolution does not state "NK is part of Az" is not my personal comment, it's a fact, that should be relfected in the section.--TigranTheGreat 23:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Basayev

While we don't call people terrorists ourselves in Wikipedia, we should include that Basayev is considered a terrorist. He is listed in Terrorist Knowledge base ([39]), and his terrorist career began in 1991 with Russian plane hijacking (actually his Wiki article (Shamil Basayev) states that after this late 1991 event, he participated in ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia, before moving to NK). Here is his info from TKB.

The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) is a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing terrorism on U.S. soil or mitigating its effects. MIPT was established after the April 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, and it is funded through the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Grants and Training (G&T).

By the way, TKB is perhaps the most comprehensive terrorist database, "the one-stop resource for comprehensive research and analysis on global terrorist incidents, terrorism-related court cases, and terrorist groups and leaders."(http://www.tkb.org/AboutTKB.jsp) It's funded by US Homeland Security and directed by US Congress "to conduct research into the social and political causes and effects of terrorism through our automated information systems and to serve as a national point of contact for antiterrorism information sharing among Federal, State and local agencies."

Basayev was not a terrorist when he fought in Karabakh, don’t forget to mention that. He became a terrorist after the war in Chechnya and his raid to Budennovsk, but that was later. Grandmaster 06:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
As the source clearly mentions, his terrorist career began with the Russian plane hijacking (which was late 1991). This is even on the Shamil Basayev article. He also ethnically cleansed Georgians in Abhkazia before NK, which is terrorism too (use of violance against civilians for political gain).--TigranTheGreat 22:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The introduction

Grandmaster, I hope you will have no problem that I copy your answer and past it here to answer it.

Aliyev officially denied that. Azerbaijan is not considering sovereign status of NK, that’s the official position of Azerbaijan. You push your POV again. I added that the countries hold talks with mediation of Minks Group and discuss possible status of the region, that’s quite NPO. Grandmaster 07:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't you realise that you are contradicting yourself and in infrigement of NPOV policy? How is it OK to use de jure as an established fact even if others do oppose it, including Armenia, but on the other hand the opposition of Azerbaijan of the statue of autonomous region is enought to remove that sentence?
I repeat, the statue of Karabakh was that it was an autonomous region and an enclave, this statue was recognized prior the fall of the Soviet union, but the constitution of Azerbaijan which changed the statue of Karabakh can NOT be endorsed as an established fact. The official CIA entry of Azerbaijan use the term enclave, the enclave statue of Karabakh is recognized by most as well as the statue as a disputed region. But yet, YOU REFUSE any concession that would make this article similair to what the CIA consider it, and I have given examples to you about the way the statue of Karabakh is clearly different for the French compared to the British. What you request is to present the Azerbaijani government position as endorsed by everyone to the point of making it an established fact.
But again, I will make another concession and this time it is the last one, it is now for you to make concessions.
Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed region, officially an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan but de facto independent, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku.
This is the last concession I make, it is in fact the third time I modified my own concession and it is for you now to make concessions. And be FrancisTyers witness, I am not making any more concession as this language is the most moderate more than humanly possible. Fad (ix) 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I just realised that Tigran already made a similar edit. Fad (ix) 02:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually the US State Department position, quoted by Grandmaster, says autonomous next to the region/enclave, much like the Encyclopedias quoted by you. I am copying the quote below:
US Department of State position:
The Republic of Azerbaijan is a country of great physical variety and complicated boundaries. Its territory of 33,774 square miles (about the size of Maine or Portugal), includes one autonomous region, Nagorno Karabakh (currently occupied by Armenian forces); one autonomous republic, Nakhchivan[40]
The UN resolutions etc. do not contradict this either--saying "region of" doesn't mean "no autonomy." So it is consistent with those documents. I am willing to concede to the "officially" characterization, for the sake of agreement and compatibility with the other articles (though I believe to be strictly NPOV, the other articles need to be changed too). I guess we can assume that officially means "what encyclopedias say, and the way it was on paper before the dispute started." So I think we should go with:
Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed region, officially an autonomous Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan but de facto independent, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku.--TigranTheGreat 09:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you even know what enclave means? You try to push that word into the article, but apparently you don’t realize its meaning. Enclave is a state, surrounded by the territory of another state. Since NK is not recognized as an independent state, it cannot be an enclave, simple as that. Vatican and Lesoto are enclaves, but they are independent countries, unlike NK. And no, it’s not a disputed region, there’s no such status in the world. It is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, therefore according to international laws that provide for inviolability of the international borders, it is legally part of Azerbaijan, until it is recognized with some other status. As for the autonomy, it was abolished by Azerbaijani parliament, and nobody but US department of state claims that it still is an autonomy. None of the resolutions of international organizations claim that. If you still insist on changing the current intro, I’m going to apply for official mediation (for the moment). I hope you’re OK with that, because these edit wars can’t go on forever. If you change the intro again without agreement with me, I will take it as your agreement to apply for mediation. Grandmaster 13:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Damn, I really have enought of POV pushers. Grandmaster, I WAS THE ONE who posted on this very SAME talk page the definition of the word enclave. An enclave means a state within the border of another, which is the statue of Karabakh and ONLY Azerbaijan in its constitution includes Karabakh as a region like any other regions in Azerbaijan. WHAT INTERNATIONAL LAWS??? Patiences have limits if you can not make compromises and here to push your national position you should maybe reevaluate your participation in Wikipedia. Legally CAN NOT be used in a disputed territory, by nature a disputed territories statue IS DISPUTED. Even the recent BBC article, which contradicts itself uses the term DISPUTED. I repeat, which nation recognized simply as a territory of another, like any regions of that country(in this cases Azerbaijan) recieves its own aid packages and its own international loans? WHICH ONE? Give me just ONE EXEMPLE of such a region which is neither an enclave, neither an autonomous region but simply like any other ones in a country? Will the World Bank allow another region of Azerbaijan that has no particular different statue to recieve loans? Do you even know how many other regions that the United states sent aid packages independently from others to manage? This is a recognition of the administrative power in places, by the World Bank and countries such as the United States. The enclave nature is disputed only by Azerbaijan because it changed the statue, a change as much recognized as the republic of Karabakh. [41], [42], just search the words Karabakh and enclave and compare with a search with de jure and Karabakh, which is most of the time used to clarify that Karabakh is not de jure recognized to NOT be equaled with de jure part of Azerbaijan.
And lastly, be othet editors witnness of this, three times I have made compromises and made of that section as much moderate as possible, while you are here for a revert war, I appologise, but I am not the man for revert wars... push a national POV but then, don't wonder why others will get angry and all discussions will be fruitless. Fad (ix) 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


A few mistakes mistakes in your argument, Grandmaster

  • Enclave doesn't necessarily mean an internationally recognized independent state, it means "A distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enclave). So it's a valid term (and quite useful, in clarifying the geography), so it needs to be there.
  • Armenia and NK dispute that it's part of Az, so it is disputed. Simple as that. Plus, there is a "dispute" that needs to be "resolved," as stated over and over even in the PACE and COE documents. So it is an accurate statement.
  • The "abolition" of autonomy by Azerbaijan was illegal, as it violates right of self determination already given to a group (Milosevic tried to do that with Kosovo, the int. community didn't like it, we all know the rest of the story). Your source (US dept's of state) and encyclopedias quoted by Fadix use the term, so it's ok to use. UNSC resolutions do not deny this fact--just because they don't mention it, doesn't mean its' not there. They are consistend with the sources stating "autonomy." We can add "officially" qualifier to "autonomous."

The following are your interpretations, hence your POV, and can't be asserted as facts

  • GM:It is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan,: You don't know that. It is not recognized as independent, your interpretation that "this means it's part of Az" is yours, and it goes as POV in the relevant section.
  • GM:therefore according to international laws that provide for inviolability of the international borders, it is legally part of Azerbaijan: You are not international lawyer to make this kind of argument. Plus, it's your POV. Mine is--accordign to international laws that provide for self determination, it's not part of Az. According to USSR laws on sessetion which are applicable under Int. law in case of a breakup of USSR, NK is not part of Az, since it seceded before Az's independence. Your POV, my POV--not facts, they go to Int. Status section. Indisputed facts go to intro.

You will not apply for official mediation, you are not entitled to apply for official mediation as of yet, if you attempt to do so, I will demand that it not happen. You must go through well established steps first--prolonged negotiations (which means not ignoring discussions), current surveys, polling, RFC, unofficial mediation (WP:DR). Before those, we should ask for opinions of others involved on this page, who have been quiet lately (I suppose not to tip the balance from one side to another with their opinions)--Francis, Mikkalai, Khoikhoi. Eupator too.--TigranTheGreat 00:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you cite a source, do it properly, Tigran. Don’t select parts of it that suit your POV. The proper citation is here:
1. A country or part of a country lying wholly within the boundaries of another.
2. A distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit: ethnic enclaves in a large city. [43]
"Distinctly bounded areas" relates to places like ghettos in the cities, etc. It cannot be applied to NK. Plus, there’s meaning # 1, so by including the word enclave we are simply misleading the readers. There are only 3 enclave states in the world: Vatican, Lesoto and San-Marino. NK is not one of them, it’s never been internationally recognized. And "disputed region" is not an international term, there’s no such status. UN never referred to NK as a disputed region, and confirmed the inviolability of Azerbaijan’s borders. Also see this with regard to inviolability of international borders:
Reaffirmation of Principles of International Law
The Security Council resolutions refer to principles of international law which must guide any solution of the conflict, such as the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, which were reaffirmed for both Georgia and Azerbaijan. The resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh involve, however, two elements which are absent from the resolutions on Abkhazia:
1. after the sentence relating to the reaffirmation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the following phrase was added: "and of all other States in the region";
2. the affirmation of the principles of the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory - both of which may be deduced from the two above-mentioned principles. These differences - which were probably politically motivated - had no legal consequences for the affirmation of the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Azerbaijan or Georgia.(23) In both cases, these principles of international law prescribe that any solution of current disputes and any territorial change must be freely accepted by the legal representatives of these countries. Consequently, neither Nagorno-Karabakh nor Abkhazia can be recognized as independent States without the consent of the Azeri and Georgian authorities respectively. [44] Grandmaster 05:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I always site my sources properly and include what is relevant. You, on the other hand, selectively choose misleading quotes to push your POV, such as in NISAT article or other occasions. There is nothing in the definition of "enclave:" (A distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit) that limits it to a ghetto. It perfectly applies to NK--it's distinctly bounded, and is enclosed withing Azerbaijan (a larger unit). The 1st definition (as a state) is irrelevant here--it's not the only definition. If you are worried about people thinking of 1st definition instead of 2nd, we are making it clear in the intro that NK is unrecognized.

As for "disputed region" not being international term, we don't include "international terms" in the intro (whatever that means), we include factual terms. NK and Armenia dispute the status, the term "dispute" fills the resolutions (PACE, COE etc), so it's factually accurate. I didn't find your quote in the source you provided, plus it's an opinion anyway, and not fact. Just because Un resolutions don't call it a disputed region, doesn't mean it isn't--they don't refer to Azerbaijan as "Southern Caucasus state," doesn't mean your country is in Alaska. As for confirming inviolability of Azerbaijan's borders--they are talking about the areas liberated by Armenians outside NK. They never made any resolution while Armenians were liberating NK itself. By the way, Armenian too respects Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. According to Armenia, Azerbaijan's territory does not include NK.--TigranTheGreat 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The definition of enclave gives examples of such bounded areas, which you preferred to omit. And if UN refers to NK as a region of Azerbaijan, inviolability of borders applies to it as well. And Armenian position about NK not being part of Azerbaijan is simply laughable, no one in the whole world shares it, and Atkinson confirmed once again that Azerbaijan was internationally recognized with NK as its part. We should definitely try dispute resolution, I see no other way out. Grandmaster 11:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The Enclave statue is NOT legal proper, a de facto is alone enought for it to be applicable by definition, an enclaved territory IS an enclave, all my dictionnaries includes such a definition. French ones for the same term, 'enclave' are all the very same, and the word enclave DERIVES and is etymologically FRENCH which comes from Enclaver. Nearly all Western newspapers use it and governmental publications including the USA. You are simply a POV pusher there and think that a formal mediation is not a big deal taking it as a grant of salt. Maybe should I then change the Armenian genocide entry in its introduction to something such: "The Armenian massacres are de Jure a genocide" and wait to see how quickly will it be reverted. That you don't see anything wrong with your version is clearly indicative that everytime you brag the argument of POV and NPOV you suggest understanding the concept when you don't even know what it really means yourself. And reading your talk page, I still see that you have the mentality of the US vs THEM which again is against Wikipedia community spirit. The Marriam-Webster define it as: a distinct territorial, cultural, or social unit enclosed within or as if within foreign territory
Is the land not officialy in Azerbaijan? Is it not populated by Armenians? Does it not have its own distinctive culture, have the peoples living there not de facto isolated themselves from Azerbaijan even if officialy part of that land? Is something being applicable by its entities to the definition of car, not a car? That you twist this stuff from one side or the other, Enclave is above all NOT a legal term, it define a reality and has its definition. On the other hand, de Jure is a legal term and by principe clearly open to interpretations. Fad (ix) 18:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Examples given in "Enclave" definition are only examples and not the general definition. NK fits the definition, so the word should be used. Atkinson's view is his view and not fact. Armenia's view is shared by other legal experts, including New England School of Law. And "if UN refers to NK as a region of Azerbaijan, inviolability of borders applies to it as well" is your interpretation of international law. I say self-determination applies, since Azerbaijan mistreated Armenians, and NK seceded before Azerbaijan became independent.--TigranTheGreat 12:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If a definition is open for various interpretations, it should not be used. It is better to find more appropriate words, because the primary meaning of the word enclave is a country or part of a country lying wholly within the boundaries of another. It is not applicable here, so this word should not be used. Grandmaster 16:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Words always have several definitions, this never precludes us from using them. There are 2 definitions of enclave--the paragraph makes it clear that we are using the 2nd (area enclosed in larger unit). So we should use that word.--TigranTheGreat 23:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I will be requestion formal mediation for the introduction

Grandmaster is POV pushing and there is no way other than requesting such. While he claims that he never agreed to Tigrans edit he revert back to an edit that no one beside him who participated here have agreed. This double standard in Grandmasters behavour can not be ignored anymore. Also his recent answer clearly shows that he still fail to understand what NPOV means.

  • Wikipedia does not present something as fact, unless it is a mathematical identity..., or that the position is relevant to a definition or a name agreed without opposition. Example, Baku is called Baku... Example, Enclave... it is used by its definition. Karabakh has a recognized autonomy by the World Bank and various countries in the world, the definition is either the first one or the second. Grandmaster is refusing to use a term which has a definition that applies. By comparaison it would be the same thing as claiming that a Prius is not a car (when the definition of the term car applies).
  • Grandmaster on the other hand uses a notion(not to be confused with a definition, but rather its interpretation which is completly different), an interpretation. It takes in principle an infinit numbers of evidences to establish something as a fact when it is a question of interpretation, and while I do not request that much, clearly the version that Grandmaster is editwaring and POV pushing on (and here I am not accusing him of vandalism like he is wrongly accused me in the past) present an interpretation as a fact, not only this it goes against the standards. It is clearly misleading and POV. I have in various occasion made propositions and proposed by Grandmaster will still refuse them. I am warning the ditiors here so that they know the next step to take. Fad (ix) 21:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Fadix, why don't we try the preliminary steps of resolution first, maybe first ask opinions of those involved on this board, then take a wider survey, RFC etc. It will give us a better feel of what community thinks. --TigranTheGreat 23:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Tigran believe me, I have been in Wikipedia long enought to know what will get resolved or not. When someone still revert the introduction with a version so clearly POV and that is not ready to make any compromises it is clear that for the rest of the article it is completly fruitless. I do not wish to continue there you and Grandmaster will have to discuss the matter of the mediation, since I believe that it is time for requesting a formal mediation. Good luck resolving the issue. Fad (ix) 00:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don’t mind, let’s ask for formal mediation, and not only for the intro, but all the disputes we have here. Grandmaster 06:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't mind? I propose you to check the definition of a mediation, the mediation is about compromise... your behavour is clearly against mediation, and this is where formal mediation comes in action. That I have proposed this is because you do not comprimse or discuss but rather impose your POV. And any users can read the history of edits to see how you consider that you have the last word(example, when you revert by claiming that you have not agreed with a version, while you impose a version agreed by none of the users). Fad (ix) 18:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

How about we take this to an RfC first... to get some fresh comments, if we still can't come to a consensus after that then I would suggest pursuing mediation. At least both side are willing to discuss here. :) - FrancisTyers 18:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I need your comment on this version.
Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed region, officially an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan but de facto independent, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku.
First, the disupted nature, both disputed it, and then, how it is officially recognized and finally what it is de facto, while generally the de facto precede I have compromised to get it last. Can you tell me what is the problem with this version? Fad (ix) 18:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I can't make head nor tails of either version. There are so many sources that its like going around in circles. Hopefully listing it for RfC and going through all the possible compromises methodically will help. I think we really need more input than just us five though. Feel free to fill out a "position" in the RfC. - FrancisTyers 18:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Francis, you are intelligent, know the language, are able to read, and know the rules. Which part of this version you don't understand? There are always multiple sources on any issue, this is not limitted to NK's status, it shouldn't be so hard applying the rules to available sources. And by the way, if you don't understand a version, then there is a good chance that regular readers won't either, which means the version needs to be rewritten.
Also, if RFC doesn't help, I think you should try an informal mediation before we go to a formal one--you have read the discussions, and you are familiar with stuff. What you and mikka tried before was really not mediation--it was more like "setting guidelines for discussion." --TigranTheGreat 23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, in order to make an informed opinion there is a lot of information to take in, a lot of long documents that I don't really have a lot of time to read right now, I will probably be having holidays soon, so If both sides feel like giving me a dossier of the most important papers to read I would consider doing it then. After reading all the important literature (from both sides), then I would feel comfortable enough to give an informed opinion, at the moment its something like "NK is functioning as a separate state but is considered by everyone else to be part of Azerbaijan. The legal details are murky". Unfortunately, murky is not an "encyclopaedic" word! :) I had considered removing the contentious bits and locking the page until we could come to an agreement but I think that this kind of extreme technique probably wouldn't help.
Just wish we could get on with some of the more interesting sections :) Regarding the RfC, we really need more outside opinions, I've asked a couple of people to take a look, but the more the better really. Don't solicit, but if you know people who would be interested, please let them know. - FrancisTyers 05:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Francis. Some time ago I did sort of an informal RFC on our dispute over Hattab’s involvement. I wanted to have an outside opinion on the phrase being weasel word or not, but did not know about RFC, so I posted a request for comment on the talk page of the article about weasel word use. The response I got was pretty much the same as what you said. [45] Grandmaster 06:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The point here is not that it is Weasel words, because this only applies to wording within Wikipedia. The source is an external source so we don't bother about how it is worded, as Tigran pointed out. The question of if it is a reliable source or not is another matter. I'm currently thinking about a sourcing policy for this page, if anyone has any input please let me know. :) - FrancisTyers 09:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand. It does not qualify as a weasel word since it was in a third party publication, but at the time I had doubts, that’s why I asked the editors of the weasel word policy. They told me the same thing as you did, it is not a weasel word, but the reference is not recommended for inclusion because it is not reliable. Check the link for discussion. Grandmaster 10:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I have added notes at History and geography and Politics for people to come and weigh in on this dispute.

I have also started an RfC here. - FrancisTyers 18:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If I got it right, I need to explain my position there by filling in for one of the position lines? Grandmaster 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please try and be as succinct as possible :) - FrancisTyers 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Francis. I’m glad you’re back. Can we comment on comments? Grandmaster 18:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, yeah, you should outline your position under one of the "Position" subheadings. One per user. - FrancisTyers 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I would not mind if we could archive some of the discussions here, the page takes too long to load. We can keep the most relevant parts and archive the rest. For example, positions of international community need to stay. Grandmaster 18:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Done, I was waiting, hoping for a lull, but there we are... :) - FrancisTyers 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Francis. It’s a lot better now. Grandmaster 19:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, Tigran and Eupator - could you comment on the RfC page? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nagorno-Karabakh. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 20:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Francis, may I ask why did you vote on both positions? It looks as if you support both.--TigranTheGreat 23:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I voted on both in case people didn't realise what was supposed to happen. No-one had voted so I wanted to point out in the easiest way possible. I will now remove my votes. To be honest I don't agree with either side, I think that arguing about this particular dispute is a huge waste of time. - FrancisTyers 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to RFC

I'm not going to read the whole argument on this talk page, because I don't have a week to devote to this, but what I gather is that it's considered POV to say NK is not recognized by anyone, and others say it's POV to say it is recognized. A quick look at the references cited doesn't help much; in particular, footnote #1 (in the template) implies that NK is not recognized by any country on Earth. That might be true (I don't know) but the reference cited doesn't support that claim. The source simply says that "neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan recognizes the republic’s territorial sovereignty." That's hardly the entire world.

Footnote #2 seems to indicate support for that same position, but makes no mention whatsoever of NK being officially recognized or not.

On the other hand, I don't see any sources at all indicating that it is recognized. The talks mediated by France, the U.S., etc. are between Azerbaijan and Armenia; NK wasn't separately invited, which would appear to be a conscientious move by the international community not to officially acknowledge them as sovereign.

Better sources, one way or the other, need to be cited. Good sources settle arguments all by themselves. Kafziel 18:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: I have not voted on the RFC yet, because without proper references I might as well flip a coin. Kafziel 18:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
No one here disputes it is not recognized, it isen't recognized, what I disputes is the term De Jure which does not apply.


This is my last proposition for the introduction which Grandmaster refuses.
Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed region, officially an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan but de facto independent, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku.

Fad (ix) 18:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kafziel, actually nobody has disputed the fact that NK is not recognized as an independent country by any state, including Armenia. The dispute with user Grandmaster is regarding the intro outlined by user Fadix. However, this is one among many other problems. I would like to see the "intro dispute" resolved first and foremost.--Eupator 18:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, first of all, my note that it's not supported by the references still stands.
I'm confused about the larger issue, though. If they're not recognized by anyone whatsoever, then how can "de jure" possibly be a valid connotation? If they're not recognized, then they aren't supported "by law". Clearly, de facto applies and de jure does not. But I find it hard to believe one little phrase could possibly be the subject of this much arguing. That's absurd. What's the real issue here? Kafziel 19:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There you go. Like all other unrecognized breakaway states, NK is de facto independent and officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan exercises no control over NK territory. That is all I want the intro to say. Gm is against the inclusion of the simple fact that NK is de facto independent.--Eupator 19:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I’m not against that. The word de-facto is there. But since we are stating de-facto status, we should reflect de-jure status as well. Grandmaster 20:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I support the current version. Basically, the dispute is mostly over the word de-jure, because my opponents don’t want to accept that according to international laws the region is legally part of Azerbaijan. NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan republic. UN Security Council refers to it as Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. See UN Security Council resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh. PACE resolution states that the region is under control of separatist forces and also: The Assembly reiterates that the occupation of foreign territory by a member state constitutes a grave violation of that state’s obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and reaffirms the right of displaced persons from the area of conflict to return to their homes safely and with dignity. PACE Resolution # 1416 This is the position of international community, which recognizes NK as part of Azerbaijan. None of these documents refer to NK as a disputed region, such status simply does not exist. Rapporteur David Atkinson in his report to Political Affairs Committee of PACE stated that the borders of Azerbaijan were internationally recognised at the time of the country being recognised as independent state in 1991. The territory of Azerbaijan included the Nagorno-Karabakh region. In the meantime, ethnic Armenians had established a “government” in the Nagorno-Karabkah region with its “capital” in Stepanakert (or Khankendi in Azerbaijani). This “government” is not recognised by any of the Council of Europe member states, nor by the OSCE, European Union and the United Nations. Armenia maintains close political, economic and military relations with them, but does not recognise the area as an independent state and hence has not established diplomatic relations with this “government”. [46] Also the word enclave is not applicable here, enclave is a country or part of a country lying wholly within the boundaries of another. Since NK is not a country or part of another country, it cannot be an enclave. International laws provide for inviolability of international borders, and such authoritative information service as BBC says about status of NK: de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, unilaterally declared itself an independent republic in 1991 [47]. Therefore I think that the intro should state that the region is de-jure part of Azerbaijan and the version proposed by Fadix is not acceptable. Grandmaster 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a tricky situation, as the UN obviously acknowledges. The UN is not the true and all-encompassing law of the world. As signatories, Armenia and Azerbaijan are expected to abide by the decisions of the UN, but the people of NK (those who claim sovereignty) do not consider themselves members of the UN, so UN decisions (and UN law, as pertains to the use of "de jure") do not necessarily apply to them.
It's important for everyone to keep in mind that matters of foreign policy will not be decided on Wikipedia. The government of Azerbaijan is not reading the introduction of this article to help them decide their next course of action. Minor semantic issues (like "enclave" or "de jure") should not make articles grind to a halt. Does NK claim independence? Yes. Is the independence of the area disputed? Yes. Does Azerbaijan claim it belongs to them? Yes. These points are clearly presented in the introduction. Why not just change "de jure" to "according to the government of Azerbaijan" and move on? Kafziel 20:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Because it’s not only according to Azerbaijan, but to the whole world. No one recognized the independence of NK, therefore it’s not just position of Azerbaijan. Also UN resolutions are clear. Grandmaster 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but what I'm saying is that not everyone in the world cares what the UN decides. The UN is an organization, not a government. They can make decisions and ask their members to comply with those decisions, but that's where their power ends. Their decisions are not binding to people outside their jurisdiction, and those terms are created by the people themselves. Kafziel 20:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I’m not arguing with that. But the legal status and de-facto status are two different things, they don’t always coincide, which is the case here. Grandmaster 20:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
My point is that you can't provide sources to back the claim that no one in the whole world recognizes their sovereignty. But you can provide sources to say that Azerbaijan does not recognize their independence. Why is that not good enough? Kafziel 20:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Because I can provide sources to back up that no one in the whole world recognizes sovereign status of NK. It is not just my position, see Atkinson’s report for PACE: ethnic Armenians had established a “government” in the Nagorno-Karabkah region with its “capital” in Stepanakert (or Khankendi in Azerbaijani). This “government” is not recognised by any of the Council of Europe member states, nor by the OSCE, European Union and the United Nations. Armenia maintains close political, economic and military relations with them, but does not recognise the area as an independent state and hence has not established diplomatic relations with this “government”. [48] The fact that it’s not recognized by anyone is not disputed, there’s consensus on that. The dispute is over the use of the words de-jure, enclave, disputed region. Grandmaster 20:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to be really listening to what I'm saying, so I'm going to try this once more before I move on to other things. You still have not proved that nobody in the world recognizes their sovereignty - you can't do that, because they recognize their own sovereignty. So that's somebody right there. Since they are not members of any of those alliances you've mentioned, what those alliances decide is irrelevant. Did George Washington ask the United Nations if the American Revolution would be cool with them? Did Oliver Cromwell ask the European Union if it would be okay to have a civil war in England? Did Gorbachev ask NATO's permission before he resigned? No. They just went ahead and did it. Same with NK. It doesn't yet really matter what other people in other organizations think about them; what matters most is what they think about themselves, and what Azerbaijan thinks about them. Those are the most important factors in this situation, so those are the factors that should be discussed. UN decisions do not apply to all parties involved, so they don't apply at all in the real world; as you can see, the resolutions didn't solve a single thing.
Content yourself with saying Azerbaijan does not recognize their sovereignty; The only reason to insist on anything else is clear POV pushing. Who cares what Canada, Nepal, Australia, and South Africa think about the situation? Kafziel 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree with you, but you don’t seem to understand what the dispute is really about. We are not discussing whether the position of international community is good or bad, whether it’s relevant for the Armenian community of NK or not, etc. It’s a position, which should be reflected as well, because this is what we do here, we report the facts, and not our opinions. You dispute the things that are not disputed by anyone else. The problem here is that NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but is actually under the control of separatist forces. The dispute is about which words to choose to describe this situation. Both sides agree that the region is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but is de-facto out of its control. What causes the disagreement is the selection of words. It may seem not so important for you, but it is for the parties concerned. And if reporting the general knowledge facts that can be easily verified from reputable sources is a POV push, then I don’t know what is not. Regards, Grandmaster 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
"It may seem not so important for you, but it is for the parties concerned." True on both counts, which is why you can't see that you're pushing your POV into the article. This issue means less than nothing to me, so I'm completely neutral. What I'm saying is that you should be writing what Azerbaijan thinks about the situation, not the rest of the world. Hate to break this to you, but the rest of the world doesn't care.
I do understand the issue, and it does go back to your definition of international recognition. Defining that is important, because it is the basis for the use of "de jure". Without Nagorno-Karabakh's acceptance of UN resolutions, international law (de jure) does not apply and should not be used. That's the issue behind the selection of words, and my suggestion to you - for the third time - is to set your POV aside and choose different words. I even gave you a suggestion that might be acceptable to everyone.
But if you're intent on being unreasonable, there's no point in discussing it further. Enjoy your little article. I'm going to go work on something people might actually read. Kafziel 05:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I see your point. You think that if NK does not accept UN resolutions, de-jure is not applicable. I beg to differ. Law does not need to be accepted by everybody to be in force. Law applies to everyone, I can’t say “I don’t recognize the law, therefore I can go and still somebody’s car”. It is illegal, whether you recognize the law or not. If it exist, it governs the relations between the people and states. So far the international community does not recognize legitimacy of the NK de-facto authorities and objects to staging one-sided elections in the region. See [49], [50] I don’t see what is so wrong with reflecting this fact in the article. Please don’t take it personally, you are entitled to your opinion, and I’m entitled to mine, and if our opinions differ, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I push my POV, and you don’t. We don’t have to agree on everything, and if there’s a dispute, there are ways of its resolution. We just are going thru one of the stages. I don’t doubt your impartiality, however you say on your personal page that you support Sinn Féin and Irish reunification and are against the existence of “Zionist” Israel, so that’s your POV that may to a certain extent affect your views on this issue. I’m absolutely not insisting on that, but POV push accusations are a serious claim, and I don’t think it is really necessary to make such claims in RFC discussions, especially when you don’t know the people involved. Take care. Grandmaster 16:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually you do POV push, you are again pushing your claims after it has been made clear various times that those are positions and can not be presented as established facts. De facto is a legal term, legally speaking Karabakh has all the rights to declare its independence. I repost that part I have presented which you ignored. Comming to the de jure part, both Azerbaijan and Karabakh held a referundum on the issue of independence in December 1991, the previous declaration of independence from Azerbaijan was not according to the law, as those repeated declarations from Karabakh of secession or union with Armenia. Azerbaijan also adopted its constitution under the Soviet Act governing procedures for the secession of a republic from the Union adopted on April 3, 1990, and it was according to this procedure that both Karabakh and Azerbaijan held their referundum to declare their official independence. Karabakh used the same legal means as Azerbaijan to declare its own independence. It takes a single legal ground to reject the claim of de Jure. Fad (ix) 17:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The official position of USA on Nagorno-Karabakh:

The United States and the Conflict Over Nagorno-Karabakh

The U.S. remains actively engaged in advancing a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Cooperation among the U.S., Russian, and French mediators is excellent. The United States does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country, and its leadership is not recognized internationally or by the United States. The United States supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and holds that the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of negotiation between the parties. The United States remains committed to finding a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through the Minsk Group process. We are encouraged by the continuing talks between the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan.[51] Grandmaster 16:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You said it, OFFICIAL, not de Jure. The US finicial help to Karabakh is not provided to the autorities in Baku, in fact while the US decreased others finicial help on that spot it actually increased its help to Karabakh. If there is no any recognition by the US, why do they provide this financial help to be managed by the Karabakh government and not Azerbaijan? If there is no any type of recognition for Karabakh, how come the World Bank loaning packages are provided to Karabakh and NOT Azerbaijan? How come all those financial helps from every corner of the world are left to be managed by Karabakh? Official is NOT de Jure, official is what you officially recognize, but the US and the majority of the countries have acted as if Karabakh was a nation. Even after the recognition by Turkey of the Northern Turkish republic of Cyprus, does this republic get treated the same way as Karabakh? The US the first years of the event event placed an embargo on Turkey for it and they much more depend on Turkey than Armenia which is a land locked tiny country in the Caucasus. Fad (ix) 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Provision of aid is not recognition of independence or a certain political status. Aid can be provided to any political or ethnic group, organization, etc, and in case with US aid the Armenian lobby in the US parliament plays a significant role in adoptions of decisions on provision of aid in the region. Still the official position of US is summarized in the document that I quoted. It is an official document, not de-jure document, this word is not applied to documents and positions. Grandmaster 18:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not true, aid is handled by international organizations in the cases you mention..., and not a government. In this cases there are loans from the World Bank, you don't get loans from the world bank if you have no any recognition as you claim so. This is what is the differences between officialy and de facto... Karabakh IS treated as a nation and its government power of management is recognized de facto. Fad (ix) 19:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, I don't like the wording "international community recognizes NK as part of Azerbaijan." UN Security Council is not the international community, I say most countries don't really care and are waiting till the dispute is resolved before making official recognition. If we are going to include "officially" we should include the "enclave" and "autonomous" terms as well, since that was the case before the dispute, and that's reflected in various encyclopedias.--TigranTheGreat 23:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the paragraph already states that its status is not recognized--I see no reason to repeat it twice.--TigranTheGreat 23:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, regarding "I wish not to continue there": Your involvement is always welcome, you have provided with much needed in-depth information useful in decision making.--TigranTheGreat 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I just proposed a compromise that won't be reverted for the time being until you guys discuss about it. This page is way too much political for me and has wasted my time which I could have used working on other pages. To say the truth, I don't like participating in the Karabakh article because there is a current conflict attached to it and it will attract nationalists, and here I am also including Armenian nationalists, not that the same is not the cases with the Armenian genocide article, but that was an exception for me. Also, I want to work in microscopy related articles which needs a lit of work, so genocide related stuff and that would take all the energy I have to give to Wikipedia right now. I will of course pay attention to this article, but won't be as involved as I am now. Fad (ix) 01:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you will always be welcome :) Good luck on whatever other projects you have. Best wishes from a fellow Armenian "nationalist":) --TigranTheGreat 09:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tabib POV pushing

Tabib has accused a member of POV pushing, the same Tabib that was responsable of this recent conflict by adding the term de jure. It is kind of ironic that Tabib, who is a political analyst from the republic of Azerbaijan and from the International Republican Institute in Baku and has advanced the causes of Azerbaijani territorial integrity and published further about his POV would call any member a POV pusher, even more, when he himself had contacts with the Turkish community activities in denying the Armenian genocide(which he does in his webpage in which he ironically calls the Khojali tragedy a genocide). He still fail to understand that Wikipedia ought to be apolitical. Fad (ix) 18:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record this is his site --Eupator 18:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
[[52]]...nobody and nothing will be forgotten...
The preceeding unsigned comment was left at 17:34, 22 February 2006 by user -Inanna-
I know, I actually laughed at his edit-summary too :)--TigranTheGreat 23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I have no desire to involve myself into petty disputes with you. But I ask you to show a more deferential demeanor. and btw, I have no involvement with human.az web-site. Take it easy.--Tabib 06:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Then you shall not lower yourself by accusing others in being "POV pushers" :) Take it easy.--TigranTheGreat 09:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Petty disputes? That is what you are doing, while I proposed an alternative version for the time being it was scraped thanks to you. De Jure is a legal term, it takes just one legal ground for Karabakh to not be part of Azerbaijan and it is enought to make of the claim De Jure as a position thosefor not to be used as an established fact. And no, de facto is not a parallel for De Jure, one is an observation the other is a legal term. Fad (ix) 17:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's all try to take a step back. I found Tabib's intro read better, except for the superflouos de jure, which I removed. El_C 08:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not only that part which was problematic, it is standard to go from the locality to the country. This standard is used everywhere, even on mails... Karabakh is first a de facto republic, which is officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan..., I don't see what is the need of the self declared on the de facto..., it is like using languages such as 'the alleged so called...' that its status is disputed is already highlined, that it declared its independence is highlined, that this independence is not recognized is already highlined, how many times do we have to say that it is a self declared republic? Read the rest of the introduction, it already say that the Armenians declared their independence, in the same intro we have the same information repeated, also that it is not recognized. Also, in every other similar cases the rule of, from the locality to the country is respected but here people seem to have a problem accepting this. I understand that this article is open to politically heated debates, but the only reason why I see the rule from the region to the country is not respected, is that some POV pushers thinks that by placing the country to the region they will mark a point by telling readers, looky it is part of Azerbaijan, when the information is said. Fad (ix) 16:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Another thing, using the is is not appopriate, it is contradictory with what follows(de facto), this is why in my version I have used the term officially. Fad (ix) 16:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal for RFC

I suggest for the RFC the following issues, which caused a dispute between me and TigranTheGreat

1. He regularly deletes the following info:

Russian Minister of Defense Igor Rodionov in his letter to Aman Tuleyev, Minister of cooperation with CIS countries, said a Defense Ministry commission had determined that a large quantity of Russian weapons, including 84 T-72 tanks and 50 armored personnel carriers, were illegally transferred to Armenia in 1994 – 96, after the ceasefire, for free and without authorization by the Russian government.

This information is well sourced and has direct relevance to the conflict. It should remain in the article.

2. He adds his personal interpretation of the PACE resolution to the International status section. He adds a line that “resolution # 1416 adopted by PACE, does not refer to Nagorno-Karabakh as "part of Azerbaijan”, while it clearly does by stating “separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region”. If the region is under the control of separatists, it belongs to the country they try to separate from. It is enough just to provide a quotation and let the readers judge what it says. He also constantly removes the following line from the same quotation: “and reaffirms the right of displaced persons from the area of conflict to return to their homes safely and with dignity”. This needs to be stopped.

3. He added to the article very dubious facts, such as:

1. According to EurasiaNet, unidentified sources have stated that Arab guerrilla Ibn al-Khattab joined Basayev in Azerbaijan between 1992-1993, although this is dismissed by the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense. The article, to which the reference is made, states: Some say he joined the Chechen guerrillas fighting on Azerbaijan’s side during the 1992-93 Nagorno-Karabakh war, though Ashurov and the Ministry of Defense’s spokesman dismiss this idea. [53]

2. According to Armenian news agency Noyan Tapan, Rokhlin openly lobbied for the interests of Azerbaijan. The article, to which the reference is made, states: Rokhlin, as is known, openly lobbied for the interests of Azerbaijan. [54] (In Russian)

These statements are not supported by any reliable evidences and compromise the quality of the article. Grandmaster 11:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Summarizing Nagorno-Karabakh: de jure part of Azerbaijan, de facto under Armenian control. Dry Facts w/o comments

Below is the summary of the facts, some of which have been already posted by GM, which give enough evidence to end this useless discussion about Nagorno-Karabakh being de jure part of Azerbaijan and de facto under Armenian control.

I ask all (Armenian) users not to alter the integrity of this posting and avoid inserting comments in between this post. If somebody wants to comment on these facts, let him(her) post a separate message. I will consider any attempt to alter the integrity of this message as a lack of good faith and a deliberate attempt to confuse the public and I reserve right to delete any comments/posts inserted inside of this message.

Formulations by the United Nations: (explicit references to Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan)

UN SC Res 874

“Expressing its serious concern that a continuation of the conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic…” ...

“Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic and of all other States in the region...“


UN SC Res 884

“Expressing its serious concern that a continuation of the conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic, and of the tensions between the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijani Republic, would endanger peace and security in the region…”

...

“Calls upon the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993) and 874 (1993)…”


Formulations by the US State Department (Refer to NK as part of Azerbaijan; state the fact that the area is occupied by Armenians)

"The United States does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country, and its leadership is not recognized internationally or by the United States. The United States supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and holds that the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of negotiation between the parties.”

(Source: "The United States and the Conflict Over Nagorno-Karabakh", Fact Sheet, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Washington, DC, February 7, 2005, [55]).


"We continue to work together to support the aspirations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to further integrate into the Euro-Atlantic family...The U.S. and EU recognize the challenge to security and stability of the South Caucasus and Black Sea regions posed by the unresolved conflicts in the area of Eurasia. We support the territorial integrity of Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan and cooperate to facilitate international efforts to achieve peaceful political settlements to the conflicts over Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh;"

(Source: "U.S.-EU Cooperation on Reform in Eurasia", Fact Sheet, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Washington, DC, February 17, 2005, [56]).


“The Republic of Azerbaijan is a country of great physical variety and complicated boundaries. Its territory of 33,774 square miles (about the size of Maine or Portugal), includes one autonomous region, Nagorno Karabakh (currently occupied by Armenian forces); one autonomous republic, Nakhchivan, which is separated from Azerbaijan proper by the Zangezur Region of Armenia; and several clusters of small islands in the Caspian Sea.” … “As many as 120,000 ethnic Armenians live in Nagorno Karabakh and other Armenian occupied territories of Azerbaijan” US State Dept – Post Reports


Formulations by the Council of Europe (Refer to NK as part of Azerbaijan; state the fact that the area is occupied by Armenians)

“Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region.”

(PACE Resolution 1416, 2005 [57])

“Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces. The military action, and the widespread ethnic hostilities which preceded it, led to large-scale ethnic expulsion and the creation of mono-ethnic areas which resemble the terrible concept of ethnic cleansing. Separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region…”

...

Armenians had established a “government” in the Nagorno-Karabkah region with its “capital” in Stepanakert (or Khankendi in Azerbaijani). This “government” is not recognised by any of the Council of Europe member states, nor by the OSCE, European Union and the United Nations. Armenia maintains close political, economic and military relations with them, but does not recognise the area as an independent state and hence has not established diplomatic relations with this “government”.

(Source: PACE Report “The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference”, Doc. 10364, 29 November 2004 / “Atkinson report”/ [58] )


(Council of Europe does not recognize legitimacy of “elections” in Nagorno-Karabakh)

“The 43-nation Council of Europe today called on the Nagorno-Karabakh de facto authorities to refrain from staging the one-sided "local self-government elections" in the province…These so-called 'elections' cannot be legitimate," stressed Council of Europe Committee of Ministers' Chairman and Liechtenstein Foreign Minister Ernst Walch, Parliamentary Assembly President Lord Russell-Johnston and Secretary General Walter Schwimmer.”

CoE Press Release


As GM mentioned, even an Armenian author refers to

"The status of Nagorno-Karabakh as "de facto independent state-de jure part of Azerbaijan" [59]


International Crisis Group formulation:

“Nagorno-Karabakh is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan yet it functions largely as an independent entity whose military and economic security is guaranteed by Armenia.”

ICG, "Nagorno-Karabakh: Viewing the Conflict from the Ground", Europe Report N°166, 14 September 2005 [60]


BBC Profiles: Regions and Territories: Nagorno-Karabakh (Subsection: FACTS)

Status: de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, unilaterally declared itself an independent republic in 1991 [61]

“Nagorno-Karabakh is legally part of Azerbaijan but has been controlled by Armenians since a war of 1988 to 1994.” No agreement on Nagorno-Karabakh, 11 February, 2006


Tabib after all those months you have been a Wikipedian, you still have no clue about Wikipedia policies, maybe you should first read and try to comprehend those links in your userspace that refers to them. Let me repeat this for the hundreths time. The de facto republic of Karabakh DENIES it being de Jure part of Azerbaijan, IT DENIES IT, is this hard for you to understand? Also, just the title of your copypast job again is a clear evidence that you still fail to understand that there is no such thing as 'facts' on positions in Wikipedia. The only time facts apply, is for instance when I claim that Baku is Baku and when I apply a name for a country, a person, a city etc., or when there is an article on a mathematical identity, or a direct word(example, a car is a car, a plane is a plane etc.). I trust that you are intelligent enought to understand this, and since I have been trying to make you understand that for a long time and that you are intelligent enought to understand it, either you refuse to leave your preconcieved beliefs out of Wikipedia and read what others have to say, or either you are doing it on purpouses.
So, now, let me try this again. De Jure IS AN OBSERVATION, Karabakh elect its government, does it elect it or not? It recieves loans and manage them, its independence as de facto is an observation and it is an application of a definition... it is a de facto republic and no one denies that, because it does have its president, it does have its minister of finance and the de facto republic is managed by this government. While Karabakh government denies that it is de Jure part of Azerbaijan, they still do aknowledge that IT IS officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan by the international community, and here even this is problematic, since the French world has a more balanced and tend to consider it more a disputed land. If you read French newspapers you will see what I mean. Even Swissinfo or such newspapers cover it such. Example, in an article of Feb 24, this newspaper writes: La république autoproclamée du Nagorny-Karabakh a fait sécession de l´Azerbaïdjan à l'issue d'un conflit qui a fait près de 25'000 morts et des centaines de milliers de déplacés entre 1988 et 1994. This is what is says, it doesn't even say more..., the first information you will find is either it is a self-prolcamed republic that separated itself from Azerbaijan and that is not recognized, or either it is a de facto state that is still officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan. You can NOT use interpretations from articles and present them as established facts, this is not how an encyclopedia works. Also, every other such articles present FIRST the locality and THEN what is officially recognized, WHY SHOULD KARABAKH ANY DIFFERENT, IS THERE BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME POV PUSHER that are here to push their POV. Also, I have seen that you have not changed the slightest, adding a totallydisputed tag and reffering to the talk page for the Armenian genocide entry, when even those opposing to the removal of the POV tage refused the uses of the totallydisputed tag. Fad (ix) 17:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

De Jure

The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.

De jure is a Latin phrase meaning “by right” or “legally” that English has taken over first in legal jargon and then adopted into the general language. It usually contrasts with de facto, which means “in fact but not in law.” A de jure government is one legally in place; a de facto government is one effectively in power and operating, but without legal authority. Spell both locutions as two words, and pronounce de either dee, dai, or di, stressing the first syllable of the second word in each phrase, JOOR-ee (or JOOR-uh) and FAK-to.[62] Grandmaster 06:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not appropriate to try and qualify these relations in the lead sentence. It just needs to cover that it is a region of Azerbijan and that it is also the self-declared, independent Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. Let's keep the average English-speaking reader in mind. El_C 12:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the original intro that was agreed between the parties and existed for years before the editors representing the Armenian side decided to introduce the term de facto, which led to introduction of the term de jure.

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region within Azerbaijan, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku. The region is predominantly ethnic Armenian, and is under Armenian military control. The local Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan in 1991 and self-declared the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world. Grandmaster 12:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro proposed by Gm is unacceptable and will lead to endless revert wars. I don't like EI_C's version but it's a good compromise.--Eupator 15:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And now I changed it to:

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region of Azerbaijan that has self-declared itself an independent Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR). It is located in the South Caucasus, about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijani capital Baku. The region is predominantly ethnic Armenian and is under Armenian military control. The local Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10th, 1991. The NKR's sovereign status has yet to be recognized by any country or international organization in the world. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Office in Minsk, where among other issues, the future status of the region is being discussed. walljournal1 El_C 12:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Phrase The NKR's sovereign status has yet to be recognized by any country or international organization in the world implies that it could be recognized, while we don’t know that. In my opinion it’s better to leave everything as it was, because it was not the region that self-proclaimed independence, but it was the Armenian population of the region, who did that, while Azeri population, which constituted about a quarter of the population objected to that. Grandmaster 12:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it making any presuppsotions, but rather, the observation that it has been a self-declared republic for over a decade and a half and has has yet to be recognized by any country or international organization in the world. El_C 13:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Still I think it is better to keep it as simple as possible to prevent new edit wars over the fist few lines. Grandmaster 13:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that's the point behind my lead rewrite, and I stand by my point above (being simple & clear). I am confident that both Tabib and Fadix will back me up. Let's wait to hear what they have to say. Thanks in advance for your patience. Regards, El_C 13:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the is, Azerbaijan has no control over Karabakh for more than a decade now, and it(Karabakh) denies being a region of Azerbaijan, while is is a simple term it may suggest that Azerbaijan has some control over it. Karabakh neither use the same currency, neither Azerbaijans government has any influence on Karabakh. Also, while Karabakh is recognized officially as part of Azerbaijan, the World Bank or other nations consider it unofficially as independent, it recieves its own relief packages also loans. I think Tabib too will disagree with the is it was I believe the reason why he changed your version. I still fail to see what is the probablem with the term officially a region of Azerbaijan, Britannica use it, and I believe the term officially is the best to discribe the situation. Also, since every other similair articles I have found in Wikipedia about other disputed regions in the same situations first start from the locality(self declared, de facto etc.) and then, what is officially recognized, I don't see why this article should be an exception. Karabakh before anything else is a self-declared or de facto republic, and then, it is officially a region of Azerbaijan. Fad (ix) 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course you disagree, who/which side agrees? The Aremanian side disagrees with the lead sentence starting with a depiction of it as a region of Azerbijan, and the Azeri side is no doubt unhappy to see the NKR name stand out in bold text, etc. The question isn't whether (all of) you agree or disagree but, can you live with it? That's the nature of compromise, not unlike what is faced there, wherein some (de juro, de facto, official, unofficial, etc.) points are discarded in favour of a consistent line. I'm trying to be evenhanded while aiming for an intelligible, accurate lead paragraph. These type of arguments can (and undoubtedly will) continue to take place elsewhere, in other areas of the article (with disputed section-tags and so on), but my lead rewrite attempts to establish détente in the lead itself. El_C 23:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
El, I think it would be wrong to propose a version that neither would agree on the middle just for compromise if it would be in the expense of accuracy. I have changed four time my proposition, and even left out the term enclave which is used officially by the CIA and a body of notable works because it was reverted back. Also, this is not about Armenian sides disagreeing to have a region of Azerbaijan first, but what is a logical continuity, the other articles in Wikipedia have all acceptable standards to present the de facto independence of unrecognized states. [63], [64], [65], [66], the only other article besides Karabakh that has it the other way is Transnistria [67], but even such a version was refused here, it is an entry about Karabakh, which is before anything else a self declared republic with a government, the verb is can not apply when there is an opposition between an official recognition and what is de facto. Fad (ix) 03:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
No, that's incorrect, also Abkhazia (also: please link internally so as to reduce the obscurity factor of [1], do this by adding double brackets and omitting the url field). Of course, all of you are free to edit war over the intro until a prace treaty is signed over there, but I am inclined to view the side who breaks the truce (in the article, of course, here I invite all of you to object as vehemently as you see fit) I attempted to forge here less favourably. I don't find it too idiosyncratic at all to have that order, and it does form the basis of the compromise I had in mind, with its flipside being that until my rewrite, there has never been mention of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh in bold text. Hope that makes sense. El_C 09:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
One minor correction. There’s no OSCE office in Minsk, the mediating group is called OSCE Minsk Group, because it was initially intended to hold a piece conference in the city of Minsk, it never happened, but the name stuck. See D.Atkinson report to PACE:
The OSCE started dealing with this conflict in 1992 and decided to hold a conference in Minsk on the terms of the final settlement of the conflict. In May 1994, it succeeded in obtaining a cease-fire agreement which stopped the war. Although the subsequent negotiations have not yet succeeded in obtaining a settlement, I pay tribute to the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group for their tireless efforts.
The efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group
Unfortunately, but understandably, the OSCE Minsk process has been confidential and limited to the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Therefore, very little information is available to the public in both countries. However, some positions discussed at the bilateral meetings under the OSCE Minsk Group have become the subject of rumour and speculation. [68] Grandmaster 10:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Their official website is titled as OSCE Office in Minsk, hence the title I chose for the entity. El_C 11:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Minsk office does not deal with this conflict, it is a special group, co-chaired by USA, Russia and France, called OSCE Minsk Group. The name is really misleading, but that’s what they call it. Grandmaster 11:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I certainly am officially confused. Do they have another website or anything like that? El_C 12:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know they don’t. I think it would be nice to have an article about this entity, as I myself don’t know much details about them. I think there are many people who might wish to know about them. Grandmaster 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a few links: [69] [70] [71] [72]. El_C 12:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Here’s some more: [73], [74] Grandmaster 12:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Started an entry on OSCE Minsk Group. Feel free to make additions and corrections. Grandmaster 13:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed, yes, I and gave it a light copyedit. Nicely done! :) El_C 05:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Grandmaster 06:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

section break

El_C, there is no way that your version would be refused by Tabib, because he isen't making much concession(and of course editing the words he don't like and then agreeing with it), it was about the version before I have raised the issue of the « is » being the wrong depiction. Had I not made any concession and had you taken the middle range, the version would be much different than what you have proposed. If you check the history of the edits on the article, you will see that there aren't much changes I ever made there, the major one was when I proposed an alternative in the middle until the RfC gives some results, but people started changing words.

Here, one of the last propositions I made in this talk page, which were refused, and problematic for both Azeris AND Armenian editors.

'Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed region, officially an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan but de facto independent, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku'

And if you pay attention, I haven't recieved any support for my position either on the RfC. [Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nagorno-Karabakh]

Tabib already recognized that de facto do apply but claimed that de Jure is a parallel word which obviously is not. So removing both words is not a double sided concession.

Also, this version is simply an innacurate one. And I have even proposed to start with how Karabakh was recognized as, when Both Armenia and Azerbaijan were in the Soviet Union. During that period Karabakh was an autonomous region within Azerbaijan, and either it is called this now officially or officially an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan. But those also were refused. Abkhazia entry has the statue it had during the Soviet times, and I have proposed something such myself for this entry, refused again.

And like I said, if you pay attention to the history of the edits, not once I have engaged in the revert war, this war was fought between other members, and Tabib as a veteran isen't making things easier when he goes on editing anything he wants without even justifying his edits and without making any concessions.

Now, about the 'is a region,' like I already said, there are sides that disputes this, Karabakg disputes being a region of Azerbaijan, Armenia dispites it, and I have also indicated in in French publications mostly they talk Karabakh sesseded from Azerbaijan and this has not been recognized, this was why I have added the word officially a region of Azerbaijan. Fad (ix) 18:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How am I not taking the middle ground? It says, in bold text, Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. So? The NKR can deny it being a region of Azerbijan all it wants, it will remain that, if not until the borders are officially re/drawn, then until a single country or major organization officially recognizes it in the here and now, but they have "yet" to. There is no need to add "officially", though, because at the same breath and in the same sentence we say [Nagorno-Karabakh is a region of Azerbaijan] that has self-declared itself an independent Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR). As for edit warring, I'm talking genereally and genericly about the consensus: not your own individual edits, but everyone except me! Let me end by citing Britannica's lead paragraph: Nagorno-Karabakh. a Region (pop., 2002 est.: 144,300), southwestern Azerbaijan. It occupies an area of about 1,700 sq mi (4,400 sq km) on the northeastern flank of the Karabakh Range. The region was formerly part of Iran but was annexed by Russia in 1813. In 1923 it was established as an autonomous province of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. In 1988 the region's Armenian majority demonstrated against Azerbaijanian rule, and in 1991 (after the breakup of the Soviet Union) war broke out between the two ethnic groups. Since 1994 [,] it [the region] has been controlled by ethnic Armenians, though officially it remains part of Azerbaijan. (underline is my emphasis; note the correct, non redundant use of "officially", but more so, note what's isn't there: there is no "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh" mentioned in Britannica's middle-ground and otherwise lead paragraph). El_C 21:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Britannica's version is more neutral, it isen't using any verb there, which makes a differences. I also reffered to Universalis a French encyclopedia which Britannica has shares of, which present it as a more disputed territory. I even believe that the information about it being an autonomous region [officially in Azerbaijan] or Armenian enclave officialy in Azerbaijan is much more accurate than pointing to its self-declared status of republic for many reasons(mainly because it makes it clear that it has some recognition of at least autonomy, which is obvious). The way this text is presented makes it as if Karabakh has no any unofficial recognition, which is wrong, during elections, there are some international observers present, Karabakh has direct contact with the world bank and not from the intermedary of Azerbaijan(and the World Bank recognizes Karabakh autorities somehow to at least manage the loans), it doesn't use the Azeri currency. If you pay attention to Britannica entry, you will see that it is very careful to not make any direct statment, it is not saying that Karabakh 'is' a region of Azerbaijan, but that it is officially one. Placing the is, make it believe that Azerbaijan has some control over that territory when it has none. I know I am repeating myself, but I am simply saying that it was this 'is' that was the cause of the dispute. Another thing more accurate with Britannica version, it is that it is not restricted to the current status of Karabakh, it was already proposed by someone to divide and start another entry about NKR, which would cover what is called NKR, and I havn't refused even if it meant to delete the words NKR from the lead of this article. Fad (ix) 23:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
For now, I will live by this, this topic is way too much time consuming for me. I need someone kicking me out from here everytime I come back. :) Fad (ix) 23:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. :) Yes, I can appreciate it being an enclave, that isn't the issue for me, though I'm not entirely following some of what you write above. Still, let me give you another example by (narrowly) translating the Hebrew Wikipedia's lead paragraph, which I have never edited (well I interwiki'd it, but that dosen't count), which reads:

נגורנו קרבאך הוא חבל ארץ שנמצא באזרבייג'ן בדרום הקווקז. האזור מאוכלוס על ידי ארמנים ונמצא תחת שליטה צבאית ארמנית. ב-10 בדצמבר 1991 האוכלוסייה הארמנית המקומית הכריזה על עצמאות האזור מאזרבייג'ן , ועל הקמת "רפובליקת נגורנו קרבאך". עד היום, עצמאות האזור לא הוכרה על ידי אף מדינה בעולם

Nagorno-Karabakh is an area of land found in Azerbijan in the South Caucasus. The region is populated by Armenians and is under Armenian military control. On December 10, 1991, the local Armenian population declared the independence of the region from Azerbijan, and the establishment of the "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh". Until today, the region's independence has not been recognized by any country in the world. El_C 05:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the use of the word ‘enclave’ we had a lengthy discussion above. According to the dictionaries an enclave is:
1. A country or part of a country lying wholly within the boundaries of another.
2. A distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit: ethnic enclaves in a large city. [75]
Since NK is not a country or part of another country lying wholly within the boundaries of another, this word should not be used. Even if you attribute a different meaning to the word, it still will be misleading. So it’s better not to use such words. Grandmaster 06:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It is an enclave, within Azerbijan. Put another way: Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was an enclave within Azerbaijanian SSR. El_C 10:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It could have been as a distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit, but definitely not as a country or part of a country lying wholly within the boundaries of another. Still use of such terms would cause a confusion, so it’s better to avoid such terms. Grandmaster 11:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine, I'm not actually proposing anything, only making the point of an ethnic enclaves in a large city country. El_C 11:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

KARABAKH = AZERI

KARABAKH = AZERI greets from Iran

External links

User:Slaciner just added the following external links to the article. They don't seem to have a lot of substance, they're all to the user's own site, and the site has ads. I'm reverting them as linkspam for now - if any of them are worthwhile, presumably someone else will add them back to the article. Someone might want to check his edit for other issues, too. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The anthem is not Fuck Armenia...

the anthem is not fuck armenia. I don't know how to change it, but perhaps someone else could?

Nagorno-Karabakh war page

We need someone with neutral information about the conflict on the Nagorno-Karabakh war page. It is currently under heavy Armenian POV, only neutral user I see there is El_C.--Kagan the Barbarian 21:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm the chief author of that article and the sources I use are quite diversive: from TIME magazine, PRAVDA, and the New York Times. I see little reason for complaint unless you underline and specify what's wrong with it. --MarshallBagramyan 19:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Armenian POV is obvious since the lead section states that the NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world. I suspect that Khankendi was renamed to Stepanakert because Shaumyan only helped the USSR. 195.150.224.238 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course obvious: while the article writes that the region was conquered by Tigranes II only in 95 BC, even the armenianreality.com states that from 4th century BC to 8th century AD the territory was one of the provinces of Caucasian Albania, the most ancient state of Northern Azerbaijan. Brand a.k.a. Alitus, 11:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh population changes

I read somewhere, important number of Armenians were moved to Karabakh during the Soviet rule, in mid 20th century. Is there a source for population changes in the region during the Soviet rule?--Kagan the Barbarian 09:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A large number of Armenians was resettled there after the region became part of Russian empire. This is from encyclopaedia Britannica:
The Russian campaigns against the Persians and the Turks in the 18th and 19th centuries resulted in large emigrations of Armenians under Muslim rule to the Transcaucasian provinces of the Russian Empire and to Russia itself. Armenians settled in Yerevan, T'bilisi, Karabakh, Shemakha (now Samaxi), Astrakhan, and Bessarabia. At the time of the massacres in Turkish Armenia in 1915, some Armenians found asylum in Russia. A number settled in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh within the neighbouring Muslim country of Azerbaijan. Armenians now constitute about three-fourths of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh; since 1988 there have been violent interethnic disputes and sporadic warfare between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in and around the enclave.

[76] Grandmaster 12:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As an Azari I can tell you the area belongs to Armenians since the Soviet era

Actually to be honest as an Azari I can tell the area was Armenian dominated and the Sociloist Republic of Azaerbaijan/Azarbaijan brought in Azaris to the area to repopulate it. The President of the Republic of Azarbijan even said the area was lost and belonged to the Armenians.

[[77]]

Meanwhile, it was the father of the present Azeri president, Haydar Aliyev, who first said that “Karabakh is lost for us.” On July 22, 2002, while receiving the founders of the Baku Press-Club in his palace, Aliyev made a number of avowals. The full text of Aliyev’s interview was published by Zerkalo daily on July 23, 2002. In particular, Aliyev said that as the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR “he did much to help Nagorno Karabakh to develop, but, at the same time, he tried to change the local demography.” “Nagorno Karabakh asked for an institute. I decided to open one, but on condition that it would have three sectors – Azeri, Russian and Armenia. We opened the institute and began sending Azeris from nearby districts there rather than to Baku. We also opened a big shoe factory. Stepanakert had no sufficient labor force, so we began sending there Azeris from places around the region. By doing this I tried to increase the number of Azeris and to reduce the number of Armenians,” Aliyev said. He also noted that “when I left Azerbaijan, the situation there got worse – Armenia’s influence grew bigger, and our authorities did nothing and missed the moment.” “When in Feb 1991 I was elected deputy from Naxcivan and came to Baku and said in the parliament that Nagorno Karabakh was already lost,” Haydar Aliyev said.


72.57.230.179

Azeri displaced figures

Where did this article get its figures of 528,000 displaced Azerbaijanis? CIA factbook states 800,000, while globalsecurity cites 900,000. --A.Garnet 15:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Page needs certain improvement from the standpoint of legal, political and historical aspects

Any variation of "NKR" acronym usage should be both taken in quotes, and added so-called or self-styled, like is norm in any reputable news article. Moreover, the political and legal definition of the "military control" is occupation and it is illegal and condemned by 4 UN SC resolutions, PACE resolution, OIC resolutions, etc. Likewise, whenever one says that "independence" was proclaimed (by whom? on what basis? in consistence with which law?) the term "illegally" should be used. The page absolutely doesn't mention that all attempts by Armenia and Armenians to have NK succeed from Azerbaijan SSR since 1988 were rejected and overrulled by USSR Supreme Soviet (Parliament), and the whole 1991 "independence" was of course illegal as there was no way for succession of an autonomous region from a union republic -- this was prohibited under the USSR Constitution, highest law in the nation.

Then, the Azerbaijani ethymology of the word Artsakh should be provided (Ar/Land Sak/of Saks/Scythians) and it should be mentioned that "Artsakh" was definitely not the oldest name of the province -- e.g., before that was the name of Orkhistene for Artsakh. Moreover, Karabakh consists of two ancient provinces -- Artsakh and Uti. Just as Artsakh had a more ancient name, so did Uti, which was Otene, and it was right next to Sakasena (left bank of Terter river) -- where we see the "Sak(a)" term again. --AdilBaguirov 08:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

The history section, was getting very comprehensive, so I split it out into History of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is normal. I'd encourage people to copyedit what I left in, I'd prefer you take a reductionist rather than expansionist approach, but whatever works. Do we have any information on the Economy, Education, Demographics, Politics, etc. normal country stuff ? - FrancisTyers · 10:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is one problem -- NK is not a "country". If we start dwelling into conuntry-stuff, then we need to create similar pages for all other regions of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, etc. Whilst Armenia has only a dozen regions, Azerbaijan has about 59 plus separate regions in large cities. It would create a nightmare. Plus, there are only few reliable and concrete notes about occupied territories, including Karabakh, from OSCE, State Dept., and Western journalists. --AdilBaguirov 20:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It is de-facto independent. Now, I have no feelings on the matter personally (independence or whatever), but this is an encyclopaedia and we shouldn't get bogged down in ethnic disputes. - FrancisTyers · 20:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Still, Armenia occupies 16% of Azerbaijan, of which former NKAO is only half. The other half are another 7 administrative regions of Azerbaijan Republic. As OSCE and US State Dept and foreign journalists attest, all the resources from those 7 regions were and are stripped away, they are being settled, etc. Thus, does it mean that the "NK" page's Economy, Demography, etc., would include that too, or somehow limit itself only to the NK proper, in the pre-1991 boundaries of the NKAO? --AdilBaguirov 22:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Education would deal with education within the borders of the self-declared republic, not within territories which are outside its self-declared borders which it is occupying. Same goes for the others. - FrancisTyers · 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Nagorno-Karabakh is a territory of Azerbaijan that has declared itself independent as the self-styled <re>Any reference to "NKR" must be preceeded either by: 1) so-called, or 2) self-styled or 3) unrecognized. This is what all authoritative sources like US State Department [78], New York Times [79], RFE/RL [80], TIME Magazine [81], BBC [82], UK Parliament [83], MFA of China [84], etc. Thus, as you can see, it is very much a standard and a neutral POV.</ref> Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR). It is in the South Caucasus, about 270 kilometres (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijani capital Baku. The predominantly Armenian region has been a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan since the final years of the Soviet Union. Karabakh is currently under Armenian military control, as a result of the subsequent war that took place between both countries in the aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR. The conflict flared high in February 1988 when local Armenian population attempted to attach then Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) to Armenia and the Armenian Parliament accepted it. However, both the Azerbaijan Parliament and the USSR Supreme Soviet, rejected the demand and ruled that NKAO must remain part of Azerbaijan.[1] The Azerbaijan Parliament abolished the autonomy of NKAO in November 1991. Then the local Armenian population, with support from Armenia, declared independence from Azerbaijan December 10, 1991, despite Soviet Constitution, as well as Azerbaijan Constitution, not allowing any autonomous regions (oblast) or otherwise non-Union Republics (such as the 15 constituent republics of USSR) to succeed. The self-styled NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group, where, among other issues, the future status of the region is being discussed. [2]

Most of this material is inappropriate for the lead. We had discussed the lead at length, please do not make unilateral changes to it. The material is sourced though, and could find another place within the article. - FrancisTyers · 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, every single sentence is thoroughly sourced and referenced, is verifiable and true. While we cannot have a long intro, as the same time the present lead is too selective: e.g., it says nothing about when the conflict started and with what (but instead jumps straight to Dec 1991, ignoring Azerbaijan Parliament's decision of Nov 1991, the several legally binding decisions by the USSR Supreme Soviet and Azerbaijan Supreme Soviet, etc), it presents the Armenian POV about simply saying "NKR" whereas every independent and authoritative resource always preceeds "NKR" with "self-styled", "so-called", "self-proclaimed", or "unrecognized" verbiage.
The truth of the matter is simple -- NK is legally part of Azerbaijan and is currently occupied by Armenian forces (with full support from Armenia). This simple truth is reflected in all binding and otherwise authoritative determinations and reports, one of which is the US Presidential Determination.
Thus, there should not be a problem with it -- all is cited, referenced, accurate, verifiable and true.
Moreover, the page has many mistakes -- such as not knowing that Martakert was renamed to Aghdere -- indeed, Agdere doesn't even get mentioned anywhere and the Armenian users thought that Martakert was abolished and now shared by Kelbajar and Terter regions. Additionally, the map is completely one-sided and inaccurate and must be either removed or changed immediately.
The proposed lead language is as follows:

Nagorno-Karabakh is a territory of Azerbaijan that has declared itself independent as the self-styled [3] Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR). It is in the South Caucasus, about 270 kilometres (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijani capital Baku. The predominantly Armenian region has been a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan since the final years of the Soviet Union. Karabakh is currently under Armenian military control, as a result of the subsequent war that took place between both countries in the aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR. The conflict flared high in February 1988 when local Armenian population attempted to attach then Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) to Armenia and the Armenian Parliament accepted it. However, both the Azerbaijan Parliament and the USSR Supreme Soviet, rejected the demand and ruled that NKAO must remain part of Azerbaijan.[4] The Azerbaijan Parliament abolished the autonomy of NKAO in November 1991. Then the local Armenian population, with support from Armenia, declared independence from Azerbaijan December 10, 1991, despite Soviet Constitution, as well as Azerbaijan Constitution, not allowing any autonomous regions (oblast) or otherwise non-Union Republics (such as the 15 constituent republics of USSR) to succeed.[5] The self-styled NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group, where, among other issues, the future status of the region is being discussed. [2]

According to the U.S. Presidential Determinations, "The actions taken by the government of Armenia in the context of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh are inconsistent with the territorial integrity and national sovereignty principles of the Helsinki Final Act. Armenia supports Nagorno-Karabakh separatists in Azerbaijan both militarily and financially. Nagorno-Karabakh forces, assisted by units of the Armenian armed forces, currently occupy the Nagorno-Karabakh region and surrounding areas in Azerbaijan. This violation and the restoration of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan have been taken up by the OSCE." [6] --AdilBaguirov 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to start off with, lets leave the "self-styled". Secondly, could you give a list of points (as bullets that you would like to include in the introduction, then we can discuss it. As a query, have you read the archived discussion on this? - FrancisTyers · 00:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this subject quite well, so all the arguments and points of each side, along with all references and books, are very familiar to me - this is further reinformed by what I have read on this page (I did not read the Archives yet).
The problem is with the wording of the intro paragraph (not to mention the whole page). If we want to make an unbiased and "above-the-warring-sides" article, we should adopt the language used in authoritative English-language Western sources. This means legally binding decisions by the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the OSCE, the PACE, as well as some other forums like the OIC, CIS, and official position of countries like USA, UK, and Russia (possibly also Iran and Turkey).
This means that the current form of "NK ... declared itself independent as the ... NKR" and similar statements later do not create an objective picture. By using such watered down language -- which is not used by any other major entity such as those cited above -- it creates the impression that NK declared, legitimately, independence, and it led to some frictions, but not a massive (by regional standards) war with tens of thousands dying and over a million displaced, among other things.
I propose to use the unambiguous and more precise, yet still very officialesque language, such as adopted by the CIA World Factbook [7] or the US State Department.[8]
In other words, real people have died and continue to suffer, stiffling development and creating more long-term problems. Therefore, the assessment should be as unambiguous and non-vague as possible. While stopping short of labeling anyone as occupier or aggressor, the verbiage used in both of the abovementioned sources, as well as others before them, are suitable.
Also, the map must be changed immediately -- it is inaccurate and biased, representing the Armenian POV. --AdilBaguirov 01:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, how can a map of Nagorno-Karabakh be biased? Look at all the maps of the Southern Caucasus today and you will see Nagorno-Karabakh in the same place. As a matter of fact, I made that map using Image:Azerbaijan districts numbered.png. -- Clevelander 01:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You did what now? Are we talking about the same map here? --Golbez 06:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought he was referring to this map: Image:Location Nagorno-Karabakh.png. -- Clevelander 11:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Ehh, a map (or its author) can be biased and inaccurate, and in this case, it is very clear. To save ourselves some time, here is the an official and authoritative map -- done by the UN: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/azerbaij.pdf All maps must take this map into full account.
Here's another map with all the regions (administrative divisions): http://www.travel-images.com/az-map-big.jpg
And here an official map from Azerbaijan itself: http://www.travel-images.com/az-map-detail.jpg
What are the principal mistakes of the current map? First, the main and historic name of the regional center is Khankendy (Hankendi), which was from ~1750 until 1923, and again since 1989. Stepanakert is the secondary and Soviet-era name, that was valid from 1923-1989.
Second, it's not Shushi, but Shusha. Since the town was founded by an Azerbaijani khan, and Shusha means "glass" in Azerbaijani (which was used in a word-play letter of Shah Muhammed Qajar during the invasion on Karabakh khanate in 1795-1797), the Azerbaijani spelling is obviously overriding any other -- plus it's the only official spelling recognized by international organizations and governments.
Third, both Mardakert and Martuni (towns) have been renamed to Aghdere (Agdara) and Khojavend respectively.
This, the current map is 100% Armenian and should either be changed in accordance with official maps or taken down completely, and I will replace it with an appropriate map. --AdilBaguirov 04:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I am the author of the map; I do exist, and any complaints you had could have been addressed directly to me. However, thanks to someone who pointed me to this discussion, I will respond here. If you want a map of Azerbaijan with de jure Azeribajan borders, I have several versions available, one of which is linked on Subdivisions of Azerbaijan. I saw no point in creating a Nagorno-Karabakh map with the de jure Azerbaijan borders - it would essentially be a zoomed in version of my other maps. So I made it with the de facto Karabakh borders. And, therefore, since I was using the de facto Karabakh borders, I should use the de facto Karabakh names. You could say it's written from a Karabakh POV, but then the Azerbaijan map is written from an Azeri POV. Both note the other's existence. As for the incorrect names, I can only work off what sources I have, and the sources I had for the names were the wikipedia article and several other Artsakh-related websites. As for Azeri vs Karabakh names, as I said, if I am going to use the Karabakh borders, then I should use the Karabakh names. I don't include the Armenian names in the Azerbaijan map, and I don't include the Azeri names in the Karabakh map.
dear Golbez, first off, I've never said anything against using de facto "border" -- or actually Line of Contact. It won't become an actual "border" until Azerbaijan capitulates or otherwise recognizes any new borders (which will never happen, Azerbaijan will restore its sovereignty and territorial integrity fully). In fact, the former border of the former NKAO (which was abolished in Nov 1991, still while part of USSR) are generally denoted on every map. Neither did I say that the old, Soviet-era names should be purged. What I insist upon is the legal and internationally-recognized names, which also happen to reflect the Azerbaijani POV fully, be 1) included and 2) be either first, or in boldface, or have the Armenian Soviet-era names in parenthesis. Hence our positions are quite close, and I am not asking for anything that is not both truthful and verifiable. What I insist upon is both standard and common on all legitimate maps such as the one's used by US State Department, CIA, United Nations, OSCE, etc.
Per your last sentence, you cannot include Armenian names on the official Azerbaijani map -- or else, you will have to start including Azerbaijani names on the Armenian map, and I have both old maps and references to sources where this question is examined in details, showing how many hundreds of historic toponyms and names have Armenians changed in present-day Republic of Armenia. So as you can see, this works both ways and would present an insurmountable challenge and problems. Hence, this question is completely different from the names and toponyms of the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, an internationally-recognized part of Azerbaijan which is temporarily occupied by Armenian forces.
Also, once again, let's not forget that there is no single "Karabakh POV" -- by late 1980s, 25% of Karabakh were Azerbaijanis (in the 1820s, some 80% were Azerbaijanis, by 1897 census Azerbaijanis were still majority). Hence, you are consistently mistaking the "Karabakh POV" for Armenian POV. Once more, Karabakh is occupied by Armenia and Armenian forces -- this is unversally recognized, affirmed, attested and acknowledged, and there is no way around this. --AdilBaguirov 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
And has nothing to do with my map. --Golbez 21:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Specific issues: Khankendi. Again, if I am using the de facto borders, I should use the de facto name, especially when it's the capital. It would be kind of insulting to do otherwise.
"Insulting"? Dear Golbez, insulting to whom? To 300,000 Armenian refugees/IDPs, or 800,000 Azerbaijani refugees/IDPs? To the up to 6,000 Armenian dead (5,000 military + 1,000 civilians), or the over 25,000 Azerbaijani killed and massacred (10,000 military and the rest 15,000 civilian, of which no less than 700 were slaughtered in one night in Khojaly)? --AdilBaguirov 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Insulting to those who remain there and control it. The most NPOV method is to use the name used by people who live there, or the English translation thereof. Control is far more easy to determine than claim. However, this has nothing to do with my map - My map uses names chosen by wikipedia, and at present, our article is at Stepanakert, with if I recall a lengthy debate behind what to call it. If there is a consensus to move the article back to Khankendi, then my map will be accordingly modified. --Golbez 21:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be similar (though not exactly like) to naming "Saigon" before "Ho Chi Minh City" on a map of Vietnam. The North won, they renamed it; as is their right.
you are forgetting about one "little" thing -- the North not only won, but sought and established full de jure control without much problems, almost instantly, as it was internationally legitimate and recognized, and had visits by US President Clinton, among other leaders from around the world. Plus, those were two different political factions of Vietnamese fighting each other (e.g., civil war), not two different ethnic groups, with aggression of one country against another (conventional or trans-national, inter-boundary war). --AdilBaguirov 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Karabakh is the de facto ruler of the region, Azerbaijan has no rule over the area, and seems to have accepted this.
Never! Azerbaijan NEVER accepted it and NEVER will. Who told you that?! Where ever was this said? Perhaps you should read all the relevant news, as well as read or watch the speech of President Aliyev at the Council of Foreign Relations in Washington DC on 26 April 2006, where he is very clear and unambiguous, and speaks in English, thus leaving no doubts about being understood crystal clear. [9].
My information may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the line of control was rather static, until you told me otherwise. I only deal with the borders, not the movements. My knowledge of Azerbaijan and Karabakh comes from a simple, objective issue - the maps and the lines in them. I have no opinion otherwise. --Golbez 21:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
And once again, neither does "Karabakh" have any rule (you are mistaking "Karabakh" for Armenians"), nor do Armenians have full control of the territory of former NKAO. --AdilBaguirov 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
However, on a larger map, I could definitely entertain an article to list both names, but on a zoomed in map? I dunno. I might think about it. After all, de facto control is still only de facto, BUT internal divisions of nations aren't internationally recognized - only external.
That's not precise -- does it mean the State of California's borders (which are internal US borders) are not recognized? Then how can this unrecognized and amorphous (since anything with undercognized borders is amorphous by definition) entity have about 7 trade offices abroad, including one in Armenia? What about Germany's Bavaria? Or Tatarstan in Russia? Wales, Scotland and North Ireland and England in UK?
On every CIA/State Dept map I see, there is a disclaimer: "The borders are not indicative of any official recognition", or something like that. They portray what the home government says, but the US Government has no opinion whatsoever. Put another way - if Germany changed the borders of Bavaria, would the state department have to officially recognize the change? No. But they DO officially recognize whether or not, say, Germany can annex the Sudetenland. They don't officially care about what happens with the internal borders of a country. --Golbez 21:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yet this is not very relevant once again -- Wikipedia's obligation is to report the accurate and objective information, facts, not wishful thinking, smoke screen, propaganda, deception. As such, there is no objection to show any internal borders, or even Soviet-era names favored by Armenians as long as they are identified as such, Armenian. Also, the map has to show the internationally-recognized names as those are the one's used in most international documents, 2) have a clear disclaimer that the area is occupied and internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. --AdilBaguirov 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, the only people who can truly say what the name of Stepanakert/Khankendi is are the people who live there, or the leaders in Baku - and they don't seem to be in a situation to dictate names.
To tell the truth, this is an unexpected and unprecendented comment, and is neither correct from the standpoint of political science and law, nor fair and just. The only people who can truly say what are the true names/toponyms are the people who live(d) in the whole country, and not just one small area -- and that means not just residents of Armenian origin of NK, but everyone from the entire Karabakh, which is at least twice larger than NK that was artificially created in 1921-23 (and much of that historic Karabakh is not occupied by Armenia). Anything short of that is unacceptable and unrecognized. We as a human society must follow certain common rules and laws -- and that's we our ancestors invented the international law, which is applicable to everyone, and has provided at least some stability and predictability. No one is outside the law -- and if they are, it generally ends very bad. The occupation of Karabakh has been in full effect since 1994 (but started earlier), but it will not go indefinitely, this is also very clear, as the people, especially the Karabakh people, have not accepted the temporary reality on the ground. Until Azerbaijan signs an agreement with Armenia and recognizes any of the Armenian POV, anything reflecting that POV at the expense of Azerbaijan is wrong and illegal. --AdilBaguirov 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Illegal? Are you going to have me arrested? As for the country thing, I wasn't aware that I, living in the eastern USA, had any say in what the name of San Diego is. I think the people of San Diego would also be unhappy with that situation. You are successfully dragging me far, far away from the core of the argument, which I will answer again: There is nothing wrong with offering a map of the borders as declared by the self-declared government of the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, nor with giving the names declared by same. If you find something wrong with that, I suppose you are blinded by your Azerbaijani POV. --Golbez 21:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Aghdere: Never heard of it. Google has no map of it. Are you talking about the Karabakh province, or the Azerbaijan rayon? These are the provinces and rayons, not cities. Not every rayon in Azerbaijan shares its name with its central city.
I was not clear to me whether Mardakert on your map denoted the town or the region's name. Aghdere is just the name of the town, but an important name, as much of war chronology involved it. Anyways, by bringing about Aghdere, I've only wanted to show the correct name of the town, whilst the region is Terter/Tartar. --AdilBaguirov 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Shushi: See above. As the Armenian/Karabakh/de facto name, it went on the map with the Karabakh/de facto borders. As for the "international governments" issue, I don't think any international government officially recognizes internal divisions. I do know that every CIA map says "this does not represent an official recognition of these divisions" or some sort. I think the United Nations feels the same way, but I cannot be entirely sure of that. The UN map you linked doesn't include any divisions, so I don't see how it's relevant to this.
The maps I've included are relevant from the stand point of corrent name/toponym usage. Despite Karabakh being temporary occupied, it is still part of Azerbaijan and is under its jurisdiction -- i.e., even in US State Department (to name a few intl. orgs) reports, all the illegal and negative events that happen on all the occupied territories, are reported in the Azerbaijan report. Also, the Nagorno-Karabakh page does not belong to Armenians and Armenian POV -- since it is territory of Azerbaijan, and both Armenia and Azerbaijan are members of the intl. community, of UN, OSCE, PACE, etc., they are accountable. Likewise, no all of Karabakh/NKAO/"NKR" is controlled by Armenians -- Azerbaijan still have about 15% of it. Hence, even if we adopt this logic about "whoever militarily controls it, has the first right to name it", Armenians are not fully qualified even then. --AdilBaguirov 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You are correct that the US State Department does not recognize the NKR as independent, and yes, probably qualifies their actions as illegal. However, again, I don't think they care a whit what lines the NKR draws and what they name them. --Golbez 21:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I am exceedingly neutral in this argument, being American and having no dog in any corner except trying to make good maps. I have also, obviously, done extensive research on the borders and internal divisions of Azerbaijan; far less so on Karabakh, but that's mostly due to a lack of material. There are many maps of the rayons of Azerbaijan (though few are perfectly accurate... like mine is. ;)) but very, very few of Nagorno-Karabakh.
You say the current map is 100% Armenian. Maybe it is. The map I have of Azerbaijan is 100% Azeri, but I've received no complaints on that. The color scheme in both remains the same. --Golbez 06:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the time you took and your neutrality, as well as the color scheme. What I am saying is that the current page and the map are neither correct from the standpoint of internaitonal legitimacy, nor overall presentation as none of the disclaimers and warnings are prominently displayed. It is misleading and confusing, people going to the page are hit with only one detailed map which is 100% Armenian POV. Meanwhile, once again, the map of Azerbaijan and its currently occupied part is not only "Azerbaijani POV", but the POV of international community and based on international laws. We all live in the same world and all abide by rules, guidelines, regulations and laws of countries, as well as international law, which often superceeds national laws. Hence, let's respect that, like we respect it in real life. --AdilBaguirov 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
They are correct from the point of view that these are the lines drawn by people who declared themselves in charge of the NKR and, for the time being, have backed it up. There's nothing wrong with portraying this. By your logic, we could not have a map of Abkhazia at all, because it is not a recognize country, and therefore having a map of it would be pro-Abkhazia POV. Incorrect. --Golbez 21:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, many sections, particularly the lead are the result of hours of debate, the lead, we came to a compromise. Respect those who have participated in this article. I already know you, have read some of the materials you have written elsewhere, while I will assume good faith here in Wikipedia, this doesn't mean to not be cautious. Regards. Fad (ix) 20:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, so what are you saying? To be more concrete, what exactly you don't like about my edits? Just as a note, I was being modest and conservative with my edits. But I can dedicate more time and enrich the page considerably with many interesting sources -- all fully cited, references and with scanned pages readily available for verification. --AdilBaguirov 21:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to calm down

This has gotten a bit out of control, with repeated statements thrown everywhere. I've made some changes to the province section to attempt to NPOVify it a little more and explain things better. What do you think, Adil? And I don't deny in the least that I had a major part in riling things up, at least I think they're riled up. If not, they're getting there. --Golbez 22:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, why did you revert the page? The "self-styled" was agreed to by FrancisTyers on 00:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC), and not objected by yourself. There is no way to object it really -- I've given more than one citation showing it is the norm and standard. In fact, the intro paragraph I've prepared was shortened. A couple about military occupation from either (or both) CIA or Presidential Determination are a must, as is the "self-styled"/"so-called"/"unrecognized" before each mentioning of "NKR".
Consider this my objection. --Golbez 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And the table is a little better but the main questions are not resolved, specifically: the mentioning of Shaumyan which is neither part of NK nor under Armenian occupation; the absense of a clear warning/disclaimer; and internaitonally-recognized names on the map. --AdilBaguirov 23:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning? You need to stop representing it as dangerous please. As for Shahumian, that is mentioned in a footnote - again, these are the SELF-DECLARED divisions of N-K. They can claim they own Moscow and we'll mention it, with a nice footnote pointing out how idiotic such a claim is. --Golbez 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing the quote from the lead.

According to the CIA World Factbook, "Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan".[10]

Do not misrepresent me again. I never accepted "self-styled". - FrancisTyers · 23:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I said "lets leave" as in, lets leave it because I'm not going to agree to it ever. It is bad style and bad practice. - FrancisTyers · 23:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, I am not misrepresenting anyone -- you clearly said what you said, which is "let's leave the "self-styled"". Once again, I've cited it extensively, and shown that every respectable publication and organization mentions so-called "NKR" only like that. Secondly, both of my quotes are valid and must be present in the article - they are crucial to anyone's understanding and status of the region. Obviously, with regards to such uncontrolled territories in war-torn zones, the most important issue is that of its military-political status -- it eclipses everything else. And all readers have the right to know what happened. CIA has such a wording twice, including in their lead/intro paragraph -- why is Wiki any different? As of US Presidential Determination -- I think it speaks for itself, if a US President put his name on such a document. I can bring a few more State Department quotes, if necessary. Thus, I do not understand why are you reverting and otherwise removing these quotes? The current page is Armenian POV, not neutral. I hope no one here will accuse US president and CIA of being "Azerbaijan POV" or otherwise having a horse in the race, and not being neutral. Let's put both of them back in and then agree on the map. --AdilBaguirov 23:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I just went through the page and I find it to be rather neutral. Just my opinion, of course. And the Azerbaijan POV is well-represented - we point out that they claim it, that all nations say it's part of Azerbaijan. What's the problem? All we then do is point out that while they claim it, and everyone says they own it, they lack military control over the bulk of the territory, meaning it is de facto independent. The line of control is rather static. There are negotiations ongoing as to the future of N-K and the NKR. Please, Adil, dispense with the platitudes and just tell us, straight out: What is POV about this article? Point out a section or paragraph or sentence, and then say what POV is leans towards. That will help us, rather than these broad statements about the US State Department and Shahumian. --Golbez 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

U.S. policy towards territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: a fact sheet

1) “The United States does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country, and its leadership is not recognized internationally or by the United States. The United States supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan…” Source: “The United States and the Conflict Over Nagorno-Karabakh”, Fact Sheet, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Washington, DC, February 7, 2005, http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/41401.htm

2) “As a result of the continuing conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenian military forces occupy a portion of the territory of Azerbaijan.” Source: Criteria for U.S. Assistance Under Section 498a(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act. Armenia. U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Eurasia - FY 2003, Released by the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, January 2004, http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rpt/c13148.htm

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

4) “In the late 18th century, several khanates [Azerbaijani kingdoms], including Karabakh [founded in 1747], emerged in the south Caucasus to challenge the waning influence of the [Iranian Empire and] Ottoman Empire. After the Russian Empire eventually took control over the region in 1813, Azerbaijani Turks began to emigrate from Karabakh while the Armenian population of mountainous (Nagorno) Karabakh grew. With the 1917 Russian Revolution, Azerbaijan and Armenia each declared independence [in 1918] and sought control over Karabakh during the Russian Civil War. In 1923, after the Bolshevik takeover of the Caucasus, Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) was made an autonomous region [NKAO] within the Azerbaijani Soviet Republic. Soviet control temporarily quieted ethnic tensions.

By the 1980s, NK's population was about 75% ethnic Armenian, with most Azerbaijanis living in the district and city of Shusha. [According to the last official Soviet census (1989), 91.7% of population of Shusha district and 98% of the city Shusha were ethnic Azerbaijanis. Since 1992, all were either killed or became refugees (IDPs)].

The violence increased dramatically after the withdrawal of Soviet troops. Over 30,000 people were killed in the fighting from 1992 to 1994. In May 1992, Armenian and Karabakhi forces seized Shusha (the historical, Azerbaijani-populated capital of the region) and Lachin (thereby linking NK to Armenia). By October 1993 Armenian and Karabakhi forces eventually succeeded in occupying almost all of NK, Lachin and large areas in southwestern Azerbaijan. As Armenian and Karabakhi forces advanced, hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijani refugees fled to other parts of Azerbaijan. In 1993 the UN Security Council adopted resolutions calling for the cessation of hostilities, unimpeded access for international humanitarian relief efforts, and the eventual deployment of a peacekeeping force in the region. The UN also called for immediate withdrawal of all ethnic Armenian forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Fighting continued, however, until May 1994 when Russia brokered a cease-fire.” Source: U.S. Department of State, History of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, March 30, 2001.

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

6) "At the end of 1991, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan escalated into war. Between 1992 and 1994 almost 20 percent of the Azerbaijan's territory, including six districts of Azerbaijan in addition to Nagorno-Karabagh, were under Armenian control, resulting in mass population displacement within the country. The State estimated the number of internally displaced persons at 778,500 by the end of 1993, and 604,574 as of 1 March 1998. UNHCR estimates are lower, with 551,000 persons at the end of 1997." Source: International Organization for Migration, 1999, Migration in the CIS 1997-1998, 1999 Edition, p. 40.

7) "The more than 600,000 displaced Azerbaijanis constitute the largest group of IDPs in the Caucasus. The displaced include the entire Azeri population of Nagorno-Karabakh and a wide area surrounding it. They comprise a broad range of professionals, farmers, and workers and include men, women, and children of all ages. Because of the ethnic basis of displacement in Azerbaijan, the IDPs there are virtually all Azeri (Turkic) peoples. Most of them are nominally Shia Muslim, but many of those from Lachin and Kelbajar Provinces are Sunni Muslim Kurds." Source: Greene, Thomas, 1998, The Forsaken People, "Internal Displacement in the North Caucasus, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia", Washington D.C: The Brookings Institution, p. 254.

8) "The overwhelming majority, over 99 per cent, of the internally displaced population are ethnic Azeris. The remainder are some 4,000 Kurds from the Lachin and Kelbajar districts and several hundred persons of various other ethnic groups, mostly Russian." Source: United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR), 25 January 1999, Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Francis M. Deng, Profiles in displacement: Azerbaijan (E/CN.4/1999/79/Add.1), para. 31.

9) ”Now the longest-running conflict in the former Soviet Union, the battle for Nagorno-Karabakh has rapidly expanded and intensified since it began in 1988, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 25,000 soldiers and civilians and the displacement of one million others. What began with demonstrations calling for the unification of the Republic of Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh, a largely Armenian [populated] region of Azerbaijan, became a full-scale war in 1992. In 1993, the war spilled into other parts of Azerbaijan as Karabakh Armenian forces, often with the support of the Republic of Armenia, conducted massive offensive military operations into the Azeri-populated provinces surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh.” "The Republic of Armenia has claimed that all Armenian citizens participating in hostilities in Nagorno Karabakh [region] or [remainder of] Azerbaijan are merely 'volunteers.' Human Rights Watch / Helsinki found that this claim is not true...“ "In addition to committing troops to the conflict against Azerbaijan and in support of the Nagorno Karabakh rebels, the Republic of Armenia also has provided material aid to the rebels...” Source: Human Rights Watch / Helsinki (HRW). Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, December 1994, 136 pp., ISBN 1-56432-142-8.


--AdilBaguirov 23:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. You think Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan. The US State Department says so.
Guess what, Adil? WE AGREE. WE SAY SO RIGHT IN THE BLOODY INTRO. SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT? --Golbez 23:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional quotes

10) “Annex A: Assessments of Progress in Meeting the Standards of Section 498A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 Section 498A(a)(4): "respect international law and obligations and adhere to the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Charter of Paris, including the obligations to refrain from the threat or use of force and to settle disputes peacefully."

In November 1999, Armenia joined the other OSCE states in signing the Charter for European Security, which reaffirms full adherence to all OSCE documents already in force. However, Armenia does not recognize the borders of Azerbaijan as defined in OSCE documents at the time of accession. Armenia facilitated the opening of an OSCE office in Yerevan in 2000. As a result of the continuing conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenian military forces occupy a portion of the territory of Azerbaijan. <…..>

Section 498A(a)(6): "implement responsible security policies, including-- (A) adhering to arms control obligations derived from agreements signed by the former Soviet Union; (B) reducing military forces and expenditures to a level consistent with legitimate defense requirements; (C) not proliferating nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, their delivery systems, or related technologies; and (D) restraining conventional weapons transfers."

<……> Armenian compliance with CFE has been uneven. In addition to Armenia's longstanding failure to properly notify or carry out reductions required by the Treaty, there are serious concerns about the completeness of Armenia's data on equipment holdings. Also of concern are: evidence that Armenia may have failed to notify increases in unit holdings involving CFE Treaty limited equipment transferred from Russia, the fact that Armenia continues to station troops and CFE limited equipment on the territory of Azerbaijan without Azerbaijani permission, and evidence that Armenia made a late notification of the entry into service of multiple rocket launchers purchased from China. Another area of concern is Armenia’s failure to report the apparent transfer of TLE from Russia in the mid-1990s. There has been no change in this issue by the Armenians.

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

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


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

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

--AdilBaguirov 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)