Wikipedia

Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grandmaster (talk | contribs) at 06:46, 4 July 2006 (→Armenians living in the Region before Azaris). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Grandmaster in topic Armenians living in the Region before Azaris
Learn more about this page
WikiProject iconArmenia Unassessed
WikiProject iconNagorno-Karabakh is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAzerbaijan Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijanWikiProject icon
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives:

Is NK internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have already quoted UN, PACE, Atkinson, US State Department and many other international sources, as well as Britannica and Columbia encyclopedias, all of which stated that NK is a region of Azerbaijan and this fact is recognized internationally. In response to that Tigran quoted some law schools, which have their own understanding of legal aspects, not shared by any credible international organization. Now some contributors were asking despite all the above sources, quoted by me, if NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Here are more sources for you:

Nagorno-Karabakh has aspirations for independence and argues with some reason that it has a democratically-elected government that is meeting the preconditions of statehood. However, it is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan and is still highly dependant on Armenia for its military security and economic survival: over half its army are believed to be Armenian citizens, while Yerevan covers 50 per cent of the budget through an "interstate loan" that is virtually interest free and unlikely to be paid back. Azeris do not participate in its political, economic, cultural and social institutions. Nagono-Karabakh has mono-ethnic institutions and become one of the world's most militarised societies.

International Crisis Group [1]

The conflict ended with Armenian forces in control of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan's territory. [2]

Nagorno-Karabakh held local elections in August, ignoring calls from the Council of Europe to cancel the balloting. The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry issued a protest at the holding of these elections in the territory, which is internationally recognized as being part of Azerbaijan. The Armenian authorities in Karabakh, in turn, rejected the Azerbaijani claims.

Nagorno-Karabakh has enjoyed de facto independence from Azerbaijan since 1994 and retains close political, economic, and military ties with Armenia. Parliamentary elections in 1995 and 2000 were regarded as generally free and fair, as were the 1996 and 1997 presidential votes. However, the elections were considered invalid by most of the international community, which does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh's independence.

Freedom House [3]

The emerging republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia clashed over control of Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan but with an ethnic Armenian majority.

Nagorno-Karabakh : A conflict that can be resolved in time by Brenda Shaffer International Herald Tribune [4]

Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs [5]

Although the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of Azerbaijan declared independence in January 1992 as the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, no country recognizes this independence, and under international law the area remains part of Azerbaijan. In this report, "Nagorno-Karabakh" refers to the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki Azerbaijan : Seven years of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh

All these sources are non-governmental, but very reputable nonetheless, and they know what they are talking about. They say the same thing as the governmental sources I quoted before. The case of collective hallucination is unlikely. I suggest once again to restore the statement that NK is a de-jure part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 11:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Grandmaster, NPOV tag

Latest comment: 19 years ago77 comments6 people in discussion

Apart from "de jure", do you still have any specific NPOV complaints with the intro?

No, but that's a major issue, therefore the tag remains until its resolved. But also, it was the Armenian popualtion of NKAO and Shaumian who declared independence and voted in referendum, and not the whole population of those regions. Azeris and Kurds boycoted separatist actions. Therefore it should refer to Armenian population only as those who took those actions. Grandmaster 18:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The people of the United States voted for George W. Bush for president - even though 70% of the nation didn't. The referendum was passed in favor, it matters not who decided not to vote - and even if they had, they would have been the minority. You do not know that only Armenians voted for it, and we've already established that the region is predominantly Armenian. I don't think it can be made any clearer. --Golbez 18:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I know for sure that not a single Azeri voted in separatist referendum. I know that for one simple reason: by that time Azeris were expelled from all settlements with predominantly Armenian population, and the settlements with Azeri population did not participate in that referendum. And predominantly Armenian means that there were Azeris as well, it now appears as if they also voted in support of that decision. Grandmaster 19:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
"I know for sure" is not a great argument. The predominantly Armenian region voted for secession; unless you can point out a source which states that ONLY Armenians voted for it, then we cannot state as such. --Golbez 19:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
How about common logic? Why would Azeris vote for secession form Azerbaijan? Grandmaster 19:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
We cannot cite common logic. And I don't know, maybe they were annoyed about being shelled all the time. Maybe they married Armenians. Maybe they like converted to Christianity. Maybe they didn't vote at all. It's all irrelevant. --Golbez 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
There was no shelling at the time, the war started later, and mass conversion to Christianity was not reported. Azeris did not vote at all, simply boycotted it. Grandmaster 20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The referendum occured on Dec 10 1991; according to nkrusa.org, Stepanakert was first shelled on September 25 1991. --Golbez 23:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
My modest comment: the fact that the ethnic Azeris boycotted the 1991 NK referendum is mentioned virtually in all works available at books.google.com. Here are a couple of citations:
"On 10 December 1991, Nagorno-Karabakh held its own referendum on independence (following Azerbaijan's, on 18 October 1991) (40). The vote overwhelmingly 'approved' Karabakh's sovereignty with 82,2% of Karabakh's registered voters participating (although the Azeri population boycotted the plebiscite) and 99,98% supporting its independence from the already seceded Republic of Azerbaijan." Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal, by Tim Potier, ISBN 9041114777, p. 8.
"On 8 December, a referendum was organized in Karabakh to confirm the secession, and not surprisingly, 99 per cent of the votes cast were in favour, especially since the Azeri population boycotted the referndum." Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus, by Svante E Cornell, ISBN 0700711627, p. 91.
"The Karabakh Armenians responded on 10 December by holding a referendum on independence, in which, naturally, no Azerbaijanis took part. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War, by Thomas De Waal, ISBN 0814719457, p. 162.
"Because the Azeri inhabitants of the NKAO boycotted the referendum, the vote was not entirely reflective of the whole Karabakh population. Interfax, 19 January 1992, in FBIS-SOV, #92-013 (21 January 1992): 90-91." The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications, by Michael P Croissant, ISBN 0275962415, p. 74. Hope that helps.--Kober 20:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
All sourced info helps, thanks. --Golbez 23:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I may have made it slightly more clear, feel free to revert. - FrancisTyers · 18:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
My ideal is that we have nothing repeated. --Golbez 18:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
A noble ideal ;) I might note that we don't actually say in the introduction that anyone voted. We just say that the region declared. - FrancisTyers · 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I noticed that literally about 90 seconds ago. ;) I was wondering how best to state it. "the NKAO and Shahumian [voted for independence]"? "a referendum favoring independence was held the NKAO and Shahumian"? --Golbez 19:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry Golbez, but you don’t own the article and have no right to unilaterally decide whether something should be in the article or not. Let’s discuss before reverting. Since you support one of the sides of the dispute, let us listen to each other before making decisions. Grandmaster 18:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
It's incorrect to say I support a side. I admit a sympathy to separatist regions, but I have no opinion on this particular conflict, only in creating a neutral article. I don't own the article, and neither does anyone else - but I suppose I have become a de facto mediator in this situation. --Golbez 19:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Do you think things should be repeated? --Golbez 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Armenians in the region voted to secede and declare their independence by over 99%. In 1923, the region was 94% Armenian and by the 1980s, it was about 75%, this mainly had to do with Aliev's attempts to make the region more Azeri than Armenian. Here's a quote from him:
“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."
From the Regnum article on the NK War page. I just figured this might make be an important note in the article.--MarshallBagramyan 19:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I prefer someone else to mediate the dispute. Please take no offence, but even if it was not your intention, your efforts only resulted in the intro representing only one position. So I suggest we ask someone else to mediate, while you can always contribute to the discussion as an editor. And there’s nothing wrong in bringing more clarity in the issue, you actually don’t repeat the info, saying that Armenians were the majority and that the Armenian majority voted in support of secession are two different things. Grandmaster 19:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Here are the viewpoints expressed: Location is probably as neutral as we can make it. Establishment of NKAO is neutral. Proclamation of NKR is neutral; lack of recognition is neutral. The facts of the war are neutral, except for the Azeri rayons being controlled and not occupied. So please, tell me, whose position is being expressed here? Because as far as I can see, it's pretty much neutral. NO ONE'S position is being expressed - that's the whole point of NPOV. Only facts are being given - the region proclaimed independence, this is not in dispute. It is not recognized, this is not in dispute. So PLEASE, Grandmaster, tell me what's wrong with it. --Golbez 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The very first line: Nagorno-Karabakh is a region in the South Caucasus within the borders of Azerbaijan is wrong and contradicts the way similar articles in wiki and the articles about NK in Britannica and Columbia are written. It should say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan, it is so obvious and every authoritative source says so. Those articles are written by competent people, and only this one has such a POV intro, which denies well-known facts. And yes, all Azeri editors here support my and Adil’s position, you can ask them yourself, if you want. Grandmaster 20:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The conflict over that is known. There are another half dozen sentences in that lede. Are you saying the others only present one position? I know about your complaint with that one, answer the rest please. Justify your comment. --Golbez 20:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Other than the issues that I mentioned I have no problems with other sentences there. Grandmaster 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Then don't condemn the whole thing with a statement like "the intro represents only one position." It gets annoying. --Golbez 20:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
If I say the lead represents only one position would it be less annoying? Grandmaster 20:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
How about "First sentence"? --Golbez 23:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
But if you say it's part of Azerbaijan, then that's offering only one position! If you say it's independent, that's offering only one position. A middle ground must be found. And before you mention the others - S. Ossetia says it's WITHIN Georgia, Abkhazia states that it's a de jure division of Georgia, primarily I suspect because it actually is an official division of Georgia, whereas S. Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh were not delineated divisions of their parent states. And, note it says de jure WITHIN Georgia. So, is "within" a possibility? --Golbez 20:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
MarshallBagramyan, that’s really irrelevant to the referendum. The fact remains that 25% of Azeri population did not take part in it. As for your quote, the Azeri population grew all the 70 years of Soviet power, and not only in Aliyev’s time, while Azeri population was forced out from Armenia even by methods of physical deportation. Of course Azeri leaders also took measures, but without any deportations. Grandmaster 19:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think its relavent to the demographics.--MarshallBagramyan 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC) What?! The Azeri population in Armenia gre from 101,000 in the 1950s and 1960s to 160,000 by the late 1980s. I was living in Abovyan in 1988 and our relations with the Azeris was good; their street vendors always sold products at low price and we would chat with them in Armenian or Turkish. After Sumgait, we were of course upset with the Azeris' deeds but there were no reprisal acts by anyone, much less the government. Most Azeris left after November 1988. Its just rubbish for you to say that the Armenian government threatened to deport all the Azeris. The claim that the Azeri government didn't do anything like that reeks of bad odor when recalling that Op. Ring in 1991. "Voluntary Deportations"- right.--MarshallBagramyan 20:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Azeris were a majority in the territory of present day Armenia and were prevailing even in its current capital. They were forced out by various means, for example by deportations of late 1940s – early 1950s. You say Azeri population grew since fifties, but what was before that? There are plenty of documents with regard to what was happening there. Grandmaster 20:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
My comments referred to Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia after the war.--MarshallBagramyan 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Question — if we are to do NPOV, we could present both sides in the lead, e.g. "considered by the Azerbaijani government and the United Nations as being a region in Azerbaijan and by Armenia and the NKR as being a region within the borders of Azerbaijan". Just a suggestion. I mean, we can't present "region in Azerbaijan" as fact, because it is disputed, but I think we can do it like this. Anyway, discussion as always below. - FrancisTyers · 20:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The thing is that it's not just Azerbaijan and UN who recognize it as a region of Azerbaijan, but many countries of the world officially do so, including all the major players, that’s why all sources say that NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, as since no one recognizes the independence of NK the only recognition the region has is as part of Azerbaijan. And also, according to the UN charter the members of UNO recognize each others territorial integrity, so NK as a region of Azerbaijan is recognized universally. Grandmaster 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we can't say it is recognised universally as being a "region of Azerbaijan" without sources for each country. As I've mentioned, this is obviously disputed, and unless a country explicitly states that it recognises NK as a region of Azerbaijan, then we can't state that. I mean, the situation is very complex, not simply binary "is a region", "isn't a region". - FrancisTyers · 21:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

But why then all encyclopedias refer to it as a region of Azerbaijan? Britannica for example is written by best experts. See the article about NK:

Britannica Concise

Region (pop., 2002 est.: 144,300), southwestern Azerbaijan. It occupies an area of about 1,700 sq mi (4,400 sq km) on the northeastern flank of the Karabakh Range. The region was formerly part of Iran but was annexed by Russia in 1813. In 1923 it was established as an autonomous province of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. In 1988 the region's Armenian majority demonstrated against Azerbaijanian rule, and in 1991 (after the breakup of the Soviet Union) war broke out between the two ethnic groups. Since 1994 it has been controlled by ethnic Armenians, though officially it remains part of Azerbaijan. [6]

Nagorno-Karabakh

Encyclopædia Britannica Article

also spelled Nagorno-karabach, region of southwestern Azerbaijan. It occupies an area of 1,700 square miles (4,400 square km) on the northeastern flank of the Karabakh Range of the Lesser Caucasus and extends from the crest line of the range to the margin of the Kura River lowland at its foot. [7]

Grandmaster 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It also says that officially NK remains part of Azerbaijan. BBC says NK de-jure is part of Azerbaijan. I kind of think those people know what they are talking about. Grandmaster 21:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

HRW also says the same thing:

Although the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of Azerbaijan declared independence in January 1992 as the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, no country recognizes this independence, and under international law the area remains part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 21:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Britannica doesn't like Wikipedia. They might be even more unhappy to see that their copyrighted passages have now been pasted at least three times on this talk page in the last few weeks. We got the point. Repeating does nothing for your cause, I've already cautioned Adil on this, it just fills up the talk page and accomplishes nothing. --Golbez 23:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Golbez, first, about the NK vs Armenians only declared independence. This can be solved easily. Azeris and Kurds were not the only minority in NK. There were many Yezidis who actually fought with Armenians against Azeris. We have no source stating that they didn't vote. So, we don't need to specify that ONLY Armenians voted (i.e. I support your version).

Second, "generally recognized" is slightly less problematic then "de-jure" (which is one legal interpretation), but it may be inaccurate. Do we know that 90%, or 80% of countries recognize it as part of Az? As Golbez correctly noted, we don't. We know that they haven't recognized its independence. Does it automatically mean they recognize it as part of Azerbaijan? What about the possibility that they simply don't care. Or they refuse to take explicit position one way or another for fear affecting negotiations. PACE resolutions seem to be doing just that (which do not include Atkinson's pro-Azeri phrases, per Kazimirov's criticism, and not once state "region of Azerbaijan.")

By the way, if Grandmaster insists that "unrecognized" necessarily implies "recognized as part of Azerbaijan," he has nothing to worry about--we already state that "noone on this green planet recognizes its independence." So, if Grandmaster's logic holds, then it automatically satisfies the "recognized as part of Az" problem. We don't have to state it twice."

Now, does the mention by Britannica mean that it's "generally recognized as part of Azerbaijan?" Of course not. We can take Brittanica as an authorit. source for hard facts (say on this day this happened etc.). When it comes to *views*, we Wiki have our own neutrality policy, which is stricter than any encycl. I know. Perhaps Britannica felt like "UNSC's position is enough. The hell with the rest of the world, or the opinions of the principal parties--Armenia and NK." Well, we don't do it like that. So, the fact that Britannica, and the private sites mentioned by Grandmaster, say it's "recognized as part of Az," it reflects the views of these fiew sources. Again, without information from the rest of the world, I don't think saying "generally recognized as part of Az" is warranted.

Now, we already have a section "International Status," created by Francis per my suggestion for the purpose of resolving this issue. And it lists who thinks what. Let the reader consult the section and decide for himself whether this means "generally recognized," "de jure," or simply "unrecognized." --TigranTheGreat 23:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

We have the statements of the UN, and no one but Armenia has issued statements contradicting it, so far as I know... sigh, this fight is getting tiresome. --Golbez 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I think Golbez is doing just great as an admin. If nothing else, he *listens*, he takes time to *listen*, and he doesn't rush. I have seen some admins on other pages who are not quite as patient. And for those who think he is not-neutral--he just skinned an Armenian editor with the username "Alex87" a few days ago. (I think justifiably).--TigranTheGreat 23:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Alex85, who was under the delusion that Nachichevan and Nagorno-Karabakh were part of Armenia, and was editing the "list of countries by area" to reflect this. --Golbez 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, about this "European experts" who dispute the applicability of Soviet Law (which I think they misunderstand). I took a closer look at the paper. Right after it's dispute, it states in a footnote References to legal texts are taken from various sources without independent check against the original legal texts - except where explicitly presented as quotations. So, they didn't check the actual text of the Soviet Law--they read about it it from secondary sources. Now, could these secondary sources be provided by Azeris? I scanned the whole paper. Two of the maps are taken right from Azeris. On page 21 there is a map called "Armenian Aggression." On page 18, when they give a map of the region in 1918-20, they use a map from the 1918 Azerbaijan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Furthermore, at the very end, there is a letter by Azerbaijan's Ambassador. Of course there are no letters from the Armenian side, or maps by Armenians regarding the modern history of the region. I think that tells alot about the neutrality of the paper.

These kinds of factors are precisly the reason why we don't take one source's position as the absolute truth--they could be mistaken, they could be influenced by one-sided lobbying.--TigranTheGreat 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


One more thing. "Generally recognized" sounds too much like a "weasel word," (much like "...is widely considered to be..., from the WP:AWW page), which necessarily contains a hidden POV. There is virtually no way to verify such statements, without taking a poll of every nation. As I said before, the Int. Status section is the proper place to explore these issues.

Finally, once again, while Grandmaster states that the "within the borders of Azerbaijan" is Armenia POV, I just don't see how can this possibly be Armenian POV. It doesn't say "NK is independent," or even "NK is NOT part of Azerbaijan." That would be Armenian POV. It simply states the simple fact that NK is surrounded by Az. territory.--TigranTheGreat 01:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I realize that this fight is getting tiresome, Golbez, which is why the best way to avoid such issues is to stick to facts.

We know as a fact that UN SC resolutions say "region of Azerbaijan." That's what the Int. Status section states. Does this mean that "it's generally regarded as region of Azerbaijan." UNSC has only a dozen states in it, and we don't know who voted for it in 1993. Does UNSC's position reflect UN's position? UNSC is less representative than UN. By analogy with the US, UNSC is more like the executive, with UN GA being the legislature. Just like the US president's 1981 recognition of the Arm. Genocide doesn't mean the whole US recognizes it, I don't think UNSC's statements reflect all of UN's positions. Moreover, they are not legally binding for every single state out there. So, how can we use an ambiguous statement like "generally recognized?" Again, let's stick to facts. It's unrecognized. We know it. And in the next section, we list who recognizes it.

And I realize that Armenia is the only country expliciting holding the position that NK is not part of Azerbaijan. Does this mean that the rest of the countries keeping silent automatically hold the opposite position? What if they intentionally avoid taking a position? We shouldn't infer general acceptance of a position out of silence.--TigranTheGreat 01:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC) --TigranTheGreat 01:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, Grandmaster once posted a BBC News page stating that "NK is de jure part of Azerbaijan" (which of course is a legal interpretation and thus an position). Here is another article from the same BBC News site, taking the position that NK is disputed, and not once mentioning that it's undisputably part of Az:

Parliamentary elections have been held in the disputed south Caucasus enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which seceded from Azerbaijan in 1991.

Azerbaijan still claims sovereignty over the territory but was beaten back by Armenian forces in the war http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4107988.stm

I don't think we can infer an ambiguous statement such as "generally recognized as part of Az," when even the same source takes two different positions on the issue.--TigranTheGreat 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here is another one. Fadix posted this back in February. Agence France Presse, in covering the NK situation, states:

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.

Saying that Karabakh is an Armenian enclave which separated itself from Azerbaijan, and the land as disputed.

Clearly a conclusion of "general acceptance" is not warranted. And of course, the PACE resolution not once uses the phrase "region of Azerbaijan."

The above demonstrates the caveat of using a few sources and inferring "general acceptance."--TigranTheGreat 03:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, Fadix quoted Universalis, a French Encyclopedia in the February discussions, again presenting NK as a disputed area. Again, the "generally recognized" qualifier, itself ambiguous, is unsupported.--TigranTheGreat 03:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're good. --Golbez 06:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Golbez, your current intro is perfect. The word "disputed" is fully supported, as the BBC article shows. I did in fact include the word 4 months ago. Problem is, Grandmaster strongly opposed the word. He fears it casts doubt the "de jure" Azeri ownership (which again is a legal interpretation, and thus one opinion). So, for the sake of compromise, while I support the word, I wouldn't oppose to its exclusion. --TigranTheGreat 17:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The current intro is not just POV, it’s factually inaccurate. NK is not a disputed area in the Caucasus, it’s a territory of Azerbaijan Republic, occupied by Armenia, who set up a puppet regime there. I cited my sources. Some people did everything possible to suppress this and other facts. NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. We don’t need every single state of the world to recognize it as part of Azerbaijan to say that it is recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Even if only one state recognizes it as part of Azerbaijan, it is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. If UN recognizes it as part of Azerbaijan, then it is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. The phrase “NK is recognized as part of Azerbaijan” means that other countries of the world and international organizations recognize it as part of Azerbaijan, the number is irrelevant. As long as there are countries that do recognize it as such, it is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Therefore all authoritative sources that I cited and that were completely ignored say that NK is recognized as a region of Azerbaijan. And the fact that NK is recognized as part of Azerbaijan means that it is a de-jure part of Azerbaijan, otherwise why the separatist regime claims that it strives for de-jure recognition? Since it has no de-jure recognition and the region is only recognized as part of de-jure independent Azerbaijan, it is de-jure part of Azerbaijan. It is that simple. Grandmaster 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The government of Armenia disputes it and has been disputing it for several decades now. Armenia didn't occupy Nagorno-Karabakh and impose its government unto it, its people, at least its Armenian majority, chose to secede on its own and elected its own government officials which have been anything but "yes men" for the Armenian government.--MarshallBagramyan 20:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Grandmaster, if you don't think it's disputed, then you have a bigger battle ahead of you - first you must get it removed from List of disputed territories. Also, from a quick Google search for '"Nagorno Karabakh" disputed':
  • Azerbaijanis miffed at Conservative presence at event for disputed territory ... The area has been effectively controlled by Armenia since 1994, and remains a hotly contested area of land since some of it includes occupied Azerbaijani territory. It's is almost completely populated by ethnic Armenians. (Canadian Press)
  • View Map of Nagorno-Karabakh (disputed) (Microsoft Encarta)
  • Two days of talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh have ended without agreement, the US says. (BBC)
  • The disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh is at the centre of attention once again ... (BBC)
  • A civilian helicopter was shot down over the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, killing about 40 people, according to reports from the area... (Wall Street Journal)
  • A cease-fire has been in place for years, but Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers kill each other every week in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. (National Public Radio)
  • 280,000 persons—virtually all ethnic Armenians who fled Azerbaijan during the 1988-1993 war over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh—were living in refugee-like circumstances in Armenia. (Wikipedia, heh)
  • Now in its fifth year, the war between Armenian forces and Azerbaijan over the disputed, Armenian-populated enclave of Nagorno Karabakh in 1993 ... (Human Rights Watch)
  • In Moldova, Georgia and in the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh... (UNITED NATIONS NEWS SERVICE)
  • Of that, $10 million was spent on the rebuilding in the mid-1990s of a strategic 80-kilometer highway linking the Armenian-controlled disputed region to Armenia proper. (UNITED NATIONS COUNTRY REPORT)
  • Economic growth has been hampered by wide-spread corruption, inadequate implementation of official reform policies, and the ongoing conflict with Armenia over the status of the disputed territory ofNagorno-Karabakh. (UNITED NATIONS COUNTRY REPORT)
  • The World Food Programme says that in addition to these people, nearly three-hundred-thousand people displaced by the conflict with Armenia over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh are likely to rely on food aid for the foreseeable future. (UNITED NATIONS WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME)
I could go on. Note that some of these - especially the United Nations and the BBC - ones you've used to justify terms you want to put in. You can't have it both ways. Simply put, stating it is disputed is simple fact, and I am undoing your change to the tag. You alone cannot change facts. --Golbez 21:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Stating that it is a de-jure part of Azerbaijan is also a fact, but you removed it from the article. Since it does not say that NK is legally part of Azerbaijan, it is factually inaccurate, therefore I restore the tag. You cannot remove the tag to hide that there is a dispute over the accuracy of the section. Also, I suggest we apply for official mediation, since there’s a long-running dispute between me and Adil from one side and you and Tigran from the other. Grandmaster 21:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is also from BBC:
Nagorno-Karabakh is legally part of Azerbaijan but has been controlled by Armenians since a war of 1988 to 1994. [8] Grandmaster 21:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
So you're willing to have disputed in there as long as we have de jure? Either it's disputed, or it's not. You triggered on saying it's not disputed. The region is disputed - claimed by Azerbaijan, owned by Karabakh, and generally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. How to mention that last part is the sticking point, but that does not change the fact that it is disputed. --Golbez 21:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I must note your selectiveness in using sources. You happily ignored a million sources, stating that NK is a region of Azerbaijan, internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, de-jure part of Azerbaijan, etc, and then came up with sources stating that NK is disputed and claim that we should rely on them. Also you ignored the way other similar conflicts are reflected in Wiki, but refer to the article about disputed regions. Either we support what other articles say, or we don’t. Either we rely on sources, or ignore them, but we cannot select sources to suit only one POV, as is the case now.
If you can find a source that says it's NOT a disputed territory, then please post them. I went to the links on the first 2 or 3 results from people that you have cited - like the BBC and United Nations. I was not selective in my selection at all. --Golbez 06:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Also, if you want to go with word “disputed”, you should realize that “disputed” means just one thing – there’s another country that lays claims to the region. If we go with the word disputed, we should explain by whom the region is disputed. We should say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan, disputed by Armenia, which militarily occupies 16% of Azerbaijani territory (see CIA World factbook). I think that would be a fair representation of the conflict. Grandmaster 05:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't aware disputed meant that. Where is that definition? Taiwan is disputed between China and Taiwan; there's no third country there. The CSA was disputed between the CSA and USA; there was no third country there. And the best example, the West Bank is disputed between Israel and ... who? Or are you saying the West Bank ISN'T disputed? --Golbez 06:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
How a place can dispute itself? It must be somebody from outside disputing it that’s why some sources refer to it as disputed, because Armenia lays claims on it. Grandmaster 07:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The people or government of a place can dispute who has the right to govern it. I ask again - What of Taiwan or the West Bank? Are these areas not disputed? --Golbez 07:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don’t know if they ever have been referred to as such. But I know that articles about Transnistria, S.Osetia na d Abkhazia don’t refer to those areas as disputed regions, they say that they formally are parts of their respective countries. And if you say that it is disputed, you should explain by whom it’s disputed and the role of Armenia in this dispute. I provided my sources, including the government of the US, which say that NK and other territories of Azerbaijan are occupied by Armenia. Grandmaster 08:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

One more thing. In response to GM's statement "even if one country recognizes it as part of Azerbaijan, it's internationally recognized." I don't think any average reader would reasonably interpret the "internationally recognized" in such manner. First, let's say Armenia does recognize its independence. Following GM's logic, it would then be BOTH internationally recognized as independent state AND internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Obviously, this leads to a logical self-contradiction.

Second, one of the ways to introduce POV is to use words with ambiguous, or several, meanings (the very basis of No Weasel Words rule). Reader A may read "internationally recognized" and think ALL countries recognize it as part of Az. Reader B may interpret 90%. Reader C may interpret majority. We don't know if any of the three interpretations above would be right. If a word leads to several interpretations, we don't use it. We stick to facts.

De jure is not a fact--it's one interpretation of law. Experts disagree. So it's not a fact. The BBC quote actually shows that even one site can give different positions--at one point it says "disputed," at another it adopts the "de jure" position--i.e. it's far from being a fact.--TigranTheGreat 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, Golbez IS mediating it. The dispute is between you and Adil on one side and me and Fadix on the other side. Considering the actual contributions, it's pretty much me against the 2 of you. Just because Golbez agrees with my points doesn't mean he is not neutral. It actually means I am offering a neutral solution, while yours is POV. We don't need another mediator. Noone is as fully familiar with arguments and discussions as Golbez and Francis.--TigranTheGreat 21:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, given the overwhelming multitude of "disputed" quotes, I supporting the "disputed" term in the intro. It is factual and accurate. If GM agrees to compromise, I may consider sacrificing it, but not before.

One more thing, Grandmaster, statements such as this: "Some people did everything possible to suppress this and other facts." violates the rules of "assume good faith." It poisons the atmosphere. Please assume good faith.--TigranTheGreat 22:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and congrats to fans of Argentina. 2:1 victory over Mexico. Great game, they had a 1:1 draw during the main two halves, so they had to add 30 minutes of extra time. That's when the draw was broken.--TigranTheGreat 22:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

If Armenia recognizes it, NK will be partially recognized, full recognition is acceptance into UN and other international organizations. So in case of NK since it is recognized by many countries and international organizations as part of Azerbaijan, it is internationally recognized as such. Recognition is recognition, and the number is irrelevant.
Also, we don’t have any international organization disputing the fact that NK is de-jure part of Azerbaijan, the opinion of law school does not have the same value as the opinion of UN. Therefore we go with the UN and ignore law schools, as they are not a notable opinion.
And neither I nor Adil ever accepted Golbez as a mediator, so he’s just a regular contributor and a party to the dispute. Therefore I suggest we apply for an official mediation, since we don’t have a mediator and we do need one.
And since you two support overwhelming multitude of "disputed" quotes, and ignore the overwhelming multitude of quotes stating that NK is a region of Azerbaijan, internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, de-jure part of Azerbaijan, etc., we definitely need interfernce of third parties to the dispute. Grandmaster 22:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

We don't always get to all agree to a mediator. Wiki admins are qualified to mediate, and Golbez is one of them. Second, Golbez has been around on this article, mediating and keeping an eye on it for all the months that you were here and I wasn't, so, you have given an implied consent to his mediation. Just because now you don't like the results, doesn't mean there is a problem with him.

I support the "disputed" term because it is factual--Arm (and othesr) say it's not part of Azerbaijan, Az and UNSC says it is. By definition, we have a dispute.

We don't need an explicit disputation of NK being part of Azerbaijan. As long as we don't know most of the states' positions, we can't automatically imply recognition.

How come Armenia's recognition of NK's independence would be "partial recognition," but one country's recognitino of NK as part of Az would be "international recognition?" We have a double standard here.--TigranTheGreat 02:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Golbez came here together with you, and as you know mediation requires consent of both parties. So no, I never accepted mediation of Golbez, as he is clearly taking sides in the dispute. I suggest we ask Francis to mediate, he’s been doing that from the beginning and earned trust of both parties. Otherwise, I suggest we apply for formal mediation. With regard to the word disputed, see above. As for the recognition, the country gets full recognition once it is accepted into international organizations. Grandmaster 06:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am taking the side of neutrality; it just happens that our Armenian(?) friend presents that better than you do. I did not come here "together with Tigran". --Golbez 06:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
But that’s your POV, isn’t it? That’s why you cannot be a mediator. Grandmaster 06:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
But if a mediator agrees with me, what does it become then? His POV too? Eventually, compromise must be made, and thus far, IMO, you have been less than willing. Adil as well, though he has not seen fit to actually push it, which is good. But he remains seemingly unmoved on his demand to have "self-proclaimed" in the article twenty times. --Golbez 07:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Let’s see if he agrees with you, let’s give it a try. He might be able to help resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 07:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's not his POV--it's strict application of the NPOV rules of Wiki. Actually I don't know what Golbez' POV is, other than sticking to facts. And, he has thoroughly listened to all arguments, and is well aware with each one, so I see no problem with him being a mediator.--TigranTheGreat 08:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

And I see the problem with the way he handles the sources and leans towards a certain position, therefore I don’t accept his mediation and suggest we apply for the official mediation or ask Francis to do that again. The mediator should be accepted by both parties according to the rules. Grandmaster 08:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

He doesn't lean toward a position. He picks neutral facts. Considering the amount of discussion and arguments, it's highly inefficient to change the mediator now in the very middle of mediation simply because you disagree with him. You raise the "I didn't accept him" argument now, that you disagree with him. You didn't say in the beginning "I never chose you, so let's choose another mediator." And as I said, he has mediated here for months while you were here and I was not, so you accepted him by implication.--TigranTheGreat 09:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

See the bottom of the page for my response. Grandmaster 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

For the hell of it

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
File:Nk War Export.png

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

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

The base map is simply my Azerbaijan rayon map zoomed in, so if the borders are distorted, then they are in all of my maps; please check them. [9] was one of my sources for the line of control; other sources say the whole of Jabrayil is occupied, so I discarded that. --Golbez 21:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now isn't this interesting.

Latest comment: 19 years ago35 comments5 people in discussion

I just did a search for '"international law" Karabakh "part of Azerbaijan"'. An interesting paucity of results from people who matter - and without someone who matters to cite, we cannot state it. One very interesting one was this: [10] A request from the Council of Europe Assembly for a legal opinion on the Supreme Soviet of Armenia's 1989 unification request with Nagorno-Karabakh, and the 1992 Armenian Constitution's recognition of this. In other words - the Council of Europe doesn't seem to be all that sure of it either. --Golbez 22:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Golbez, I don’t think you really understand what that document is about. Armenia adopted legal documents, annexing NK to Armenia, for instance the decree of the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR of 1 December 1989 on reunification of the Armenian SSR and the Mountainous Karabakh region, which was reiterated in the declaration of independence of Armenian and its constitution. Basically, this petetion was a call to express an opinion on annexation of NK by Armenia, and it was submitted by deputies from the Azerbaijan republic and a number of other countries. Grandmaster 06:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Right. Why would they care if it was clear-cut? --Golbez 06:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
This passage from a survey on the OSCE activities may also give you some hints:
"With the break-up of the Soviet Union in the end of 1991 and the advent of independence for the former Soviet republics, the framework of the conflict changed. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan became independent States and recognized the integrity of each other's borders when they joined a number of international organizations. (Footnote: Especially the 1975 CSCE Helsinki Final Act (binding both Armenia and Azerbaijan) gives priority to the integrity of existing borders and territories before rights to independence and secession)." The OSCE in the Maintenance of Peace and Security: Conflict Prevention, Crisis Management and... ISBN 9041104461, p. 459
The former SSRs were actually recognized in their preexisting borders. This is stated in the 1991 EC criteria for recognition of the new independent states and we need to find the citation.--Kober 06:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, and Armenia's position is that "we respect Azerbaijans territorial intergrity, and NK split from AzSSR before AzSSR became independent. The split was due to existing Soviet law, so is legal. So, legally, NK is not part of Az. territory." In other words, we are back to square 1--i.e. the legality is up to interpretation, and yours is just one position.--TigranTheGreat 08:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually not. Not a single authoritative international organization supports this claim of Armenia, therefore it’s just an opinion. Recognition of NK as part of Azerbaijan is a fact. Plus, the document to which Kober is refered is not just an opinion, it's a legal document, on basis of which the new independent states were recognized. Grandmaster 12:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's exactly my point, Golbez. These are politicians we are talking about. Being vague is their job (and sometimes it's necessary in international relations--any international expert will say that). They throw in vague statements and principles, they dance around the issue, without actually nailing it (except, in this case, of UNSC and US. Even then, UNSC's resolutions shy away from explicitly stating that Armenia has occupied the territories. They use "local Armenian forces." ). In short, we simply cannot infer a phrase that an organization simply refuses to use.--TigranTheGreat 02:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


Hmm, I saw the last edit Golbez. I still think that, as in any NPOV dispute, the best way is to stick to facts. I still think that, given the "not recognized by any country" phrase, it's absolutely unnecessary to stack up individual recognitions, especially when we have the separate Int. Status section.

Having said that, I admit that this is better than the POV "de jure" and weasely "generally." And for the sake of compromise, I again am willing to agree to *some form* of the edit made by you. It's still weaselly--"many countries" is always weasely. First, we don't know the number of organizations and states explicitly stating "region of Azerbaijan" in official resolutions. A better way to avoid the Weasel problem is this:

The NKR is currently a de-facto independent state, as it remains unrecognized by any international organization or country, including Armenia, and has explicity been recognized as a region of Azerbaijan in United Nations Security Resolutions.

We specify that we are talking about "explicit recognitions." Second, after mentioning UNSC, I don't think we need to go into individual countries, especialy when these countries are perm. members of UNSC (like US). Also note that PACE does not EXPLICITY state "region of Azerbaijan"--I think for good reasons they try to remain intentionally vague about the issue.

Second, if we are doubling up on the "non-recognized" point (i.e. "unrecognized" PLUS "explicitly recognized by so and so"), and given the strong statement of recognition by UNSC, we should balance this by a more explicit mention of NKR as a de-facto independent state. It's mentioned in reputable sources, including Council of Foreign Affairs:

Council of Foreign Relations Nagorno-Karabakh: The Crisis in the Caucasus

Once the Soviet Unioncollapsed, Nagorno-Karabakh’s legislature decided to declare outright independence. The republic now enjoys a de facto independence, though neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan recognizes the republic’s territorial sovereignty. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9148/nagornokarabakh.html --TigranTheGreat 02:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The same source:
In Armenia, national politics are intermixed with that of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic, which technically remains part of Azerbaijan (the international community does not recognize the republic’s claim for independence). [11] Grandmaster 08:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

A request for Grandmaster

Show me a link that states that international law says that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan, please. --Golbez 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What he means is that several countries such as the US, as well as the UN have made statements that they respect the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. That's basically it.--Eupator 01:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

As Golbez' latest google showed (and confirmed the point I have been making so far), is that diplomats and politicians are being intentionally vague to avoid a potentially dangerous position. In this case, they dance around with general principles of "territorial integrity," "self-determination," etc, without, in most part, explicitly stating that "NK is a region of Azerbaijan." Again, the reason is that we have ongoing negotiations, and they just don't want to mess with it. And guess what. Armenia too has stated that it respects Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Armenia's position is that NK has never been part of independent Az's territory, so they still respect its territorial integrity. So, "territorial integrity" is far from an explicit statement of "NK is a region of Azerbaijan." Our job on Wiki is not to interpret, infer, etc, as these are all going to be opinions.

Golbez, by the way, any link stating that "under international law, NK is part of Azerbaijan" would still be that source's interpretation of international law, which would run counter to the interpretation of law by the New England experts, who said that under all principles of international law (and the Soviet law, being itself law of secession, would factor in), NK is legally not part of Azerbaijan.--TigranTheGreat 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Which is why I didn't want a journalist or a law professor saying it, hence "someone who matters". I'd be happy with, say, a secretary general, perhaps a secretary of state or a prime minister. Hearing a Russian official say it would be dynamite. I have yet to see such a declaration. --Golbez 03:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
That is very simple, Golbez. International law provides for inviolability of borders of sovereign states, and since NK is internationally recognized (including international organizations) as part of Azerbaijan, it is such according to the international law. Therefore all organizations reiterate the principle of inviolability of borders, see for example:
RESOLUTION 884 (1993) Adopted by the Security Council at its 3313th meeting, on 12 November 1993
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, [12]
PACE
RESOLUTION 1119 (1997) on the conflicts in Transcaucasia
5. Even though these two conflicts are different in nature, the Assembly stresses that their political settlement must be negotiated by all parties involved, drawing in particular on the following principles, which are based upon the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the 1990 Paris Charter:
i. inviolability of borders; [13]
Which means that NK is legally part of Azerbaijan and the borders of the latter are inviolable. Grandmaster 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
And the intro says the UN says this. In fact, apart from the history and ___location, everything in the intro is "X says Y" or "W [does not] recognizes Z". These are the facts of the matter, and they are not in dispute. --Golbez 06:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not only UN, but also other international organizations and other leading countries of the world, i.e. it is internationally (de-jure) recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 07:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
More sources for you, which I know you will ignore:
Since I do read the sources you offer, and have already added a source or two (at various times) into the intro itself stating this, this comment is out of line, and until you apologize for it, I have no reason to engage in any more conversation with you. I offer you good faith, as much as I can while saying you have a bias; I try out suggestions you make and see if they work, some do, some don't. Just as some of Tigran's do and don't work. I have apologized when I snapped at you and made out of line comments. And this is how you respond to me? Good day, sir. --Golbez 07:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'm sorry about that, please accept my apologies, but still I'm not happy with the way you handle sources, choosing some and rejecting others for no obvious reason. The best example is how you choose the sources stating that NK is a disputed region and ignored those that said that NK is a region Azerbaijan. I suggest to not be so selective and give a chance for different point of view to be reflected in the article as well. And my proposal for mediation is still in force. Grandmaster 07:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
For several years, the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, legally a part of Azerbaijan, has been under the control of ethnic Armenians, who formed the majority in the region.
American Diplomacy in Russia’s Neighborhood by James E. Goodby [14]
The two former Soviet republics have been involved in a dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh, a tiny republic legally part of Azerbaijan but controlled by Armenia. [15]
In Armenia, national politics are intermixed with that of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic, which technically remains part of Azerbaijan (the international community does not recognize the republic’s claim for independence). [16] Grandmaster 07:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is a good one, an Armenian admitting that NK is legally part of Azerbaijan, he even uses the word "separatists":
Europe Review 2003/2004 ISBN: 0749440678
Armenia by Peter Magdashyan
The three main issues are the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (the small republic that legally belongs to Azerbaijan but is controlled by Armenian separatists), the economic development of Armenia and the problems of immigration. Grandmaster 07:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

With regard to inviolability of borders of Azerbaijan, see the official position of US as presented by ambassador Sestanovich:

THE U.S. ROLE IN THE CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 30, 1998

Ambassador Steve Sestanovich, Ambassador at Large for the New Independent States, U.S. Department of State

Ambassador SESTANOVICH. Congressman, we have believed that the interests of the United States and of our allies, friendly states and international peace are best served by respecting the territorial integrity of the states that emerged out of the former Soviet Union. There are many borders that could be inquired into for their origins in the decisions of Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev. I mean, there is a long history here and everybody has got a beef.

The states of this region can be thrown into chaos if borders are up for grabs; and it is very easy for all borders to be up for grabs. The principle that we have subscribed to in the OSCE and before that in the CFCE, since the agreement on the Helsinki final act in 1975, is that border changes should be peaceful and consensual.

Now, in this case, we have accepted the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and that means recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. As part of promoting peace in this region, everyone has understood and President Aliyev himself has accepted that Nagorno-Karabakh needs a special status. It needs the highest level of autonomy, which is the phrase that is commonly used. [17] Grandmaster 08:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Position of Russia, presented by Boris Malakhov, Deputy Official Spokesman of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs

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. [18] Grandmaster 08:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

UNSC resolutions do not have monopoly over international law. In fact, they are not legally binding at all. So, the logic "UNSC recognized, so it's international law" is flawed.

We know that US has a pro-Azeri stance on the issue for well known reasons. So, a US congressman's interpretation of international law is not the gospel. I can quote US Senators recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Doesn't make it an indisputable fact.

The BBC source quoted by you, states in another page that "it's disputed."

Finally, as to the Armenian guy's quote--Azerbaijan's president Mutalibov said Armenians didn't commit the Khojalu Massacre. Are you willing to take his word for it just because he is Azeri? If not, I am not gonna take an Armenian guy's word just because he disagrees with me (and with the official Armenian position).--TigranTheGreat 08:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

How do you know that resolutions of UNSC are not legally binding? Can I see your sources, please? And also, the US being pro-Azeri or not is irrelevant, it is only relevant that it recognizes NK as part of Azerbaijan, as do all other leading countries of the world. And international recognition is not measured by numbers, it either exists or does not. In this case NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. And the opinion of the Armenian analyst is just one of the many that I quoted and which all were ignored, while the statements like “disputed” were instantly supported without any clarification that the region is disputed by neighboring Armenia. Also, while absolutely irrelevant to the topic, Mutalibov denies ever saying what Armenian sources ascribe to him. See [19] Grandmaster 08:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually you need to prove that UNSC resolutions are legally binding, since you are claiming that. However, the Wiki article itself explains that, unless passed under Chapter 7, UNSC resolutions are not legally binding (I quoted this back in February). Actually "International recognition" is pretty vague term, and different readers may infer different numbers, so numbers very much matter. Wiki hates ambiguity. We stick to facts. US' pro-Azeri stance is relevant because US's position is just one position. It's not the norm. --TigranTheGreat 08:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The words “internationally recognized” mean that it is recognized by somebody, and not necessarily by everybody. I cited my sources that say that NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, now you cite your sources stating that it’s not. It is a fact that the status of NK as a region of Azerbaijan has international recognition, and independence of NK has not. We indeed stick to the facts, and international recognition of NK as part of Azerbaijan is a fact. As for UNSCR being binding or not, according to the rules we don’t refer to other wiki articles, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources:
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia can not cite itself as a source, while that would be a self-reference.
So please show me your reliable sources supporting your position. US government thinks that UNSCR are legally binding:
In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. [20] Grandmaster 10:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
You might also wish to check the primary source, the Charter of UN, which states that UNSCRs are binding on all members of this organization:
CHAPTER V, Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. [21] Grandmaster 11:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

We may not *cite* Wiki articles, but we may certainly use it for guidance. The Wiki Article on Security_Council specifically states that Chapter 7 resolutions are the only ones that are legally binding:

Under Chapter Six of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". The Council may "recommend appropriate procedures... These recommendations are not binding on UN members.

Under Chapter Seven, the Council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression". ... Decisions taken under Chapter Seven, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members.

So, when your source says "legally binding UNSC resolutions," he is actually talking about resolutions against Kuwait's invasion, which were under Chapter 7 (as you can check the resolutions themselves), and thus were legally binding. The Karabakh resolutions were not passed under chapter 7 (the resolution doesn't state that). Therefore, they are not legally binding.

Your quote from the UN charter says nothing different. It says that the *decisions* by UNSC are binding, and only "in accordance with the Charater." i.e. when the Charter says they are binding (as in chapter 7), they are binding (e.g. "attack Iraq"). The NK resolutions are actually not decisions to act, but calls on the sides of the conflict to stop fighting and pull back. They are therefore mere recommendations, and not binding.

Note that if the NK resolutions were legally binding, we would see armies marching to NK, just as in the case of Kuwait--TigranTheGreat 17:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, Francis, congrats on the victory of England 40 minutes ago. Beckham's goal was awesome.--TigranTheGreat 17:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You can use wiki articles for guidance, but you cannot refer to them. Therefore wiki article as a source is rejected. Get a reliable source to support your position. The UNSCRs are binding on all members of UN, as is clear from Chapter V, Article 25 of the Charter. It does not leave any space for other interpretations: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. It says nothing about Chapter VII being binding and others not. End of story. Grandmaster 21:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
And military intervention is a result of not a binding nature of the resolutions, but completely different factors, everybody knows that. Grandmaster 21:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Military intervention is a result of violating a legally binding Resolution (which Iraq did, which gave the Allies a legal ground for attacking it).

We can always refer to Wiki sources, it's a good practice, especially when articles are well written and uncontroversial. The UN article is. Now, the burden is on an editor to present sources proving that his suggested edit is true. You try to include "legally part of Azerbaijan" in the article. You base this, in part, on the argument that "UNSC resolutions on NK are legally binding." It is your responsibility to show that they are. So far you have only showed that the Iraq resolutions are binding, which we already know. You have failed to show that the NK ones are binding.

Your quote from the charter actually says nothing about all resolutions being binding. It talks about "decisions" being binding (e.g. decision to put embargo on a country, or authorize an attack.). Furthermore, the part "in accordance with this Charter" clearly specifies that we need to consult the rest of the Charter itself to determine whether a resolution is binding or not. If you read Chapter 7, it clearly has Mandatory language for other states. Chapter 6 doesn't.

In sum, you have not shown that ALL resolutions (or at least the NK ones) are binding. And you can't, since obviously it's not true.--TigranTheGreat 00:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I repeat one more time. We don’t refer to wikipedia articles according to the rules. We don’t know who wrote that article, and it uses no sources or references. It is apparently just an original research. In any case, self-reference is not allowed. So please show me a source proving that UNSC resolutions are not binding. In the meantime, see the UN charter, it says that UNCSRs are binding for all members, and therefore all members of UN recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan. Simple as that. Grandmaster 08:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


Well, and I repeat one more time: We don't cite Wiki articles in Wiki articles, but you and me can always refer to them, standard practice. The UN charter does not say "all Resolutions are binding," it says that its decitions are binding. Decisions are things like "we put embargo on Iraq, or attack N. Korea." Resolutions are documents where UNSC may offer non-binding recommendations. There is no way the UN charter would make every phrase used by UNSC mandatory for members--we don't have a world government.

In sum, your source doesn't support your conclusion.--TigranTheGreat 23:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You have not provided a source stating that UNSCRs are not legally binding. And UNSC decisions are its resolutions. So they are binding. Grandmaster 04:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mediation

Latest comment: 19 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Golbez, I once again suggest we apply for formal mediation or ask somebody to mediate this discussion. Clearly, the dispute is serious and we need a competent mediator to help us. Please tell me if you agree to that, and I will apply for mediation. Grandmaster 06:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's your complaint with the current version, which mentions the UN? I do not yet agree, because I do not think you are being reasonable. --Golbez 07:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
NK is legally part of Azerbaijan, the intro ignores the fact, despite so many sources I provided. Instead, it says that it is a disputed region, without explaining which state disputes it from Azerbaijan. Look at RfC, you installed the version proposed by Tigran and claim that it is neutral, while it obviuosly has seriuos POV issues. Grandmaster 07:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Because my version is way more neutral than yours. And I am not sure that suggesting that Golbez is incompetent goes along with the "good faith assumption" rule.--TigranTheGreat 08:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
It's not neutral, you just share the same POV with Golbez, which he accepted himself. And I never said that Golbez is incompetent, I just said we need a competent mediator to mediate between Golbez and you on one side and me and Adil on the other, and I suggest we apply for the official mediation. Grandmaster 08:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually the problem here is that I come up with purely neutral and factual version, while the prior version supported by you was clearly POV. And it creates the mistaken impression that you and me have different POV's. In reality, my version is NPOV, and the prior one is POV. That's the reason he agrees with my version. (and he has disagreed with me in the past). So, he actually doesn't agree with me, but with a neutral version.

We have spent alot of time and space here presenting our arguments to Golbez, he has given alot of thought to them. There is absolutely no reason to switch the mediator in the very middle of mediation simply because you disagree with him. It's very inefficient, and it's not fair.--TigranTheGreat 09:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

We are not switching the mediator, we applying for one. For the moment we don't have a mediator. We never asked Golbez to mediate and neither me nor Adil have ever accepted him in this capacity. We did not present our sources to him, we presented them to everybody who reads this page. His opinion is just his opinion same as that of any other contributor. But we need to resolve the dispute, and claiming that your version is neutral and my is not is just your opinion. Therefore I suggest to get a mediator, who is supported by both sides. I understand that you prefer Golbez to be a mediator since he supports your position, but the mediation requires agreement of both sides, and not just one. Grandmaster 10:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure we would be switching. If you didn't want to accept Golbez' mediation, you could have objected right in the beginning, before we spent all this time and space to argue and counterargue. Since you two didn't object in the beginning, you accepted his mediation by implication. If we always start a mediation and after weeks of elaborate discussions change the mediator just because one party doesn't like the decisions, it's gonna be a huge waste of time, and the very idea of mediation will be moot.

By the way, I don't support Golbez because he agrees with me, I support him because we have invested all this time presenting our arguments, he has thoroughly listened, and he has been doing a fine job.--TigranTheGreat 17:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

From the very beginning Golbez has been just another contributor, like you or me. He’s never been asked to mediate, and once again I repeat that neither me nor Adil have ever accepted him as a mediator. Therefore he’s not a mediator, and I see no point in discussing this any further. He’s a good guy, but since he’s a party to the dispute we need somebody to mediate between all involved parties, including him. Now please tell me would you object if we get somebody to mediate the dispute, as we need to resolve the dispute and application for the official mediation might help? Grandmaster 20:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, he also knows the rules better than you and me. We are already in mediation. It started when you and me stopped the edit war and started presenting our arguments and evidence to him, while he started incorporating our suggestions in the intro, and neither you nor me raised any objections. Until now that is. It's not good practice, or even efficient, to let a mediation continue (with all the discussions and writing), until you decide that you don't like the decisions. That's the whole point of mediation.--TigranTheGreat 00:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I’m not gonna repeat the same thing many times, please see above. There’s no mediation going on right now, and I suggest we apply for one. If not, I will seek other methods of dispute resolution. Grandmaster 08:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

And I responded to your points many times, please see above. We have been in mediation for over a week, and we should continue.--TigranTheGreat 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mediation can be done only with consent of both parties. So there's no mediation currently going on. Grandmaster 04:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Intro Version with "Part of Azerbaijan."

Latest comment: 19 years ago24 comments4 people in discussion

Golbez, if we say that "NK is not recognized" AND we put the strong statement of "recognized by UNSC as part of Azerbaijan," it's only fair and neutral to make the "de facto independence" more explicit by saying "NKR is a de-facto independent state." The one goes with the other. It's factual--NK is de facto independent of Az, and has a functioning government structure (and the phrase is used in other articles such as S. Ossetia). Eupator and Fadix have been adamant about including the phrase too. It will balance the doubling-up and strengthening of the other side of the equation. Just as you said that "not recognized" is more passive than "recognized as part of," "de-facto status only" is passive while "de-facto independent state" is more active. I was willing to compromise on inclusion of the "part of Azerbaijan" phrase if we made "de-facto " more active.

Note that, besides being factual and accurate, it's also mentioned in reputable sources earlier quoted by me:

Council of Foreign Relations'Nagorno-Karabakh: The Crisis in the Caucasus

Once the Soviet Unioncollapsed, Nagorno-Karabakh’s legislature decided to declare outright independence. The republic now enjoys a de facto independence, though neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan recognizes the republic’s territorial sovereignty.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9148/nagornokarabakh.html--TigranTheGreat 00:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


On an unrelated matter--I think "USSR established the region as NKAO" is inaccurate. A better wording is "incorporated the region into NKAO...." The region was established when Armenia was under de-facto control of dinasaurs (and maybe even green algae).--TigranTheGreat 00:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


Your edit "The NKR is de facto independent of Azerbaijan and has control over the majority of its claimed territory" was indeed abit awkward. I suggest "The NKR is de facto independent state, unrecognized by any international organization or country, including Armenia, and the area claimed by the NKR has explicity been recognized as part of Azerbaijan in United Nations Security Resolutions" It balances "de-facto independent" with "part of Azerbaijan." --TigranTheGreat 04:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The source that you referring to says that NK is part of Azerbaijan. You fail to mention that, and I don’t know why.
In Armenia, national politics are intermixed with that of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic, which technically remains part of Azerbaijan (the international community does not recognize the republic’s claim for independence). [22]
The intro should say that NK is legally part of Azerbaijan, same as Britannica and other sources do, including the one you are referring to. Grandmaster 08:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
My main beef with the intro is that it doesn't start with Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent country.... I wouldn't mind if it continued to say ...within internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan. You can argue about other points, but the first line should state the most obvious, that it's a de facto independent country. We can elaborate that it's under the influence of Armenia as GM wants, and that it's not recognized following that line.--Eupator 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
But it’s not a country, it’s a self-declared entity. The best way to describe it is to say that it is a region of Azerbaijan, Armenian population of which declared independence as Nagorno-Karabakh republic. It is de-facto independent, but de-jure remains part of Azerbaijan, and is internationally recognized as the territory of Azerbaijan. This is what the sources say, even Armenian ones. But the current edit is very illogical and awkward. I don’t see the end of this dispute if sources that don’t suit certain POV will be kept on ignored. Grandmaster 17:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The TRNC article starts with: '...is a break-away de facto state in the northern third of the island of Cyprus. What makes the TRNC a country and NKR not a country? Is it TRNC's recognition by Turkey? If so, would Armenia's recognition of NKR nullify your opposition?--Eupator 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is recognized by Turkey, so its partially recognized. If anyone recognizes NK, it could be called a state. Grandmaster 18:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
No problem, I just wanted you on record saying that. Now i'm not a legal expert but State merely states that: For theorists of international relations, recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international engagements, is key to the establishment of its sovereignty. It's not some universal law. NKR certaily meets the following criteria: A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern a society, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. Following Max Weber's influential definition, a state has a 'monopoly on legitimate violence'. Hence the state includes such institutions as the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police. --Eupator 19:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
But “NKR” lacks external sovereignty, it cannot establish diplomatic relations with other countries, sign agreements, join international organizations, etc. Grandmaster 20:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Of course it does, not through embassies but other means. Look at this:: [23] The office is registered with the US Department of Justice and represents the government and the people of Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the political, economic, humanitarian and cultural spheres. Or this: [24]--Eupator 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, it cannot. It does not have diplomatic relations with any country, and has not joined any international organization, and has not signed any international convention. Their office has probably been registered as a legal entity with the US Department of Justice, but it’s not an embassy, just an office, and there’s no US embassy in NK. Grandmaster 20:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Bottom line is that I can't find any definition of a state or country that requires recognition by another state in order to be state. Btw TRNC has not joined any international organization, and has not signed any international conventions either. --Eupator 20:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. Ancient Egypt wasn't officially recognized by any other state before 2000 BC. It still existed. A state exists irrespective of whether it's recognized or not. NKR has its functioning government, makes its own decisions independent of Armenia, so it's a state. The intro should state "de facto independent state."

As for "internationally recognized," it's less POV than "de jure," but still ambiguous. "recognized by UNSC" is factual and NPOV. And I agree, if we use the phrase "part of Azerbaijan," we should use the term "de facto independent state."

As to GM's quote from my source--it's their opinion, and should not be asserted by Wiki. They are basically stating the fact that "it's unrecognized by any country," and then holding the opinion that "if unrecognized, it's part of Azerbaijan." It is a position nonetheless, and considering that NKR seceded lawfully *before* Azerbaijan became independent, and that we don't know the position of 99% of the world, the position is disputed nonetheless. "de facto independent," however, is, by its very definition, a factual statement. Since we stick to facts, we should say "de facto independent state, unrecognized by anyone, and expl recognized by UNSC.--TigranTheGreat 22:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


Golbez, I think "disputed in Azerbaijan" is awkward and contradictory. If it's disputed, how can it be in Azerbaijan? It also sounds like "we acknowledge that there is a dispute, but we are going to lean towards one position anyway," which is POV. NPOV is not only about acknowledging the existence of a dispute, but also not taking a position in it. "In Azerbaijan" sounds too much like "part of Azerbaijan." "Within the borders" or better yet "surrounded by Azerbaijan proper" is more neutral.


By the way, the ending sentence: We know it is recognized by UNSC, which has narrower representation than the whole of UN. So we should stick to the known facts and say "by UN Security Council." Whether that means recognition by whole UN, we should let the reader infer.--TigranTheGreat 22:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


I am also not sure why we repeat the fact that "the NKR does hold control over most of its claimed territory." That fact is pretty much stated in the next paragraph. A much less awkard and non-repetetive version is "NKR is a de-facto independent state, unrecognized by any country, and explicity recognized by UN Security Council."--TigranTheGreat 22:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


The new version is much more balanced, thank you Golbez. Why not use the more neutral "within the borders" instead of the *potentially* POV "within Azerbaijan" though. It is not Wiki's position that NK is part of Azerbaijan, so it's safe to use the clearer phrase. I think we should ensure neutrality for every phrase, for the sake of good quality, especially if this article is to become FA (which I strongly hope).--TigranTheGreat 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's de facto independent in Azerbaijan, that hits both bases simultaneously. It can't be both independent and part of Azerbaijan, so we manage to touch on the de jure and the de facto all on one neat, compact sentence. It goes without saying that, if it is independent, it is not part of Azerbiajan, so this should make everyone happy. --Golbez 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, something can be de-facto indep., and still legally part of another country. One could still think that our position is "NK is de facto independent, but legally part of Azerbaijan," which is not exactly neutral. "Within borders" makes it clearer. As for making everyone happy, I mean we are explicitly stating that it's recognized as part of Azerbaijan by a major int. organization.--TigranTheGreat 00:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article should explicitly say that NK is legally part of Azerbaijan. Even the source that Tigran was refering to says that, and I cited Armenian sources saying the same thing. The current version is not neutral and is factually inaccurate. Grandmaster 04:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The official position of the republic of Armenia seems to be that it is not legally part of Azerbaijan. --Golbez 05:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
So what? It still is, regardless of position of Armenia. You seem to forget that wikipedia does not only reflect the position of Armenia. NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, therefore it is de-jure part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Enhance your calm; I was responding to your bit about "Armenian sources". The position of Armenia is such. --Golbez 05:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, how about all other states and organizations, supporting territorial integrity of Azerbaijan? How about all the sources stating that NK is legally part of Azerbaijan? Can we reflect this fact in the intro as well? You know that de-facto normally goes in conjuction with de-jure, stating one entails stating the other. Grandmaster 05:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Settlement of Armenians in Karabakh

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

One of the sources on this is encyclopedia 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. [25]

The above article is written by Ronald Grigor Suny, an ethnic Armenian.

Also, see Russian envoy to Persia Griboyedov and his Report on the settlement of Armenians from Persia in our provinces (in Russian) [26] Grandmaster 10:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Suny is probably in the top ten of most despised people in Armenia. He once said "Azerbaijani flag should fly upon government buildings of Stepanakert". Exact quote: The symbolic sovereignty of Azerbaijan over Karabakh would be represented by an Azerbaijani flag flying over the government house in Karabakh and the appointment of an Azerbaijani representative to Karabakh, who would have to be approved by the Karabakh government. The formal aspect of sovereignty entails that Azerbaijan represent Karabakh in the United Nations and other international bodies.--Eupator 15:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
So he’s despised in Armenia for saying that NK should maintain nominal connection with Azerbaijan? It’s interesting, but people have opinions. Grandmaster 17:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not quite, he's despised for his other absurd outbursts. I just quoted that in response to you specifying his ethnic background. Basil II or Nikephoros II were more Armenian than Suny.--Eupator 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

cruising through the un archives

Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I'm now hunting through un.org for citations, and I came across these tidbits:

"A representative of Armenia, exercising her second right of reply, said Nagorno Karabakh had never been part of an independent Azerbaijan. Previously, it had been incorporated into the Soviet State."[27] This apparently from an aide to Movses Abelian, Armenian ambassador to the UN. At first I thought it came from Abelian directly, but it specifies "her". So I was going to count this as official recognition of a position by Armenia, but I'd rather hear it straight form Abelian.

---

"Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3052 36th Meeting (AM) 4 December 1995

Commenting on the JIU report on the sharing of peace-keeping responsibilities between the United Nations and regional organizations, Azerbaijan's representative said that its authors had failed to reflect the fact that Nagorny Karabakh was an integral part of his country. That was a "political provocation with far-reaching goals". It was an effort to give blessing in a United Nations document to a separatist movement of the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, which was inspired by a neighbouring State. More than 20 per cent of Azerbaijan's territory was occupied as a result of the aggression by Armenia.

In response, JIU Chairman Fatih Bouayad-Agha said the Unit was not a political body. Faced with politically sensitive situations, inspectors used the terminology of a relevant regional organization. In the report in question, they had used that of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)." (Emphasis mine) This would seem to imply that the UN has no such terminology.

---

"Drawing attention to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh and the 1993 Security Council resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884 in that regard, [Azeri president Aliyev] said those resolutions had confirmed the Nagorno-Karabakh region as part of Azerbaijan, but had not been implemented."[28]

---

"(Azeri Minister of Foreign Affairs Hassanov): Later, Armenia had resorted to armed aggression against Azerbaijan, occupying a considerable part of Azerbaijan and leaving 1 million people without shelter. The so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh republic" was nothing but a tactical trick in the strategy of Armenian politicians to attach the Nagorny-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan to Armenia."[29]

---

"An amendment (document A/57/L.73) to that text would have a new operative paragraph added after operative paragraph 25, which would read "Fully supports the activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to achieve a peaceful solution to the conflict in and around the Nagorny-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, and welcomes cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in this regard.""[30] (this amendment was passed 37 pro, 2 con (Armenia and South Africa), 100 abstain, 51 absent, therefore we can see it as the official position that Nagorno-Karabakh is a region of Azerbaijan. Of note: the USA and Russia abstained, and Georgia and Modolva voted pro)

The ambassador from Armenia was unhappy with the amendment, saying "operative paragraph 26, dealing with the Nagorny-Karabakh conflict, contained language agreed by all parties to the conflict. It was entirely based on the relevant paragraphs of the Statement of the OSCE Ministerial Council, adopted by consensus in Porto on 7 December. The amendment was a deliberate attempt to pose a compulsory framework and to prejudice the outcome of the ongoing peace negotiations. It virtually forced the Member States to take sides in a conflict that was under negotiations."

---

lol, the UN has the same issues we do with civility: "As for references to a "sick mind" he asked the Armenian representative to refrain from such talk" [31]

---

"In response, the representative of Armenia said Nagorno-Karabakh had never been part of an independent Azerbaijan. Also, Azerbaijan was itself in violation of the relevant Security Council resolution since the text called for the parties involved to pursue negotiations. For its part, Armenia was complying by helping the people of Nagorno-Karabakh find a peaceful solution to the conflict.

The representative of Azerbaijan found it ironic that Armenia was claiming to implement the Security Council resolution since one of its principal provisions said Armenia should immediately withdraw its armed forces from the territory and Armenia had not done that. She stressed that the international community must not tolerate double standards, noting that the responsibilities of victims and aggressors could not be equalized."[32]

---

"ILGAR MAMMADOV (Azerbaijan) said the there was no opposition of the two principles of respect for the territorial integrity of States and the right to self-determination with regard to the situation of Nagorno-Karabakh. The right of peoples to self-determination was not applicable in relation to the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh as they constituted a minority residing within the territory of a sovereign State."[33] (emphasis mine)

---

I'm loving the politics of it all, it's no different from our own senate. There are debates here on the hurricane-stricken islands of the Caribbean, then out of nowhere, the gentleman from Armenia brings up Nagorno-Karabakh.

---

The representative of Azerbaijan said, in reference to the allegation that Nagorno-Karabakh, not Armenia, had occupied Azeri territories, that he would leave this claim to the judgement of the Committee. Could 100,000 individuals occupy 20 per cent of the territory of 8 million people? On the contention that Nagorno-Karabakh had never been occupied by Azerbaijan, or that it had been forcefully included in the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan by Stalin, he stressed that Karabakh had always constituted a part of historical Azerbaijan. The proof could be found in an early 1800s agreement between the Khanate of Azerbaijan and the Russian Commander-in-Chief. "[34]

---

I LOVE this exchange: "In 1918, [the Azeri ambassador] added, both Armenia and Azerbaijan had proclaimed their independence, but Armenia had lacked the territory to establish its capital. It had requested that Azerbaijan yield Yerevan to Armenia, to allow it to establish its own State." "The representative of Armenia said the capital of Armenia had been established in 1782 B.C. It could, therefore, not have been given as a gift from Azerbaijan.

The references made in history books were much more verifiable than the reinvented or rewritten history being presented." "The representative of Azerbaijan said that the exchange of opinions between the two delegations reminded him of an anecdote in the former Soviet Union regarding a dispute between the Azerbaijanis and Armenians. A wire had been found in the fifth century leading a scientist to conclude there was a telephone connection with the use of fire. But since Armenians had not found the wire, they decided that in the tenth century there was a wireless telephone connection."

---

Armenian representative: "Any claim of Nagorno-Karabakh being an integral part of Azerbaijan was erroneous and misleading, and Azerbaijan’s claims were unsubstantiated."[35] "The representative of Azerbaijan said her delegation had expressed its position previously with regard to the statement made by Armenia’s representative. However, she wanted to add that no justification had been provided by the Armenian side to the points raised earlier, as was always the case."

---

"SEYMUR MARDALIYEV (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said Armenia had tried to distort the very principle of self-determination, which should be exercised in a peaceful manner. The occupation by Armenia of Azeribaijani territories had nothing to do with this right. '''''The term “people” was not necessarily applicable to the Armenian minority living in Nagorno-Karabakh.''''' [36] (is it possible to put too much formatting around that? I mean, Jesuchristo, what on earth was that guy thinking when he said that? reminds me of a line from schindler's list, "I realize that you are not a person in the strictest sense of the word". I would love to find out what he meant by this)

---

"ARMAN AKOPIAN (Armenia), in exercising his right of reply, said it was totally false that an Azeri population disappeared; moreover, they had certainly not been massacred, he said. He added that the event described by the representative of Azerbaijan -- if it occurred -- would have taken place after the Azerbaijani aggression aimed at ethnic cleansing of all Armenians at Nagorno- Karabakh in 1992. As for the Armenian church in Baku, he possessed abundant photographic evidence of its demolition.

YASHAR ALIYEV (Azerbaijan), exercising his right of reply, invited everybody to visit Baku and check the status of the Armenian church." [37] This is HILARIOUS. I should have been reading all of these from the start!

---

Long story short - there's very little said in the first articles that I read about the general assembly having any opinion on it, but we do know the security council said it. I think it's generally safe to say the UN recognizes N-K as part of Azerbaijan, though some of its subordinate organizations prefer not to say that, picking a more.. dare I say neutral terminology. --Golbez 23:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think if the Gen. Assembly has no opinion, and several divisions of UN don't take a position either, we need to specify that it's the UNSC. The GA is more like the legislature of UN, with UNSC being kinda like the executive. As an analogy, the US president has recognized the Arm. Genocide (in 1981), many congressmen do, but since the Congress as a whole doesn't, we can't infer US recogntion. Saying "UN recognizes," in other words, is an inference made by us. The hard fact is that it's the UNSC resolutions. --TigranTheGreat 00:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What about amendment A/57/L.73? --Golbez 01:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Here's a link to resolution A/Res/57/298 [38]. The relevant graf being 26. However, this is kind of a backdoor acknowledgement; it's not a solid statement of "Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan". But these are diplomats we're dealing with, they never like to make solid statements. --Golbez 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh ok, got it. What about "the UN has referred to the area as a region of Azerbaijan." I am not sure we can infer official recognition.--TigranTheGreat 01:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/57/298, 6 February 2003, unambiguously says:
The General Assembly,
26. Fully supports the activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to achieve a peaceful solution to the conflict in and around the Nagorny-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and welcomes cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in this regard; Grandmaster 05:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
This means that all members of UN do recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan, even Armenia. Grandmaster 05:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Since Armenia voted against the amendment, such a statement is very poor form. What it means is that the General Assembly - and not necessarily the member voters of it - recognize it as such. What you just said would be like saying every member of the US Congress agrees with every bill that passes, which is simply wrong. --Golbez 05:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Armenia did not vote against. The resolution was adopted by 147 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Armenia, Belarus, Madagascar). It means that 147 countries recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan, and since nobody voted against, even the 3 abstained countries may not be all coming out against recognition of NK as part of Azerbaijan. So NK is recognized internationally as part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
We're looking at two different things; so far as I can tell, the amendment adding paragraph 26 to A/RES/57/298 (the amendment being A/57/L.73) had 37 for, 2 con, 100 abs. The original version of A/RES/57/298, which did not have paragraph 26, may have been passed by that margin. I also caution you against getting into the trap of repetition, there's only so many times in a row you can make a statement like that before it gets numbing. --Golbez 06:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The amendment proposed by Azerbaijan (A/57/L.73) was adopted by 37 votes to 2, with 100 abstentions. The resolution, as amended, was adopted by 147 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (resolution 57/298). Grandmaster 10:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
And here's another resolution of the General Assembly (49/13, para. 8):
A/RES/49/13
25 November 1994
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Cooperation between the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
The General Assembly,
8. Fully supports the activities of the Conference aimed at achieving a peaceful solution to the conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic and to alleviate the tension between the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijani Republic, and welcomes cooperation between the United Nations and the Conference in this regard; Grandmaster 10:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

On 'de jure' and legally binding

Latest comment: 19 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

We cannot have anything in Wikipedia that is not cited. We cannot perform original research. Therefore, we cannot post it is legally part of Azerbaijan without quoting someone as saying such; we cannot derive that knowledge from a ruling by the UN (unless, of course, said ruling said exactly that, that it is legally part of Azerbaijan).

Even our own article on the UNSC says, "The legally binding nature of Security Council Resolutions has been the subject of some controversy." Do the 1993 UNSC resolutiosn fall under the chapters mentioned in that article?

In my google searches, I'm seeing a lot of people who say it's de jure, but no pronouncements from people who matter, save the aforementioned UNSC resolutions. We could say it's an opinion, or we could say it's fact, but I don't know if we can say the UNSC resolutions make it fact. I'm not being confrontational here - let's say I believe that it's de jure part of Azerbaijan. But it must be cited, and I'm having difficulty finding a direct citation. --Golbez 06:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Our article on UNSC cannot be used as a reference according to the rules. Plus, it has no references whatsoever, it does not cite it's sources, so we don't know whether it is an original research or not.
I'm not saying use it as a reference. I'm saying, based on the information I have available, some UNSC resolutions are not binding. --Golbez 06:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
And here’s the profile of the region from BBC Regions and territories: Nagorno-Karabakh. It’s not just a general article about events related to the conflict, it is a special page dedicated to NK, and it has a section about the status of the region:
Status: de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, unilaterally declared itself an independent republic in 1991 [39]
Then we can put "The BBC says Nagorno-Karabakh is de jure part of Azerbaijan". --Golbez 06:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Once again, Britannica Concise
(removed by Golbez - the repetition is annoying, as is the copyright violation)
Then we can put "Britannica says Nagorno-Karabakh is officially part of Azerbaijan". Or, better yet, we can use the primary or secondary sources Britannica used, and cite those directly. --Golbez 06:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Also, the wiki article about NK says nothing about international recognition of NK as part of Azerbaijan, even though I cited sources in addition to official statements of states and organizations here: [40] Grandmaster 06:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nothing? That sentence in the second paragraph miss your gaze? --Golbez 06:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, let's try this. I'll put it in the intro; you cite it. --Golbez 06:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, and here’s another interesting book:
Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal by Tim Potier ISBN: 9041114777
Accept that the status quo in both Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh is likely to remain for the foreseeable future, that is, independent of Georgia and Azerbaijan respectively de-facto, but not de-jure. Grandmaster 06:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Another one:
Osce in the Maintenance of Peace and Security: Conflict Prevention, Crisis Management and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes. Edited by Michael Bothe, Natalino Ronzitti and Allan Rosas. ISBN: 9041104461
With the break-up of the USSR, Nagorno-Karabakh became part of the newly founded independent State of Azerbaijan.
With the break-up of the Soviet Union in the end of 1991 and the advent of independence for the former Soviet republics, the frameworks of the conflict changed. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan became independent states and recognized the integrity of each other’s borders when they joined a number of international organizations. (The footnote says: Especially the 1975 Helsinki Final Act (binding both Armenia and Azerbaijan) gives priority to the integrity of existing borders and territories before rights to independence and secession) What previously was an intra-State conflict within the Soviet Union became an inter-state conflict, in which the Armenian Republic would be perceived as an aggressor. To counter such allegations, the Armenian Republic maintains that the conflict really is between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan and Armenia is not involved. Grandmaster 09:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Grandmaster, I think we are going around in circles here, no matter how many sources you bring to the table saying "Nagorno-Karabakh is de jure part of Azerbaijan" or "Nagorno-Karabakh is legally part of Azerbaijan" we can't put it in the article verbatim. We cannot say is legally part of or is de jure part of, because doing so would be making a judgement in international law, which, as an encyclopaedia we can't do. By all means we can say "the United Nations Security Council considers Nagorno-Karabakh to be legally part of Azerbaijan". In fact, what is the problem here, we have "The region is recognized as a de jure part of Azerbaijan.", which sounds good too me, although I might have made it "widely recognised". - FrancisTyers · 09:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

My concern here is that the article states that the region is de-facto independent, but makes no mention of the legal side of the situation. I agree to have the article say “The region is recognized as a de jure part of Azerbaijan”, let’s not make a direct statement, but we should reflect this aspect of the conflict as well. I cited so many sources saying the same thing, that the region is formally, legally, officially or de-jure part of Azerbaijan. De-facto and de-jure go together, so in some form or shape the de-jure status should be mentioned in the intro of the article. Grandmaster 09:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is mentioned in the lead. - FrancisTyers · 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, fine. Grandmaster 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Good move. - FrancisTyers · 11:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


Golbez, the current version doesn't have the "de-facto independent state" part while having the "part of Az." phrase. Obviously with the second, the first needs to be restored.

Now, about the new version. I will first explain why the "recognized as de-jure" is faulty, and then I will provide a less weaselly and more neutral wording.

First, while we have sources saying "de-jure," including the BBC News page, we have seen plethora of sources using the term "disputed" without stating that it's part of Azerbaijan. The Agence France Press quote and the French Encyclopedia Universalis were among them. Even more so--we have the same site provided by GM (BBC News) stating that it's disputed, without even suggesting that it's de-jure part of Azerbaijan: "the disputed south Caucasus enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which seceded from Azerbaijan in 1991.... Azerbaijan still claims sovereignty over the territory" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4107988.stm

So, citing one part of BBC ("de jure"), and ignoring the other part ("disputed," "claimed by Azerbaijan,") is unbalanced. Now, I am not saying we should include both. That would be potentially contradictory and confusing. I don't think we should have either. Picking one source and using its language as fact in the intro, while multitude of other sources use different forms of wording, is not good practice.

Even bigger problem is that "recognized as de-jure" is weaselly. Phrases such as "...is widely regarded as..." "...is widely considered to be..." "It is believed that..." "It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..." are specifically mentioned as weasel phrases in Wiki (WP:AWW). "recognized as de-jure" sounds too much like "generally recognized as de-jure," which itself is weaselly. And note that when we use that phrase, and cite BBC, we are not saying "BBC says it's de-jure" (and there would be no reason to state in the intro what one source says). We are saying "BBC says it's generally recognized as de-jure," which clealry the BBC article doesn't say. The article merely states its position, without saying that "it is generally recognized as such." In other words, we can't take a position from BBC, infer that it's generally believed as such, and then put it as fact. Especially that, as I said, the same BBC and bunch of other sources use contrary language.

Also note that UNSC doesn't explicitly say that it recognize NK as de-jure (i.e. legally) part of Azerbaijan. It, and other sources (including Britannica), say that "we see it as part of Azerbaijan," and period. Whether that means that it's part of Azerbaijan *under the law,* or whether Soviet law comes into factor--that's the job of legal experts to decide. Note that if UNSC or PACE said "it's legally part of Az." that would mean saying that "Armenians have violated the law," which clearly would mean that something has to be done.

So, to avoid this problem, I suggest a better wording (and again, I am making yet another compromise here). I suggest we use "formally region of Azerbaijan" (after "de-facto ind. state"). Formally doesn't say "under law," which is POV. It doesn't say "generally recognized as legally ...." which is weaselly and POV. Formally roughly means "on paper." It beautifully encompases the UNSC statements, the Britannica statements (which don't say de-jure), the various maps and quotes saying it as a region of Az. etc. Also, note that the Council of Foreign Relations (which GM keeps calling my source, but which really was just a link in the footnotes available to all), uses the term "Nagorno-Karabakh republic, which technically remains part of Azerbaijan" http://www.cfr.org/publication/9148/nagornokarabakh.html. It doesn't downright say "part of Azerbaijan," it qualifies it--makes it more neutral: "technically," is very much like "formally" (except less encyclopedic).

In sum, "Part of Azerbaijan" is blatantly POV, "de-jure part of" is still POV as a legal opinion, "recognized as de-jure" is POV by virtue of being weaselly. "formally" is factual, and much more neutral. So, I suggest we use the following intro:

"Nagorno-Karabakh is a de-facto independent state in South Caucasus, formally a region of Azerbaijan..."--TigranTheGreat 23:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I noticed the de facto deficiency literally seconds before you posted this. :) As for that suggestion, I think it works well (Grandmaster?). However, since "officially" is a synonym, would you object to "officially a region of Azerbaijan"? --Golbez 23:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Though I still think we should say 'region', not 'state', if only (and this isn't the only reason) because of the disconnect between "Nagorno-Karabakh" and the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic". NK, as most people know it, is not an independent state; it is PART of an independent state, that also includes Shahumian (which is not independent - god, I love this stuff). --Golbez 23:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Officially, formally — both are good. And oh no! the terrible thought of splitting the article into NKR and NK. Never mention this again! - FrancisTyers · 23:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just try and stop me! It's a reasonable split! :P --Golbez 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Golbez and. Mr. Francis, would you just let me finish my edit:)? I keep seeing "Edit Conflict" Here:)

I recognize that officially and formally are close. Yet I prefer formally and here is why. Officially assumes there is a central authority which "officially" decides something. Formally means that a bunch of entities prefer to use the term *on paper*, which includes UNSC, Britannica, or what have you. --TigranTheGreat 23:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suppose it depends on what definition of "formally" you mean; in a formal manner, or officially. I think we should go with officially. --Golbez 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"formally" means "in form," and kind of "on paper." What I don't like about Officially is the assumption that there is a central official authority. We use it when, say, we have a government, and it has "official" position (one used by the central government itself), and there are "unofficial" positions (say, individual people hold a different position). We are not implying that UN is the government of the world.--TigranTheGreat 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Golbez, NK is a de-facto independent state, as opposed to a "de jure independent state" (which is a matter of opinion). The South Ossetia article uses that term, and it's used elsewhere too. The Council of Foreign Relations calls it a republic (i.e. state) and applies the de-facto inependent phrase to it: "The republic now enjoys a de facto independence," http://www.cfr.org/publication/9148/nagornokarabakh.html. We are nota saying it's a "de jure independent state," we are qualifying--de facto independent. And it does have state structures, fucntioning government etc. So state is I think ok.

About the disconnect--IF we have an NKR article, we can use "DF ind region" here and "DF ind state" there. Right now, since the NK and NKR concepts are merged in this article, I think it's safe to use the "DF ind. state" phrase, just like S. Ossetia does.

About Shahumyan--it's part of the NK region, even the COE document says it (basically, NK consists of former NKAO and Shah.). Second, we are not saying "the WHOLE of territory of NK is independent" we are saying that the entity, the state is independent. Note that 20% of Azerbaijan is not under Azeri de-facto control--yet obviously Azerbaijan is a de-facto independent state (plus being a de-jure independent state as well).--TigranTheGreat 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Azerbaijan accepts referendum? All this arguing for NOTHING?

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

[b]Armenian, Azeri Leaders ‘Agreed To Karabakh Referendum’[/b][41]

Clevelander just added this. Choice quotes:

The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have accepted the idea of enabling the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to decide their status in a referendum but disagree on other, less significant issues, the Armenian Foreign Ministry said late Monday.
Golbez interpretation: A second referendum shall be held, but only on their status.
Key principles of that accord were revealed to RFE/RL by the new U.S. co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza, late last week. Bryza confirmed that it calls for the holding of a referendum in Karabakh after the liberation of Armenian-occupied territories in Azerbaijan surrounding the disputed enclave.
Golbez interpretation: As soon as the 7 rayons are abandoned, Baku will consent to a referendum. Uh oh.
Yerevan’s reaction to the move was negative, with President Robert Kocharian saying through a spokesman that Bryza disclosed only a part of the proposed peace deal and threatening to publicize it in full.
Golbez interpretation: Then again, we don't have the whole story.
Still, the ministry was clearly more positive about the U.S. official’s remarks. “The co-chairs have, for the first time, affirmed that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh shall determine their own future status through a referendum,” read its statement.
Golbez interpretation: Two weeks and countless kilobytes, for nothing.
“Those items over which the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan continue to disagree do not include a referendum; that concept has been agreed to by the presidents,” it said. “The area of disagreement between the presidents has to do with the sequence in which the consequences of the military conflict are removed.”
Golbez interpretation: Halleluja.
Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov reiterated this on Tuesday. “This could be an autonomy like [the Azerbaijani exclave of] Nakhichevan, [the Russian autonomous republics of] Tatarstan and Bashkiria and other entities,” he said, according to Day.az.
Golbez interpretation: And if the referendum disagrees?
The Foreign Ministry in Yerevan made it clear, however, that Karabakh’s return under Azerbaijani control is non-negotiable for the Armenian side and said Baku must instead go along with the Minsk Group plan.
Golbez interpretation: These diplomats are going to fuck this up, aren't they.

Golbez opinion: Why does Baku care so much about Nagorno-Karabakh? I've never understood this hubris of states. If the people don't like you, then why do you expend so much in keeping them part of you? Why does it matter so much that N-K is part of Azerbaijan? Or Northern Ireland part of England? Or Taiwan part of China? Sigh.

Comments? And is all this optimism for naught? --Golbez 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another news story: "Armenia is ready to establish diplomatic relations with Turkey without any preconditions, RA Presidential Spokesman Victor Soghomonyan told ARKA, commenting on an interview give by the American Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Mathew Bryza to the Liberty Radio. " Apparently, Mr. Bryza has opened up a firestorm of happy feelings. [42]

Or not: "Armenia criticized a senior U.S. official on Monday for disclosing key details of the most recent framework agreement to end the Nagorno-Karabakh which was put forward by the U.S., Russian and French mediators." [43] --Golbez 23:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


The regular Azeri people care because they have been told for decades that it's their historic land. It's part of their identity. And considering that the Azeri identity is recent and still not fully formed (a quote from a neutral USIP article in the footnotes), they are really sensitive to the issue.

The government cares because, in part they came from the people, and in part it's not just about NK, and not just about the last 16 years, but about the entire upper-MidEast region and about at least the last 100 years, perhaps even more. The leaders see Russia as a threat and an easy access to Turkey as an opportunity for forming a stronger union with Turkey, and an opportunity to get the support of the West (by giving them oil, geostrategic position against Russia, etc). They see Armenian NK as a larger divide between Turkey+Nakhichevan on one hand, and Azeri mainland on the other. And they see it as a potential hindrance to their "pro-Turkish" and "pro-Western" tendencies. Of course they don't want just the NK--they also want a weak Armenia, and Zangezur (the lower strip of Armenia) either part of Azerbaijan, or an "international zone," to neutralize any "possible Armenian problem" whatsoever. The 1920 territories claimed by azerbaijan included all of modern Armenia, except a small circle around Yerevan.--TigranTheGreat 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think you guys forgot to read this part:
"Bryza confirmed that it calls for the holding of a referendum in Karabakh after the liberation of Armenian-occupied territories in Azerbaijan surrounding the disputed enclave."
Did we all think that Azerbaijan would simply allow the situation to absolve by a referendum when nearly 100% of the region is Armenian and wants to live under the banner of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh?--MarshallBagramyan 01:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Scroll up, I didn't miss it at all. --Golbez 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Marshall. Armenia would never agree to return of the security zone without first writing the status on the stone. The 7 areas are the only guarantee against an immediate annihilation in case of an Azeri offensive (which almost happened in june 1992, when NKR lost Shahumyan, and almost its existence). So, we are fine with this article for a while:)--TigranTheGreat 02:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you imagine the international outrage if Azerbaijan launched such an offensive, though? "The peace plan is, Armenia leaves, NK votes." *Armenia leaves* *Azerbaijan invades* "Haha! We lied!" I very much doubt that would happen, and if it did, you have just insulted two of the most powerful nations on earth, and they will not be happy. --Golbez 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Azerbaijan has been very vocal with threats to invade NK. I guess it wouldn't even have to invade. All it would have to do is use implicit threat--talk from a position of power. And then force more and more terms (e.g. "you can't vote on independence. All you can vote is whether it's autonomy or not"). And if the negotiations dragged, Az. could say "we have been patient, but it's our land, and since Armenians are failing to compromise, we have no choice but to..." etc. etc. etc. And if Az. wins, the land will be de-facto under its control as well, the "international community" would voice some objections for some time, but as you noted earlier, de-facto sticks while all else whanes. International politics is more about politics (in this case oil being a major factor) than about fairness--TigranTheGreat 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

My bad, too much quotes ;). I just find it ironic all this nonsense about "liberation". Liberation from who? The Armenians who want to be free and independent? Take the example of Gurgen Markarian and Ramil Safarov and then ask yourselves "Would any Armenian wish to go back to live under Azerbaijani rule?".--MarshallBagramyan 02:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Marshall is talking about the young Armenian officer Gurgen Markarian, who had absolutely nothing to do with NK, and was hacked by an axe by Azeri officer Ramil Safarov in 2003 (or 2004) in Hungary, sleeping in his bunk bed, in the middle of a joint NATO activity.--TigranTheGreat 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Formally vs Officially

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Here are definitions of officially and formally from dictionary.com. Based on the following, I think we should go with formally:

official

1. Of or relating to an office or a post of authority: official duties. We don't want this.

2. Authorized by a proper authority; authoritative: official permission. We don't want this.

3. Holding office or serving in a public capacity: an official representative. Irrelevant.

4. Characteristic of or befitting a person of authority; formal: an official banquet. Irrelevant.

5. Authorized by or contained in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary. Used of drugs. Irrelevant.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/officially


formal

1. Relating to or involving outward form or structure. Kinda what we mean (the outsiders view it as region of Az)

2. Being or relating to essential form or constitution: a formal principle. Irrelevant

3. Following or being in accord with accepted forms, conventions, or regulations: had little formal education; went to a formal party. Kinda what we want (accepted UNSCR's, statements, a conventional practice of referring to it as "region of Az"

4. Executed, carried out, or done in proper or regular form: a formal reprimand; a formal document. Irrelevant.

5. Characterized by strict or meticulous observation of forms; methodical: very formal in their business transactions. Irrelevant.

6. Stiffly ceremonious: a formal manner; a formal greeting; a formal bow to the monarch. Irrelevant.

7. Having the outward appearance but lacking in substance: a formal requirement that is usually ignored. Irrelevant.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/formally

Note that there is an additional definition saying that formally and officially are synonims. However, given the other definitions mentioned above, which we don't want (suggesting a central official authority, which doesn't exist in the world), I suggest we go with formally.--TigranTheGreat 23:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since the article potentially just became a current event, this becomes simultaneously a worthless argument (because the status will likely change soon) and a very important one (because til it does, we'll have a lot of people coming in here wanting the 411). Hm. Decisions. --Golbez 00:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, the best practice is to abide by rules of Wiki, especially NPOV and NOR, and udpate with new facts, still abiding by the rules of NPOV and NOR.

May I ask what do you see wrong with "formally," Golbez?--TigranTheGreat 00:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer a stronger term. --Golbez 01:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Could it be too strong? I mean what if it implies things that we don't want it to imply?--TigranTheGreat 01:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and trust me, it's not gonna happen any time reasonably soon. They are gonna quarrel about "what is off limits for referendum, and what should be decided for the referendum." And it's unknown whether the people themselves will be ok with it, whether they will do a coup of their government in case the government agrees to it. I think we are safe with the article for a while:)--TigranTheGreat 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

If we use the word de-facto, we should use de jure as well, these two go together even according to wiki article, and I cited other encyclopedias as well. Grandmaster 04:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Referendum

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The article says that Azerbaijan agreed to the referandum, but there is no such statement from an Azerbaijani official yet. Also, it should be clarified what is meant by referandum- who will take part in it, what are the requirements for a result, how binding will the results be, what the question would be. If there is no such information, then it should be indicated that these aspects of the proposed referandum are not yet celar. --TimBits   02:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually I don't think this is real news either. This would have been big, I mean real big yet so far I can find this only on two Armenian independent sites.--Eupator 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree this referendum statement in the article should be removed as its being denied by official Azeri authorities and nothing is confirmed yet. I think its just a rumour and we shouldnt add any rumours into wikimedia articles. Baku87 18:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I corrected the information about the referendum, which is nothing but hoax. And Azerbaijani president does not say anything about referendum in his latest statements. [44] Grandmaster 05:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Your POV is leaking, GM. An Armenian says it, it's a hoax; an Azeri says it, it's bald fact? And this all shields the fact that the person who initially announced it was the AMERICAN, and not the Armenian? --Golbez 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
If two sides present the story completely different way, then it's not a fact. And I have not seen it's announced by an American, as far as I understood it is the latest proposal by Minsk group, on which the sides to the conflict have yet to agree. Grandmaster 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Did you read any of the articles about it? They all say Matthew Bryza, the new American co-chair of OCSE Minsk, said it, in an interview. The Armenians latched on to that, and the Azeris don't like it, but it was Bryza who said it initially, if my understanding of the articles is accurate. --Golbez 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

POV Problems

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There are certain editors who are trying to sceen this picture and capitalize on the suffering of other human beings to push POV;

File:Azerirefugees2.jpg
Azeri refugees from NKR

This picture is being pasted in other articles and the focus is being drawn towards Armenian acts of aggression. This is propaganda and wrong. It has been placed in the Azari article. This is not a political forum it is an encyclopidia. May I ask some of my fellow Azari editors to stop their POV pushing and anti-Armenian wording. Azaris are proven to be Turkified Armenians and Iranians. We must recognize we are all one and not spread this hate propoganda or even worst try and politicize and capitalize on the suffering of others. 69.196.164.190

And you should stop evading the block and trolling which is what you’ve been blocked for with you other IP, 72.57.230.179. Grandmaster 04:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me; that is an uncivil attack! You have no grounds to make such an accusation. PLease do not make personal attacks! 69.196.164.190
I am deeply disturbed such uncivil behaviour, especially since I was asking for a sop to discrimination against certain ethnicities and reminding everyone here that the two groups fighting are essentially the same people and brothers. I am disgusted, by the attacks on other groups by some edits, this is not a place for hate and I am sorry that the fact that I have pointed this out bothers you. One may think that you have a dislike towards Armenians with those comments, please be civil, but I will assume good faith and not make an assumtions that that you have a dislike of Armenians. Once again I remind Azaris and Armenians alike that this is not a political forum, this a place of scholarly articles and politics has no place here. We are all brothers and please forgive any ant-Armenian, hateful edits and POV from certain Azari editors. 69.196.164.190
Could you be so kind as to show "anti-Armenian, hateful edits", made by Azeri editors? Here are some examples of hateful anti-Azeri messages [45], left yesterday by some 68.100.160.15, who was later blocked for vandalism. Very strange, isn't it? Grandmaster 06:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are you accusung me? Please verify what you mean by you above statement, especially in regards to the blocked user? 69.196.164.190
I gotta agree with Grandmaster here, you are more anti-Azeri then most users here on wikimedia. You have constantly been attacking, insulting and trolling in Azeri related articles and you have been punished for that. I think we actually have a dont be a dick or something like that rule here on wikimedia, could somebody post that here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baku87 (talk • contribs)
What do you make such a judgment on? Is it based on the fact that I say Azaris and Armenians are equal and all humans are equal? Or is it base don the fact that I say people's suffering should not be exploited and politized? There suffering should be respected. This is an uncivil attack [[46]]. Also please sign user:Baku87 I am pretty sure you know how to sign your name. Anonomous comments, especially when uncivil are actually trolling. That reminds me how am I trolling? You have made an uncivil attack against me, user:Baku87 . You have no authority or grounds to make such claims especially wants saying a am anti-Azari when I myself am a Azari. 69.196.164.190

Established or incorporated

Latest comment: 19 years ago28 comments6 people in discussion

NK was established within Azerbaijan SSR, and not incorporated into it. Even Kavburo resolution said “leave within Azerbaijan SSR”. The word “incorporated” implies that it was included in Azerbaijan SSR, while in fact it was part of Azerbaijan before the Soviets. Therefore the current edit is not correct. Grandmaster 04:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The NKAO did not exist before 1923; Nagorno-Karabakh did. It was incorporated as the NKAO. It could not be established, as it already existed. I think. --Golbez 04:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Karabakh did exist, NKAO did not. So NKAO was established in 1923. By the way, NK never existed as a separate entity, it was part of a big Karabakh region, which included both lower and upper Karabakh. In 1923 the Soviet authorities created an autonomy in the mountanious part of it only in the regions with predominant Armenian population, thus separating it from the rest of Karabakh. So it should say that NKAO was created by the Soviets in 1923. Grandmaster 04:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
And how would you word this? --Golbez 05:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
It should say something like:
In 1923 the Soviet authorities created Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast in the mountainous part of Karabakh, which mostly included areas with predominant Armenian population.
Shusha district had predominant Azeri population, other 4 had Armenian majority. Grandmaster 05:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think it's a good solution. Grandmaster's version clearly states that the region did exist before the USSR but without any autonomous status. It also clarifies why the region is called NK.--Kober 05:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Didn't Shusha have a large Armenian population in 1923? I remembered reading that it was made up of Armenian merchants in de Waal's book. I could be wrong but just in case...--MarshallBagramyan 05:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not by 1923, after the clashes in Karabakh and Zangezur. But anyway, the autonomy was created only in the mountainous part of Karabakh, which had Armenian majority, while Karabakh in general did not, thus the region was split. But NKAO left out even mountainous Karabakh regions with Azeri population, such as Lachin, Kalbajar, etc. i.e. it was specially designed to have the Armenian majority. Grandmaster 06:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
It was specially designed to deal with the local majorty population; it was not "designed to have an Armenian majority", if there was no Armenian majority there then it would not have been made. I think you're expressing the motives in inaccurate terms. What would have been the point of adding non-Armenian areas to the NKAO? --Golbez 08:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
But what was the point in dividing the historical region in parts, creating a new region that never existed and making it an autonomy? Karabakh region in general did not have an Armenian majority, neither did it mountainous part, but some parts of it had it. It was obvious divide and rule policy, and NK is a product of Soviet regime. Azerbaijanis, compactly settled in Armenia, had no autonomy. Grandmaster 09:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Which is strange, since Russia needed Azerbaijan a lot more than it needed Armenia. So why piss off the Azeris? --Golbez 09:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
That’s exactly the reason. NK was designed as an instrument of exerting pressure on Azerbaijan, and it is used as such to this day. Grandmaster 09:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
How so? "We're going to make this 10% of your country, inhabited mostly by non-Azeris, autonomous". I may be a common sense guy and not versed in the ways of statecraft, but ... why would this screw up Azerbaijan? Unless it was a constant taunting, in which case they pretty much brought it upon themselves? I would say, ok, be independent, we'll sit here getting happy and rich off the oil and money we aren't spending trying to control people who don't like us. But that's just me. Hubris. --Golbez 09:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
That was typical Soviet policy. The same way they created such time bombs everywhere else. NK was a very illogic creation, surrounded by Azeri-populated areas and without any land connection with Armenia. It is unclear, why Azeris in Armenia were not granted the same type of autonomy. The reason of NK existence was that it could be very useful to blackmail Azerbaijan, if it ever decided to breakaway from the USSR or disobey the Kremlin policy. See where all the separatist regions in the former USSR are located, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova are pro-western states, and it’s not a coincidence. Grandmaster 09:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I agree NK was and this is a tool used by Russia to keep Azerbaijan under pressure. We all know Russia support all separating groups in Caucasus (except its own offcourse), just look at Georgia, the separatism there is heavily funded and supported by Russia to keep Georgia under pressure, same goes for NK. Baku87 18:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

We are stating that it's the "Region" that was incorporated, not the NKAO. This article is about the region of NK, not the whole Karabakh, so the reader will be clear about the fact that we are talking about the Mountainous region.

As for why USSR put NKAO in Azerbaijan--it was because Russia needed both the Kemalist Turkey (which he hoped would become a beacon of Bolshevism in Near East) and Azerbaijan (since it was both rich in oil and had strong ties with Turkey). Both Russia and Azerbaijan agreed to keep NK with Armenia in 1920. The situation changed when Turkey came into picture in 1921. Turkey pretty much pressured USSR to keep Nakhichevan, and NK away from Armenia. The reason NKAO has no common border with Armenia was to make any possibility of union with Armenia remote. USSR even tried to create a Kurdish autonomy in Lachin for this same purpose--it was short lived (since Kurds weren't even a majority in the area).

By the way, as to why there was no Azeri autonomy in Armenia--throughout 1920's, Soviets kept cutting small areas off Armenia (where Armenians weren't a majority) and giving them to Azerbaijan. --TigranTheGreat 23:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

NK was not included in Azerbaijan, get the original resolution of Kavburo, it says “leave in Azerbaijan SSR”, therefore NKAO was not transferred to Azerbaijan, it was left in Azerbaijan, and the current phrasing in the intro is inaccurate. Also, it was actually the other way around, Soviets kept cutting pieces of Azerbaijan’s territory and transferring it to Armenia, and for some reason Azeris in Armenia had no autonomy at all, despite the fact that they also were settled compactly. Grandmaster 05:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
See the original text of resolution of Caucasian Bureau:
Proceeding from the necessity of national piece among Muslims and Armenians and of the economic ties between upper (mountainous) and lower Karabakh, of its permanent ties with Azerbaijan, mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR, receiving wide regional autonomy with the administrative center in Shusha, which is included in the autonomous region.
The same text can be found on Armenian website [47]
Resolution says that NK is to be left or remain within Azerbaijan, and not transferred to it. So the intro is incorrect. Grandmaster 06:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure it is correct. The intro doesn't say "NK was given to Azerbaijan," it says "the region was incorporated into NKAO." The history of the NK as a region, even here on Wiki, doesn't start with 1923 but goes literally to Noah. "Incorporate" means define an administrative structure based on the region, not give a region to this or that country--TigranTheGreat 08:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh and by the way, just because Kavburo says "leave" doesn't mean NK was part of Azerbaijan before. It's just a diplomatic/political word, they had to pick one, they picked "leave" to please the Azeris and Turks. Before 1921, the status of NK was pretty much up in the air, without any of the states having any definite jurisdiction over it.--TigranTheGreat 08:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That’s your personal interpretation and not a fact. The fact is that resolution of Caucasian Bureau said “leave in Azerbaijan SSR”, therefore you cannot say that it was included in it. The current intro is factually inaccurate in this regard. Grandmaster 09:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

And saying "NK was part of Azerbaijan before 1923" is your personal interpretation. The Kavburo paper did not determine the reality before itself, only after itself. The intro doesn't say NK was included in Azerbaijan, it says it was incorporated in an autonomous oblast in 1923. It is accurate. The region itself was established not in '23, but when the earth's crust cooled.--TigranTheGreat 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is what the current version of the intro says:
The predominantly Armenian region was incorporated by the Soviet Union as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.
Now please show me where exactly the Caucasian Bureau resolution says that NK is to be incorporated in the Azerbaijan SSR. Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 11:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't need to say it. What the bureau did was incorporating the region into NKAO. It's simple logic.

By the way, please show me where exactly the Caucasian Bureau resolution says that it establishes the NK region. After all, that's the version you want to restore. Thanks in advance.:)--TigranTheGreat 00:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here: mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR, receiving wide regional autonomy. The resolution says that NK should receive regional autonomy, remaining in Azerbaijan. Again, it says absolutely nothing about transfer of the region to Azerbaijan. Therefore, we cannot include personal interpretations to the article, it should say that it was created in Azerbaijan, or otherwise, that by decision of the Caucasian Bureau NK was left in Azerbaijan and received regional autonomy. The current intro is incorrect. Grandmaster 04:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


Incorporate doesn't mean transfer. So it does not contradict the resolution. On the other hand, resolution says nothing about establishing the region of NK. Therefore, saying "established the region" is absolutely illogical.--TigranTheGreat 22:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Incorporate" means "include". Show me a resolution that says NK to be included or incorporated in Azerbaijan SSR. No personal interpretations, please. Grandmaster 11:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

No it does not. It means to give a structure to an unstructured entity. Plus, no resolution says that NK was established. The "incorporated version" doesn't say it was incorporated in Az. It says it was incorporated in NKAO. There is a difference. It's a perfectly neutral and consise wording.--TigranTheGreat 22:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Region within the borders of Azerbaijan?

Latest comment: 19 years ago22 comments5 people in discussion

"Region within the borders of Azerbaijan" is very inaccurate and awkward wording that is not used by any other encyclopedia. It creates an illusion that it is an enclave state or enclave region of another state, which is why some users misunderstand the real situation. It shows no connection of the region to Azerbaijan, which is wrong. The intro should say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan or in Azerbaijan, there will be no misunderstanding after that. Grandmaster 09:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think it's inaccurate in a sense that the intro should only start with "is a de facto independent state", because that's the only empirical fact and not someones interpretation.--Eupator 17:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I would not say so. De-jure is not interpretation either, it is well sourced info. But if the region is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, then it is located in Azerbaijan, and not within its borders. Grandmaster 17:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I never had issues with de jure. The only intro I deem logical and factual would be in the following order:
Nagorno-Karabakh is a break-away de facto state in the South Caucasus within the borders of Azerbaijan, located about 270 kilometres (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, and very close to the border with Armenia. On December 10, 1991, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, a referendum held in the NKAO and the neighboring district of Shahumian resulted in a declaration of independence from Azerbaijan as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). Its predecessor was the predominantly Armenian region that was incorporated by the Soviet Union as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923. Nagorno Karabakh remains unrecognized by any international organization or country, including Armenia; the region is recognized as a de jure part of Azerbaijan.--Eupator 18:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Grandmaster this intro is weird and confussing. NK is a recognized region of Azerbaijan and then obvieusly it should say thats its a located in Azerbaijan (like all other region articles), and not within its borders. I support the useage of de-jure term Baku87 18:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
NK is not a state, it has no recognition, and it’s not within the borders, it is in Azerbaijan. The current intro is OK, except for two points, as I mentioned above it should say that NK is a region in Azerbaijan, and NK was not incorporated into Azerbaijan, it was created in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Eupator, the first line, as in the case of TRNC and S. Ossetia, should state that "NK is a de-facto independent state" or "republic." It doesn't have to be recognized to be a state, that's the point of specifying "de-facto ind. state." It has all the state structures, and democratically elected government.

The "Within borders" can be replaced by "NK is a de-facto independent republic in South Caucasus, formally a region of Azerbaijan." De-jure is a legal opinion, and as both Golbez and Francis stated, we can't state it as fact. "recognized as de-jure part of" is weaselly (and neither the resolutions nor Britannica use the term. Other encyclopedias plainly call it "disputed."). Since we removed the "disputed" phrase used in BBC, we need to remove the "de-jure" used in BBC, which is just an opinion.

And de-facto doesn't go with "de-jure"--the first is factual, the second is interpretational. De-facto goes with some form of "region of Azerbaijan." Since "de-jure" and "is recognized" are faulty, I suggest formally--TigranTheGreat 23:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC).Reply

I agree with user:Eupator on this one. He has an extremly well thought out and acadmic opening. If his intro was a suit and the article a man, it would be the best suit. I strongly agree with user:Eupator's introduction. 69.196.164.190
De-jure is not interpretational, this info can be found in many reliable sources. Therefore it should be included in the article. And if the region is de-jure part of Azerbaijan, then it is located in Azerbaijan. And again a state is something that has all the attributies of a state, such as international recognition and diplomatic relations with other countries. Such incorrect terms cannot be used in the lead. Grandmaster 05:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
You're dead wrong there. The word state has many meanings, but none of them include "international recognition" and "diplomatic relations". With regard to "de-jure", it is an interpretation. International law is not fact. As we see from Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "A fact is an actual state of affairs. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact. As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic." I'm not aware that there is any such consensus about the legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh, note, we're talking about scholarly consensus here, only specialised legal publications in the field of international law may apply. The International status section shows that there is no consensus.
The most important thing is that we don't present legal opinion as legal fact (unlike the talking heads in the International status section). - FrancisTyers · 06:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I actually think there’s a consensus on that. Law schools are not on the same level of authority as international organizations, opinions of law schools have no legal consequences. And not a single international organization dispute the fact of NK being de-jure part of Azerbaijan. Anyway, we don’t say that NK is de-jure part of Azerbaijan, we say that NK is recognized as a de-jure part of Azerbaijan, which is something no one can deny. Grandmaster 06:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

On Wiki, we don't ignore positions, whether it's from a state or a law school. As long as there is a dispute, there is no consensus, hence no fact. "recognized as de-jure" is a weasel word and thus should not be used. Plus, if we quote BBC for saying "De jure" we should also quote BBC saying "disputed territory claimed by Azerbaijan." There are alot of sources that use terms *other than* "de-jure part of Azerbaijan"--some say "disputed enclave," some say "claimed by Azerbaijan," some say "region of Azerbaijan." Even UNSC doesn't say "legally part of Azerbaijan," it says "region of Azerbaijan." We can't infer that UNSC means "under the law region of Azerbaijan," it could just as well mean "in our view region of Azerbaijan."

Another problem with "recognized as ...." is that recognition is an active act with specific diplomatic meaning. When you recognize something, you are noting a change--we recognize an independnet state--i.e. we didn't see them independent, now we see them as independent. If UNSC always saw NK as part of Azerbaijan, they cannot recognize it as part of Azerbaijan. The correct term is "UNSC regards NK as region of Azerbaijan."

Now, "is regarded..." is still weasel. Therefore we need to decide whether to use "formally" or "officially." Francis is good with both, Golbez prefers officially, I stated my objections for officially. However, if we use the stronger term "officially," it's only fair to use the stronger "de-facto ind. republic/state" instead of "DFI region." At least until a separate article on NKR is created.--TigranTheGreat 08:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

If we use de-facto, we should use de-jure as well. They go in parallel. I cited many sources saying that NK is de-jure or legally is part of Azerbaijan. I cited many more stating that NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. It is not a weasel word, but factually accurate, as saying “sky is blue” or “globe is round”. We cannot list all 147 countries who voted in support of resolution of UN General Assembly, stating that NK is a region of Azerbaijan. And I don’t see much logic in a statement that “If UNSC always saw NK as part of Azerbaijan, they cannot recognize it as part of Azerbaijan”. It just means that they always recognized it as part of Azerbaijan, from the moment Azerbaijan became a member of that organization within the borders of Azerbaijan SSR. So that line should retain the word de-jure, but we should change the first line, which says that “NK is a region within the borders of Azerbaijan” to say that “NK is a region in Azerbaijan”. If it is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, if it is legally, de-jure, officially or formally or otherwise is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, then it is a region of Azerbaijan or in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 09:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Also, I think we should remove from international reaction section the point of view of a law school in the US, because it receives an undue weight and is put at the same level as international organizations and countries, which contradicts the policy of Wikipedia. See [48]. According to the rules the view of minority should be attributed as such and should not be given equal weight with the view of majority and view of much more authoritative sources. According to NPOV policy, “We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties”. Grandmaster 09:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


De-jure doesn't necessarily go in parallel with de-facto. The reason is that de-facto is factual, and de-jure is interpretational. In Wiki, we assert the first, but not the second. So, what goes with de-jure is a factual formulation of "region of Azerbaijan." "Formally" or "officially" roughly does the job.

You cited many sources using "De-jure," I cited many sources using a different wording. We dont' pick one wording, we pick a neutral one that will encompass all of them. Again, "officially" or "formally" do the job.

"is recognized" is always a weasel word, much like "is regarded," "is considered," all listed as Weasel phrases on Wiki (WP:AWW). So, we can't use it.

As to excluding the law school opinion--it does not recieve as much weight, actually all the quotes favoring the Azeri position dominate the section. It is not a tiny-minority like the flat-earth opinion, it is a significant minority (if minority at all), since 2 of the key players--Armenia and NK--agree with it.

As to UNSC recognizing NK as part of Az., that's your interpretation. In international diplomatic terms, you don't constantly recognize something--it's a one time act. Perhaps UNSC regarded NK as part of Azerbaijan, but there was no official recognition.--TigranTheGreat 00:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have not seen a single authoritative source saying that NK is not de-jure part of Azerbaijan. Indeed, articles can use different wording, but they don’t contradict the current version. Some may use words formally, officially, technically, etc, but it does not mean that NK is not part of Azerbaijan according to the international law, which provides for inviolability of international borders. Saying that NK is recognized as part of Azerbaijan is not weasel, otherwise we will have to list all 147 states that voted for General Assembly resolution. Plus, we use weasel words throughout the article, including where it’s proposed by you. See History of NK: Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev, generally considered a notorious terrorist. Is it not weasel?
With regard to the law school, it receives an undue weight and is put on the same level as UN, PACE, etc, which it’s not. It is a view of tiny minority and a law school is not notable enough to present its position as a conflict of opinions within the international community. So the law school should be removed according to NPOV rules. The position of Armenia is presented throughout the article as a party to the conflict. The section in question is about the position of the international community, i.e. international organizations and other states, and private entities don’t have the same level of authority and cannot be given undue weight. Grandmaster 05:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Another question for Tigran. If the words “is recognized” are weasel, then the words “is not recognized” are weasel too. But every article on separatist regions on wiki is using the words “is recognized” and “is not recognized”, and no one complains about the words being weasel. So why should it be considered weasel here and not anywhere else? Grandmaster 09:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"is not recognized" is not weasel because we specify that it is not rec'd "by any country." Is recognized, on the other hand, does not list a subject--therefore it is much like "is regarded," which is a weasel phrase. In fact, it sounds much like "is generally recognized," which as we agreed was weasel. Now, a prior version--"recognized by UNSC," which I supported, was specific, and therefore not weasel. However, it may be too specific for an intro--formally/officially encompases the fact that various sources (though not all) use "region of Azerbaijan." Also, whether it's recognized by UNSC in an official diplomatic sence, or merely referred to as such--is a matter of interpretation. Resolutions say "we recognize the independence of this or that," but they have never said "we recognize NK as a region of Azerbaijan." They mention it in passing. And by the way, if other articles use weasel phrases, they shouldn't--Wiki articles are always evolving.

The resolutions don't say "de-jure region of." Britannica doesn't say "legally or de-jure region of." We report what the sources say. We do not assume what the sources do not say. Sure, they don't say the opposite either, but we can't automatically infer that they say "de-jure." Just because a source doesn't say something, it doesn't mean it says the opposite. And let's not forget, the legal experts of NELS (authoritive source) do say that NK is not legally part of Azerbaijan. So do Armenia and NK.

There is nothing in the Int. Status section that puts the NESL at the same footing as UN. It clearly says UN, and it clearly says NESL. Readers can differentiate. Plus, they don't receive the same space--the NESL is right now dwarfed. So, there is no undue weight problem. Now, just because Armenia's position is mentioned throughout the article, doesn't mean it should not be mentioned in Int. Status. That section was specifically created to list positions on the legal status of NK. And back in February we all agreed that we would list the resolutions and the pro-Armenian positions as well. Exluding this info would be POV. Now, we should remove the PACE resolutions. They do not say even once "region of Azerbaijan." We should also remove Atkinson's views, since they are his personal views. However, if you want to keep those, then we shall keep the pro-Armenian positions as well.--TigranTheGreat 22:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, Shamil Basayev is listed in a major US government-based comprehensive terrorist database (which is cited after the sentence). At the time that the "generally considered a terrorist" was added, we could instead write "listed as a terrorist in so and so agency." The reason the "generally" version is there is that noone at the time, including you, objected to it. Actually your only objection was that the term not be applied to another terrorist (Himatyar). And the phrase has stayed there without objection for 6 months. --TigranTheGreat 02:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

If "is recognized" is weasel, "is not recognized" is weasel as well. You say it is not recognized by any country without naming the countries that did not recognize it. It is your own logic. Plus, I can support the fact that it is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan by references, same as with de-jure (legally).
As for NESL, it is not a source with the same level of authority as UNO, PACE, its rapporteur, etc, who are international organizations or their representatives. It clearly receives an undue weight by being included in the international reaction section, which provides the opinions of international organizations and countries. Therefore it is a violation of Wiki rules, which should be corrected. Grandmaster 11:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

"No country" is specific--the number is 0. "Is recognized" is like "generally recognized" and thus it's weasel word and can't be here. It is referred to as region of Az by UN--doesn't mean UN says "it's legally part of Az." They are not lawyers, they are not making legal interpretations--in fact doing so would seal the negotiations. Legally is a position, hence has no place in Intro

The position of NESL is the position of Armenia and NK, hence is very relevant. Also, part of "International status" is the "legal status," and the NESL is a position on the legal status of NK (again, followed by Armenia and NK), and hence it's relevant. So it shall stay. The positions of PACE and Atkinson, on the other hand, are much less relevant, and perhaps they whould be deleted. Now, if we are talking about deleting irrelevant passates, I tell you what should be deleted--the Lynch passage about Armenia's support of NK during the war. You added it on the NK History page--it has virutally no place in the "Current events" section, or anywhere in this article. It should be deleted.--TigranTheGreat 22:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

0 or 147, it’s still a number, isn’t it? It is not weasel, as we have similar phrases in most of articles in wiki. And the Lynch passage should be moved to the international reaction section, if we have some obscure law school there, debating the position of international organizations and receiving undue weight, Lyhch should be there as well. And why should we delete such an authoritative organization as PACE and keep the opinion of nobodies? I see no valid reason for that. See NPOV rules, we are giving undue weight to that law school, and it is obvious. Grandmaster 11:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

"is not recognized" makes it clear that the number is 0. "Is recognized" doesn't make it clear what the number is. Is it 1 (UN), majority, 90%, all? Hence it's weasel and can't be used. Plus, the 'WP:AWW' lists "is regarded, is considered is believed" as weasel words--it doesn't list "is not regarded etc." as weasel words. So obviously, is not recognized is not a weasel word.

NESL's and Armenia's views are not given the same space, so they do not violate the undue weight rules. Excluding them would be excluding positions, which would definitely violate NPOV.

Lynch's article has nothing to do with NK's legal status, while NESL's analsys does. In fact, Lynch's article has no relevance here--maybe on the NK History article--TigranTheGreat 00:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Referendum

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Clevelander, first, Isa Gambar, the leader of oppositional Musavat party, is not a source that could confirm such rumors. Second, such information does not belong to the intro and should be in the Current situation section. Intro should have only verified information. Third, Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially denies these rumors. [49] So please remove your last addition, it is already in the Current situation section. Grandmaster 11:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I will agree to move the statement down into the "current situation" section, though I still think that it's important for the reader to understand what the future status is of the region.
Also, the fact that Azerbaijan agreed to the referendum is not a rumor because not only was it confirmed by Isa Gambar, but also REGNUM and Armenian Liberty (a division of Radio Free Europe). The Azeri government and media deny this because, although I hate to say it, Azerbaijan is not a country of free speech (this is from what I've read from the Human Rights Watch). -- Clevelander 11:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why then Isa Gambar says what he says and it gets published in the newspapers? I'm not saying that Azerbaijan is up to the best standarts in this regard, but it's not that bad either. Grandmaster 11:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Good point. Actually, I should have thought of it like that. Still, I believe that this latest bit of information is indeed fact. We need to have this conflict resolved and I think that the solution of a popular vote works best (I mean, it's not like you can't give the Azeris who formally lived in the region absentee ballots). -- Clevelander 11:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
What seems to be the problems here, cant you guys just wait a couple of days untill some official speach in which they will confirm or deny this referendum. This referendum thing shouldnt be added in the article untill its confirmed and accepted by both sides, untill then it only remains as rumours and it shouldnt be added as being unreliable. Baku87 18:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually, Baku, we already settled the issue. -- Clevelander 19:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it's time for the neturality dispute tag to be removed?

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the current state of the article it looks reasonably fair to me. Jon 13:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would agree. --The Great Honker 16:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not yet. There is a couple of unresolved issues. Grandmaster 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
This article looks fair to me. In fact I would argue there is some sections that are very compromising and unfair to the Armenians. 69.196.164.190

The referendum announced by the Armenian foreign ministry is unilateral and therefore baseless

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The referendum announced by the Armenian foreign ministry is baseless, because it has not been confirmed by the Governmemt of Azerbaijan. It is very likely a unilateral act by the Armenian side. The intended referendum is therefore unilateral, meaning it is illegal and not recognized nor endorsed by Azerbaijan and the international community. After all Nagorno-Karabakh is under illegal Armenian occupation with tacit support of the republic of Armenia, which is a crime and violation under international law.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.147.81 (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

So something is baseless just because one government announces it and the other doesn't and its a unilateral act? Whether or not Armenia is occupying the region is up for debate, but 100% of Armenians living in the region would prefer to live with them than with the Azeris. Whatever happend the right for self-determination?--MarshallBagramyan 00:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
As an Azari I can say that the Azari leadership in Baku has given up cliams to the land, but in public uses it as a nationalism card. Armenians were living there for many years now. Azaris and Armenians are brothers; it is time for Azaris to take a look at themselves. On a personal note: as a proud Azari, I beleive that the area needs self-determination. As an editor I beleive that is noteworthy and should be in the article in a neutral format we can all agree upon. 69.196.164.190
It's good that you agree with the right for self-determination, the same right that Azeri people might want to claim in Iran. Grandmaster 04:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sure if they wanted it, but all the facts seem to say they don't. But theoritically if you were right, that is fine with me. I do not know why you are making this personal. user:grandmaster please discuss the topic not other editors. I must ask why you switched the subject to Iran? That is pecular. This is dealing with Armenia and Arran or the Republic of Azarbaijan. The way events are going it seems certain that Nagorno-Krabakh will become an independent republic or join Armenia. 69.196.164.190
Some also say that Iranian Azerbaijan will be independent when the regime of mullahs falls. We'll see. I don't jump at judgements in such matters. Grandmaster 06:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
May I ask why you are talking about Iran when this article has very little to do with them except for the fact that they provided safty and aid for the refugees on both sides? 69.196.164.190
Why can't I talk about Iran? This whole thread is off-topic anyway and is not about discussion of any edits to the article, and your posts also present your view of the situation and don't propose or discuss any edits. Grandmaster 07:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Talk pages are to be used only for discussion of the article, and not as chat rooms. Furthermore, on a controversial topic such as this, "off topic" threads have the very real potential to devolve into nasty stuff. You've seen how easily we get into fights on *on topic* threads. --Golbez 09:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree. We should close this thread and move it to the archive. Grandmaster 09:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Incorporated

Latest comment: 19 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

Actually what is illogical is the current version of "The region was established in 1923," as reverted by GM without agreement. It makes no sense and reduces the quality of the intro. Golbez, it needs to be changed back to incorporated.--TigranTheGreat 23:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think the problem is that for some reason, GM thinks that "incorporate" necessarily means "transfer from one place to another," which obviously is not true. "incorporate" means to give a structure to an unstructured entity. Thus, when we turn a company into corporation, we "incorporate" the company (actually that's where the word comes from). The region was there. It had no administrative structure. Therefore when the Soviets established the the AO (and not the region itself), they incorporated the region into the AO.--TigranTheGreat 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think I may know the source of present confusion. The current version says "incorporated AS the NKAO in Az." Somehow to GM this sounds like "incorporated in Az." What we wanna say is that it was incorporated in NKAO. So, we could say "the region was incorporated into the NKAO in Az." Another way, but much longer and much more awkward, would be "In 1923, the Soviets established the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) in Azerbaijan, which included most of the Nagorno-Karabakh region." It kinda says the same thing, except much longer, and there is a disconnect between "the region" in prior sentence, and the "NKAO" in the beginning of this sentence.--TigranTheGreat 00:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The phrase "In 1923, the Soviets established the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) in Azerbaijan, which included most of the Nagorno-Karabakh region" is much more accurate and leaves no room for various interpretations. Grandmaster 11:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Golbez, the new version "The Soviet Union created the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) in the predominantly Armenian region in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923" makes it sound like the region of NK was part of Azerbaijan before this. This is Azeri POV. The status of the area (i.e. whether it was Armenia's or Azerbaijan's) before this decision was up in the air--there was no definite ownership. In fact, in late 1920 the Bolshevicks decided to give Nakhichevan and NK to Armenians. It was reversed by the Kavburo. In sum, any suggestion that the area was in Azerbaijan at the time of the decision is POV. The prior "incorporated" version made no suggestion about who had it before. I suggest we restore that one. I honestly have no idea why GM thinks that "incorporated" suggests that it was part of Armenia before. We should use reasonable words with reasonable interpretations.--TigranTheGreat 22:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agreeFad (ix) 22:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I object. You can't say it was incorporated in Azerbaijan SSR, because there's no such decision of Soviet authorities. NK was part of Azerbaijan before, otherwise why would Kavburo say: mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR, receiving wide regional autonomy? Grandmaster 11:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Again, I will not play the revert war, you are wrong, Nagorno Karabakh delimitation was formed from the local Armenian autorities formed after World War I, the British placed it under Azeris juridiction to get the equivalent of Chestler consession over Baku and decided of its final destiny for the peace conference, which did not happen. Nagorno Karabakh, this 'entity' was later incorporated in Azerbaijan. If you care for the accuracy of this article, you should use incorporporated, a word used in peer reviewed journals to discribe the situation. Fad (ix) 15:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nagorno-Karabakh Autonoumous Oblast (NKAO) was created in 1923. It was not incorporated in Azerbaijan SSR. It was left within Azerbaijan and demands of Armenia were rejected. The text of Kavburo resolution is available to everyone. Indeed, British administration also de-facto recognized the region as part of Azerbaijan and agreed with appointment of Azerbaijani governor to Karabakh, and by the time the Soviets took the region over it was in fact part of Azerbaijan, so saying that it was incorporated in Azerbaijan is wrong and factually inaccurate. Grandmaster 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not true, this article is about Nagorno-Karabakh, which was actually incorporated to form the NKAO. The Armenian demands were actually accepted, and the Azerbaijan side also agreed. The decision was reverted after one of those who voted changed his mind later, and it was then incorporated in Azerbaijan SSR and formed the NKAO. The most accurate word is indeed incorporated. Fad (ix) 17:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Azerbaijani side did not agree, and Narimanov protested the decision. So the decision to take NK from Azerbaijan SSR and include it into Armenian SSR was annulled and NK was left in Azerbaijan. The resolution said to leave NK in Azerbaijan SSR, and not include in Azerbaijan SSR. You can’t change the text of resolution and include in the article your own interpretations of the resolution text. The line in question discusses the creation of NKAO, and it should be factually accurate. It should contain only facts, and not interpretations. Grandmaster 18:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is not true, Narimanov actually agreed before the decision was reverted back. Narimanov personally agreed and said the problem does not exist anymore. I have a French translation of Ordjonikidze speech concerning Narimanov acceptance., I can post it here. As well as the decreee of June 12, 1921, as well as the other decree of June 13. It was never taken from the Azerbaijan SSR which didn't even existed at that time. I do not change any text of resolution, as Ordjonikidze is clear, so as the decree's. There is no question that Nagorno Karabakh was incorporated, there is no other term which could replace this one, neither created, neither formed, neither invented neither anything else. The word incorporated is the one used in peer reviewed publications, I don't see what is the problem with it, or what is your problem with it. Fad (ix) 19:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Golbez, we can't phrase the sentence as if NK was part of Azerb. before NKAO. This is POV. In fact, both Azerbaijan and Soviets recognized NK as part of Armenia serveral times before the Kavburo decision. Here are the facts:

  • November 30, 1920: AzSSR issued an official declaration "recognizing NK (and other areas) as part of Armenia
  • On December 2, 1920, Narimanov (leader of AzSSR) changed his mind and recognized NK's right of self-determination (i.e. via referendum)
  • On June 3, 1921, Kavburo of Russian Communist Party (i.e. the new communist government) unanimously decided to note in the declaration of the Armenian government that NK belonged to Armenia
  • On July 4, 1921, Kavburo again made a decision to include NK in Armenia.
  • It was only on July 5, when under pressure from Stalin and Narimanov, Kavburo decided to "leave NK in Azerbaijan."

This is by the way from the same page where GM copied Kavburo's decision--i.e. the official NK page: http://www.nkr.am/rus/history/svlast.htm. The English translation is http://www.nkr.am/eng/history/svlast.htm.

In other words, before the July 5th decision, it was decided several times that NK was part of Armenia. So, before NKAO, it was either officially part of Armenia, or at best a disputed area with unresolved status. Saying that the region was part of Azerbaijan before NKAO is therefore POV.

These string of events are also listed in Staravoitova's article on USIP (she is a renowned ethnologist and human rights activist, and USIP is a reputable source):

Nagorno-Karabakh first emerged as a disputed territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both states became independent in 1918. The dispute was not resolved until 1920, when both young nation-states lost their independence to Bolshevik Russia. In December 1920, the Azeri Communist government renounced former claims to Nagorno-Karabakh and several other Armenian-populated territories, recognizing them as parts of Soviet Armenia. Eventually, however, the Azeri leadership revived these claims, lobbying Moscow for support. On July 4, 1921, the so-called Caucasian Bureau (Kavburo) of the Russian Communist Party's Central Committee voted to include Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia. But on the next day, a new session of the Kavburo convened and revised the decision, demanding that the disputed area be incorporated into Azerbaijan.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks19/chap3_19.html

So, we can't definitely suggest that NK was part of Azerbaijan before the decision. "Incorporated" itself is neutral, and does not mean that NK was part of Armenia before. It merely means that the area was taken, and an Autonomous Oblast was created on its territory. We should restore the "incorporated" version.--TigranTheGreat 00:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just want to add that Nagorno Karabakh was bought(by Turkey) by a decision between the Russians and the Turks, a false promess by the Kemalists of joining the Soviet confederation in 1921 was exchanged with 6,5 million gold roubles, 33,275 pistols, 57,986,000 pistol balls, 327 machine guns, 54 canons, 129,479 shells, 1,500 sabers and 20,000 gas masks and a contract for more in the upcomming years, and the incorporation of Nakhichevan and Nagorno Karabakh with the garanty that they won't become part of Armenia ever, it was close that Zankezour was to be lost, but the Bolshevics kept as garanty cutting the Turkish line. Nagorno Karabakh had already an Armenian administration working as a republic before the British decided to make a 180 degree turn to secure their oil contracts in the Caspian and placed it under a temporary Azeris juridiction without consulting the allies, the League of Nations refused to recognize Azeri juridiction. (of course, there is no mention of this too, in the article, and if added it will probably get edited) There is an entire chapter, maybe an article to be created about this whole affair. But definitly, there is no question, that it was indeed incorporated. Also, Grandmaster said to Golbez that no Muslim region was created in Armenia, implying that the Soviet advantaged the Armenians. True, no such thing was created, but for a reason, every pieces where there was said to be a considerable Muslim population (from 30% of the population to more) were sliced from Armenia, while various regions, and here I am not only talking about Nakhichevan or Karabakh were distributed to Azerbaijan, Turkey and also Georgia. Even Kars part of Russian Armenia, with its 81 thousand Armenian population was just given to Turkey with Soviet recognition, and I don't say what happened to them. I wonder how Grandmaster can even claim that the Russians were favioring the Armenians, when Kars, Ardahan, Surmalu, Olti, Khaghisman, Kazagh, Nakhichevan, half of Sharur-Daragiaz were just distributed to Azerbaijan and Turkey... not to mention those disputed territories which were later gained by Georgia. While Armenia was literaly starved by Turkey, the devastation in Alexandripole, and the refugee crises, mostly orphans victim of the genocide, with false promesses of brotherhood, the Soviet were agreeing any compromises amputing Armenia. In some articles in Wikipedia it is even written that both Azerbaijan and Armenia accuses the Soviets for having taken such decisions against their national interests. This must be a joke, what was Azerbaijan expecting, to get Yerevan too? The only place where there was any considerable Muslim population was Zankezour, but even then, the Armenians were constituting a majority. Now sure, Grandmaster could try removing the word incorporated, but then, I hope he will not claim that he is doing this for the accuracy of the article. Fad (ix) 01:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Once again, it was not incorporated in Azerbaijan. There was no such decision that said NK is to be incorporated in Azerbaijan SSR. There was a decision to leave NK within Azerbaijan and give it an autonomy. So we cannot distort the facts, we should provide accurate information, since we have the original documents available. It was part of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and Soviets also left it within Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 04:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is not true, Manitoba, British Columbia, and Prince Edward Island were incorporated in the Canadian confederation as provinces, the same way as Nagorno Karabakh was incorporated as an Oblask in Azerbaijan. Manitoba, British Columbia, and Prince Edward were not created as provinces. Fad (ix) 17:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Precisely, another example is how the territories such as Dakota Territory or Idaho Territory were incorporated into the United States.--Eupator 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kavburo's decision to create NKAO based on NK was a decision to incorporate the region as NKAO, as a reasonable understanding of "incorporate" tells us. GM's position that NK was part of pre-Soviet Azerbaijan, and pre-Kavburo Soviet Azerbaijan, are his interpretations, and disputed ones--those should be left to be discussed in the History section, not stated as fact in the intro. In fact, since Soviets recognized NK as part of Armenia before July of 1921, tells us that they *gave back* NK to Azerbaijan on July 5, 1921. But again, we should not explore these issues in the intro. The current version (region in Azerbaijan) should be replaced by the prior neutral version "incorporated."--TigranTheGreat 00:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

BBC source

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Karabakh means Black Garden in Azerbaijani language, and the Azeri algnauge itself is a mix of Russian, Persian and Turkish. We dont have to start playing the denial game here, it simply means black garden in Azeri, there is no need to divide Azeri language in Turkish and Persian. Addentional the word kara also means black in Azeri en the word bag mean garden in Azeri. So the article should divide the Azerbaijani language and make things complicated. Baku87 17:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't replace sourced info with unsourced. Find a source that backs you up first. --Golbez 18:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The same source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/3658938.stm

also states the status of Nagorno-Karabakh as de jure region of Azerbaijan, I made a citation to this Baku87 12:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Souce on current situation

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know there's beenm a lot of confusion on the negotiations recently, and I think this interview of American mediator Matthew Bryza by Radio Free Europe might prove somewhat informative.--Pharos 06:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just the facts, ma'am.

Latest comment: 19 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

This is where we make statements that we think should go in the introduction and cite them. OK, go for it. I don't want a single uncited sentence in the intro by the end of the weekend. Single sentences or sentence-fragments, please, I don't want long statements. I will supply my own when it's not 6am. --Golbez 09:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think it is worth to repeat the info that has already been provided, therefore I will provide the links to some of the sources, stating that NK is a region of Azerbaijan: [50] This is in addition to UNSC and General Assembly resolutions, US State Department, etc. Grandmaster 12:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

--"NK is a disputed region in South Caucasus claimed by Azerbaijan." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4107988.stm (also, Agence France Press, 02/11/06) (Comment--if we include "de-jure" as cited by BBC, we should include this one as well. I think we exclude both.

--"NK is a de-facto independent republic": http://www.cfr.org/publication/9148/nagornokarabakh.html (Plus, sources agree that NK has de-facto state structure--COE doc. says "de-facto authorities," [51], RFERL says "leadership of NK" [52] etc. I.e. it is a de-facto state/republic).

--"NK is formally/officially a region of Azerbaijan" http://www.cfr.org/publication/9148/nagornokarabakh.html (they use the term "technically," which is basically "formally/officially," except less encyclopedic).

Based on the above, I suggest the first line to be "NK is a de-facto independent republic/state in South Caucasus, formally/officially a region of Azerbaijan." When we create the NKR article, we can use that there, and "de-facto independent region" here. Right now, the NK and NKR are merged in this article.--TigranTheGreat 00:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

If. We don't know if we will. And then there's all the different possibilities - NKAO; NKR; Nagorno-Karabakh ('mountainous karabakh' being the general region), Nagorno-Karabakh (the post-NKAO one, consisting of the five rayons), Karabakh (including the non-mountainous part), etc. Sometimes it's simpler to have things in fewer articles, and sometimes not. I don't know. This article, however, is presently about 50% on the NKR, and I'd say about 40% on the NKAO. At least Abkhazia and South Ossetia have always been where they are, and Transnistria is (I believe) a post-Soviet construct. --Golbez 01:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Golbez, the region Nagorno Karabakh includes Shahumyan. This is acknowledged even by the COE document (the one that you said was well balanced). It says "the Shahumian district (on the Northern tip of N-K)," not "North of NK." [53]. Since the article is about NK, and since the creation of NKR article is questionable, I think it makes sense to use the "republic/state" phrase here. Especially if we use the stronger "officially."

Also, let's not forget that the whole genesis and existence of NKR as a de-facto state is probably the most important thing about the region--the very reason why the article is so controversial and receives so much attention. NKAO is just past history.--TigranTheGreat 01:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

And even though Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is a separate article, it's pretty short. So maybe they shouldn't be split. --Golbez 03:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I suggest we make the first line more logical. If NK is de-jure, legally, formally, officially, etc part of Azerbaijan, then it is a region in Azerbaijan, and not within its borders. Grandmaster 05:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Saying a region is within another entities borders is the same as saying a region of a entity. E.g. (1)Austria is within Europe; and (2) Austria is withinthe borders of Europe. Both examples mean that Austria is located in Europe and in Europe. However there is an extra dimension, that is if Austrai belongs to Europe. This is where the POV comes in and the edit warring. NKAO has de facto independeance and is claimed by the Republic of Azarbaijan. The most important factor about NKAO is that it is a de facto state and independent of the Republic of Azarbaijan. This is what this article must illustrate. Trying to make arguments and push editing that basically tries to hide or censor this independance and states that the region should be seen as rightful property of the Republic of Azarbaijan is political and POV. However it must all be recognized that this region is a break-away reoublic that compromises territory or former territory of the Republic of Azarbaijan. 69.196.164.190
San Marino is within Italy; San Marino is within the borders of Italy; but San Marino is not part of Italy. --Golbez 21:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Since when adding well-sourced info is POV editing? I would not recommend throwing such accusations without a good reason. You can go through this talk page and find tons of authoritative sources saying that NK legally (formally, officially, etc) is part of Azerbaijan. Austria and Europe are not the same as NK and Azerbaijan. Is Texas a state within the US or a state of the US? Is Chechnya an autonomy within the borders of Russia or an autonomy in Russia? The article actually says that NK is de-facto independent, but de-facto and de-jure are two different aspects of the problem. We should reflect both, and not ignore one in favor of the other. NK is legally part of Azerbaijan, until is recognized independent by the international community. Grandmaster 12:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not really. NK is unrecognized, but legally not part of Az (according to authoritative sources, and Armenia+NK). So it can't unquestionably be de-jure part of Az. Formally--that's another matter.--TigranTheGreat 22:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Law school is not an authoritative source in this issue. Show me which state or interantional organization beside Armenia question this. Grandmaster 11:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
De jure means "based on law" (which laws? Armenian? CIS? international &which one of the international laws? Azari? Iranian?). De jure means also in principle, which user:Grandmaster has a valid argument for, but this argument is flawed becuase it overlooks the right of self determination, demographic realities, and functioning practices. These factors must be taken to account in any analysis and jusiprudence dealing with de jure. The de jure argument is not sound and thus can not be valid.
In contrasted de facto means "in fact" or in accuality or IN PRACTICE. Can we all agree that NK is in fact and accuality a seperate functioning state? I think it obviously is. NKO is virtually an indepedent state and is also one in practive, therefore de facto is correct. NKO is independent IN PRACTICE?
If you can demonstatre that NKO is not indpenedent in practice, then we can remove de facto from the article, but until then you can not make any demands on the deletion of the term. 69.196.164.190
See the sources that I provided on de-jure and legally, information is well sourced and should stay in the article. But the phrase the "region within the borders" is inaccurate and illogical. It should say that NK is a region in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 11:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
How is it inaccurate to say that Karabakh is "within the borders of Azerbaijan?" Looking at the map, it very plainly is. I think that saying NK is "part of Azerbaijan" makes it sound as though it's administered by and fully integrated into Azerbaijan, which it isn't. -- Clevelander 11:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Because it is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan and not an independent state. Therefore it is a region in Azerbaijan, other encyclopedias say the same thing. They refer to it as a region in Azerbaijan. See Britannica: Nagorno-Karabakh, region of southwestern Azerbaijan. If we say that NK is legally, formally, officially, technically, etc is part of Azerbaijan, then it is a region in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 12:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was in favor of Kober's earlier proposal. Why not just say that it's a territory internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan? Or better yet we could say that it's a self-governing territory internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. I believe that if we stated this then we wouldn't even need to venture into the "de facto vs. de jure" debate. What do you think? -- Clevelander 14:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really sure. The current version is not that bad, only the first line is illogical. Grandmaster 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
We could say that it's a self-governing territory internationally recognized as part of of the Republic of Azarbaijan or a territory of the Republic of Azarbaijan that is indepedent in practice. 69.196.164.190

Law schools are always authoritative. When legal experts dispute the legal status of a region, than it can't be taken as fact. Plus, Armenia and NK dispute it too, so we can't state it as fact. Therefore, we can't use "de-jure." "de-facto," on the other hand, is factual, as one of the users stated above. It reflects the fact that it's a functioning state, except unrecognized.

"Internationally recognized" is vague--it creates the impression as if everyone out there recognizes it as part of Azerbaijan. PACE never used the phrase "region of Az'." UNSC's or UN's resolutions are neither legally binding nor universally mandatory. "officially or formally region of" is more factual, and more all-encompassing.--TigranTheGreat 23:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Law schools are not authoritative, they are private organizations and don't have the same level of authority as international organizations, and this law school was given an undue weight in the article in violation of NPOV rules. Not a single country or international organization disputes the fact that NK is part of Azerbaijan, in fact even Armenia recognized it as part of Azerbaijan, when it joined the international organizations. The terms of membership require recognizing territorial integrity of other states, and Armenia undertook to adhere to the international laws principles when joining.
With the break-up of the USSR, Nagorno-Karabakh became part of the newly founded independent State of Azerbaijan.
With the break-up of the Soviet Union in the end of 1991 and the advent of independence for the former Soviet republics, the frameworks of the conflict changed. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan became independent states and recognized the integrity of each other’s borders when they joined a number of international organizations. (The footnote says: Especially the 1975 Helsinki Final Act (binding both Armenia and Azerbaijan) gives priority to the integrity of existing borders and territories before rights to independence and secession) What previously was an intra-State conflict within the Soviet Union became an inter-state conflict, in which the Armenian Republic would be perceived as an aggressor. To counter such allegations, the Armenian Republic maintains that the conflict really is between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan and Armenia is not involved.
Osce in the Maintenance of Peace and Security: Conflict Prevention, Crisis Management and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes. Edited by Michael Bothe, Natalino Ronzitti and Allan Rosas. ISBN: 9041104461
Recognizing territorial integrity of Azerbaijan means that NK is recognized as part of Azerbaijan. US Ambassador Steve Sestanovich, Ambassador at Large for the New Independent States, says basically the same thing and refers to 1975 Helsinki final act:
The states of this region can be thrown into chaos if borders are up for grabs; and it is very easy for all borders to be up for grabs. The principle that we have subscribed to in the OSCE and before that in the CFCE, since the agreement on the Helsinki final act in 1975, is that border changes should be peaceful and consensual.
Now, in this case, we have accepted the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and that means recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. [54]
So yes, NK is legally part of Azerbaijan, based on the principles of international law. Grandmaster 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Demonstatre that NKAO is not indpenedent in practice, then we can remove de facto from the article. 69.196.164.190
That’s easy. See CIA World Factbook, "Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan". [55] NK is not independent, it is occupied by neighboring Armenia, which stations its troops there. “NKR” is nothing but a puppet regime, so the article should reflect this fact. I can cite more sources saying the same thing, in fact you can find some of them on this page. Grandmaster 10:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
So you are saying it does not have its own government, seperate economy, and own seperate system? You are saying it is occupied and in fact not independent; in that case that changes the whole nature of the argument. Occupation of terriroty and de facto indepenance are two very different things. You are basically advocating for an article with editing that states NKOA is occupied by Armenia. 69.196.164.190
Yes, this fact should be reflected as well. Even PACE expressed its concern about that: 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. [56] Grandmaster 11:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply


I am sorry, but you are not answering any questions or validating the grounds for your demands. Yes, these laws are all obligations, but they are also theortical. I do not think that you know what de facto means. De facto means that in PRACTICE or counter-to-the-theoritical basis. Yes I agree with the laws you are mentioning, but that is exactly why de facto is used. De facto means that counter-to-the-theoritical princepts of the law that IN PRACTICE something else is being practised. 69.196.164.190


Also the term enclave can be used for the region. In political geography, an enclave is a piece of land which is totally surrounded by a foreign territory, and an exclave is one which is politically attached to a larger piece but not actually contiguous with it. Many entities are both enclaves and exclaves, but the two are not synonymous. 69.196.164.190

It is clear that NK is an independnet state. Even PACE said that it was under control of "separatist forces." COE uses "NK authorities" in contrast to "Armenia's authorities." RFERL gives examples of how the "NK leadership" REFUSED to follow Armenia's urgings in acception various peace proposals. Just because Armenia supports NK doesn't make NK non-independent. States support each other all the time--what matters is that NK has its government, and independent decision making, all recognized by PACE, UNSC, COE, and other neutral sources.

As for Armenia accepting NK as part of Azerbaijan--Armenia has always stated the exact opposite. Armenia has said that Az's territory does not include NK, so recognizing Az's territorial integrity doesn't mean recognizing NK as part of Azerbaijan. GM's sources stating otherwise are US authors, and we have demonstrated US State Department's pro-Azeri stance, so their word is not fact.

We have Armenia and NK disputing NK's belonging to Azerbaijan, we have legal experts agreeing with it, and we have at least 100 nations refusing to take position. Obviously, we can't state "region of Azerbaijan" as fact--it's a position--TigranTheGreat 00:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

resettlement information

Latest comment: 19 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I'm deleting it. Karabakh is not Nagorno-Karabakh, and the only recorded settlement of Armenians under Russian rules in 'Karabakh' is provided by the Central State Archives records regarding the 279 Armenian families, in Kapan and Meghri, which is mostly in Zangezur (since Karabakh does not equal to its mountainous region, this too Fadix had clarified if you remember correctly). Since the Armenian population didn't stop to decline since the Oblask was formed under the Soviet rules, from 91% to about 75%, how could we speak of any resettlement of Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh which could have brought the population against the Azeris and the Armenians to 3/4? How is the few families resettled under Russian rules in Nagorno-Karabakh revert an Azeris majority? To the contrary, the much reported opression under Ebrahim Khan and his subsequent ruttless treatment of the Armenians could have accounted for the opposit, and even though many returned after his 'reign' some others did not, the few families 'resettled' there hardly account for it. Fad (ix) 20:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's plenty of information about resettlement of Armenians to Caucasus, including Karabakh. I restored the references. Grandmaster 11:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I will not play the revert war, if you really worry about the accuracy of this article, you should care to not add wrong informations. Neiher of the sources provided source what is written there. The official archival material is of 279 families and this for the whole Karabakh, for Kapan and Meghri, which is mostly Zangezur and has little to do with Nagorno Karabakh. Fad (ix) 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I refer to the article in Britannica, written by Suny, and I have more sources to back it up. See above: [57] Grandmaster 16:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
The source does not support the text you have added in the articles mainspace. It says a number of families, which is true, the official records talk about the 279 which were resettled in Kapan and Meghri, which is mostly in Zankezour and not Nagorno-Karabakh. Unnder 100 families could have gone in Nagorno Karabakh, which is the mountainous region and was not a good place for resettlement. About 50 families would hardly replace the Armenians who have not returned after Ebrahim Khan reign. Also, the article talk about the proportion of Armenians in the 90s in Nagorno Karabakh, and not that Armenians had become 3/4 of the population after the resettlement. Since Armenians were over 90% before it was placed under Azerbaijan juridiction and their number decreased over the years until the 90s, to about 3/4 of the population. None of your sources support the text in the articles namespace. Fad (ix) 17:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Here's the text in question:
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.
I cited my sources, and will cite more tomorrow, now you cite yours about Armenians resettled to Karabakh. Grandmaster 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
True, Karabakh, which is not Nagorno Karabakh, Nagorno Karabakh is its mountainous region, we do have official archival records on the number of people resettled in Karabakh(not Nagorno Karabakh), it is 279 families, they were resettled in Kapan and Meghri, which is mostly Zankezour and not Nagorno Karabakh. So again, for the third or fourth time, there is nothing in your sources which says hundreds of families, there is nothing in your sources which says that Azeris lost plurality over it. You bolded Karabakh, but Karabakh and Nagorno Karabakh are not the same thing, Nagorno Karabakh is the region where Armenians were and are concentrated, they were demographically forming a majority there, while those who were resettled were resettled in Kapan and Meghri, there was no reason for the Russians to resettle Armenians to change the demography, in a region, where Armenians were clearly forming a majority. As for the only reference to Nagorno Karabakh, it refers to those who moved after the massacres of 1915, which was insignificant, they mostly found themselves in Yerevan when Karabekir crossed the border and also when the British placed it under Azeri juridication temporarly. You say you will provide more sources tomorrow, this is no excuses to still keep something which you can not source. As for my source, Bournoutian provide the official record( Central State Archives of Military History, record group VUA, file 978, ff. 22-26.) Fad (ix) 18:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Fadix. The current version makes it sound like massive number of Armenians settled in NK. Britannica doesn't support it. It says "a number of families" specifically about Nagorno Karabakh. So, sticking NK with the "massive resettlement" is misleading. Also, Britannica says nothing about Russia organizing it, or the goal of Russia being to win the favor of the Christian population. That needs to be delete too.--TigranTheGreat 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bournatian is an Armenian source, try getting something neutral. Here’s another source, saying basically the same thing as Britannica.
During the first decade of the Russian rule, immigration into Karabakh almost exclusively consisted of Russian military, administrators and traders. However, following the conclusion of the Russian-Iranian War of 1826 – 1828 and Treaty of Turkmanchai of 1828, which led to the incorporation into the Russian empire, of eastern Armenia and northern Azerbaijan, a first wave of mass Armenian immigration into the area began. The first wave consisted of Armenian refuges from the hostilities in Persia. It is estimated that approximately 57 000 Armenians migrated to Karabakh and Yerevan province after 1828, while approximately 35 000 Muslims – Azeris, Kurds and Lezgins, and various nomadic tribes – out of population of 117 000 left the area. The Russian – Turkish Wars of 1855 – 56 and 1877-78 led to further migration. This time Armenians settled in Karabakh and other parts of Tsarist Transcaucasia having left Ottoman Turkey, replacing the many thousands of Muslims who were, at this time, fleeing the Russian empire. Such migrations, albeit on a lesser scale, were to continue until the end of the nineteenth century.
Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal by Tim Potier. ISBN: 9041114777
There are also Russian sources, plenty of them, I can cite them too. Shavrov, Glinka, etc. Grandmaster 05:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, not quite right, this has nothing to do with Nagorno Karabakh, which was the mountainous area, also 57,000(which again is a record provided by Bournoutian, in fact, he is the only researcher who has actually undertaken to research those figures) is not the figure of the Armenians but Christians, true they were mostly Armenians. The official records speak of 45,207 Armenians for Yerevan, 3,883 Armenians to Nakhichevan. While those records only speak of 279 families for the entire Karabakh, they were sent for Kapan and Meghri, which is mostly Zankezour. Mountainous Karabakh, known as Nagorno Karabakh was nearly not affected if at all. And the Russian surveys which also Bournoutian is the one to provide, pre and after the resettlement shows nearly no changes for Nagorno Karabakh. Indeed, the one of 1823, preceding the resettlement, and the one of 1836 shows about the same % of Armenians in what is present day Nagorno Karabakh. Its demography did not change, Nagorno Karabakh was the only places where the Armenians were not affected by Abbas resettlement, and the only place through the Meliks, that maintained some autonomy when the rest of 'historic' Armenia faced invadors. None of your sources support what you claim, the official Russian surveys neither. Also, one must consider in the equation that while there was indeed resettlement of Armenians, part of the resettlement was also to replace the Armenians who were moving elsewhere, including the 20,000 Armenians who left for Georgia and which had to be replaced. So again, if you really care about the accuracy of the article, you should only include what is supported by the available records. Fad (ix) 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

GM, once again your source does not support your version. Your source says that 57,000 families went to Transcaucasia, not just NK. Britannica, in fact, says "a number of families went to Karabakh" (so, that means that even fewer people went to NK, which is smaller than Karabakh). Putting together two entities (in this case NK and Yerevan), and using one number for both, is specifically listed in Wiki rules as a violation of NPOV rules. It creates the impression as if equal number of people went to both regions.

Second, your sources do not say that it was Russia that made these people move. Britannica said "resulted." Obviously Armenians were scared to stay with Muslims and went to Russia. So, the whole "with the purpose of gaining Christian support" and "Russia organized" is unsupported. --TigranTheGreat 23:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tigran, I think you are not directly addressing the key point. The key point is that those figures which are recycled in various sources are the result nearly entirly of Bournoutian research, other scholars uses his figures, this being said, he is the best to know what his own figures represent. We have official records about the number of people who were resettled in the whole Karabakh, it was only 279 families, and they were resettled in two area's, mostly nothing to do with Nagorno Karabakh. End of the story, Bournoutian already addressed the misuses of his own figures. [58] Fad (ix) 00:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. GM's sources themselves do not support the current version (which is enough to delete it, under current rules). And Bournatian's records further refute it (and Bournatian is a US academic, born, raised, educated, and recognized in the US as a US academic. Having Armenian ancestry does not make him a nationalist--in fact he is as far away from nationalism as he can possibly get). Actually, the very fact that Bournatian's numbers fit Britannica's and GM's sources' numbers (which is due to the fact that, as you said, all these sources trusted Bournatian's records), that actually means that Bournatian's credibility is impeccable.--TigranTheGreat 00:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I’m citing my sources, and you guys don’t, aside from the reference to Bournatian, who has an obvious ethnic bias. Here’s another one for you, a British source of 1833:
The penny cyclopædia [ed. by G. Long] of the Society for the diffusion of useful knowledge. Publication Date: 1833
The population of Karabagh, according to the official returns of 1832, consisted of 13,965 Mohammedan and 1491 Armenian families, besides some Nestorian Christians and Gypsies. This limited population may be ascribed to the frequent wars which have long desolated the province, and emigration to Persia of many Mohammedan families since its subjection to Russia, although many Armenians were induced by the Russian government, after the peace of Toorkmanchai, to emigrate from Persia to Karabagh.
The only town of Karabagh is Shooshee, situated on a high rocky mountain, about 4000 feet above the level of the Caspian. It is fortified by nature and a little by art; it contains about 1700 houses. The population is composed by of 762 Armenian and 936 Mohammedan families.
As you can see, Muslims were in majority in Karabakh even after the first wave of settlement of Armenians, but subsequent waves of immigration, also induced by the Russian government, changed the balance. Grandmaster 06:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Armenians living in the Region before Azaris

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This one of a series of articles that authenticates the existance of Armenians in the region before Azaris or rather the Turkicifcation of Irano-Armenian elements in the region.

[[59]]


Nagorno-Karabagh (the historical name "Artsakh") occupies the eastern and the southeastern mountainous and foothills regions of the Caucasus Minor, composing the northeastern part of the Armenian plateau. It archly stretches from the mountains, surrounding from the east the basin of Lake Sevan, to the southeast, as far as the river Yeraskh (Araks).

For indoeuropeistics the unique for Caucasian region huge barrows (Stepanakert, the valley of the Kachenaget), dating back to the 3-d millenium BC, is of special significance. According to a number of researchers it is these barrows that are the first evidences of the Indo-Europeans’ ancient activity.

The State Urartu (The Bible named is Ararat) and tribes, constituting its part, were of particular importance in formation of the Armenian people. After the Urartu Kingdom fall (in the early 6 century B. C.) Armenian ethnic groups began to play an active role in the region. The formation of the first Armenian kingdom dates back to that time. Since its existence it had to resist to the supremacy of Midiya. In 550-331’s the Armenian Kingdom, including Artsakh (NKOA) , was under the Akhemenid Persia’s rule.

The borders of the Armenian State, formed by the Artashesids’ dynasty in the early 2nd century BC, passed along the river Kur. According to the evidence of a number of Greek-Roman and Armenian primary sources, they were also the northeastern borders of the spread of the Armenian ethnic element. Artsakh, constituting a part of the above- mentioned state, was ruled by the Aranshakhiks local kin (the legend about the origin of Armenians says that the patriarch of this kin Aran is the descendant of the Armenians’ forefather-Hike).

The article goes on and on about how the Armenian population lived in the region for thousands of years. [[60]] 69.196.164.190

Please don't spam the page with information from the website of separatist regime. We need neutral sources of information. Grandmaster 11:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me, but I do not think that about 5 pararaphs can be labelled as spamming, especially when they illustrate a valid point. This point is also validated by anthropologists and even the genetics of Azaris themselves. The facts are that the genetics of both Azaris and Armenians is the same and that the Turkic language is a component that entered the langauge later via adoption. Back to the point; the point is that the Armenians were living there for thousands of years and historical maps from Armenia, Turkey, Greece, Rome, and Iran all authenticate that fact. Trying to make Armenians look like aliens in their own region is incorrect. I must also remind you that you are not authority to make such judgment calls use the term separtist regime. Neither the governments of Armenia and NKOA are not regimes. On the pther hand if you are refering to the government or administration in NKOA, then you are indirectly conceding that it is or can be enjoying de facto independance from the Republic of Azarbaijan (Arran). Weither thi government of NKOA is democratically elected or imposed is another question to itself, but this fact reflects that it is a seperate political entity. 69.196.164.190
Such organization as PACE refers to NK regime as separatists, why can't I? And we need unbiased sources, the one cited by you is not such a source. Grandmaster 06:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Intro

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Golbez, the current version is better, but "region of Azerb." brings us back to the same problem that started this dispute. It is a position, and a disputed one, and we therefore need to qualify it--say by simple word of "formally" or "officially." We have Armenia and NK disputing it. We have 100 countries that officially refuse to take a position on whether NK is a region of Azerbaijan or not. An easy way to incorporate ( :-) ) both "de-facto" and "formally" in the same sentence would be "NK is a de-facto independent republic in S. Cauc., formally/officially a region of Az." Note that if we don't wanna use "state," we can use "republic," which is accurate--California is a republic too.

Also, the current version of NKAO's creation is even more POV than GM's proposal. It's essentially saying that the region was part of Azerb. before Kavburo's decision--which is disputed, and is something that should be explored in the history section, not adopted as fact in the intro. --TigranTheGreat 23:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply


What does Egypt's explanation tell us: There was some discussion about the UN resolution, and how many countries voted for the pro-azeri amendment (i.e. "NK region of Azerbaijan). Egypt's explanation of its vote actually demonstrates that most, in fact the vast majority of countries refuse to take a position based precisely on neutrality concerns. Allow me to explain.

The original draft of the resolution (A/57/L.72) had never used the term "of Azerbaijan." An amendment was then proposed (A/57/L.73), which said "NK region of az." Members first voted for the amendment--37 pro, 2 against, 100 refused to take a position. Then the members voted for A/57/L.72. Since the amendment was locked by the prior vote, the members had no choice in terms of not including the amendment. 147 members voted in the second vote.

Egypt was one of the 100 countries refusing to vote for the amendment. They were among the 147 voters in the second vote. Egypt explained its vote in the official minutes of the Assembly meeting. It essentially said that 1) they support the version *without* "region of Azerbaijan," since it's more neutral (i.e. they refuse to take a position on the issue). 2) Their vote in the 2nd vote has nothing to do with their position on the issue (i.e. it should not be interpreted as a support of the wording). Here is the full speech of Egypt's rep:

Mr. Ragab (Egypt) (spoke in Arabic): I should like to explain our vote on the draft resolution contained in document A/57/L.72 on cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). After giving full consideration to the draft resolution, the delegation of Egypt concluded that, for a number of reasons, it would have been better to keep the original text, as presented by the coordinator of the item.

First, the text corresponded with the language contained in the OSCE Summit declaration, adopted in Istanbul in 1999, with the participation of the parties to the Nagorny Karabakh conflict. It was also in conformity with the OSCE's communiqué of 28 November 2000.

Secondly, the draft resolution focused on cooperation between the United Nations and the OSCE, not on the settlement of any regional differences or disputes. Thirdly, the text did not take sides; rather, it welcomed the organization's efforts to promote an atmosphere of confidence between the two countries. My delegation therefore abstained in the vote on the amendment contained in draft resolution A/57/L.73.

In conclusion, my delegation would like to stress that our vote today is not linked to our position on the Nagorny Karabakh conflict.

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/57/298&Lang=E (Official General Assembly Minutes)

In other words, we have at least 100 countries refusing to take official position on the issue, out of neutrality concerns. Second, we cannot definitely conclude the position of a country on a phrase in the document from its vote on the whole of the document. Given this, and the fact that Armenia and NK refuse that NK is a region of Azerbaijan, we should avoid stating it as fact. We need to qualify it by the words discussed earlier--formally or officially.--TigranTheGreat 23:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

First of all, it is not the first resolution of General Assembly recognizing NK as part of Azerbaijan. UNGA passed at least 2 resolutions which stated that NK is part of Azerbaijan. And if Egypt was not agreeing that NK is part of Azerbaijan why was it voting for the final resolution? Even if they disagree with that they ultimately voted to recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan, so they do recognize it by signing the final resolution. And such a big state as China spoke and voted in support of Azerbaijan’s position. As for the US, their representative also supported territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, but for some reason 3 co-chairmen decided to abstain from voting, even though all 3 recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan.
Ms. Plaisted (United States of America): The three Co-Chairmen of the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Russian Federation, France and the United States, taking into consideration their role in the Nagorny Karabakh peace process, decided to abstain on any amendment to the text proposed by the OSCE Chairman-in-Office. At the same time, our abstention in no way changes our commitment to helping the parties to achieve a settlement through negotiation based on mutual compromise, with the understanding that the principle of territorial integrity, as well as other important principles of the United Nations and the OSCE, will continue to be respected.
So abstaining does not mean that those countries don’t recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan, and they all except for 3 countries voted for the final resolution. And the only country that voted against the amendment proposed by Azerbaijan was Armenia, South Africa voted by mistake and later informed that it was intended to abstain, while Yemen was intended to vote in support. Grandmaster 05:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
The current intro is not good. It does not say that NK is de-jure part of Azerbaijan, while using the term de-facto. These two terms should be used in parallel. Second, NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, I cited many sources on that, recognition does not rely on numbers, it either exist or does not. As long as there are states and organizations recognizing NK as part of Azerbaijan, it is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. This should be corrected. Grandmaster 05:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's your interpretation of "internationally." Mine is "All countries." Somebody else's could be "most countries." Therefore, "internationally recognized" is vague and up to interpretation.

De-facto and de-jure don't go in parallel, not when one is factual and the other is an opinion. So, we can't have de-jure--it's legal interpretation.

Noone, not evey Egypt made a mistake. They made it clear that their vote has nothing to do with their position. So, by voting for a resolution, clearly states do not necessarily recognize anything. Nor do they state their position on every single phrase.

US supports "other principles" as well. One of these principles is "self-determination." And supporting principles is not recognition.

We don't care if China is big or small--its vote counts as much as anyone else's. And they didn't say "we recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan." They voted for an amendment that, among other things, has that phrase, but that as Egypt's stance makes it clear--we can't infer a position from a vote. Note on Wikipedia--we don't use our interpretations, we use facts.

In sum, we have 100 states refused to take a position on including the phrase in the resolution. We don't even know the positions of the 37 states that voted for amendment--since, again, voting does not mean stating official position on each and every phrase.--TigranTheGreat 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is not my interpretation, I cited so many authoritative sources stating that NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, those sources cannot be ignored. We should include the fact to the article with the reference to the relevant sources according to the rules. And 147 countries voted for the resolution stating that NK is part of Azerbaijan, it is an undeniable fact. It is your interpretation what they recognize or don’t recognize, but undeniable fact is that the final resolution of UN General Assembly states certain things. Therefore NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan and is legally part of it. Grandmaster 06:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh&oldid=61980486"