Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:56, 28 June 2006

Armenia Unassessed

Nagorno-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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. 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 AzerbaijanAzerbaijan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives:

• Archive1,
• Archive2,
• Archive3 (?? - 15:23, 27 December 2005)
• Archive4 (15:23, 27 December 2005 - 20:04, 12 January 2006)
• Archive5 (20:04, 12 January 2006 - 11:37, 26 January 2006)
• Archive6 (11:37, 26 January 2006 - 18:59, 21 February 2006)
• Archive7 (18:59, 21 February 2006 - 23:51, 10 June 2006)
• Archive8 (23:51, 10 June 2006 - ongoing)

Shahumian, split?

The existence of Shahumian creates problems. According to the NKR and its maps, it's an integral part of the NKR, even if it's completely under Azeri control. This means the borders of the NKR do not perfectly match the borders of the NKAO, which means some maps need changing. It makes me think again that, maybe the NKR info should be split off into another article? --Golbez 22:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Golbez, about your earlier question as to how to delinieate NKR's border--we can just use, say, a red line. It's visually useful and standard practice in maps. Another standard practice is to include a legend instead of spelling out color names (which most, like me, probably don't know about anyway). We could have little rectagles of particular colors, and next to them say "territory of former NKAO" "self proclaimed border of NKR" "Shahumyan etc etc". It will make the caption shorter and be more visually appealing. No rush, but thought could be an interesting project for you :)--TigranTheGreat 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a thought. I haven't toyed with colored borders yet, but I have included legends. (see Image:Cyprus districts named.png and Image:Israel districts named.png), but since there was no whitespace in this map, and to keep it small, I had thought it best not to. I can add whitespace to the bottom though and put the legend there. --Golbez 01:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I just introduced a legend to the NKR map. Didn't change the contents, just rearranged the caption sentences in front of colored rectangles. Used HTML tables and color bacgrounds, so should be easy to change colors if there is a need. Do you think you could add a red (or any color you like) border around NKR? Let me know what you think. Thanks.--TigranTheGreat 05:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks good, I wonder if I should integrate it into the map image or just leave it in caption. I'll put some color border around it. --Golbez 06:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So uh.. any further thoughts on splitting an NKR article out of the NK one? --Golbez 20:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No one? No thoughts? --Golbez 05:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. NKR would focus more on the current economy, government structure etc. We could certainly try and see if it's viable.--TigranTheGreat 05:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What’s the point in having two articles on the same topic? Grandmaster 18:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they aren't the same topic. The former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic claim two different (though mostly overlapping) land masses; an example would be how the nation of Ireland and the island of Ireland have two separate articles, while the nation and island of Iceland share their articles; the first two, though they have the same name, are not coterminous, whereas the second two are. The former NKAO and the NKR are not coterminous; therefore, perhaps the articles should be split. --Golbez 21:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I relisted the old RfC on this dispute, as it still was in the list of active ones. Just moved it up the top and added that the dispute still has not been resolved. We can also discard an old one and start a new one, it's just time consuming to fill in those forms. Check it here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Nagorno-Karabakh Grandmaster 06:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Seceded from USSR or Azerbaijan?

Who did the NKR declare independence from? The infobox presently says Azerbaijan, but the NKAO folks say they were seceding from the Soviet Union. Which should we put? --Golbez 08:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It could not secede from either Azerbaijan or USSR. According to the USSR law, only 15 Soviet republics could secede, but not their autonomies. And far as I know, Armenians of NK declared independence from Azerbaijan, but they refer to a Soviet law, which they think allowed them to do so, but aside from some law schools in the US no serious international organization thinks so, the opinion of CoE is included in the international status section. Grandmaster 09:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not an answer. That means you suggest we remove the mention of "independent from" the infobox altogether. If not, then what should we put there? Azerbaijan or the USSR? --Golbez 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually answered, Golbez. As far as I know Armenians of NK declared independence from Azerbaijan. Also, that infobox is not clear. It should say Declared - December 10, 1991. And the following line says it’s approved. Approved by who? Grandmaster 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I missed that sentence. But how could they declare independence from Azerbaijan if they declared themselves a Soviet republic, and therefore not a part of Azerbaijan? This needs deeper analysis. As for approved, I think it was, the referendum was held, then approved by the self-proclaimed government. However, this is a valid argument, and we should adjust the infobox accordingly. --Golbez 21:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the 1994 Human Rights Watch book on NK has the reference to a letter from "NKR" leader to President Yeltsin begging to make "NKR" as a province of Russia in 1992 I think. NKAO had no legal right to succeed from Azerbaijan -- this was confirmed by USSR Supreme Soviet decision, and the UN Security Council's resolutions and of course any non-biased neutral legal experts (which exludes anyone hosted, featured, or quoted by the Armenian Foreign Ministry (or the "MFA" of "NKR", as well as ANCA and AAA lobbyists for that matter). --AdilBaguirov 11:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's subtle, Golbez. The declaration itself declares NKR as a republic, equal to other Soviet Republics, so clearly it's independent from Azerbaijan. Yet, it states that Soviet laws still apply, until further action/referendum. So, technically, it seceded from Az, remained in USSR for a few months, and then got out of USSR. Which by the way answers the objections of European experts who said that "NK would have to remain with USSR to make its independence legal." The New England analysis, which is done by the way by noted int. law experts, explains this perfectly. They completely followed the USSR law of secetion--if Azerbaijan SSR seceded, they had the right to invoke their own independence via referendum. They first staid with USSR, then got out. Also, which is important, USSR condemned the Azeri decision to abolish NKAO, which was illegal, but not NKAO's decision to secede. Here is the relevant quote again:

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

On November 27, 1991, the USSR Constitutional Oversight Committee's resolution deemed unconstitutional the Orgkom created by the Supreme Soviet decision of January 15, 1990, as well as the November 23, 1991 Azerbaijani decision abolishing Karabagh's autonomy. It also revoked the December 1, 1989, Armenian resolution on reunification. The actions of the USSR Constitutional Oversight Committee did not, however, annul the joint decision of the NKAO and Shahumian district to declare the establishment of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic on September 2, 1991, since that declaration was deemed in compliance with the then existing law. ( The April 3, 1990 "Law of the USSR Concerning the Procedure of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR," provides autonomous entities and compactly settled ethnic minorities living in a seceding republic's territory with the right of self determination, to be confirmed with a referendum. The Nagorno Karabagh Republic was proclaimed on the basis of the referendum provided under this law by the NKAO and Shahumian district after the announcement of Azerbaijan's independence on August 30, 1991.)

On December 10, 1991, the Nagorno Karabagh Republic held its own referendum on independence in the presence of international observers. The vote overwhelmingly approved Karabagh's sovereignty. This action of Nagorno Karabagh, which at that time was part of a still existent and internationally recognized Soviet Union, corresponded fully with the relevant Soviet law pertaining to leaving the USSR.--TigranTheGreat 23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Article 3.

In case the Soviet Republic has autonomous republics, autonomous regions or autonomous territories within its borders, referendums are to be conducted separately in each of the autonomies. The people residing in the autonomies are given a right to independently decide whether to remain in the Soviet Union or in the seceding Republic as well as to decide on their state legal status.

Referendum results are to be considered separately for the territory of a Soviet Republic with a compactly settled ethnic minority population, which constitutes majority on that particular territory of the Republic."

Grandmaster, Adil, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. --Golbez 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn, that does complicate one other thing though - Shahumian was not part of the NKAO, and therefore lacked these rights under the Soviet constitution. Therefore, we should still consider its status as slightly different from the NKR's. Even if you consider the NKAO's secession as legal, I have not seen anything that says Shahumian's is. --Golbez 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It was a "compactly settled minority region."

Law of the USSR Concerning the Procedure of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR," provides that the secession of a Soviet republic from the body of the USSR allows an autonomous region and compactly settled minority regions in the same republic's territory also to trigger its own process of independence.

Golbez, the very fact that we are trying to decide what this law means indicates that we are engaging in legal interpretation. These things are for legal experts, and therefore any conclusion made by us could be a) mistaken and b) would be a position nonetheless. That itself demonstrates that we can't state as a matter of absolute fact that NK is legally, i.e. de jure, part of Azerbaijan. We can state the pure fact--it's independence is not recognized.--TigranTheGreat 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, "inside Azerbaijan" again may have the double meaning of "inside borders of Az." or "being part of territory of Az." I think we should say "inside the borders of Azerbaijan" to clarify the intended meaning (i.e. #1, not #2).--TigranTheGreat 00:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha, but that's the beauty - each side will interpret it as supporting them! ;) Or maybe they won't. Heh. --Golbez 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But how will the unbiased interpret? It's a toss of a coin. We don't want that. The more precise, the better.

Golbez, if you don't mind, if you found my arguments compelling, why did you readd "de jure" earlier?--TigranTheGreat 00:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Primarily because it was 4am. And I was also compelled by Grandmaster, and the argument about a general consideration of ownership, though I have been recompelled. Yes, I'm getting a little batty after working on this article like this for a while. :P --Golbez 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The law of the USSR that Armenian side refers to did not provide autonomies a right to conduct a referendum. According to that law only a Soviet republic itself should have conducted a referendum in each of its autonomies, if it wished to secede. But autonomies themselves had no right to do so. This law made secession from the USSR impossible, so the republics found the way around. They got together in Belovezh and abolished the USSR, as it was a union formed by 15 republics. So such referendums were not conducted in any of 15 Soviet republics, including Russia, but their autonomies are still part of them. The position of international community is also clear, that law did not allow autonomies to secede from the republics of former USSR. The experts of the Directorate General of Political Affairs of the Council of Europe are of the same opinion:

The Armenian side maintains that the N-K independence referendum was conducted in accordance with the USSR law on the "Procedure for Solving Issues of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR" of 3 April 1990. Article 3 of this law provided autonomous regions within the Soviet republics with the right to determine independently, by referendum, whether they wished to remain within the USSR or join the republic seceding from the USSR. It would however seem that according to this law N-K would have the choice of two options – to remain within the USSR or to join independent Azerbaijan; N-K independence does not seem possible.

Note that this is not some private law school, but an authoritative European organization. I have yet to see any international organization to support the Armenian POV on this. On the contrary, they state that Azerbaijan was recognized as an independent country within the borders of Azerbaijan SSR, so de-jure applies. Grandmaster 04:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran is saying that it was part of the USSR after it declared independence from Azerbaijan. - FrancisTyers · 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But did USSR know about it? It is known that USSR Supreme Soviet passed a resolution, rejecting the claims of NKAO and Armenian USSR about transfer of the region from Azerbaijan to Armenia. But it never ever acknowledged secession of NK from Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 09:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Was such an acknowledgement required? In my reading of the law I didn't see it. --Golbez 09:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. How could you be a part of a state or organization without its knowledge? Grandmaster 09:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I wrote many times on this, and I don't see why I should go into legal details -- unlike everyone else, I've read and analyzed both the USSR and Azerbaijan SSR Constitutions, the 1990 Law, other relevant 1990 laws, the declaration of sovereignty and later independence of Azerbaijan BEFORE the Constitutional Oversight committee, the USSR and later Russian Constitutional Court precedent-setting decisions, etc. Instead, I've already shown that UN clearly recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan in 1993 on several occassions -- there is no debate here. Furthermore, there are relevant quotes from US government, and Grandmaster brough the PACE resolution. Hence, all this disproves the insinuations of the Armenian propaganda and its paid-for analysis by some law school. Once again, NKAO could not succeed from Azerbaijan -- this was clear from the USSR Constitution and Azerbaijan Constitution -- and they took precedence even over the hastily-adopted April 1990 law on succession, which in itself was unconstitutional (which is very wasy to prove -- look at which article of USSR Constitution does it base its power on, something the Armenian scholars either failed to note or deliberately do not note). Anyway, NK was and is part of Azerbaijan, and this legal fact is not questioned by anyone legitimate. Only propagandists and lobbyists can question this fact, taking advantage of the fact that knowledge of Russian language is a REQUIREMENT to be profecient in this matter (and I wonder who translated all those laws for the New England school -- the same folks who quote it). --AdilBaguirov 10:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Flag and coat of arms

Also, since NK is part of Azerbaijan de jure and still some 15% of it are under the de facto sovereign control of Azerbaijan, the page must have Azerbaijani flag and coat of arms, as unlike the "NKR"s one, Azerbaijan's flag and coat of arms are internationally recognized. Also, that's the flag and coat of arms that the other, constantly neglected, population of Karabakh fully accepts as its own -- that of the ethnic Azerbajani population. This is NPOV - let readers decide which flag and coat of arms they accept. --AdilBaguirov 11:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

These symbols have not been disputed by anybody (Azeri, Armenian, or outsider) since they first appeared on this page. If we do this, then should we place the Georgian flag on the Abkhazia article or the Cyprus flag on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus piece? -- Clevelander 11:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me, in fact I support Georgian flag on all those pages -- meanwhile TRNC is a de jure recognized country, and is on a different level than the post-Soviet conflicts. Anyways, my suggestion is natural derivations from the logic and arguments used by some here about de jure/de facto/etc. --AdilBaguirov 09:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is just getting tiring. My question some days ago was correct, Adil would prefer the article remove all mention of the facts of the matter, and just be a propaganda piece for Azerbaijan. He's pretty much removing himself from any discussion of NPOV. --Golbez 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so surprised? Do you know who he is? Just Google the name Adil Baguirov !--Eupator 18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Never thought of that. Nice Adil, very impressive body of work. I'll read some of your articles. Young and idealistic. Then again, aren't we all? After reading some of his work, I now see Adil in a more favorable light, he writes well, and comes across as more genuine, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a solid bias over this conflict. --Golbez 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil looks cute by the way :) (first in the row from left). http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/91_folder/91_articles/91_news_movers.html --TigranTheGreat 00:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

this one's better :) Seriously though, he gets paid to do this, where is the migthy Armenian lobby with my paycheck damnit? --Eupator 00:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aww, so cute:) By the way, the whole concept of "Armenian" lobby (which Adil likes to mention) has been way overstated by Turko-Azeri propaganda. Turkey and Azerbaijan have way more resources (if nothing else, look at population difference and oil revenues), and geopolitically more aligned with Wests' interests than Armenia (due to the Russian, oil, and Turkish-NATO factors). The only reason the Armenian Genocide has reached the current awareness has been the relentlessness of the Diaspora, which has paid off fortunately--TigranTheGreat 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This writigns are pure harrassment and violation of Wiki rules by the users Tigran and Eupator, who have already been warned once by Khoikhoi for such an activity, but seems like tougher actions are more merited. Also, Golbez, this is not about who views whom in a "favorable light" or not - please let's leave our biases aside, this is an encyclopedic article and only facts should make it. Unfortunately, clear facts are being ignored in preferrance of flimsy writings by multitude of academically challenged and ideologically motivated users, who have been conducting this kind of unfortunate activity for quite some time now. Golbez, it seems to me you have some clear preferences and POVs, and have been taking part in this harassment instead of stopping it, which is unacceptable for an admit, and you should remove yourself from any further discussions, having other neutral admins take a look at this -- meanwhile Azerbaijani and Armenian users will find a solutions. --AdilBaguirov 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on dude, we are complimenting you. Now this: AdilBaguirov: when boyish youths infatuates itself by looking at photos of men - perhaps a doctor might help to these young people is harrassment. But I am cool, so I am not gonna take an issue with it.--TigranTheGreat 23:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I also thought this was about discussion of the article and not the contributor. Am I wrong here? Grandmaster 09:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Having clear preferences over a conflict does not mean one cannot write neutrally on it. As for harassment, I don't see it. And as for saying "unacceptable for an admin", I have not once threatened to use my admin powers here, nor have I at all, I am just an editor like you. Mediators and editors are not required to be admins. And if you want to discard my compliment of you, that is entirely your right. --Golbez 09:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, if you have a clear preference to one side, which I maintain you do and you not only haven't denied it, but essentially affirmed it (and that's actually quite respectable that you do not want to lie), then why would you write think like "Adil should remove himself from discussions"?! Furthermore, what those users have been writing on several occassions in different pages -- despite being already warned by an admin -- is pure harassment. If anything, it shows that some are ready to engage in any kind of activities to silence their opponents -- whether intimidate Edik Baghdasaryan for publishing his HETQ piece, or try to find smth compromising (to no avail, of course) against a person, who, unlike them, is not afraid of putting his name behind each and every word he writes, and not hiding behind a computer (or anything else for that matter, reminding, for example, an ASALA terrorist, not a researcher). Moreover, it is very disturbing when boyish youths infatuates itself by looking at photos of men - perhaps a doctor might help to these young people to help them understand themselves. In any case, what have all their harrassment to do with and at Misplaced Pages puzzles me.

The map on NK page now looks better - thank to you, and our mutual discussion here. We've also put the leader of the Azerbaijani community on the page, further enriching and clarifying this complex history of a complex region. Now I think we should add the flag and coat of arms of Azerbaijan to the page -- and do same in regards to Georgian flag and coat of arms to Abkhazia and South Ossetia for consistency purposes, and of course finalize our de jure/de facto, self-proclaimed/unrecognized/self-styled, occupied/control, etc., terminology. --AdilBaguirov 10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just curious

Am I the only one involved in this article at the moment who has neither been anywhere near the region (the nearest I've gotten is London), nor has any Armenian/Azeri/Turkic/Persian/Russian blood in him? :) I notice some of you speaking with great familiarity of the region and the people, something I lack. --Golbez 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There's also Francis, but he's here only when called upon.--Eupator 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that, I've been accused of having an Armenian mother certainly! :) Regarding the world cup below, I was really disappointed when Serbia and Montenegro screwed up so badly... How often do you get to support a country which does not exist :) - FrancisTyers · 08:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually the perfect profile for a moderator--precludes bias, ensures objectivity.

By the way, I am sorry for the US team not scoring enough for the 2nd soccer phase. They played great nonetheless.--TigranTheGreat 23:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I am mostly Armenian and part Hungarian, I live in the United States as a resident of Cleveland (hence my username). I was rooting for the United States, but I kind of wish Armenia would have at least made it in the FIFA World Cup, oh well, I can always hope. BTW, wasn't one of the players on Iran's team an Armenian? I couldn't help but notice that distinct "ian" at the end of his name on the back of his uniform. -- Clevelander 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes:) Actually there were two Armenians in Irans' team (at least that's what I noticed). I will check the names of the members when I got time.--TigranTheGreat 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like there were three: Andranik Teymourian, Vahid Hashemian, and Hassan Roudbarian. -- Clevelander 23:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Only Andranik is Armenian, the others are muslim hence by default not Armenian, in addition some Iranians also have -ian last name.--Eupator 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I never knew that, actually. -- Clevelander 23:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenians always perform well individually than in groups -- that's why we always lose the soccer games and win the chess tournaments ;)--MarshallBagramyan 06:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

New map with legend

File:Nagorno-Karabakh Legend export.png

This is just a temp one, just to see what people think. I also have a version with the line of control, but it's garish and works much better as a regional map, rather than focused only on Nagorno-Karabakh, but I can put that one up and see what people think if you like. Also, does anyone know if they are districts, divisions, provinces, marz, whatever? And, finally, is anyone else annoyed that I'm removing the dot for the city of Shusha mainly because it's redundant in a zoomed-in map like this? Also, my reasoning for which rayons to name was those which border or are part of NKR. --Golbez 01:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I think a better line for the NKR border is "Self-proclaimed border of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic"--we are specifying that the border is self-proclaimed. I think we decided that it's redundant and bad practice to put behind every mention of NKR the "self-proclaimed" qualifier.

I too think that the line of contact is not appropriate here.

To my best knowledge, the divisions in NKR are "districts." They say "shrjan," which is best translated to "district." "Marz" is in Armenia. --TigranTheGreat 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The map in its current form is better than all previous versions. And self-proclaimed on a map, that can be saved or otherwise attracts more attention than the article is a must - it's also standard practice on all such maps and doesn't take much space. --AdilBaguirov 09:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Is NK internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan?

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

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

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

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

Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

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)

Grandmaster, NPOV tag

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)

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)

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)

"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)

How about common logic? Why would Azeris vote for secession form Azerbaijan? Grandmaster 19:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

All sourced info helps, thanks. --Golbez 23:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I may have made it slightly more clear, feel free to revert. - FrancisTyers · 18:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My ideal is that we have nothing repeated. --Golbez 18:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I noticed that literally about 90 seconds ago. ;) I was wondering how best to state it. "the NKAO and Shahumian "? "a referendum favoring independence was held the NKAO and Shahumian"? --Golbez 19:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Do you think things should be repeated? --Golbez 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Other than the issues that I mentioned I have no problems with other sentences there. Grandmaster 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

If I say the lead represents only one position would it be less annoying? Grandmaster 20:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "First sentence"? --Golbez 23:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

My comments referred to Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia after the war.--MarshallBagramyan 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

Grandmaster 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Britannica doesn't like Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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. (Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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. Grandmaster 21:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

But that’s your POV, isn’t it? That’s why you cannot be a mediator. Grandmaster 06:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

For the hell of it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now isn't this interesting.

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: 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)

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)

Right. Why would they care if it was clear-cut? --Golbez 06:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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). Grandmaster 08:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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,

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;

Which means that NK is legally part of Azerbaijan and the borders of the latter are inviolable. Grandmaster 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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 recognizes Z". These are the facts of the matter, and they are not in dispute. --Golbez 06:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

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). Grandmaster 07:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. Grandmaster 08:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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. Grandmaster 08:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 Grandmaster 08:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources:

Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. Misplaced Pages 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. Grandmaster 10:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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. Grandmaster 11:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mediation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Intro Version with "Part of Azerbaijan."

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Of course it does, not through embassies but other means. Look at this:: 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: --Eupator 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Settlement of Armenians in Karabakh

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.

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) Grandmaster 10:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

cruising through the un archives

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." 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, said those resolutions had confirmed the Nagorno-Karabakh region as part of Azerbaijan, but had not been implemented."

---

"(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."

---

"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."" (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"

---

"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."

---

"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." (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. "

---

I LOVE this exchange: "In 1918, 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." "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.''''' (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." 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)

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)

What about amendment A/57/L.73? --Golbez 01:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to resolution A/Res/57/298 . 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)

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)

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)

This means that all members of UN do recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan, even Armenia. Grandmaster 05:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

On 'de jure' and legally binding

We cannot have anything in Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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

Then we can put "The BBC says Nagorno-Karabakh is de jure part of Azerbaijan". --Golbez 06:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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: Grandmaster 06:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing? That sentence in the second paragraph miss your gaze? --Golbez 06:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is mentioned in the lead. - FrancisTyers · 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine. Grandmaster 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good move. - FrancisTyers · 11:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just try and stop me! It's a reasonable split! :P --Golbez 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Azerbaijan accepts referendum? All this arguing for NOTHING?

Armenian, Azeri Leaders ‘Agreed To Karabakh Referendum’

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 Nakhichevan, 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)

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.

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." --Golbez 23:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Scroll up, I didn't miss it at all. --Golbez 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Formally vs Officially

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)

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)

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)

I'd prefer a stronger term. --Golbez 01:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Referendum

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)

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)

POV Problems

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

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)

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

Established or incorporated

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)

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)

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)

And how would you word this? --Golbez 05:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Unassessed Armenian articles
• Unknown-importance Armenian articles
• WikiProject Armenia articles
• Unassessed Azerbaijan articles
• Unknown-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics