| Revision as of 15:55, 1 December 2008 editVacio (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,529 edits →Some edits by Grandmaster← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:16, 9 December 2024 edit undoMellk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users59,170 edits Undid revision 1262135085 by 2601:98A:A83:90D0:89D:E24A:BC6B:FFDB (talk) soapboxingTag: Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{calm talk}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBanners |
|
|
|
{{Old peer review|archive=1}} |
|
|1={{WPAM|class=B|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|2={{WikiProject_Azerbaijan|class=B|importance=top|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|3={{WikiProject Caucasia|class=|importance=|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Armenia|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Artsakh|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Azerbaijan|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Caucasia|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Limited recognition|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=high}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Consensus|<big>'''WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES'''</big><p> The article ] is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during ''']'''. Per a 2012 complaint at ] about apparent sock editing, ] is under a '''] restriction'''. This is a modified 1RR restriction to limit the power of newly-created accounts to prevail in disputes, while still leaving the article open to editing: |
|
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} |
|
|
|
#All editors are under a 1RR per day restriction. |
|
{{Archive box collapsible|large=yes|auto=yes}} |
|
|
|
#Editors with less than 500 article edits, less than three months old or are ] are under a 1RR per day restriction with no exceptions. |
|
|
#Editors not subject to the #2 above can revert edits by those who are subject to #2 without breaking 1RR, but are still subject to the general edit warring policy. |
|
|
#Violations of the special 1RR by any editor can be reported at ] or to any admin.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
==Human Rights Section== |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
What happened to the Human Rights section which demonstrated blatant abuse of the rights of Azerbaijanis by armenian christian fundamentalists. Who has deleted it? The artivcl;e has lost all its neutrality and and nothing but POV in favor of christian armenian fundamentalists? |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
Whare are all those useless editors? --] (]) 10:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|counter = 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
== Geographical map instead of political == |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
Folks, as this article is about a geographical region, I would think the geographical map on Nagorno-Karabakh will be more appropriate rather then the political map. Just like it is done here : ], ], ]. And one more thing - geographical regions don't have "Infobox country" in them. ] (]) 15:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive %(counter)d |
|
==Intro changes== |
|
|
|
}} |
|
Gulmammad, the word of "separatist" at intro looks too much dubious and POV. Pls discuss at first here as the prev. one is the last consensus. ] (]) 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Don't think this is the right intro text== |
|
|
"a de facto independent republic which is officially part of the Republic of Azerbaijan" - so a ''republic'' is officially part of Azerbaijan? |
|
|
I think ''region'' is offically part of Azerbaijan not the ''republic''. ] (]) 14:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Italics in Armenian== |
|
|
Folks, I have hard time finding rule in English Misplaced Pages regading italisizing non-Latin words/letters. The Armenian language has italics in it, but don't know if we can use it in English Misplaced Pages, although it is used in Armenian Misplaced Pages and many other Wikipedias. According to Golbez his personal tradition was to italisize only Latin and Cyrillic texts(like Russian), and non italicise the others. If anyone knows what is English Misplaced Pages's policy on that please welcome to post here. Thanks. ] (]) 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I reverted the section blanking and some unexplained deletions by an IP. ] (]) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Andranik you don't have to explain obvious vandalism. ] (]) 21:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recognition by Turkey == |
|
|
|
|
|
Following the Turkish recognition of the Republic of Kosovo, the Ankara Government is under logical pressure to endorse the same recognition to the Republik of Nagorno Karabakh. This is a normal and equitable step for Turkey who is following the "road to Europe". <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:That doesn't quite make sense, since Turkey and Azerbaijan are allies, and Turkey and Armenia are enemies. Equitable? Maybe. But geopolitics aren't built on equitability. --] (]) 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
logical pressure :) funny that was also said for Northern Iraq,and guess what in 2 days they leaved their sunny flag to and claimed diplomatic support of Baghdad. Dont day dream Turkey can not recognise the independande before Baku, which means terrorists win(no muslim kurds, nor turkics reside in Karabagh, which is enough ho label them as terrorist) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
I restored the image deleted by bot as result of sock activity. ] (]) 04:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The IPs removing images are banned ]. I rolled back his edits. ] (]) 05:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Recent edits re: July 5, 1921 meeting of the Cucasian Bureau (Kavburo)== |
|
|
|
|
|
Let's stick to writing the facts without drawing out original conclusions from the facts. ] (]) 03:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: That's what actually the current version of the article does. It contains some dubious claims about the role of Turkey, which are nothing but speculation. However the fact is that the text of KAvburo resolution was as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
: ''Proceeding from the necessity of national peace among Muslims and Armenians and of the economic ties between upper (mountainous) and lower Karabakh, of its permanent ties with Azerbaijan, mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR, receiving wide regional autonomy with the administrative center in Shusha, which is included in the autonomous region''. |
|
|
|
|
|
: You can find this text in any source that quotes the Kavburo resolution. So the edit that you reverted was factually accurate and made no conclusions. ] (]) 04:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Some sources added == |
|
|
|
|
|
I just added some sources for reverted unsourced facts, . --<span style="border: 4px #FFFF00 solid;background:#CC9900;font-family: Serif">]<font color="#D4AF37">-</font></span> 21:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The refugee question == |
|
|
|
|
|
Do we need a specific sentence and reference about how Azeris were displaced into camps for a time after the war? Without a similar statement about Armenian displacements, it seems to give undue weight to the Azeri situation, especially since the very next sentence offers a neutral statement on the issue. --] (]) 18:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
i have changed some names in the article , first the region is Lachin not Qashatag , and Lachin never was a part of Nagorno Karabakh Oblast. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent changes == |
|
|
|
|
|
"''Location of Nagorno-Karabakh within the ]''" changed to ''"Location of Nagorno-Karabakh within ]"'' as the map is not map of whole ] but only Azerbaijan and ] from which it is seen that NK is in Azerbaijan. And time zone changed to one used in the Azerbaijan Republic since the article says NK is officially part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. <b>] ]</b> 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:stop editwarring Gulmammad! this article is consensused during the years between the members and your POV addings must be agreed at first. Wiki is not the right place for the naked propagand. ] (]) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Property == |
|
|
Really, folks, am I going to have to take this entire suite of articles over again? I would really rather not, my blood pressure has thanked me ever since I gave up. I don't typically do arbitration enforcement - the rulings tend to be a little slow or arcane for me to care about - but I will throw each and everyone one of you at arbitration enforcement if you so much as blink your eyes towards violating the one revert restriction, and I will police that harshly. |
|
|
|
|
|
Step number one: The map caption stays at "South Caucasus"; the map shows all of the local countries, it is not specific to Azerbaijan alone, and it is by far the most neutral option. Would we give a map of Lesotho and say "Location of Lesotho within South Africa?" Hells no. |
|
|
|
|
|
Step number two: Time zone? No. The Azeri point of view is that it's under AZT. The Karabakhi point of view? No clue. The NPOV solution is to use UTC and UTC only, especially since an article on the REGION has little to do with politics. Right? |
|
|
|
|
|
Step number three: Now I have to go to ] and figure out the complaining there about the damn map. --] (]) 04:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:]: ?????? |
|
|
:Step number five: Profit. :) ] (]) 05:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Step number six: VartanM pokets all the profit. C'mon Golbez the Karabakhi point of view is ARM. Gullmamamad if you didn't get it yet this article is about geography of Nagorno-Karabakh, not politics and we keep politics out of it. ] (]) 05:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Show me how is ] politics? Read ] and understand the difference between MST and AZT. <b>] ]</b> 06:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It's quite simple... would Palestinians want to be told they are under Israeli Standard Time? No. UTC is the neutral answer. I'm not saying use MST, you apparently read something that was not written. --] (]) 07:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Golbez, the above comment wasn't addressed to you but VartanM, anyway. Regarding MSK (above MST was typo), here is and its . I think people should start doing more useful edits than doing reverts and counting others reverts toward violation of 3RR to get them blocked, or tagging articles, or nominating them for AfDs, and then call someone their Profit. <b>] ]</b> 14:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The difference between AZT and MST isn't relevant for this article, as it is a nonpolitical article and will use the NPOV UTC. Also, keep in mind you are under a 1RR, not a 3RR. --] (]) 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Fakhlul == |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anybody know if the village of ] was/is involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh story? It is supposed to be close to Stepanakert. Does it have an Armenian name? ] (]) 02:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The name "Nagorno-Karabakh" should be changed to "Nagorny Karabakh" == |
|
|
|
|
|
The word form "Nagorno-" is a combining element that was used before the adjective "Karabakhskaya" in Russian to form the name of the former administrative entity known as the "Nagorno-Karabakhskaya Avtonomnaya Oblast'." When used before the noun "Karabakh" instead of before the adjective "Karabakhskaya," however, the correct word form would be the masculine adjective "Nagornyy" (spelled more simply as "Nagorny") rather than the combining element "Nagorno-." The name form "Nagorno-Karabakh," as a proper noun, is, therefore, the result of a translation error and should be replaced by the correct form "Nagorny Karabakh." ] (]) 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*Yes, and Moscow should be Moskvá, but on the English Misplaced Pages we use the English ''word'' for the place, not the ''name''. ] (]) 05:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*And in we would use the name Deutscheland instead of Germany. We use the common English name; Nagorno-Karabakh is not too commonly known among English speakers, but that's certainly the most commonly known name among people who do know of it. --] (]) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The name "Nagorny Karabakh" is simply a corrected version of a mistaken form that, unfortunately, is still in current use in an English context. Neither "Nagorno-Karabakh" or "Nagorny Karabakh" is an English name. An actual English name would be something like "Upper Karabakh." ] (]) 21:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:That would be the English translation. By your logic, the actual English name of Montenegro is "Black Mountain". There's a difference between name and translation. Again, by your logic, the name of Japan would be "Home of the Sun." Japan is the English name for it. (France apparently treats things differently, since they call it Haut Karabakh.) --] (]) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm certainly not advocating that foreign place names be translated into English. Several international organizations have now begun to use the correct form "Nagorny Karabakh" in place of "Nagorno-Karabakh," and the authors of this Misplaced Pages article would do well to "get with it." See the following websites: |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/nagorny-karabakh/index.php |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/11/mil-071129-rianovosti02.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/azerbaijan-armenia-photos-201206 |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa//repertoire/89-92/CHAPTER%208/EUROPE/item%2019_Nagorny-Karabakh.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Dubious map by dubious Andersen== |
|
|
This subject has been touched upon on a number of other articles, where maps by so called "Andrew Andersen, PhD" were used as reference. First of all, the map of Karabakh in Karakoyunlu state used on this page is obviously dubious. There was no town called Shusha during Kara Koyunlu reign, it was established only in XVIIIth century during the reigns of Karabakh khan and Qajars. And there are no references to existence of principalities in Karabakh during Kara Koyunlu either. So drawing self-invented maps and using these as some reference to historical source is not quite acceptable for encyclopedia. And in general, again, I would like to request that some credentials for "Andrew Andersen, PhD", the blogger, be provided as far as his expertise in regional history and historical geography are concerned. ] (]) 23:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There are numerous maps of Andersen used in Georgian history articles and nobody criticized it as dubious. Even the map in question is already used in . If it's removed here it should be removed there as well. |
|
|
:What about Shusha, there are evidences of a castle there long before 1750. The Georgian king Irakli II, wrote: |
|
|
{{Quotation|''«Хамс составляет владение и во оных сем воеводских правленей, народ весь армянского закона, в том владении находится армянской патриарх… один человек (Панах Али), закону магометанскаго и от народа жаванширскаго, принял силу; среди того правления, Хамсы, '''состоит старинная крепость, которая им обманом взята…'''» |
|
|
<br /> |
|
|
Грамоты и другие исторические документы XVIII столетия, относящиеся к Грузии. Том I, с 1768 по 1774 год. С.Петербург, 1891, с. 434—435}} |
|
|
:--] (]) 07:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Personal interpretation of a primary source. Not Ok. There's like a million of primary and secondary sources saying that Shusha was founded in the 18th century. And Andersen is a self-published source. Not acceptable. ] (]) 07:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Almost every map on Misplaced Pages is self-published and an interpretation of primary sources, (and most of them don't have the actual name of their creator). So that alone is not a reason to remove one! If you describe the specific problems with the content of this map, and those problems are enough to make the map inaccurate '''for its purpose within this article''' then it should be removed. However, I don't think the indicating of the location of Shusha before it existed is enough of a reason. The purpose of the map's usage here is '''not''' to show the location of Shusha but to show the location of Karabakh and neighbouring territories during that time period. Why not just remove Shusha from the map? ] 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Vacio and Meowy, the above arguments do not justify the usage of map by a blogger in encyclopedia. The fact is, Andrew Andersen is not an authoritative source on history, he is an amateur, in fact, unable to provide or produce any credentials. Hence a highly controversial map with invented borderlines and even city names that didn't exist at a time, shall be substantiated by a source, which either of you didn't provide so far. Moreover, showing the principalities of Karabakh as something separate from Qaraqoyunlu state is just plain fabrication. Do you have a source proving that Qaraqoyunlu controlled all territory with exception of this little "island" which Andrew Andersen invented? ] (]) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Andersen's maps are used all over the place on wikipedia, particularly when it comes to articles related to Georgia. You need to get a community consensus about their status if you want to remove them. Discussing their validity on this article is fruitless.--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small></font> 14:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Atabek, what are you? Not even a "blogger", not even someone who uses their own name. Under your standards should I dig back into all your edits and remove any maps you might have added? Of course not! The map should be judged on the value of its use here. Its value is based on its relevance and on its accuracy, not on its creator. ] 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::P143-144, "Armenia, an Historical Atlas". "It was Jahan-Shah ''(the leader of the Karakoyunlu - my note)'' who, apprised of the existence of the Armenian princelings of the Siunid house in Karabagh dispossesed by Timur, restored them to their possessions and granted them the title ''malik'', Arabic for king". The source goes on to say that he did this to have his northeast frontier protected by bordering it with a territory whose rulers would be loyal to him as well as offer resistance to any invaders. In other words, the territory was separate from Karakoyunlu territory but ruled by princes who were expected to support the Karakoyunlu. ] 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Eupator, it's irrelevant where Andersen maps are used, that's an issue for people who edit Georgia-related pages to worry about. If I am asked to provide an opinion on those Andersen maps, I will. It's relevant, however, that Andersen is neither a scholar, nor an expert in history to make those maps. The map presented on the main page is not referenced to any scholarly source, it's an invention based on an interpretation of a blogger who was fired from his position for racist anti-Muslim sentiments. So if you guys insist, I think we should request an impartial third opinion. There was a substantial discussion before on background of Andersen and lack of scholarship, some other important facts which confirm my points, i.e. where did he get his PhD from, where does he teach, which scholarly journals did he publish in, can you provide samples of his professional work on history, and so on. |
|
|
|
|
|
Meowy, who is the author of "Armenia, an Historical Atlas"? Can you please, cite the full source for the sake of NPOV? As far as "not even using own name" is concerned, I think it's important to pay attention to yourself first before questioning others, and it's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion subject. I am not making maps, never uploaded one to my memory, but I do question a source from an amateur, which you try to present as a scholar. ] (]) 20:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It is '''Armenia: A Historical Atlas, by Robert H. Hewsen, University Of Chicago Press, 2000.''' You were the one questioning others, dismissing people you don't know as "bloggers" and "amateurs", so try acting on your own advice. All I want is for the map to be judged primarily on its accuracy and on its usefulness within this article, and not dismissed for no other reason that because some editors for some reason don't like the source. As far as I see, the only thing wrong with the map is the use of non-standard spelling and the addition of Shusha before it actually existed. The latter can easily be corrected. ] 21:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Once again, this is not the proper forum to discuss this because Andersen's work is used all over Wiki. If you're so passionate about excluding Andersen's maps from Misplaced Pages get a community wide consensus that will affect all of Wiki.--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small></font> 20:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Andersen was ''not'' fired for anti-Muslim comments, and the one website that you referred to it said the ''"investigation was still pending,"'' meaning that you're assuming he's guilty before the investigation has been completed. And Eupator is correct, we can't cherry-pick what maps are acceptable and which ones aren't. If you are so passionately against him, then just get a consensus from the rest of Misplaced Pages – why are you complaining about it here and not on the Georgian articles? The author of ''Historical Atlas'' is ], who GM likes to quote so much. |
|
|
|
|
|
Stop wasting our time with your absurd rants about everyone who disagrees with your POV and do something more meaningful on Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Can you name any works by Andersen, published anywhere outside of his website? Also, see the comment by the admin Mikka at the bottom of this thread: ] (]) 07:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You should confine your criticism to what you think are flaws in the actual map. The majority of maps on wikipedia are without sources; many are without named authorships or have been created by wikipedia editors - are you suggesting that they all should be removed? ] 23:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== One-sided intro == |
|
:::Here some articles which use one or more maps of Andersen: . These are only articles of the English Misplaced Pages. Other Wikipedias use them likewise. So, once more, this is not the right place to discuss whether we should or not use Andersen's maps. If they are not reliable, then the above mentioned articles should remove them as well. --] (]) 05:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: They should all be deleted, if anyone doubts their reliability. But I'm not interested in other articles, my concern is that the map used in this particular one does not come from a reliable published source. The fact that this author is used in other articles does not prove his reliability. You still haven't answered my question about the works that Andersen published anywhere outside of his website. --] (]) 06:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The intro mentions Armenian conflictuous acts, but nothing on the Azerbaijani side. It would be more neutral to describe the (purported) reasons for those Armenian acts, labelling disputed "facts" as such where needed. That would at least remove the current impression of repeated sudden unprovoked aggression from one side against a purely victim peaceful other side. ] (]) 10:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Out of interest I compared the Andersen map with the nearest equivalent maps in "Armenia, an Historical Atlas", especially the one on p143 titled "Armenia under Turcoman Domination, 1378-1502". The various "Georgian" kingdoms are roughly in the same position, which is good given that indicating their positions is the main purpose of the Andersen map. A specific border for Kachen/Karabakh is not shown on that map, but is shown on the map on p135 titled "Armenia under the Ilkhanid Domination 1256-1335". Its position is similar to that on the Andersen map - and given that we have a source saying that the Khachen principalities/melikdoms still existed during the Karakoyunlu time there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Andersen map on that point. There are mistakes in the Andersen map though - Bayburt is shown as part of the empire of Trebizond, when by this time it would not have been (if it ever was). Worse still, it shows territory marked "Ottoman Empire" directly to the south of Bayburt, which is a nonsense. The Ottomans captured Trebizond in 1461, then the inland castles of the former empire a decade or so later, and only after that did they begin to extend their rule deeper inland. When the Trebizond Empire was extant the region of Erzincan was not part of the Ottoman empire, it was ruled by independent emirs, and then by the Ak Koyunlu. In other words, the Andersen map seems to be accurate for its titled purpose (showing the Kingdom of Georgia in the 15th century), and for its use here (indicating the position of Khachen), but it is not accurate for the territory at the western end of the map. ] 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2023 == |
|
I removed the map per discussion at ] here: ] (]) 09:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't see any consensus to remove the maps. ] (]) 07:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: There was no consensus for its inclusion. We asked a third opinion, and it was that Andersen is not a reliable source. ] (]) 07:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I only saw you avoiding Meowy (third party editor) and another guy who didn't even bother looking at the links. ] (]) 08:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Meowy is a party to the dispute and arbitration case, and thus not a third party. And a third party opinion was that Andersen is not a reliable source. ] (]) 10:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What "arbitration case"? The map stays until valid reasons are presented for its removal. There was '''nobody''' at that discussion except you and Atabey who said they wanted it removed. No valid reasons were presented to support its removal and you refused to answer the issues I raised in that discussion. ] 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I have reinserted the map into the article. It was removed by Baku87 who did not give any edit comment or explanation for his edit. ] 16:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: There's no consensus for inclusion of this map. We discussed this many times, and even asked for a third party opinion. You were told that Andersen is not a reliable source. If you insist on this map, take it to dispute resolution. But you cannot force the map into the article. ] (]) 18:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::There is no consensus for the exclusion of this map. Yes, we have discussed this many times and even asked for a third party opinion. Third party opinion failed due to total lack of interest. You were asked to provide credible reasons for the removal of the map - you provided none, and you refused to address legitimate points rased by other editors. You cannot force the removal of the map from this article unless you provide a credible argument for doing it. Baku87 removed it without even making an edit summary. ] 16:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Nagorno-Karabakh|answered=yes}} |
|
Well, I think following the example of ] controversial POV maps, created by dubious bloggers claiming to be qualified researchers, and not based on any serious historical research should not appear on the page until there is consensus. The fact that third party opinion didn't show up, Meowy, does not justify single-sided non-neutral POV. ] (]) 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Change the misspelling of “betweeen” to “between” in the first paragraph ] (]) 22:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (])<sup><span style="color:Green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 02:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:whoops, that seems like my bad. {{sorry}} ] (]) 03:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Disputed status of Nagorno-Karabakh == |
|
::And by the way, there was a third party opinion . So whether you agree with it or not, as a POV party, the neutral opinion confirms that the maps by blogger Andersen are not acceptable and need to be removed. ] (]) 17:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I want to raise a question on the status of the territory. Why is Nagorno-Karabakh still considered a disputed territory? |
|
:::The map is not from a blog, and it does not deal with contested borders. So leave it where it is. ] 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The UN recognizes it as a sovereign part of Azerbaijan<br> |
|
I won't abide an edit war, even a slow motion one. Protected for one week on the version I found it on, and if this isn't resolved in a week, maybe I'll switch it to the other version for that week. But you will *not* continue to do this back-and-forth. Come to a conclusion. --] (]) 05:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
2. Armenia officially recognizes it as a sovereign part of Azerbaijan<br> |
|
|
3. The separatist government of the Republic of Artsakh dissolved itself by the official decree<br> |
|
|
4. There is no de-facto presence of the separatist government in the region and the central government of Azerbaijan controls the entire territory since the end of September 2023. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it the right time to adjust the wording of the article accordingly? ] (]) 20:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
:A discussion about the map, and issues surrounding it, is going on at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.<br /> ] ] 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The government of the RoA has not technically dissolved itself yet, it declared that it would dissolve by Jan 1 2024. It's not known yet exactly how many Armenians are left in NK (last credible report stated 50-1,000 but that's probably different now). It may be time to update the status though, I agree. ] (]) 21:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
==International Law?== |
|
|
There is no international law or laws that would say "Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan." I think this phrasing should be modified. Please advise. Some counties and international organizations made statements whether they consider NK as part of Azerbaijan. That is it. ] (]) 15:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Point of order but do we know that Armenia recognizes it as part of Azerbaijan? They have no formal relations, so absent an affirmative statement, we can't assume they recognize anything about Azerbaijan. --] (]) 21:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
==Some edits by Grandmaster== |
|
|
|
::This is also true. They've never formally recognized the Artsakh government, but ''de facto'' they have for a long time (given how much military aid they've provided, the blurring of lines between governments via politicians holding office in both governments, etc). I think we need to wait for more ''verified'' information before definitively changing the status to avoid ]. ] (]) 21:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
I have removed some of Grandmasters last edits for the following reasons: |
|
|
|
:::Yeah, not recognizing Artsakh over the area is not the same as recognizing Azerbaijan over the area. --] (]) 22:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
* The historiographer Mirza Jamal (btw. the vizir of the Karabakh khanate and a relative of Panah Ali khan) and the text of the Kurekchay Treaty are primary sources. And Misplaced Pages rules require: ''Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources.''. |
|
|
|
:Reliable sources still describe it as disputed. ] ] 21:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Reliable sources can be out of date, and we don't have to parrot them when that can be demonstrated. --] (]) 22:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: In fact, the prime minister of Armenia officially recognized Azerbaijan's sovereignty over 86,600 sq km of territory which includes Nagorno-Karabakh in the Prague summit in October 2022<ref></ref> and the Brussels summit in May 2023<ref></ref>. He even later at his speech at the Armenian parliament explicitly stated that the recognized territory of Azerbaijan includes Nagorno-Karabakh. <ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref>] (]) 20:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Since it has been more than three weeks from the last comment in this discussion, should we request a close? ] (]) 16:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::: I don't think Nagorno-Karabakh could be considered a disputed territory anymore. If it is disputed, then who disputes it? Armenia officially recognizes Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, and NKR has been dissolved. And previously, no country in the world has ever recognized NK as being independent from Azerbaijan, and 4 UNSC resolutions refer to NK as Azerbaijan's region. So I support removing the word "disputed" from this and other articles. ]] 11:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
*The ] or Karabakh Khanate were established under Persian rule in 18th c., while the Princedoms of Artsakh-Khachen existed more than 1000 years from 821. |
|
|
|
::::::Yes and Armenia's recognition of Azerbaijani sovereignity is a major indicator. If there are further objections, we can ask for further opinion at ] or ], but currently I don't think it's necessary. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
* The mention Kurekchay Treaty is out of its context: the precondition for Ibrahim Khan and his descendants to rule this region was that ''they should obey the Russian Empire'' (article 1). Not to mention that it was subsequently replaced by the Treaty of Gulistan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023 == |
|
* Kurekchay Treaty refers to the Karabakh Khanate, i.e. the whole ] region, therefor it is completely irrelevant to the intro of this article. Also, it was only an ''agreement'', while the charter of the Paul I was a ''recognition'', it refers to the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|Nagorno-Karabakh|answered=yes}} |
|
Please use secondary and third party sources to interpret primary sources as Misplaced Pages rule require, and use them on the right place. --] (]) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Turn the sub-section "Azerbaijani offensive (2023)" which has "History" as the section inside it into a sub-sub-section of "History" and a sub-section of "Blockade (2022–present)" ] (]) 07:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: ] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EP --> ] ] 01:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Now I have EC rights so I can make the change I wanted to make. ]] (]) 07:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC) |
The intro mentions Armenian conflictuous acts, but nothing on the Azerbaijani side. It would be more neutral to describe the (purported) reasons for those Armenian acts, labelling disputed "facts" as such where needed. That would at least remove the current impression of repeated sudden unprovoked aggression from one side against a purely victim peaceful other side. 178.237.74.251 (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I want to raise a question on the status of the territory. Why is Nagorno-Karabakh still considered a disputed territory?
1. The UN recognizes it as a sovereign part of Azerbaijan
2. Armenia officially recognizes it as a sovereign part of Azerbaijan
3. The separatist government of the Republic of Artsakh dissolved itself by the official decree
4. There is no de-facto presence of the separatist government in the region and the central government of Azerbaijan controls the entire territory since the end of September 2023.
Turn the sub-section "Azerbaijani offensive (2023)" which has "History" as the section inside it into a sub-sub-section of "History" and a sub-section of "Blockade (2022–present)" Equalwidth (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Done ARandomName123 (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry! Remsense (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)