| Revision as of 09:41, 17 June 2006 editTigranTheGreat (talk | contribs)2,360 edits →Trying one last time.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:16, 9 December 2024 edit undoMellk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users59,123 edits Undid revision 1262135085 by 2601:98A:A83:90D0:89D:E24A:BC6B:FFDB (talk) soapboxingTag: Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
Archives: |
|
|
|
{{Old peer review|archive=1}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{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: |
|
|
#All editors are under a 1RR per day restriction. |
|
|
#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 |
|
* ], |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
* ], |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
* ] (?? - 15:23, 27 December 2005) |
|
|
|
|counter = 21 |
|
* ] (15:23, 27 December 2005 - 20:04, 12 January 2006) |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
* ] (20:04, 12 January 2006 - 11:37, 26 January 2006) |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
* ] (11:37, 26 January 2006 - 18:59, 21 February 2006) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
* ] (18:59, 21 February 2006 - 23:51, 10 June 2006) |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== One-sided intro == |
|
==Arguments== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
You clearly don't understand the concept of Misplaced Pages and ]. Familiarize yourself with ], ] or ].--] 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2023 == |
|
:::So should you -- let's compare all those pages against NK and see. --] 00:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It already has been compared, revert war stopped over this and concessions were done. ] ] 00:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Nagorno-Karabakh|answered=yes}} |
|
==Misplaced Pages is not the mouthpiece of the US== |
|
|
|
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 == |
|
They are no more important than anyone else. Please stop spamming the talk page. - ] ] 23:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I want to raise a question on the status of the territory. Why is Nagorno-Karabakh still considered a disputed territory? |
|
:Worse is, he's stating things that we already agree with, and state quite prominently in the article. In the process, he is essentially making us argue against ourselves, as we argue with him. He needs to calm down and pay attention to us and the article, I don't think he has really read it. --] 23:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The UN recognizes it as a sovereign part of Azerbaijan<br> |
|
Ok, the page was getting way too long, and spamming all of that wasn't helping, so I archived. Now, can you do as Golbez says and bring up some specific complaints. This ''bull in a china shop'' approach will not get you very far. - ] ] 23:53, 10 June 2006 (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) |
|
::Interesting -- when this obvious truth about military occupation of a legitimate part of Azerbaijan is simply stated, then one is requesting proof; yet once abundant proof is presented, it is suddenly gets labeled "spamming" and "Misplaced Pages is not the mouthpieece of the US". By the way, it has not only statements from US gov, but also various organizations and the UN rep. |
|
|
:::But you don't undersatand, Adil. Not in the least - We agree with every one of the comments. In essence, you were flooding the talk page with no real reason but to make a point which you have ''not yet stated''. --] 00:06, 11 June 2006 (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) |
|
::The page I've read, and re-read, and read again very carefully, and stated several time that in its present form it is clearly an Armenian POV. The intro paragraph absolutely must say while the Armenian POV is that NK declared independence and styled itself as "NKR", the international community rejects it, considers NK as a legitimate and recognized part of Azerbaijan that is under military occupation. We cannot talk about "independence" in the intro (and thus presenting only the Armenian POV, which is only one out of three parties, the others being Azerbaijan itself and the international community), and then have this clarified somewhere down the text. |
|
|
:::That's not the Armenian POV, it's simple fact - NK declared independence. I can declare independence, and it's a fact - not that I AM independent, but merely that I declared. We also point out that it's unrecognized by everyone. In other words, every single complaint you have does not exist. --] 00:06, 11 June 2006 (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) |
|
::Moreover, if this would have been the case, then why remove (!) my quotes, as opposed to put them in the International status or History or Current Situation part? |
|
|
|
::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) |
|
|
:::Yeah, not recognizing Artsakh over the area is not the same as recognizing Azerbaijan over the area. --] (]) 22:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: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) |
|
::Thus, what is the solution? Once again, the main problems are the intro paragraph, which is Armenian POV, and the detailed map of NK. I have given my suggested langauge for the intro already, and what we can do about the map. --] 23:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::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) |
|
:::Please state specific complaints, rather than saying "the intro paragraph" and "the detailed map". Mention specific issues with these, please. Point out a sentence or an aspect of the map you disagree with. Specifics, please. I don't want your suggestions - I want your complaints. Pick a sentence or paragraph, and tell us what you think is wrong with it. Then we will respond. It's called discussion, something which you have, thus far, somewhat tried to muscle out of the talk page. --] 00:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
:::Francis, since when did extensive research into a relevant topic (which is view on NK by neutral sources) on the NK page become "spamming"? Guys, let's be a little more respectful here and not throw accusations against people who at worst can be accused of being too detail-oriented and too comprehensive. --] 00:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023 == |
|
::::My apologies, but the talk page was getting long, and unilaterally copy-pasting a lot of quotes was not called for or condusive to a reasonable discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|Nagorno-Karabakh|answered=yes}} |
|
::::Now then, you say that ''The intro paragraph absolutely must say while the Armenian POV is that NK declared independence and styled itself as "NKR", the international community rejects it, '' — the intro does state that. And I quote "The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world.". - ] ] 00:06, 11 June 2006 (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) |
|
:::::What I meant is this - the very first sentence is important and sets the tone of the page. Currently, it says: "Nagorno-Karabakh is a region of Azerbaijan that has declared itself independent as the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR)." |
|
|
|
::Now I have EC rights so I can make the change I wanted to make. ]] (]) 07:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
What are the problems? 1) Any and every mention of "NKR" must be preceeded by "so-called", "unrecognized" or "self-styled" -- this was discussed at length and I've shown that it's how all authoritative sources approach this. |
|
|
|
|
|
2) The first sentence is clearly an Armenian POV, because it doesn't talk of occupation, but of "independence" -- as if it was legitimate and non-violent. |
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer the injection of the wording of CIA into that intro line: "Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan". |
|
|
|
|
|
See the Abkhazia intro page, which is much better worded and factual: "It is a de jure autonomous republic within Georgia, but is de facto independent of Georgia, although not recognized as such internationally." |
|
|
|
|
|
Even better South Ossetia: "Samkhret Oseti (unofficial) is a self-proclaimed (de facto) republic within Georgia. Although this former Soviet autonomous oblast (region) has declared its independence and is in control of significant part of the region, its separation from Georgia has not been recognized by any other country and is officially regarded part of the Georgian region (mkhare) of Shida Kartli. Georgia itself refuses to recognise South Ossetia as a distinct entity; the government calls it by the medieval name of Samachablo or, more recently, Tskhinvali region (after the republic's capital)." |
|
|
|
|
|
Here's Transnistria, which is somewhat unscholarly in terms of wording, but once again makes clear that the declaration of independence is just a smoke-screen for meddling into internal affairs by a third country: "The unrecognised state has been de facto independent since September 2, 1990, when it made a declaration of independence from Moldova and, aided by contingents of Russian, Cossack and Ukrainian volunteers, and the 14th Russian (formerly Soviet) Army, successfully defeated Moldovan forces, in the War of Transnistria. While a ceasefire has held since 1992, the Council of Europe recognises Transnistria as a "frozen conflict" region. The sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention. Transnistria continues to claim independence and maintains sovereignty over its territory with the assistance of Russian forces." |
|
|
|
|
|
Hence, as we can see, NK page stands out as an example of Armenian POV, unprecedented among other similar pages at Wiki -- or any other authoritative source. --] 09:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, in answer to your objections: |
|
|
|
|
|
# No. This just isn't going to happen. |
|
|
# We aren't going to include "CIA wording". |
|
|
|
|
|
Did you read the archives yet? There was a ''lengthy'' discussion over whether to include ''de jure'' in the lead. Eventually (if I remember correctly) insufficient sources were given for this being the case, which is why we mention, "Under the Soviet Union, it was part of the Azerbaijan SSR as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast". This is not a call for you to give sources, but to read the archives. |
|
|
|
|
|
You say: |
|
|
|
|
|
''The first sentence is clearly an Armenian POV, because it doesn't talk of occupation, but of "independence" -- as if it was legitimate and non-violent. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
The intro says: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Nagorno-Karabakh is presently under Armenian military control, as are areas of Azerbaijan between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, as a result of the war that took place between both countries in the aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR." |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think anyone will be confused as to the nature of the independence. It clearly states that a war took place and that NK is currently under Armenian military control. - ] ] 10:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Francis, I am surprized by this insistence that all is OK with the NK page, when it is clearly out of line with other similar pages such as Abkhazia, S.Ossetia, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
I want NK page to consistent with Abkhazia's - a fair and legitimate request, which is beneficial for an encyclopedia such as Misplaced Pages. Note once again how many time Abkhazia's page stresses smth which you guys are making such a big problem about: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Abkhazia ... '''is a self-proclaimed republic''' of 8,600 km² (3,300 sq.mi.) in the Caucasus. It is a de jure autonomous republic within Georgia, but is de facto independent of Georgia, '''although not recognized as such internationally'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
Political status |
|
|
'''International organizations (UN, OSCE, Council of the European Union, etc) recognize Abkhazia as part of Georgia''' and are urging both sides to settle the conflict through peaceful means. However, the Abkhaz '''de facto separatist government''' considers Abkhazia a sovereign country. |
|
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile the Russian State Duma is looking for legal ways to incorporate this region into the Russian Federation, while Russian media produce numerous materials in support of '''separatist rule'''. '''During the war, Russian authorities have contributed tremendously by supplying military and financial aid to the''' '''separatist side'''. Since the beginning of the war, Russia '''has politically and militarily contributed in the creation''' of the '''separatist movement''' in Abkhazia. Today, Russia '''still maintains a strong political and military influence over the de facto rule in Abkhazia'''." |
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say, Abkhazia's page is well-written and bravo to its editors. |
|
|
|
|
|
If we still don't agree, let's request addition help, mediation - I feel my position is completely justified and solid, I am not pushing any POV or introducing any original research, instead, I am trying to rid NK page of Armenian POV and standartize it, make it consistent with other pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
The reason I emphasized CIA, US Presidential Determination, etc., quotes are not necessarily for inclusion as is, but as an example of wording used. Best, --] 11:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Check out the ] page. - ] ] 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Somaliland page - It says "unrecognized" right in front of the the "Republic", 2) this republic is at least recognized by Ethiopia, and 3) Somali is a failed state, that's it classification in political science and international relations. And of course, the only closes conflicts to that of NK are other post-Soviet conflicts -- with the one's in the Caucasus being the closest, that is Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This too is well acknowledged and recognized, as many authors review all of them in one pack as "post-Soviet conflicts". That's why I insist on having NK page be rendered consistently with other similar conflict zones pages (of course, as I've said many times, NK is still unique and different from all, but at least these are the closest). --] 18:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Intro == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've retasked the intro, only by moving information around. Lemme know what you think. --] 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's indeed better, thanks. You'll hate me more, though, but I still would like to see "self-styled" (or so-called) preceed each mentioning of "NKR", mention the local Armenian population as separatist (as in Georgia's pages (Abkhazia, S.Ossetia)) and instead of "control" name is how it is in reality - occupation. This is not going to lengthen the intro - just substituting some words and rearranging the order of others. Here's an example: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Nagorno-Karabakh is a region of Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus, about 270 kilometres (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, and very near the border with Armenia. The separatist predominantly Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan as the self-styled Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR) on December 10, 1991, though it remains unrecognized by any other country or international organization, including Armenia. The region has been a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan since the final years of the Soviet Union (USSR). Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as areas of Azerbaijan between it and Armenia, are presently under Armenian military occupation as a result of the war that took place between the countries in the aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR. Under the Soviet Union, it was part of the Azerbaijan SSR as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. --] 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm going to have to say no to the request to add "self-styled" everywhere, as it's beating the reader in the head with a hammer. We can trust the audience to understand that when you declare independence but aren't recognized, pretty much everything you do is unilateral. As for "separatist", that much is obvious - they separated, or at least are trying to. Just because something is done on Abkhazia and S. Ossetia doesn't mean it's right. And as for "control vs occupation", I agree that "control" is more NPOV, and the local population in charge of NK would say it's control, not occupation. However, regions like Lachin, Agdam, et.al. would be more likely to say occupation. However, that's a different, more complex issue. --] 20:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Consistency is a valid concept and should be applied thoroughly. Having "self-styled" preceed "nKR" at least in half of the occassions, definitely in each section at least once, is just that -- consistent with how other similar pages are presented. Second, having "occupied" instead of "control" is actully less POV because that's what's used by everyone in the world. "Control" is the word insisted by Armenian POV, whilst occupation is used by CIA, PACE, UN, State Dept, US President, OIC, etc. I know your seeming disdain for international law and norms, but this is not the time or occassion to disagree with such terminology. Third, nothing is "obvious" - this is an encyclopedia, and accurate terminology should be used. If all is obvious, then why need an article at all? "Separatist" is such official and legal terminology and used in other similar cases, should definitely be used in conjuction to NK page as once again, it is used by the intl. community. --] 21:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::That's not accurate, neither self styled, self styled might suppose that there was no any region of Nagorno Karabakh and was carved by those that want separation, but this is unclear as Nagorno Karabakh had a statut in the Soviet Union even if as part of Azerbaijan. Also, the word ''occupied'' is not more NPOV, to the contrary, the population can not occupy itself, and the word occupation is generally used for those lands outside of Nagorno Karabakh kept by the Armenian army. ] ] 18:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Actually, no, the only objective way is by adhering to what the world community and independent sources say, and they call everything by its own names: occupation, instead of some vague and sounding voluntary and non-violent "control". By reversing your logic, Karabakh region's population, which was also Azerbaijani, could not have agreed to any foreign "control", could not have agreed to Khojaly massacre, could not have agreed to ethnic cleansing and occupation -- sorry, "control" -- of Lachin, Kelbajar, Aghdam, Fuzuli, Jebrayil, Zangelan and other regions outside of former NKAO (which was abolished by sovereign Azerbaijan in Nov 1991 -- fully in accordance with the laws of the time). 600,000 Azerbaijani IDPs (doesn't incl. 200,000 refugees from Azerbaijan) could not have agreed to such a "control". Thus, indeed, just as population cannot occupy itself, it cannot ethnically cleanse itself, massacre itself and make itself refugees/displaced for the past 12+ years. Thus, consistent with international practice and laws, the so-called "NKR" is a self-styled, unrecognized entity, and the 16% of Azerbaijan, which includes NK region, is occupied by Armenian forces. --] 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Totally unrelated to my answer. The fact of the matter is, that people refer to occupied for what is not Nagorno Karabakh. Control is a good term, you don't deny they control it. Do you? On the other hand, occupied in implication with Karabakh is full of insinuations. And no, most international sources don't speak of Kazrabakh as occupied but rather what is not Karabakh as occupied. ] ] 20:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::What? I didn't really understand anything in the above. Please re-read all of the above as well as archives, which have all the official statements about occupation of Karabakh. --] 04:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::We talked about it in the archives, occupied is not used for Karabakh by most, and no one deny that Armenians control Karabakh. So, at least do you understand that? ] ] 17:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
To clarify: |
|
|
*Nagorno-Karabakh cannot occupy itself. Therefore, it is not occupied by separatists from Nagorno-Karabakh. |
|
|
*Is Nagorno-Karabakh occupied by the Armenian army? Those in Nagorno-Karabakh would likely say no, since they are friendly with the Armenian army. It may be controlled by it, however. |
|
|
*Are the surrounding rayons of Azerbaijan occupied by the Armenian army and/or Karabakh separatists? *Yes*, those regions did not declare independence nor are they, to my knowledge, friendly to Armenia, though some do have a sizable Armenian population. They are, de facto and de jure, part of Azerbaijan, yet occupied by a foreign army. |
|
|
|
|
|
Is any of this incorrect? --] 18:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::No, none of this is correct and it is all POV reflecting the opinion from Armenia. The international community (chiefly UN, as well as OSCE, EU/PACE/EC, OIC, and their member states, such as USA) clearly defined what is occupation, and it has also clearly defined what are NK and 7 other regions of Azebaijan, which together constitute 16% of Azerbaijan. These lands, including NK, are occupied by Armenian forces, which includes both Republic of Armenia forces and local separatists. Myself and other's have brought countless quotes and references, all verifyable --to the point that I was even accused of "spamming" (!) despite it all being 100% relevant and to the point. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Furthermore, the statement "NK cannot occupy itself", in addition to the above point, contradicts not only international law, but defies logic -- first, because "NK", as well as 7 regions (which had 99% Azerbaijani and Kurdish populations, no "sizeable Armenian population") had Azerbaijani population as well -- which certainly didn't want to be ethnically cleansed, killed and expelled from their homes, and second, because then why stop at such a statement, why not say that separatists do no exist, since Armenians of NK do not view themselves as separatists, and of course, there is no such thing as "terrorists", since neither ASALA members nor Osama Bin Laden consider themselves "terrorists", and Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., were certainly then no monsters, because they obviously didn't consider themselves as such -- and neither did majority of their popoulation at the time. Hence, with such an approach, let's revise all pages at Misplaced Pages and make them reflect this newly found truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Just as population cannot occupy itself, it cannot ethnically cleanse itself, massacre itself and make itself refugees/displaced for the past 12+ years. Thus, consistent with international practice and laws, the so-called "NKR" is a self-styled, unrecognized entity, and the 16% of Azerbaijan, which includes NK region, is occupied by Armenian forces. |
|
|
|
|
|
::All pages on unrecognized, conflict zones such as NK have to be consistent and adhere to one standard, not double standards. NK page must be consistent with Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnistria pages, and that means clearly showing NK, along with 7 other regions, as de jure part of Azerbaijan that are occupied by Armenian forces, and that "NKR" is a self-styled, unrecognized regime. --] 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Adil, I direct you to from the US Central Intelligence Agency, which clearly points out an Armenian majority in Karabakh, Lachin, the western half of Agdam, and some other nearby areas. It's dated 1995. |
|
|
:::Also, lookie here: It's a map of Karabakh. By the US Central Intelligence Agency, from 1993. What's the city name it uses for that big city in the middle of Karabakh? So much for "internationally recognized name". --] 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::golbez, it's surprizing to see an admin act like this. That's unfortunate. Since you like CIA and those online maps, then perhaps you should look not at early 1990s maps, when nothing was updated yet and still reflected Soviet-era names, but at newer ones. If we go to the site you went to for maps, http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/azerbaijan.html, and look at the newer maps produced by CIA, such as http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan_pol_2004.jpg, or http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan_rel_2004.jpg (or from their own website, which you for some reason ignore: http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/aj.html), you will see only Khankendi (Xankandi), Shusha, Xocavand. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Fair enough, though the CIA has not seen fit to grace us with an updated map of Nagorno-Karabakh. --] 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Well, I think the map on their page says it all clearly: http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/aj.html --] 08:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Meanwhile, the ethno-linguist map is not making any relevant points -- it shows that there are no Georgian's in Abkhazia too, whilst there still are. Meanwhile, in NK and other occupied regions like Lachin and Kelbajar, there are no Azerbaijanis left - but there are indeed Armenian settlers, including from the Middle east -- it's documented by the US State Dept and OSCE mission, I have the reports and links, if needed. |
|
|
:::::At no point does the map say "no Georgians" or "no Azerbaijanis" - it's pointing the majority, not the totality. Your argument here borders on a logical fallacy. --] 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::This is funny -- what Azerbaijani minority is there in Lachin and Kelbajar, not to mention NK proper? There are no Azerbaijanis left there, along with other regions. Meanwhile, the main fallacy of your resistance to change is not even that, but fact that you tried to use this irrelevant, outdated map to support, somehow, your position of not changing or procrastinating, on the map of NK and table and other relevant aspects of NK page. Even though I proved long ago that there is only one right point of view, and that's the NPOV of UN, US State Dept., PACE, OIC, etc., I then, for the sake of showing you that your resistance is only worsening things and is a Pandorra box, argued that since you can use that map to justify only Armenian names for toponyms on the NK map, then you have to use the same standard on Iran map and Daghestan map, where now Azerbaijanis are majority in those relevant areas, etc. Thus, as you can see, it's the map you brought in does not make your case -- and nothing can, as it's pretty black and white on this issue. --] 08:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You delude yourself, sir. I did not use the map to attempt to back up everything - I was pointing out an error in a statement you made. Nothing more. Nothing less. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. And I await for when Azeris declare independence from Iran. --] 08:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::What error in my statement do you talk about man? What error? I did not make any errors -- please show it to me! I take fully responsibility for my statements -- and am not afraid of using my real name for additional credibility -- and while all can make mistakes, I never did any here, I obviously could have never claimed anything as ludocrious as 'there is an Azerbaijani majority in occupied Azerbaijani districts of Lachin, Kelbajar, NK, etc"! So what are you talking about? --] 08:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::You wrote: "first, because "NK", as well as 7 regions (which had 99% Azerbaijani and Kurdish populations, no "sizeable Armenian population") had Azerbaijani population as well". I took this as you saying that Nagorno-Karabakh and some of the surrounding regions, including Lachin, were 99% Azeri or Kurdish. I simply posted the map to show you that the CIA says they were predominantly Armenian. Period. End of story. That is all. --] 08:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::And where is an error in my statement? I was absolutely right, even though used 99% figuratively, w/o checking/citing any sources. Before the war, that was pretty much the ratio! According to the 1989 census, Azerbaijanis were 96 per cent in Kelbajar, 89.9 per cent in Lachin, 99.6 per cent in Jebrail, 99.4 per cent in Kubatly, 99.2 per cent in Fizuli and 99.5 per cent in Agdam. Armenians were registered in Zangelan (0.4 per cent), and in Kubatly, Fizuli and Agdam (all 0.1 per cent). Other population included primarily the Kurds and Russians. From: Ethnic Composition of the Population of the Azerbaijan SSR (according to the USSR census of the population of 1989), Baku, 1990, pp. 7-8. Thus, once again, there is absolutely no mistake on my part -- and I cannot make a mistake so gross, I've been writing and publishing about this matter for over a decade now, and know this subject pretty well. --] 08:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Adil, I direct you to this map from the US Central Intelligence Agency, which clearly points out an Armenian majority in Karabakh, Lachin, the western half of Agdam, and some other nearby areas. It's dated 1995. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::There are also census data from 1989 and 1979 and all other decades, showing how many Armenians lived in Lachin and Kelbajar and other regions. So not very clear what you mean by showing this ethnolinguistic map - what's the point? Note how many Azerbaijanis live in Daghestan and Iran -- should we append them to Azerbaijan then? |
|
|
:::::Now you've definitely fallen into logical fallacy, and I see no further reason to read this paragraph. I have no preference whether or not Lachin or Karabakh become part of Armenia, independent, or part of Azerbaijan, so please stop trying to make a fight out of this. I simply don't care either way. --] 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::No, sorry, it's not me in logical fallacy :) You didn't respond - it was not about Armenian population, but about your logic of using that irrelevant, outdated map, and double standards. Meanwhile, once again, whether you personally care either way is not the point - don't you understand that this is not about you, or me for that matter, but about truth, verifiability, objectivity and credibility, which are all things we all care about at Wiki? Stop being such a primadonna man, this is not about you, this is about NPOV. --] 08:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::There are enough separatists and ultra-nationalists everywhere to justify such an action if we follow your logic. But also, why are you so selective -- not only choose early, 1992-93 maps, but also ignore that it says Xankandi first and Stepanakert in parenthesis, like I've been requesting from day one? Also, here is the an official and authoritative map -- done by the UN: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/azerbaij.pdf All maps must take this map into full account. --] 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I disagree. The UN does not control me, nor does it control Misplaced Pages. Also, heh, did you notice the disclaimer? "'''''The boundaries and names'' shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.'''" "International recongition" argument officially killed. Move on to another one, please. --] 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Also, you are misrepresenting me. The first map only mentioned Stepanakert; the second map did mention Khankendi first, but I was not citing the map for the name, but merely to point out that Karabakh and the neighboring regions have an Armenian majority. As for there not being an updated ethnic map of the region, blame the CIA, not me. If you have a more up-to-date one, please link it. --] 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::First of all, I am not misrepresenting anyone. Anyone who claims such things should at least try to present evidence of misrepresentation. Second, there can be no double standards, you can't pick and choose what suits your purpose in any one map. Third, UN "controls" all of us through various laws and treaties they pass/sign, and financially, as you, like all other US taxpayers and taxpayers from 191 nation, including Azerbaijan, fund it, without being asked if you like that or not. Fourth, once more, this is not about you, and hence, whether or not UN controls you is irrelevant. UN is a authoritative and objective point of reference, NPOV. Fifth, the disclaimer UN maps has, is not present on most other maps, and wherever present, is in different form. Sixth, none of your maps have any disclaimer of this sort -- had you have them, I'd probably never bothered to write and object, but now that I see this POV, I reject it and will do so all the time. Seventh, the disclaimer can be take both ways -- do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by UN can mean both "we indeed do not endorse/accept" and "we do indeed endrose/accept". Seventh, take a look at the UN Security Council resolutions, statements by its chairman, resolutions of the General Assembly, and it will become very clear, very quickly that UN does in fact recognize both the correct spelling of names and the belonging of them to Azerbaijan. Finally, same disclaimer is on the map of Armenia -- whilst so-called "NKR" doesn't even have a map --] 08:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Return == |
|
|
|
|
|
"...clearly points out an Armenian majority in Karabakh, Lachin, the western half of Agdam, and some other nearby areas. It's dated 1995". Golbez, the fact it has Armenian population in fact shows almost nothing. The majority doesn't always prove anything. Although 1995 map is outdated a bit I think. --] ] 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:It was solely in response to Adil's statement of: "Furthermore, the statement "NK cannot occupy itself", in addition to the above point, contradicts not only international law, but defies logic -- first, because "NK", as well as 7 regions (which had 99% Azerbaijani and Kurdish populations, no "sizeable Armenian population") had Azerbaijani population as well" 99% Azeri and Kurdish? the CIA disagrees. That was my only point in posting that map. And I now see that I have been drawn into a completely irrelevant fight by Adil. He's good. --] 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::OK, but check out your another previous suggestion: "there are also census data from 1989 and 1979 and all other decades, showing how many Armenians lived in Lachin and Kelbajar and other regions. So not very clear what you mean by showing this ethnolinguistic map - what's the point? Note how many Azerbaijanis live in Daghestan and Iran -- should we append them to Azerbaijan then?" According to your logic Armenians should merge to Armenia Lachin and Kelbajar the way Azerbaijan should merge Daghestan and Iran :) --] ] 23:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You have me mixed up with someone else, I never said that. --] 00:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::That's right, I wrote this, and indeed, you are too selective in what you want and don't want to appear - if you think that your point with ethnolinguistic map is right, then you should modify apprpriately bunch of pages, such as the Iran page, the Daghestan-Russia page, etc -- because the ethno-linguist map you like shows Azerbaijanis in majority on many of those territories near the border with Azerbaijan. Also, since you like the map, you must adopt Khankendy as the main and primary name, and place Stepanakert either in parenthesis or remove completely. Still, you might want to look at the official census figures as well as reports from OSCE about the true size of population of Armenians on the occupied territories. But then again, introducing this map (and asking to ignore the name of the city but not something else) to support your resistance to change map, drop double standards and make the NK page in full accordance with Misplaced Pages's other similar pages, still doesn't make any sense, as neither does it prove much, nor is the status and spelling of Lachin and Kelbajar districts being discussed here. . --] 07:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I will not have you put words in my mouth. You have twisted my statements, and it is pissing me off. What the hell do I have to modify in those other articles? The map is mine to change, I have made no recent resistance, I just happen to not have done it yet. It takes time. Oh, and what about the UN map saying they have no opinion on the names and borders? I must do nothing, I do not take orders from you, sir. --] 08:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Are you joking? Where do I twist a single statement of yours? Perhaps you should take a hard look at your word usage since you are making a lot of baseless accusations. You brought in one irrelevant and outdated map, and one completely outdated one -- in at least the latter case you were selective, since you obviously knew about the newer map and plus it was available at the same site you got it from -- and of course, I've given you a bunch of them too. It's OK -- if it takes time to redo the map, then take down the current one. And this is not an "order" from "me" - this is the requirement of an encyclopedia which requires veracity and objectivity and NPOV. The current map is a total POV. --] 08:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I explained the ethnolinguistic map issue further above in my last edit. My accusations are not baseless at all. And there is no newer map of Nagorno-Karabakh alone, only of the whole of Azerbaijan. I tire of this fight. I explained the ethnolinguistic map in my previous edit, please read the explanation and let me know if it is satisfactory. --] 08:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I will just count this as a genuine misunderstanding, since the CIA map conveyed the wrong impression upon you and my post didn't explicitly say that the 99% estimate was from before the war. Let's forget it and leave this map out. There is a newer map, but I don't have it. I have non-CIA map about births and population decline, and that whole occupied area is marked in white, meaning it is pretty much empty -- which is true, the whole occupied area outside of NK proper has maybe about 20,000 Armenian resettlers. --] 08:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::'''THANK YOU''', that's what I've been trying to get us to do, to "forget it and leave the map out". --] 16:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Intro == |
|
|
|
|
|
Golbez and Francis, I am apalled that you have been ok with the "NK is part of Azerbaijan" part. It's a blatant violation of NPOV--it's clearly a position, and we on Wiki never assert positions. It's even worse than the "de jure" version, which was actually proposed by Azeri users. They could never dream about this one. From what I read, this was a misguided attempt at compromise by admin EIC. It's still non-NPOV.--] 07:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I love you too. Please don't get riled up over TWO WORDS like that. Jesuchristo. You are allowed to mention it to me first before spitting on my grave. --] 07:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I will also note that neither of you are allowed to revert for about 23 hours. Good job! --] 07:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: It's not a position, it's a fact. NK is legally part of Azerbaijan. Your current edit is POV, and not neutral at all. ] 07:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Exactly, position of US State Dept, US President, UN, PACE, OIC, etc., are not POV, but NPOV. Plus it's consistent with other Wiki pages, such as on Abkhazia, S.Ossetia, etc. --] 07:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: The intro should be restored to say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan, as it legally is a region of Azerbaijan. THis fact is accepted by the international community, and it's not a position, but a fact, that it is recognized as part of Azerbaijan. ] 08:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Aw cmon, what's wrong with what I got there now? --] 08:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: It ignores the fact that it is de-jure part of Azerbaijan. ] 08:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::In what way? So you have to wait for the second sentence for that. --] 08:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: I like that better. ] 09:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Sorry for the impression, never meant to spit. Just saying I was really surprised. |
|
|
|
|
|
De jure is defective--Armenia never accepts NK as de jure part of Az. Plus, if we mention de jure, we need to mention de facto. I am against both--we mention something only once. It already states that noone recognizes NK's independence from Az. If this means de jure, just leave it at that.--] 09:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, congrats on the Latino guy winning the gubernatorial elections in Cali (you are in Cali, right?).--] 10:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:They had a primary for the democratic candidate; the election against ] is not until November. Assuming you mean California, ] has no governor. --] 16:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: The fact is that NK is a region of Azerbaijan and is internationally recognized as such. It’s not an opinion, it is an undeniable fact. No one can say that NK has any status other than a region of Azerbaijan. So the intro should say that. Since Tigran resumed the edit war over the intro, I think we have every right to submit this dispute for arbitration. It has already passed all stages of dispute resolution, including mediation and RfC, so we should have no problem with presenting our case to arbcom. ] 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Arbitration is not for content matters; you would have to show a lengthy campaign of edit warring. --] 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: You can go ahead and present it but I guarantee you it will be denied. Compared to ] this article is ridden with Azeri pov. The fact that it's recognized as part of Azerbaijan is not disputed but is secondary to it's de facto independence.--] 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Can you cite a specific instance of "ridden with Azeri pov"? It's much easier if you do that, then make blanket assertions. --] 17:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The intro is not fine and it's nothing like ]. It's de facto independance must be mentioned first. Azeri pov you say? "This was the name for the area from about 2nd century AD when it was part of Caucasian Albania to 13-14 centuries. Before that the name of Orkhistene was used in the area." Hogwash.--] 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Pardon me for being an outsider, but could you explain what your quoted passage has to do with Azeri pov? --] 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It was sourced from the website of the Azeri Embassy. It was mentioned in the ref tags.--] 20:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The source alone cannot make something POV, but yes, I did notice that. --] 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Golbez, the POV aspect of the quote is this. The Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan has tried to make NK look as a completely historically Azeri land in a 2 step process: 1) Claim that it was part of Caucasian Albania for as many centuries as they can, and 2) Claim that Azeris are the modern Caucasian Albanians. The quote here is an instance of step 1)--even though it clearly contradicts contemporary Greek sources.--] 07:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Golbez, "within Azerbaijan" is ambiguous--it can mean two things--1) within the borders of Az (your intended meaning), and 2) "belonging to Az." (as asserted by Wiki), which we should avoid. We should say "within the borders of Az."--it will clarify that we mean the 1st and not the 2nd. |
|
|
|
|
|
South Oss. is different for 2 reasons. First, SO doesn't completely lie within borders of Georgie, whereas NK does--that was what you wanted to clarify in the beginning. Second, I agree with Eupator, SO article mentions "de facto." It counterbalances the "within Georgia." I am willing to make concession on "de facto"--it will draw unnecessary "de jure" objections--but the "within borders" needs to be specified. Note that I have already made concessions on "disputed region" and "enclave." I say, forget the Latin terms and let the reader decide--he will read the "not recognized by anyone" and will assume "de jure," and he will read "declared independence" and hopefully will assume "de facto."--] 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Greeks, Karabakh, and Orkhistene == |
|
|
|
|
|
Good catch, Eupator. Who has added that nonsense? Ptolomeus' 2nd AD map includes the region as part of Armenia. Plus, there is no source that "Artsakh" was used starting 2nd AD. Orkhistene was the Greek name, not the local name (which clearly is a variation of "Artsakh." The section needs to be changed.--] 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: As Mr. Tigran mentioned above the territory of Artsakh was part of the ] until ], that is undisputed. The border with C. Albania has always been the river Kura with the exception when C.Albania was subjugated by Tigranes the Great. See also: ]/].--] 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Actually, all those allegations by Eupator and TigranTheGreat are very much disputed, and such claims as Artsakh being part of Armenia are not true, as neither is the border of Kura river -- you've been misreading Strabo, who clearly said that Kura: "the Cyrus through Iberia and Albania" (11.1.5), and again: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Parts of the country are surrounded by the Caucasian Mountains; for branches of these mountains, as I said before,1 project towards the south; they are fruitful, comprise the whole of Iberia, and border on both Armenia and Colchis. In the middle is a plain intersected by rivers, the largest being the Cyrus. This river has its beginning in Armenia, flows immediately into the plain above-mentioned, receives both the Aragus, which flows from the Caucasus, and other streams, and empties '''through a narrow valley into Albania; and between the valley and Armenia it flows in great volume through plains''' that have exceedingly good pasture, receives still more rivers, among which are the Alazonius, Sandobanes, Rhoetaces, and Chanes, all navigable, and empties into the Caspian Sea. It was formerly called Corus." (11.3.2). |
|
|
|
|
|
And again: "IV. The Albanians are more inclined to the shepherd's life than the Iberians and closer akin to the nomadic people, except that they are not ferocious; and for this reason they are only moderately warlike. '''They live between the Iberians and the Caspian Sea, their country bordering on the sea towards the east and on the country of the Iberians towards the west. Of the remaining sides the northern is protected by the Caucasian Mountains (for these mountains lie above the plains, though their parts next to the sea are generally called Ceraunian), whereas the southern side is formed by Armenia, which stretches alongside it; and much of Armenia consists of plains, though much of it is mountainous, like Cambysene, where the Armenians border on both the Iberians and the Albanians'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''The Cyrus, which flows through Albania, and the other rivers by which it is supplied''', contribute to the excellent qualities of the land; and yet they thrust back the sea, for the silt, being carried forward in great quantities, fills the channel, and consequently even the adjacent isles are joined to the mainland and form shoals that are uneven and difficult to avoid; and their unevenness is made worse by the backwash of the flood tides." (11.4.1, 11.4.2) |
|
|
|
|
|
And another relevant passage on attempts of Roman conquests, which against Albania have failed: " The inhabitants of this country are unusually handsome and large. And they are frank in their dealings, and not mercenary;5 for they do not in general use coined money, nor do they know any number greater than one hundred, but carry on business by means of barter, and otherwise live an easy-going life. They are also unacquainted with accurate measures and weights, and they take no forethought for war or government or farming. But still they fight both on foot and on horseback, both in light armour and in full armour,6 like the Armenians.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
'''They send forth a greater army than that of the Iberians; for they equip sixty thousand infantry and twenty-two thousand8 horsemen, the number with which they risked their all against Pompey'''. Against outsiders the nomads join with the Albanians in war, just as they do with the Iberians, and for the same reasons; and besides, they often attack the people, and consequently prevent them from farming. The Albanians use javelins and bows; and they wear breastplates and large oblong shields, and helmets made of the skins of wild animals, similar to those worn by the Iberians. '''To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane''', which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared. The pass from Iberia into Albania leads through Cambysene, a waterless and rugged country, to the Alazonius River. Both the people and their dogs are surpassingly fond of hunting, engaging in it not so much because of their skill in it as because of their love for it." (11.4.4, 11.4.5) |
|
|
|
|
|
And of course Strabo himself used "Orchistene" ("and Orchistene, which last furnishes the most cavalry", 11.14.4), never "Artsakh" - hence I don't understand what is the "objection" to an Azerbaijani article which mentions it (and the reason for the reference was in response to someone's inclusion of "citation needed" next to Orchistene, which to me meant that the person didn't know about this forgotten name). By the way, Artsakh being used from 2nd century only was there before my edits - I've only added Orkhistene. |
|
|
|
|
|
But for the borders of Caucasian Albania -- on the south going along Araxes, on the North - Derbend, on the East - Caspian sea and West -- Khnarakert castle (which is in present-day Qazax region of Azerbaijan, near Georgia and Armenia) borders see Movses Dasxuranci (Moisey Kagankatvatsi, Kalanketly) and Movses Khorenatsi (from Khorene), who say that very clearly, as well as a host of other authors. But of course the info from Dasxuranci/Kagankatvatsi is most reliable, as they (he) are Albanian historians. I can easily produce quotes in Russian and my translation into English. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tigranes II never conquered C.Albania -- that is an insinuation of the Armenian scholars, and has been disproven already in the 1980s in the USSR. There is simply no evidence of that. Neither does Movses Dasxuranci mention that. |
|
|
|
|
|
And I will look at those pages you've edited - thanks for pointing it out to me. --] 00:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Who are you kidding? Oh and btw, Movses Dasxuranci was Armenian. |
|
|
Strabo eh? |
|
|
|
|
|
“ As we pass from Europe to Asia in our geography, the northern division is the first of the two divisions to which we come; and therefore we must begin with this. Of this division the first portion is that in the region of the Tanaпs River, which I have taken as the boundary between Europe and Asia. This portion forms, in a way, a peninsula, for it is surrounded on the west by the Tanaпs River and Lake Maeotis as far as the Bosporus7 and that part of the coast of the Euxine Sea which terminates at Colchis; and then on the north by the Ocean as far as the mouth of the Caspian Sea;8 and then on the east by this same sea as far as the boundary between Albania and Armenia, where empty the rivers Cyrus and Araxes, '''the Araxes flowing through Armenia and the Cyrus through Iberia and Albania;”''' |
|
|
|
|
|
“ Further, the greater part of the remainder of Colchis is on the sea. Through it flows the Phasis, a large river having its sources in Armenia and receiving the waters of the Glaucus and the Hippus, which issue from the neighboring mountains.” |
|
|
|
|
|
“…the Moschian country, in which is situated the temple,26 is divided into three parts: one part is held by the Colchians, another by the Iberians, and another by the Armenians. There is also a small city in Iberia, the city of Phrixus,27 the present Ideлssa, well fortified, on the confines of Colchis” |
|
|
|
|
|
“ Parts of the country are surrounded by the Caucasian Mountains; for branches of these mountains, as I said before,1 project towards the south; they are fruitful, comprise the whole of Iberia, and border on both Armenia and Colchis. '''In the middle is a plain intersected by rivers, the largest being the Cyrus. This river has its beginning in Armenia, flows immediately into the plain above-mentioned, receives both the Aragus, which flows from the Caucasus, and other streams, and empties through a narrow valley into Albania; and between the valley and Armenia”''' |
|
|
|
|
|
“ From the country of the nomads on the north there is a difficult ascent into Iberia requiring three days' travel; and after this ascent comes a narrow valley on the Aragus River, with a single file road requiring a four days' journey. The end of the road is guarded by a fortress which is hard to capture. The pass leading from Albania into Iberia is at first hewn through rock, and then leads through a marsh formed by the River Alazonius, which falls from the Caucasus. '''The passes from Armenia into Iberia are the defiles on the Cyrus and those on the Aragus. For, before the two rivers meet, they have on their banks fortified cities that are situated upon rocks, these being about sixteen stadia distant from each other--I mean Harmozice on the Cyrus and Seusamora on the other river. These passes were used first by Pompey when he set out from the country of the Armenians, and afterwards by Canidius.2”''' |
|
|
|
|
|
''' In ancient times Greater Armenia ruled the whole of Asia, after it broke up the empire of the Syrians, but later, in the time of Astyages, it was deprived of that great authority by Cyrus and the Persians, although it continued to preserve much of its ancient dignity; and Ecbatana was winter residence4 for the Persian kings, and likewise for the Macedonians who, after overthrowing the Persians, occupied Syria; and still today it affords the kings of the Parthians the same advantages and security.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
“ In Armenia itself there are many mountains and many plateaus, in which not even the vine can easily grow; and also many valleys, some only moderately fertile, others very fertile, for instance, the Araxene Plain, through which the Araxes River flows to the extremities of Albania and then empties into the Caspian Sea. After these comes Sacasene, this too bordering on Albania and the Cyrus River; and then comes Gogarene. Indeed, the whole of this country abounds in fruits and cultivated trees and evergreens, and even bears the olive. There is also Phauene, a province of Armenia, and Comisene, and Orchistene, which last furnishes the most cavalry.” |
|
|
|
|
|
The map of Ptolemy corraborates evertyhing Strabo said.--] 00:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This is hillarious! Eupator simply repeated me for no reason - basically, spammed, -- for unknown purpose. It's hard to disagree with the above Strabo wrote it, and if you look at the map, where Kura (Cyrus) and Araxes begin, and consider all the quotes, you will see VERY CLEARLY that the previously disseminated myth about border of Armenia and Albania being on Kura (Cyrus) is FALSE, and by copying Strabo's paragraphs -- which I've already provided -- you proved it once more. Kura, as Strabo said several times, flows THROUGH Albania, that means in the middle, not along or bordering, or anything like that. So thanks for exposing this major issue that has plagued many books from Armenia, which falsify Strabo's writings. |
|
|
|
|
|
:;Finally, Movses Dasxuranci and Moisey Kalankatuyski (Kagankatvatsi, Kalankatly), which are two collective authors sometimes paired into one, could not have been Armenian as is obvious from the book -- he was ordered to write the book by "his king" great prince Jevanshir, and wrote about "our country, Albania". Same thing with the second and third authors of the "History of Caucasian Albanians". And finally, once again, both them, Albanian historians, and Armenian, Movses of Khorene, CLEARLY specify the border of Armenia with Albania as I described above. The issue of borders has been proven by the 1980s. Eupator, when it comes to history, leave it to those who are better versed in it. --] 01:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Seriously, this is not a circus or some azeri science conference it's an encyclopedia. Let me spoon feed you like a baby: '''and then on the east by this same sea as far as the boundary between Albania and Armenia, where empty the rivers Cyrus and Araxes, the Araxes flowing through Armenia and the Cyrus through Iberia and Albania'''. Do you need someone to read this for you? The river Araxes empties into the Kura on the border of Armenia and Albania! |
|
|
|
|
|
Movses Dasxuranci/Kalankatuaci was 100% Armenian with an Armenian name. What that mongoloid Farida Jafar gizi Mamedova teaches you people wont pass here.--] 02:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: It seems like you can’t do without incivility or personal attacks. The source says that Cyrus flows thru Albania, and not along its borders. As for Movses, have you seen his birth certificate? How do you know his ethnicity then? ] 05:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Adil, the Kura being the border is not the issue here (and BTW, Ptolomeus' map shows Kura as the border). The issue is where was Artsakh. Strabo, Plinius, and Ptol. (1c bc-2 c ad) all say it was part of Armenia. By the way, Strabo also says that everyone in Armenia (including Artsakh) spoke Armenian. |
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with the prior version in the article is that it suggested the local name was Orkhistene before 2 AD, and then all of a sudden it became Artsakh. Greeks never said any of that--they themselves called Artsakh Orkhistene--they always distorted local names to fit their language. |
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, Movses Khorenatsi and Kaghankatvatsi lived in 5th-7th cc. In their time Artsakh had been attached to Albania. Both historians generally use myths when describing events more than a few centuries before them. Generally, that far back, they are not taken too seriously. Strabo and the other Greeks were contemporary in 1c BC- 2nd c ad. They are much more reliable.--] 07:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:TigranTheGreat, the maps from those times are imprecise and irrelevant - one look at them and modern physical maps is enough to understand why. So bringing all those mythical maps is not helping anything. Meanwhile, I do not recall Strabo saying anything about everyone speaking Armenian in Artsakh -- especially since there was no Armenian language then (I mean ancient Armenian, grabar), and Armenians spoke either various (Caucasian or Semitic or other) dialects or Greek, or Pahlavi and other Indo-European languages. Maybe you have a reference to Strabo? Moreover, Armenia after the downfall of ethnically non-Armenian Tigranes II Great, has become once again a vassal state under the influence of both Rome and Parthia. Meanwhile, C.Albania retained its independence, even if somewhat nominal. Since Strabo never says that Artsakh was conquered by Tigranes -- which would not have mattered anyway, as his relevant conquests lasted only 15 years (85-69 BC), with total empire lasting less than 30 years (95-65BC) -- and Armenia was a vassal state, ruled even in the I century AD by (see below) various non-Armenian kings, it was simply in no position to hold any Albanian territories, such as Artsakh -- read again Strabo about the size, strength and determination of the Albanian army and the fact that it got help from nomads from the north. Of course Albanian historians MK and MD and Armenian Movses of Khorene (by the way, their Armenianized names mean nothing -- just like "Napoleon Allahverdyan" is not a French Muslim, or French-Turk/Iranian, but clearly Armenian, despite nothing in that name being Armenian, or "Robert Kocharyan" for that matter, a Western and Turkic name with Iranian suffix -yan, or Karen Demirchyan or Abel Aghanbekiyan, etc.) have a lot of anecdotal evidence, but when all of them coincide on the fact that Albania's southern border went on Araxes and Western on Khnarakert, it is not anecdotal. MK/MD book has many more references showing what size was C.Albania and that Artsakh was very much part of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Armenian kings in I c. AD:<BR> |
|
|
1. Ariobarzan (Atropatenan/Median) A.D. 2‑4<br> |
|
|
2. Artavazd IV (Atropatenan/Median) 4‑6 <BR> |
|
|
3. Tigran V (Jewish) 6‑14<BR> |
|
|
3a. Erato (Tigran IV, again, first ruled 8 B.C.‑5 A.D.) 14‑15 <BR> |
|
|
4. Vonon (Parthian) 16‑17 <BR> |
|
|
5. Artashes III or Zeno (Roman) 18‑34 <BR> |
|
|
6. Arshak I (Parthian) 34‑35 <BR> |
|
|
7. Mithridates (Georgian) 35‑37 and 47‑51 <BR> |
|
|
8. Hradamizd (Georgian) 51‑53 <BR> |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 07:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It's not just maps, but contemporary Greek accounts that state that Artsakh was part of Armenia in 1c BC- 2 c AD. MK/MD say it was part of Albania because in 5th c AD it was attached to Albania. What MK/MD say about 2c BC is generally considered myth, and not taken seriously. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you believe MK/MD, I tell you what. They say that in 2nd c BC, Albania was founded by an Armenian named Aran (from the Armenian family of Sisakan, which descended from Armenian patriarch Hayk, who himself was grandson of Japhet). They also say that this Armenian founder of Albania was appointed as a governer of Albania by the Armenian king, with Albania being part of Armenia. Are you going to accept that? If you believe one, you have to believe the other. Historians believe neither--they regard it as myth. |
|
|
|
|
|
Armenian language has existed for 4000-5000 years (since INdoeuropean split). It definitely existed under Tigran, there is no dispute about that. Strabo says everyone in Armenia speaks the same language. You can easily look up your Strabo section on Armenia, it's there. |
|
|
|
|
|
In sum, Greeks say Artsakh was part of Armenia.--] 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"(Making seperate section for the Greek discussion. Golbez/Francis, feel free to change however you like.)" I have no opinion at all on this section, consider my interest to be the remainder of the article. There's way, way too much here for me to start being familiar with it, so have your argument over that sentence. :) I'll stay down in the "one last try" section. ;) --] 23:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Trying one last time. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a new section. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are the rules for the section. |
|
|
|
|
|
# No putting words in anyone's mouth. |
|
|
# No more repetition. This means that you are only allowed to mention 'international recognition', "16%", "ethnic cleansing", et.al. once per entry. |
|
|
# No more discussion about the CIA ethnolinguistic map, which some people have decided to use to ascribe motives and actions to me that did not exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, let's discuss the Misplaced Pages article on Nagorno-Karabakh, including the chart of provinces and the map therein. Nothing more. Nothing less. Can we do that? --] 08:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So should I summarize my points about the NK map on the Wiki NK page and the table, or it's all cleared up by now and we reached an agreement? Best, --] 08:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I cleaned things up for you, I hope you do not mind. I just want that nasty fight behind us. Any complaints with the article, map, chart, whatever, discuss here, just please, no repetition or other debating techniques. Also, please no large pastes - we know what the international community has said, we don't need to be reminded. --] 16:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
With regard to intro, the ultimate result of the edit wars was the replacement of the words ''a region of Azerbaijan'' with the words ''a region within Azerbaijan''. This is wrong, the intro should say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan. That’s the accepted international status of the region, there’s no other. All UN Security Council resolutions refer to NK as a region of Azerbaijan, and so do other international organizations and countries. This is not just a position, this is the internationally accepted status of region, which the intro should reflect as it is a fact. Therefore the current revision is POV and the original version should be restored. ] 07:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And add "self-styled" or "so-called" or "unrecognized" at least every other time that NK is mentioned, replace the "NKR" with simpler "NK", change the map to reflect the official, recognized toponyms, and of course stress that it is de jure part of Azerbaijan and recognized as such. --] 07:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:We're going to mention that it is unrecognised in the lead. We will not be putting "self-styled", "so-called" or whatever in front of every mention of the name. It isn't encyclopaedic. This is an encyclopaedia article, not a UN, or other political document. - ] ] 10:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: But why was removed the mention that it is a region of Azerbaijan? ] 10:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Francis, that's why I say "every other time" to mention so-called, etc. But there is an easier way -- you don't have to say it more than once in the article if all instances of "NKR" are replaced with "authorities of NK". This solves the problem fairly. --] 12:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If someone says it, it's a position. I don't care if it's UNSC. Unless you can touch it, measure it, feel it, it's not a fact--it's position. Stating it as a fact is POV. |
|
|
|
|
|
Golbez, about the "within borders." If we say "within Azerbaijan", we have to add de fact without the de jure--that's how it is in s. Oss. article. "Within Azerbaijan" alone is too much like "region of Azerbaijan," which was what I originaly objected to. "within borders of azerbaijan" states your point exactly--the need to provide the geographic context (that it's an enclave)--] 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's a de facto enclave, but de jure part of Azerbaijan. To call it an enclave is Karabakh POV; to call it part of Azerbaijan is Azeri POV. The fact is simply what I stated, it's a de facto enclave but de jure part of Azerbaijan. The best solution is to state the region or territory's (I think region is a better word, but to each their own) location, which is in Azerbaijan, without saying outright it's PART of Azerbaijan. That is a difficult balance to make. --] 23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Fine, that's why we didn't use the "encalve" word but your choice of "within." What's wrong with "within borders of Azerbaijan?" It's your intended point--geographic context.--] 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't think I was the one with the problem with "within the borders of". --] 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I think your compromise solution actually had "within the borders of" (), then you immediately removed the "borders." It think your first version clearly states the point. This is the best way to avoid the "de facto/de jure/de mojo" mess. And this is the best way to reach a middle point and get over the intro.--] 23:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yeah, though I still agree with my next edit. --] 00:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I suggest we restore the original intro, which was a compromise, achieved after many months of disputes. Check the last 2 archives. The fact is that NK is de-jure part of Azerbaijan, not region within the borders, but a region of Azerbaijan. It has no other status. The current version is Armenian POV and is not neutral. The position of international community is clear: NK is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and it’s not just a position, the status of NK is based on it. Therefore removing that fact that it is a region of Azerbaijan is absolutely unacceptable. It is actually considered a good manner to discuss the changes to controversial articles with other users and don’t make unilateral changes. But the way you guys change the intro based on your own vision without making account of the position of the other side is no good at all. I attach a totally disputed tag, as the current version of intro is not neutral. ] 07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::"it has no other status"? What about 'de facto'? Your own POV is leaking, Grandmaster. --] 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The Armenian POV would be "NK is independent." That's not what the current version states--it says the pure facts--declaration of independence, and non-recognition. Therefore, it is a nice neutral middle ground between the Armenian and your POV. Your version goes the other way, and therefore is POV. |
|
|
|
|
|
As long as there are more than one POV's on the status, any statement regarding the status is by definition a position. Under NPOV standards, it's absolutely unacceptable to assert positions, including "NK is part of" or "not part of" Azerbaijan. If that's what "unrecognized by others" means, let the readers draw the conclusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Your refusal to compromise, and your continuous insistence on reverting without even trying to discuss has been the reason behind the edit wars. I suggest you adopt good manners in editting before telling others to do so.--] 07:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The edit war started as soon as you returned here and made changes to the intro without discussing it with others. Before that this article was stable for many months. It is a fact that the current legal status of NK is a region of Azerbaijan, which is confirmed by international community. Removing that from the article and introducing POV vision of things will not help to keep this article neutral, stable and balanced. I once again suggest we restore the version of intro that existed before you changed it. ] 08:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the edit war resumed after you automatically started reverting without even attempting a discussion. My edit had nothing to do with you--it modified a line that was so POV that even you had never offered it. I never introduced a POV version--my POV would be "NK is independent." As long as the status is disputed by principal parties, their positions are just that-positions. I suggest we leave it at the current factual, non-POV version. It's the best deal possible for this kind of article.--] 09:41, 17 June 2006 (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)