Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:03, 20 February 2006

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

Archives:

• Archive1,
• Archive2,
• Archive3 (?? - 15:23, 27 December 2005)
• Archive4 (15:23, 27 December 2005 - 20:04, 12 January 2006)
• Archive5 (20:04, 12 January 2006 - 11:37, 26 January 2006)

Picture

The article specifically mentions that Tigran The Great established a city named after him (Tigranakert) there. Also, according to the Azeri view, he was the one who conquered Artsakh, so in either case, his picture is quite relevant.--TigranTheGreat 07:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

- FrancisTyers 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)]

What is the source? insult removed If there is reference to tigran the armenian, there must be reference to Azerbaijani rulers of Nagorno Karbakh including Penaheli Khan, Nadir Shah, Shah Ismail and others. Otherwise the history section is not netural and against the Misplaced Pages policy. --Enver Pasha 19:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Either you stick to civility, or you will be blocked from editing. mikka (t) 19:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Bastique deleted it, but reasoning was given in this archived Jan 24 Commons discussion. I agreed with you that http://www.mfa.gov.az/img/map_eng.gif was not altered in any way, therefore permission to use it appeared valid, but I'd forgotten that Commons use policy is stricter than Misplaced Pages, which disallows images that prohibit derivative works.

Looking at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#"Any-purpose" copyright, it appears Template:GFDL won't work because that allows derivative works, and cc-nd (no derivative works) Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Non-free Creative Commons licenses won't work either.

It might work under "CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions - For example, provided that credit is given and copyright is attributed. Note that non-commercial or educational use restrictions are not allowed as provisions in this tag." with the no derivative works restriction. Can anyone support, refute or suggest an alternative please? 65.33.156.96 13:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the last option is the optimal and we should pursue it. That picture is has important information value and without it the consequence of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict goes unnoticed. It is also a moral issue and that picture is the only visual aid which talks about the suffering of 650,000 internally displaced Azerbaijanis who were subject to ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately this is the harsh reality. Unless are rich, you have a diaspora who can pay for people to involve in information dissimination and propaganda, you are voiceless, you can be killed and you can be sacrificed. This is the current situation with Azerbaijani displaced people and actions of the editors have served only for this purpose. I hope you now should feel revealed as you achieved your goal of total armenianization of the web page.

Displaced people of Nagorno Karabakh

Where is the section on displaced people of Nagorno Karabakh? Now that you have expanded this to anything, why there is no section about displaced population of Nagorno Karabakh 23% Azerbaiajnis?

Francis you are warned as you continue your hostility, pre-judice and ememity towards Azerbaijani and Azerbaijani facts. Note that you are not a judge, you are a mere editor. There are people who can teach you laws and judging, so you are not better not entitled by anything under the Misplaced Pages to judge somebody and give last decisions.

I will go on and add this section to the nagorno karabakh page. --Kazim Kara Bekir Pasha 16:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)v

I totally agree, I am not the judge. I would definately welcome a well sourced section on the internally displaced people, also on human rights and I have called for these before (if you take the time to read the talk page). I presume you are EoC, if so could I recommend changing your username because the one you have currently might offend other editors. I appreciate, as does every other editor your being civil and refraining from personal attacks :) - FrancisTyers 16:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what I have done and will upload this to the page. --ramil 06:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Displaced People of Nagorno Karabakh

The armed campaign of Armenians for independence and/or unification with Armenia has resulted in total ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karbakh. 2000 estimates of US Committe for Refugees- Azerbaijan Country Report puts the total number of Azerbaijanis displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh at 42,072. This figure exlcudes the Azerbaijani displaced population from other 8 non-disputed Azerbaijani rayons outside of Nagorno-Karabakh that includes Fizuli (133,725 persons), Agdam (128,584 persons), Lachin (63,007 persons), Kelbadjar (59,274), Jabrayil (58,834 persons), Gubadli (31, 276 persons), Zangilan (34,797 persons), Terter (5,171 persons) and Agjabedi (3,358 persons), which are under the Armenian occupation since 1990s. The total number of Azerbaijanis displaced by the Armenian liberalization of these regions of Azerbaijan stands at 568,000 persons. Ethnic Azerbaijanis constitute the absolute minority of the displaced population. The rest of the displaced population include some 4,000 Kurds from and several hundred persons of various other ethnic groups, mostly Russian. In 2000, 135,000 of Azerbaijani internally displaced still lived in tented camps, uncompleted buildings and railway wagons. Women and children constitute over 70 percent of the displaced population Refugee Survery 2000.The infant mortality among displaced children is 3-4 times higher that than in the rest of the population. "Stillbirth" rate was 88.2 per 1,000 live born babies among the internally displaced people. The majority of the displaced continue to live in diffucult conditions for more than 11 years now. displ

Please try to find a better more neutral source for this. --Khoikhoi 06:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have two neutral sources which are more neutral than many Armenian sources that there are. These include World Refugee Survey by the Norwegian Refugee Council - Global IDP project and US Committee for Refugees and IDPs. Do you have problems with these resources? May be they are bad, when they tell the truth.

Ok, fine. --Khoikhoi 06:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Some changes were made to the displaced people of Nagorno Karabakh section describing armenians who fled Azeraijan and linking it to Nagorno Karabakh. These things have no relation to the displaced people from Nagorno Karakh.

I will also put the information on 250,000 Azerbaijanis who fled Armenia in addition to the displaced Azerbaijan from Nagorno Karabakh and surrounding areas. Bests--71.195.182.195 22:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep adding it right back

I don't care who keeps removing my postings...it's called Dagliq Qarabag...and should this be removed again, I am editing out all the pro-Armenian propaganda I see on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.160.15 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing

Violation

Reporting Eupator and Tigran for vandalizing the addition of the name Dagliq Qarabag on this discussion page and blotting it out maliciously every time it is added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.160.15 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

opposing views

The right to dispute a name is protected on Wiki...I dispute the name Artsakh and Nagorno...I believe the correct name is Artsakh. I am documenting each violation with dates and times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.160.15 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Eagle of the Caucasus

Now we start to see the real face of armenian internet terrorism? Mikkalai has blocked mey username Eagle of the Caucasus, becasue I was reverting the changes he tried to made in the intro of the Nagorno-Karabakh page wihtout any agreement. Yes, this is what is armenian fair deal or discusssion with armenian terrorists and vandals. i ask for protection of my username from armenian editors in this page. Francis I sent you email and I again tell that armenians have been blcoking me all the time. Now u see that it is impossible to talk with armenian terrorists in a civilized manner. --ramil 23:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are under the danger to be blocked permanently unless you read, understand, and follow basic wikipedia rules: WP:Civility, WP:3RR. See also wikipedia:Sock puppet. mikka (t) 23:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

mikka first of please do refrain from intimitading my fellow Azeraijanis. second your a speaking of etiquette a lot. You yourself does not show any etiquette with such notes.

mikka I don't know who has given you this right? is this right that an armenian serves a judge on a such a sensitive issue where armenians have vested interest. This is against Misplaced Pages policy.the armenians shouldn't have any power for such action. Now I see why they have taken control of this page. francis, I hear you are referred a lot by Azerbaijanis, but I think so far all you notes and actions are very pro-armenian and not divisible from the armenian mikki.--Talatpasha 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, mikka says that he blocked Eagle because of WP:3RR. But below is the Misplaced Pages policy. "This page is an official policy on the English Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Feel free to edit the page as needed, but please make sure that changes you make to this policy reflect consensus before you make them."

However, the history page showsh the change without consent has been made by armenians, including mikka. but why then you block Eagle. is that becasue he is Azerbaijani and there is no Azerbaijani editor here. Let me guess the retaliation by mikka,against Azerbaijanis and truth.--Talatpasha 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

God give me more patience in dealing with these armenians. --Talatpasha 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Administration of the web page

Due to the fact that the Armenian origin or relation of Francis has become obvious over the recent days on actions he has consistently and systematically taken against azerbaijani related facts I hereby do suggest the terminiation of the administration rights of Francis for this web page. he ahs consistently 'tried' pseudo to be 'neutral' on azerbaijani facts and receptive and supportive of Armenian claims. I do suggest that Francis takes this acion on his own without any further action and I believe he has to take this step if he hasn't vested interest in Karabakh as an Armenian or Armenian related person. I will start the necessary letter campaign to Misplaced Pages soon.--Eagle of the Caucasus 15:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to Francis continous and systematic hostility to Azerbaijni entries and information, the web page has become one of the Armenian propaganda and he has consistently and systematically eliminated, deleted or changed the entires to make them more pro-armenian to the extent that he questions the 4 UN resolutions and the occupationo of the 20 percent of azerbaijani territories. This to the frustration of azerbaijnai contributors and their leaving the web page giving the way to the armenian occupation of this web page by fundamentlist Armenians. As a result he has achieved his pro-armenian plans and intention. Therefore, I think that he should go and any armenian origin administrator should be forbidden from editing this web page. With hater to biased nature of adminsitrators such as Francis and completely pro-armenian nature of the web page. I also leave from now on my editing or contribution activitity as it lost meaning in an extremly pro-armenian environment and excessive pro-Armenian tendency and support of editors such Francis and Khokkooi or others from this raw.--Eagle of the Caucasus 15:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Name (Qarabagh)

--Eagle of the Caucasus 06:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Eagle that the origin of the word should be explained. The reason is to avoid the implication (from the prior sentence) that the word originates from Azeris, when in fact Azeris, Armenians, Russians, Georgians, and the world got it from Turkic "kara" and Persian "bagh." The following excerpt from BBC country profiles confirms this:

NKR's official website is appropriate since generally any article about any entity should have a link to the official cite of that entity, based on rules of External Links. The reason that NKR's flag is appropriate is because it is not being repeated twice in the same article--it's ok to have something in this article and in other websites--we can't control what's on other websites.

Now, Eagle, I can see you are new to Misplaced Pages and are unaware of many of its rules. It's creating problems for you. Let me teach you a few of them. I don't think you are aware that you leave a history of your edits on a special page. You can access the history of edits by clicking on the "history" tab on the article. That way you won't be surprised when someone has editted your work, and you will see who has done it and why. We include explanations in the "Edit Summary." You can do it when you edit the article. Here is the edit history page for this article: .

You can also click "Preview" when you edit before making the final edit. That way we won't need to go through 10 individuals edits of yours on the history page, when you just add one sentence.

It's clear you are not aware of some of the basic rules and policies that we the editors comply with. Read the following page on a summary of Misplaced Pages rules: . It's a useful start, and will help you avoid many problems. Also please read the page on rules of Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Read this page as well--it has essential information on how to be NPOV even in trickiest cases. When you add a fact on the article, you need to maintain neutrality. No matter how hard you believe that something is true. Also take a look at the rules on verifiability and "no original research". They will make it easier for you to remain neutral.

You will need to follow the rules of respecting other editors. This means you will refrain from personal attacks, and you will assume good faithabout editors. You will need to refrain from accusing anyone of belonging to any political party (even though dashnaktsutsyun is a very good party), or referring to anyone's ethnic background in an offensive manner. You will also need to refrain from making threats when someone edits your contributions. When you add a sentence that pushes your POV, other editors can take steps to make it more neutral. You will need to learn to respect them and work with them. This is for your own good--when you use personal attacks, your arguments will generally be taken less seriously, and your edits will be reverted more frequently. I will try to be as reasonable with you as possible. But I will expect you to familiarize yourself with the necessary rules of conduct and treat others with respect.--TigranTheGreat 11:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just added the "Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia" reference. The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia was the official and most reputable source in Soviet Armenia. By the way, the volume in question was published in 1981, long before the conflict in 1988 erupted, at a time when scholarship in Armenia was under heavy scrutiny by the USSR government to prevent any demonstration of "dangerous" nationalism.--TigranTheGreat 09:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

tigran the kindest. I would request you learn the rules of the etiquette first and then try to teach me. If you knew the etiquette you would not lie as you have done and doing in this talk page and on the Nagorno Karabakh web page about the history, origins and the real population of the Karabakh in the beginning of the century. So please, first learn positive attitude, respect, and not cheating and then come to me with yous lie-based teaching material. I don't think that such liers and people who tell absurd as you and your terrorist armenians with the puppet being at the top deserve any better threatment or words. This is what you get and what you will get from me due to suffering and difficuly and death you have caused to over 650,000 internally displaced people, 230,000 Azerbaijani refugees from Armenia and the continuous occupation and the economic, and social damage you and your terrorist armenians have done to my nation. There is and will not be mercy to people who have not shown the same mercy even to children and women. You can find children graveyards around any refugee camp in Azerbaijan and not to mention the high mortality and morbidity rate in Azerbaijan. For Unicef this 90 children per 1000 births, www.unicef.org/azerbaijan. The cost will be paid penny by penny. --Eagle of the Caucasus 02:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am still surprized that you still belive in what you say despite you know that they are nothing more than lies and the propaganda and teaching material of the armenian church. By the way this same lies and the teaching material has been used by the armenian church in US to mobilzie armenians and prevent their assimiliation in America. The scapegoat for well thought reasons was chosen Azerbaijanis and Turks. But who knows, sometimes people who think they found the scapegoat, very soon themselves are identifed and persecuted as the ultimate scapegoat. I would suggest you and your armenian church to teach and learn more good things. But I can't at the same expect anything else from pedophile priests. --Eagle of the Caucasus 02:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Eagle, please try and keep the talk page to discussion about the article in question. If you would like to discuss the Armenian/Azeri dispute over Karabakh I would recommend searching for an internet forum, or perhaps a debating club. This is the Misplaced Pages talk page for Nagorno-Karabakh. Please keep discussion to the article. See Misplaced Pages:Talk_pages#Usage. - FrancisTyers 11:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

NK status

Again this tigran and armenian imagination at work.

This is what the Kosovo page says

"Kosovo (Serbian: Косово и Метохија / Kosovo i Metohija, Albanian: Kosovë / Kosova) is a province of Serbia. It is the subject of an ongoing territorial dispute between Serbia and the province's majority ethnic Albanian population. It lies within Serbia's traditional borders inside the Serbian-Montenegrin federation, but since the Kosovo War it has been administered by the United Nations under the auspices of UNMIK. The province's final status has yet to be determined; talks on this issue are scheduled for later in 2006."

The similar should be stated about Nagorno-Karabakh. Everybody including armenian terrorists and their reps should know that de-facto concept is your subjective opinion. there is a puppet terrorist and seperatist regime there and it can be eliminated any minute as soon as war starts. And this time it will be startd by Azerbaijan at any time as you know. The right time might come any minute and if you Tigran is aware of subjectivism and perception issues well, what at all does it give us , if we change the word to de-facto, but tomorrow Azerbaijan liberates those territories, persecutes all terrorists including your puppet fascist gukasyan, hangs him, and that is pretty much it. From the subjective or perception point of view there is no difference, the difference is just couple of days. If there is no difference and we do fight over terms for nothing as you claim, let us leave it as it is "as the region of Azerbaijan"

Also who is Mikkalai that he locks the page for changes, and if these changes last were made by armenians. mikkalai or nikkalai himself is armenian, why such a right should be given to them. What he did was another face of armenian internet terrorism occuring in Misplaced Pages.

Also note that my example about Kosovo does not mean that I see these two conflicts identical. They are very different from roots. Kosovars lived in Kosovo all the time and have been in absolute majority constituting 88 percent of the population, with no Serbian history and presence. Future status yet to be defined and have been subject to ethnic cleansing for years which led to the international intervention. In our case things are in reverse. --Eagle of the Caucasus 07:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Italic textComment from an outsider - history not to be distorted I am a total outsider to the problem BUT - PLEASE DO NOT MAKE PARALLELS WITH PLACES YOU ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY FAMILIAR WITH. While the technical comment on how Kosovo is geographically presented is correct and parallel could be drawn for Nagorno Karabakh. However, going deeper into history and judging whether Albanians were or were not leaving there from centuries is another issue. Albanian population on kosovo started raising between the I and II World War - historically not so long ago. I am not a Serb nor Albanian, just someone who thinks that the history should not be distorted...

Heavy Armenian Bias

I think the article is heavily biased towards the armenian side. It mentions none of the 600000 azeri refugees ethnically cleansed from their homeland, says nothing of the continuing humanitarian crisis of the refugees, barely touches upon the fact that self-proclaimed "Karabagh republic" is not recognized by any state in the world. I have made some changes to the article, which I backed using reliable and veriviable sources such as teh US state deparment and BBC. I ask those that deleted my changed to reisntate them. None of my changes can be shown to be factually wrong.

You will note that I have not deleted any part of the article, I simply added to it some extra facts that you have conveniently neglected, I will appreciate if you show some constructive attitude too. --Hasanidin 02:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Hasanidin, welcome to Misplaced Pages and the NK page. I reverted your changes, you can see it in the history of edits (you can also click on the history tab). Don't worry, some day you will delete/modify what I post, that's what we the editors do here--change/edit/discuss/add/delete--until we arrive at a neutral solution. I explained in the summary why I reverted yours--you made large unexplained deletions and changes, many of which were POV (i.e. not NPOV/neutral): here is a summary of your changes (they are in red):

I have no problem with adding info on the article as long as the result is NPOV.

*The article already mentions that there are just under 1 million Azeri refugees, I am not sure what purpose does adding the number 600,000 have other than to emphasize the large number of Azeri refugees yet again. It's ok to repeat the same info in the article, but there must be a reason other than to overemphasize it.

*The article needs to be neutral--even if you know something is true, if it's disputed, the article doesn't assert it, it states what reputable sources say about it. Ethnic cleansing implies intent to force population out, instead of a consequence of military action. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan blame each other of ethnic cleansing and dispute that they themselves did it. A neutral article can't take sides with a disputed fact. Your BBC article used much more neutral language than you attributed to it--it didn't say "ethnic cleansing" for example.

*The article states first and foremost that NKR is not recognized, and later it gives the other side--that it's a de facto independent. I am not sure how this is not neutral. Actually pointing out the unrecognition in the very first sentence puts it at a very prominent spot. Why repeat?

*Same with "president"--that's the title of the guy--of course he is not recognized, but the article makes it clear that the whole republic is not recognized. The article on Turkish Republic of Cyprus too, for example, uses the title of president.--TigranTheGreat 08:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey tigran, since when you have become editor and owner of this web page that you dare to welcome people to this web page. Your fundamentalism does not know any limits. I want you to know your place. This is not your fathers or armenians web page. May be as Armenians think that the entire world belongs to them, you think that Misplaced Pages also belongs to you. :-))))Unbelievable. Bad neighbors such as Armenians, I don't what is the greatest bad luck of Azerbaijan than this.

Also I see that you added some notes on the pictures that I added showing the fascist armenian agression. In line with your attitude and suggestion, I will add connotation to all armenian pictures indicating their pro-armenian nature.

Also some addition on the meaning of the Karabakh is meaningless and based on Armenian resources. I will revert them to my original explanation. --Eagle of the Caucasus 01:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Eagle, I am Estonian. We all are editors here, some veteran, such as me, some novice, such as you. The fact that Karabakh is a Turkic and Persian word is mentioned in the neutroal source (BBC) appearing after the statement. It's supported, therefore it shall remain. The notations on your picture were added by FrancisTyers (see history here ) to make it more neutral. I would prefer it to be deleted, since it's outrageously POV, but I will leave the issue be for now. --TigranTheGreat 02:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted the footnote Armenian Origins: An Overview of Ancient and Modern Sources and Theories by Thomas J. Samuelian " as the piece is written by armenians and it has no direct relation to the article except for the explanation of the original Azerbaijani word "Karabakh". Of course what the hell armenian knows about Azerbaijani or Turkic to explain the meaning of the Azerbaijani Turkic word. Absolutely meaningless and put there by Tigran for propaganda purposes. Misplaced Pages guideline prohibits the use of the funcionless footnote Tigran - For your education. --Eagle of the Caucasus 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The piece written by Samuelian was added as a footnote since it mentions a legend about Noah that is in the article. As such, it is a valid reference and shall stay. Your massive deletions of supported materials is an act of vandalism and will not be tolerated.--TigranTheGreat 02:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

tigran you are in the state of hysteria. You have started to show your real face. Indeed what you are doing is a vandalism. By adding useless and meaningless comments to the page. I will revert it to the previous version.

Since when the article that mentions Noah has become science and what is the realtion between armenians and Noah. May be armenians claim that Noah was also armenian and he gave the lands of Nagorno Karbakh to armenians by historical documents with the signature of Noah. I would not be surprised as I know armenians well.:-)))))

Man you have lost your mind and I think at this stage you should be forbidden to participate in this discusssion due to your psychological situation. --Eagle of the Caucasus 02:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Eagle, I really think that you would benefit from taking a more civil tone when discussing the article. Please try and refrain from personal attacks. These are policies which if followed contribute towards a harmonious editing environment. Now I realise you get emotional when talking about Karabakh, but Misplaced Pages is not the place for emotion. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia. I couldn't avoid adding a note to the map you introduced, as the title is plainly not even slightly neutral "The results of Armenian aggression". We are very patient at Misplaced Pages, but our patience is not inexhaustable. If you'd like to contact me on my talk page or by email to discuss this you are welcome. - FrancisTyers 08:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Francs I don't know what do you mean by largness of your patience. Please, also note that I am aware of your relation with armenians and your possible kinship to or an armenin origin.

The map tells the truth. it reflects 4 resolutions of the UN Security Council. For some or other reason, but mainly because of your kinship to armenians I think you try to be neutral only for Azerbaijanis and leave all and even add to the armenian lies. the map is suppoerted by the documentation of international organizations, what else you want? you can rich the security council resolutions, CIA factbook about the terriotory of occupied areas of Azerbaijan and undeniable facts about the armenian agression. What else you want. You don't object oopenly armenian things such as puppet flag, emblem, puppet gukasyan, but you object to real fact based Azerbaijani visual materials. Francis, --Eagle of the Caucasus 15:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)now it is much clear who you are and your world views and attitutude. I think this web page definitly needs more neutral administrator. I suggest that you recess from you administratro rights for this web page as you can't be and hven been netural and can not keep your neutrality. If you have no vested interest in Karabakh and if you are not armenian you should do it. Ask wikipedia to assign somebody but the new administrator. This is the beginning of my advocacy for this. --Eagle of the Caucasus 15:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't used my administrator rights on this page and I don't intend to. I don't use my administrator rights on pages I edit for content. You continue to not bring specific complaints about the article (side from the flag and images). Perhaps you could list specific quotes from the prose that you feel uncomfortable with, or add {{fact}} tags to pieces you think are unsourced. - FrancisTyers 16:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Transfer of weapons from Russia to Armenia

I removed the phrase “However, these claims had never been proved”. It was officially confirmed by Russian Minister of defense Igor Rodionov in his letter to Aman Tuleyev, Minister of cooperation with CIS countries. He said that munitions were transferred to Armenia free of charge and without relevant decrees of the government. See links to reports of Russian media.

http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/128/10873/

http://www.nasledie.ru/hronica/1997/03/13.htm

Grandmaster 09:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the link to the article in Washington Times. Please note that this article is also available in the archive at the website of this newspaper. Grandmaster 06:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sticking to the article please

TigrantheGreat, I advice you to ignore personal attacks directed at you. If attacks and slanders continue, I will delete those slanders myself and if the Eagle is not happy, he is free to contact every administrators he wants. Restrict yourself debating with Grandmaster and FrancisTyers. Fad (ix) 18:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mujahedeen

Azerbaijann also asked for support from Afghan mujahedeen , among those who responded was Ibn al-Khattab. Another infamous militant who fought for Azeris was Shamil Basaev.

I've removed this section to the talk page as I think to make such a large accusation we need a better source than a copy of an article hosted on geocities and an article with no bibliography or references (the one by Roald Sagdeev).

1. Moscow News, KHATTAB AND CENTRAL ASIA
2. Eisenhower Institute, Central Asia and Islam: An Overview by Roald Sagdeev

If this is to be included, it should read something like:

Azerbaijan also asked for support from Afghan mujahedeen , among those who responded was Ibn al-Khattab . According to Roald Sagdeev, another militant who fought for Azeris was Shamil Basaev .

Francis, Grandmaster's "Washington Post" article was a copy on geocities too (and not a good one at that, typos/blatant punctuation mistakes, though I haven't thoroughly checked it yet). If we can use one, we should be able to use the other. As for Sagdeev, as we thoroughly discussed earlier (it's archived), if a work is published by a reputable organization, we don't fact check, we don't concern ourselves whether it's true or not--(based on "no original research" and "Misplaced Pages threshold is verifiability, not truth" policies). Eisenhower institute is pretty reputable. By the way, Azerbaijan's use of mujahedeen and other terrorists is well known. NKRusa's site has copies (just like the above) of western articles (including Washington post) confirming this.--TigranTheGreat 15:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I already suggested to those who have doubts checking the archives of The Washington Times at http://www.washtimes.com/. This article is available there, you just cannot directly link it to this website. That’s why I provided the link to geocities, the copy is not different from original, everyone can check himself. Grandmaster 16:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in what way is The Eisenhower Institute pretty reputable? I mean, it isn't exactly far-fetched that the Azeris asked for this assistance, but if it is true we can find a much better source than an unreferenced opinion piece from a right-wing policy organisation in whose interest it is to present radical Islamic fundamentalism as widespread as possible.

You say that this is well known, well can you provide some referenced links from reputable organisations? I never said that Grandmaster's WP copy was valid, I just didn't get round to checking it yet. I suggest we remove both pieces of information until we can find better references. - FrancisTyers 17:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The article that I quoted is available at http://www.washtimes.com/. Search for the articles with key word Armenia, published on 10 April 1997. It will return you this result:

Article 1 of 1, Article ID: G00183960095

Published on April 10, 1997, The Washington Times

Armenia armed by Russia for battles with Azerbaijan

Scandal compared to Iran-Contra

Russia secretly has shipped more than $1 billion worth of arms to Armenia, apparently to be used against pro-Western Azerbaijan and to force the Azeris and their strategic oil reserves into Russia's orbit. Aman Tuleyev, minister for relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States, has acknowledged that Moscow supplied Armenia with 84 T-72 main battle tanks, 72 heavy howitzers, 24 Scud missiles with eight launchers, 50 armored personnel carriers and millions of rounds of

Complete Article, 689 words ( )

This is enough to support the accusations of illegal supplies, if anyone wants the full article, they charge $3 for it, it’s not too much. The copy is not different from the original, I read it in a hard copy back at the time, when it was published. Grandmaster 17:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Francis, the copyright permission for the use of the armenian agression map is recieved and I downlaoded it to the respective place under the name MFA.jpg. So I hope now you will withdraw your deletion request.

Secondaly, Tirgan the use of terrorist militants and mercenaries from Lebanon and other North African countries is also well documented and well known. Indeed they came to armenia immediatly after the earthquake and participated in killing and massacare actions against the peacful Azerbaijanis living in armenia, and then against Azerbaijanis in Karabakh. They were well known for their brutality and animalism, most of them being armeninans and members of the dashnaks and other being just arab mercenaries. --Eagle of the Caucasus 17:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Francis, either remove both or keep both. Otherwise call for more arbitration.--Eupator 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

mujahedeen accusation

The logistical support and combat missions accomplished by the Russian 4th Army's officers for the Azerbaijani army proceeded on a mercenary basis, not as regular service. Besides Turkish instructors, the Azeris were helped by Afghan Mujahedeen.

Each Azerbaijani president started his career with attempts to make military progress in Karabakh, and by appealing for Turkish technical and training support, which was rendered in part. Heidar Aliev even invited Afghani mujahedeen, with disastrous consequences.

Finally, both Turkey and Afghanistan were involved militarily in the dispute. Aghan Mujahedeen served in the Azerbaijani counteroffebsive in Fizuli.

Also, I have researched newspaper archives, and found out that this claim about using mujahedeen is repeated often. One relevent article for example, published in the The Wall Street Journal, on the date of March 3, 1994, on page A16 by Felix Corly, titled The Forgotten War. In the article he writes: Since mid-December the Azeris have redoubled their efforts at the front. President Heidar Aliev has tightened internal discipline, recruited thousands of mujahedeen fighters from Afghanistan (as well as mercenaries from Iran and elsewhere) and brought in even more Turkish officers to organize his army.

I believe there are enough sources to establish the notability of the mujahedeen claim. Fad (ix) 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, it should definitely be included with links then. I think the wording of the paragraph could be improved though. - FrancisTyers 19:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Russian military support

Extensive Russian military support was exposed by the Head of the Standing Commission of the Russian Duma, General Lev Rokhlin, who was subsequently killed by his wife in unknown circumstances. He had claimed that munitions (worth 1 bil. US dollars) had been illegally transferred to Armenia during 1992-1994 . This fact was later officially confirmed by Russian Minister of Defense Igor Rodionov in his letter to Aman Tuleyev, Minister of cooperation with CIS countries . According to The Washington Times, Western intelligence sources said the weapons played a crucial role in Armenia's seizure of large areas of Azerbaijan . Russia's military support for Armenia was aimed to force pro-Western Azerbaijan and its strategic oil reserves into Russia's orbit . Armenians claim that Azerbaijan was receiving extensive support from Turkey during the Karabakh war , these claims have yet to be proven .

1. The Washington Times. Armenia armed by Russia for battles with Azerbaijan. April 10, 1997

1. The Moscow Times. Russia Probes Armenian Arms Transfers. March 14, 1997.

I've removed these for now. The Moscow Times reference looks fine, but I removed the whole section as I didn't want to rewrite it without input from Grandmaster and the others. I think we should source this, rewrite it and re-include it. - FrancisTyers 18:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My reference should not be removed, as the article is available at the website of the newspaper. Grandmaster 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference is disputed. It surely can't be available from only one source? - FrancisTyers 18:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I provided the full copy of the article free of charge. If anyone wants the version from the official source, he can get it from the website of the newspaper. It’s there, anyone can check. Grandmaster 18:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that not a violation of copyright law? - FrancisTyers 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It could be, as I don’t know if they have permission of the newspaper to copy. We can delete the link and leave the reference. Everyone can check for himself.

Also, I found this:

On 13 February 1997, Rokhlin also accused former Defense Minister Pavel S. Grachev of clandestinely supplying Armenia with more than $1 billion worth of weapons, including 84 T-72 tanks, 52 BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles, heavy field artillery, and possibly SCUD-2 missiles, without authorization from Yel'tsin or the government.

http://www.bu.edu/iscip/vol9/Staar.html

Russian Minister for CIS Affairs Aman Tuleev made public on 13 March an official letter from Defense Minister Igor Rodionov confirming that a large quantity of Russian weapons, including 84 T-72 tanks and 50 armored personnel carriers, were illegally transferred to Armenia from 1994-96, Russian and Western agencies reported. Tuleev had charged on 14 February that Russia had lost 270 billion rubles ($51 million) as a result of illegal arms transfers to Armenia. In response to these charges, Rodionov's letter, dated 28 February, said a Defense Ministry commission had determined that weapons had been transferred to Armenia for free, without authorization by the Russian government. Chief Military Procurator Valentin Panichev told ITAR-TASS an investigation into the transfers was continuing, and refused to speculate on who might be responsible for them. * Scott Parrish

http://www.nisat.org/blackmarket/Caucasus/Armenia/Defense%20ministry%20confirms%20illegal%20arms%20transfer%20to%20Armenia.html

Ok, these look like good sources, do you want to rewrite the section below to take these into account? Put your rewrite under my comment. You don't have to use footnotes, just include the links. - FrancisTyers 18:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, one of the links that Fadix cites above says that both Azerbaijan and Armenia received Russian military support. - FrancisTyers 20:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is from Fadix link:

Post-Soviet Russia, by contrast, supported the Armenian cause, partly because Russian democrats struggling against Soviet bureaucrats in Moscow forged links with the Armenian Nationalist Movement (ANM). Supplies of Russian weapons to the Armenian side, as revealed in spring 1997, amounted to about $1 billion, and included tanks and long-range missiles. They constituted a vital contribution to the Armenian victory.

http://www.conflict-prevention.net/page.php?id=40&formid=73&action=show&surveyid=41&PHPSESSID=5c7f69ae5ba4345ae2bac6a2490f3c2e

Do you think this paragraph needs rewriting? What’s written does not contradict the available sources. Grandmaster 20:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, re-include it, bonus points and kudos if you fill out the citation needed requests with Footnoted references :) - FrancisTyers 20:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the reference to The Washington Times, removing the link to geocities. It’s a reputable newspaper and is a better source than others. The rules don’t say we cannot cite sources that are not available on the Internet. For instance, one of our references is to Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, which none of us ever seen. We should add a link to the official website of the newspaper and point out that the article is available online in their archives. The reference should look something like this:

# The Washington Times. Armenia armed by Russia for battles with Azerbaijan. April 10, 1997. This article is available online in the archives of The Washington Times website.

What do you think, Francis? I could buy this article, but I’m sure they won’t let us publish it here, because they sell it for money and wouldn’t want it to be available for free. Grandmaster 06:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I checked some of the articles you cited, and Igor Radionov is talking about 1994-96, so it can't confirm allegations about 1992-94. So the sentence "This fact was later officially confirmed by Russian Minister of Defense Igor Rodionov in his letter to Aman Tuleyev, Minister of cooperation with CIS countries" need to be rephrased. Moreover, his statement is about a period after the Karabakh war, so I don't think it's relevant to this article at all--I don't think it should be included.

About washington times--I agree, we can use offline sources (actually Wiki encourages), and in general an editor is not required to post it on the web to "prove" its contents (unless he has a pattern of inaccuracy). However, an editor must have read the actual source that he intents to cite. Every editor has the burden of providing a source for a fact that he adds. Whatever source he uses, he cites that source. Which means, to cite Washington times, you need to access the actual article and add the facts directly from the article. I don't think you need to pay the $3--local libraries have copies of major newspapers in microfiche form. When you do it, we will trust that you accurately copied the facts from the article (since you haven't lied before): of course it will be best if you are accurate, since if any future editor chooses to access the article too and discovers inconsistency, it would hurt your credibility. Now, generally we are not required to post copies of the articles, but if you access it online, it's pretty easy to copy the text here, so it might be best to do that (at least for a short time, before we delete it). At the very least, it might be a good idea to copy just the actual paragraph on the talk page from which you take the facts (just to make sure that inaccuracies like Moscow News don't happen).--TigranTheGreat 14:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Full text of Rokhlin’s speech in Russian Duma is available here: Rokhlin Details Arms Supplied to Armenia. He said inter alia: in the period from 1993 through 1996 the Group of Russian Forces in the Transcaucasus transferred an enormous quantity of arms and ammunition to Armenia. So we should amend it to read 1993-1996. As for The Washington Times, I can copy the paragraphs from the article here, but apparently I won’t be able to prove that it was taken from their website. You’ll have to trust me on that, otherwise you’ll have to obtain your own copy of the article. Grandmaster 07:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you say that you read it from the original article, and type the relevant segment, we will trust you, just as I would expect being trusted if I used text from Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia. By the way, the latter (all 13 volumes) is available in every major library at least in the US. It's dark green cover is easily recognizable.--TigranTheGreat 14:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just purchased the full text from The Washington Times archive, and I can e-mail it to you and everybody who wants it. I can post paragraphs from the article here, but don’t want to post the full article because of copyright concerns. Grandmaster 07:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, you don't need to email the article, if we want to get more facts from it, we will purchase it ourselves. If you can, just copy here the relevant paragraphs where you got your facts from. --TigranTheGreat 07:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the first part of the article. I took the facts from this section.

Russia secretly has shipped more than $1 billion worth of arms to Armenia, apparently to be used against pro-Western Azerbaijan and to force the Azeris and their strategic oil reserves into Russia's orbit.

Aman Tuleyev, minister for relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States, has acknowledged that Moscow supplied Armenia with 84 T-72 main battle tanks, 72 heavy howitzers, 24 Scud missiles with eight launchers, 50 armored personnel carriers and millions of rounds of ammunition.

Lev Rokhlin, the chairman of the Defense Committee of the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, told a closed Duma session April 2 that Moscow had shipped $1 billion worth of weapons to the tough, nationalist government of President Levon Ter-Petrosian in Yerevan. His report was similar to Mr. Tuleyev's acknowledgment.

Between 1992 and early 1994, when the conflict was at its height, Russian heavy transport aircraft were said to have ferried 1,300 tons of ammunition across the Caucasus to the Armenian capital. Most of the tanks were flown in aboard giant Antonov planes from the city of Akhtubinsk.

The Azeris say Russia also supplied 1,000 hand-fired Strela-2 and Strela-3 anti-aircraft missiles, which were moved by ship across the Caspian Sea, then sent overland through Iran to Armenia. Iran has denied playing any role.

Western intelligence sources said the weapons played a crucial role in Armenia's seizure of large areas of Azerbaijan, which created a million refugees, more than from any other conflict in Europe since World War II.

Although Russia's military support for Armenia in its long conflict with Azerbaijan has been well-known, the extent of the arms transfers came as a surprise. Grandmaster 11:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to edit this section as follows:

Extensive Russian military support was exposed by the Head of the Standing Commission of the Russian Duma, General Lev Rokhlin, who was subsequently killed by his wife in unknown circumstances. He had claimed that munitions (worth 1 bil. US dollars) had been illegally transferred to Armenia during 1993-1996 . This fact was later officially confirmed by Russian Minister of Defense Igor Rodionov in his letter to Aman Tuleyev, Minister of cooperation with CIS countries . According to The Washington Times, Western intelligence sources said the weapons played a crucial role in Armenia's seizure of large areas of Azerbaijan. Russia's military support for Armenia was aimed to force pro-Western Azerbaijan and its strategic oil reserves into Russia's orbit .

1 NISAT. Rokhlin Details Arms Supplied to Armenia.

2 The Moscow Times. Russia Probes Armenian Arms Transfers. March 14, 1997.

3 The Washington Times. Armenia armed by Russia for battles with Azerbaijan. April 10, 1997. This article is available online in the archives of The Washington Times website. Grandmaster 08:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed one “citation needed” mark, as the whole section was taken from PACE report and the reference is already there. Grandmaster 12:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just try to make it as NPOV as you can when you add, then we will work on it. A few suggestion: avoid words that seem to give weight to one position over another (as explained in the Wiki guideline on Words to avoid)--"confirm," "exposed" fall into that category. The sentence "Russia's military support for Armenia was aimed to force ...." is stated as an opinion (note the "apparently" word) in the Washington Times article, so it should be attributed to whoever stated the opinion. Radionov didn't say 1 billion, and he talks about after the war ("last 2 years," article is written in 1997, so it's 1995-97 or at best 94-96). So "94-96" does not confirm "1 bln in 93-96." And I am still not sure how 94-96 is relevant. The point you are trying to make is that the weapons sale helped win the war. If all Radionov is confirming is 94-96, then it does not support your point.--TigranTheGreat 14:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are just referring to the opinion of The Washington Times, who refers to Western intelligence sources. It’s quite NPOV. Grandmaster 08:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

New version:

Extensive Russian military support was exposed by the Head of the Standing Commission of the Russian Duma, General Lev Rokhlin, who was subsequently killed by his wife in unknown circumstances. He had claimed that munitions (worth 1 bil. US dollars) had been illegally transferred to Armenia during 1993-1996 . Russian Minister of Defense Igor Rodionov in his letter to Aman Tuleyev, Minister of cooperation with CIS countries, said a Defense Ministry commission had determined that a large quantity of Russian weapons, including 84 T-72 tanks and 50 armored personnel carriers, were illegally transferred to Armenia in 1994 – 96 for free and without authorization by the Russian government. According to The Washington Times, Western intelligence sources said the weapons played a crucial role in Armenia's seizure of large areas of Azerbaijan. Russia's military support for Armenia was apparently aimed to force pro-Western Azerbaijan and its strategic oil reserves into Russia's orbit .

1 NISAT. Rokhlin Details Arms Supplied to Armenia.

2 NISAT. Defense ministry confirms illegal arms transfer to Armenia

3 The Washington Times. Armenia armed by Russia for battles with Azerbaijan. April 10, 1997. This article is available online in the archives of The Washington Times website.

All right, now, do you swear on your balls that the passage quoted by you is taken directly from the Washington Times article?--TigranTheGreat 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Grandmaster, added all this back to the article does this mean I can add the Chechen and Afghan mujahedeen assistance to Azerbaijan back? I also have a copy of an article regarding al-quaeda assistance, I will add it with an online source.--Eupator 15:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See here I think Fadix found some sources too. You might want to rewrite the part and present it before you reinsert it. - FrancisTyers 15:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few more sources: About the chechen terrorist: http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav051402.shtml. Also, here is a quote from a Washington Post article (4/21/94) reprinted on the NKR page (http://www.nkrusa.org/nk_conflict/islamic_mercenaries.shtml):

Last year, Azerbaijan hired more than 1,000 guerrilla fighters from Afghanistan's radical prime minister, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Meanwhile, Turkey and Iran supplied trainers, and the republic also was aided by 200 Russian officers who taught basic tactics to Azerbaijani soldiers last November in the northwest city of Barda, according to Azerbaijani officers

It gives numbers, which is important. I checked, the article is on the WP page. I am cheap, but feel free to pay $3, get the actual article, and cite it. Also, it should be in any public or college library in the US in microfiche form, if you are cheap too but not as lazy as me:)--TigranTheGreat 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe we have more than enough. I'll start writing on my lunch break.--Eupator 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as a background note on Gulbudin Hekmatar, he is a major terrorist. There is an article on him here: http://www.memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=128705 (with Turkey's current PM, pic taken back in early 90's). He is in Terrorist Knowledge Base database (I believe published by the US gov't): http://www.tkb.org/KeyLeader.jsp?memID=5934. A real badass. Also, here is a TKB profile on Basayev as well, another major terrorist (http://www.tkb.org/KeyLeader.jsp?memID=4157). Both helped Azerbaijan.--TigranTheGreat 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Basayev wasn’t a terrorist at that time. He was absolutely unknown to anybody. And Hekmatyar was a close ally of Washington, when he fought against Soviets. He became a “terrorist” later, when started supporting Taliban regime. Grandmaster 12:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

NK's Status--making it more NPOV

Referring to NK as a "disputed territory in southern Caucasus" actually is not unacceptable in western sources.. For example, BBC says "Parliamentary elections have been held in the disputed south Caucasus enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which seceded from Azerbaijan in 1991." Same with : "There is a brand new road of smooth tarmac — unheard of in the potholed Caucasus — that winds through sharp mountains into the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh." These sources stick to the facts--other countries recognize it as part of Azerbaijan, while local Armenians view it as independent--without taking sides. I think this the best approach to adhere to the neutrality requirement of Misplaced Pages--we don't assert POV's (even UN's pov), we report them. In fact Wiki guidelines encourage to resolve POV disputes by sticking to facts and letting the readers decide which POV to choose. I modified Eupator's addition with these considerations to make it more NPOV. --TigranTheGreat 16:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I already debated about this issue, if you search through the history of this article, you'll see that the older versions section about the disupted nature was a better alternative, and Tabib had no problem with it. The thing is that even in UN resolutions regarding the occupied territories, they seem to expclude Karabakh and rather consider it as disputed. We should not forget that there is a difference between integral part, and an enclave or protectorate of..., Azerbaijan changed its statue on its sole decision to make of it as an integral part and Karabakh refused, and this is also one of the reasons why it is considered as disputed and not only because a self proclamed republic was declared. Fad (ix) 19:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No objections from my side. PS: Haven't forgotten about your response to my queries, will get back to you today most likely.--Eupator 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no rush :) We are all busy people, you don't need to respond at all, I just decided to give you useful information.--TigranTheGreat 16:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You cannot make changes like that without prior discussion. NK is internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan’s territory, this is official position of UNO, Europe, USA, Russia and everybody else. That’s a fact that should be reflected. Sorry, Francis, but there can’t be any alternative view, we should state only facts here. Grandmaster 20:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my rather crude attempt at WP:NPOV. Please see WP:V, we state what other people say, the threshold for Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.

1. Nagorno-Karabakh is a region of Azerbaijan, in the South Caucasus.
2. Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed territory in the South Caucasus.
3. Nagorno-Karabakh is alternately characterised as either a region of Azerbaijan or a disputed territory in the South Caucasus .
4. Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed territory in the South Caucasus recognised by the United Nations as part of Azerbaijan.

Some ideas, feel free to add to them. - FrancisTyers 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that NK is not recognized by anyone, the fact is NK can do whatever they want without Azerbaijan's consent ergo DE FACTO independent. Anything else is simply a lie.

Look at the respective pages for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two de facto independent republics not recognized by anyone.--Eupator 20:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

We cannot include false info, regardless of what some people say. We state only known facts, and the generally accepted fact is that NK is part of Azerbaijan. We simply cannot ignore this fact, as some people just tried to do. And it’s a very easily verifiable fact. Grandmaster 20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The sentence says within Azerbaijan, ie: internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan. However, Azerbaijan has 0% control over NK therefore the region is de facto independent. It's not "some people" saying something. It's a fact.--Eupator 20:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you gonna keep reverting the current info on NK, I will have to apply for arbitration. Let’s get an agreement here before changing the current version. Grandmaster 20:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the international law, it’s an integral part of Azerbaijan, i.e. region of Azerbaijan. That’s a fact. The article states de-facto status below. Grandmaster 20:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what de facto means. I have no objection regarding arbitration.--Eupator 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I know pretty good what it means, but you cannot remove the fact that it is a region of Azerbaijan, and that’s an internationally recognized fact. Grandmaster 20:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"within Azerbaijan" already states that it's a region within Azerbaijan.--Eupator 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

See Resolutions of UN Security Council, they say “Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan Republic”. Grandmaster 20:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Say that without removing the fact that it's a de facto independent republic.--Eupator 21:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia article says: "It is formally an autonomous republic within Georgia but is de facto independent, although not recognised as such internationally." IMO this is a perfectly arranged phrasing: first thing said is its official status, second - de facto status, third - it is internationally unrecognized. mikka (t) 20:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--Eupator 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should really be something similar. Grandmaster 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I trust, then that you will do it peacefully and unprotecting the article. Please also notice the brevity of this intro sentence, to prevent accusations of POV pushing. Later, down the text, one may go in any possible details. mikka (t) 21:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete my posts? Fad (ix) 21:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's think about this abit more, NPOV is non-negotiable, so our goal should be making it as neutral as possible, which takes precedence over reaching a solution that temporarily "satisfies" people.

About mikkalai's suggestion ("It is formally an autonomous republic within Georgia but is de facto independent, although not recognised as such internationally.") There are a few problems with applying this here. First, NKR declared independence, so they dont' view it as autonomous any more, and Azerbaijan abolished the autonomy, so they don't view it as autonomous either. Second, "formally" is disputed and should not be asserted as fact. Armenia and NK have made their position clear on this--they say "NK was never legally part of independent Azerbaijan." This is their legal basis--that's what they are using to argue why NK's independence is legally warranted. You may disagree with them, but this makes "formally" disputed. As always, and as encouraged by Wiki, we should avoid labels that invite POV disputes and stick with facts. What we mean here is that it's internationally recognized (there are still some issues with that phrase, but for now I will leave them be) as part of Azerbaijan--this is a fact that nobody disputes. It's about "what people say" ("international guys say it's part of Az"), which is what we include.

A related problem with "formally" is that it's a label that may mean different things for different readers. If a reader gets the impression that "it's legally part of Az," well, that is disputed and Misplaced Pages can't assert it. If he gets the impression "internationally recognized," this is a fact--so let's just use this fact instead of a label.

The other problem is this: "formally/internationally part of Azerb." and "No state has recognized independence" basically says the same thing. And to repeat the same thing in the same place, we need a reason, otherwise we are overemphasizing. Now, I don't think we should delete either, but let's provide a reason why keep the second part. Here is my proposition:

"It is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but is de facto independent. The local Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10th, 1991 and declared the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) (Maybe the prior sentence can be made briefer). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any state."

In other words--we first give both sides of the status--internationally part of Azerbaijan, and de facto. Then, we give a brief explanation as to how these 2 statuses came about--they declared independence, and noone recognized.

Now, Grandmaster, I understand that UN (though again I have reservations about this, but ok), US, and other states view it as part of Azerbaijan. But this is their view, and view is a view, and we never assert views, be it from Azerbaijan, UN, or the Almighty God,--we report them. This is perfectly explained not only in main NPOV page, but it's supplemental page on borderline cases--we don't talk about the world, we talk about the talk about the world. Now, if you wanna say the international guys recognize it as part of Azerbaijan, be my guest, but don't assert that view as fact.

Generally, arbitration is the *last* resort. The best way is to try to talk, offer suggestions, if a revert war results, take a break, think, then try to talk again. If this doesn't work, it's best to try non-binding mediation. If this fails, then we go to arbitration, and if that doesn't work, we call an ambulance (just kidding). If nothing else, this assures that we are clear on the different issues, and we have streamlined whatever arguments we got.

Finally, emotions run high in discusions like this, but the following might be a helpful way for everyone to relax and enjoy the experience. We all need to realize that we are not fighting here for Karabakh, we are not at the negotiotion table in Stratsburg, we do not determine the ultimate status of Karabakh. Our elected leaders are eating our tax money anyway, so we might just as well let them do the work that they are being paid for. Let's be honest, we are not fighters, we are just geeks, whose job is to contribute information in a public knowledge base.--TigranTheGreat 04:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The original foreword read:

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region of Azerbaijan, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. The region is predominantly ethnic Armenian, and is under Armenian military control. The local Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10th, 1991 and declared the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world.

It made sense and was factually accurate. What it reads now about de-facto independent republic within Azerbaijan does not make any sense. We state only generally known facts here, and not our perceptions or wishes. That’s the requirement of the polices. Karabakh is internationally recognized as a region of Azerbaijan (see 4 UN Security Council Resolutions), so that’s what the article should state. It’s legally or formally part of Azerbaijan Republic, and it’s a known fact, reiterated many times by leading countries of the world and all existing international organizations. We can add that Armenia does not support this view, but at the same time being the member of international organizations it agreed to recognize territorial integrity of other member states, including Azerbaijan, which was accepted to those organizations within the borders of Azerbaijan SSR, whether someone likes it or not. If you want to include de-facto status, you can add the words about de-facto independence before the name of the self-proclaimed state. But de-facto and de-jure are two different things anyway. Also we should keep the words about sovereign status not being recognized by any country or international organization in the world. For instance, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not recognized by international organizations, but is recognized by Turkey. In our case, sovereignty is not recognized by anyone, it’s a fact that should be reflected. Grandmaster 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The prior statement might have been accurate, but so is the proposed one. NK is de facto independent--it is cited in reputable sources, Azerb. has no control over it, even CoE refers to the local authorities as "de facto authorities." It is internationally recognized as part of Azerb., so that's accurate too. The problem is that we dont' just care about accuracy but about neutrality as well, and the new version has the advantage of being neutral. "Part of Azerbaijan" may be UN's position, but it is a position nonetheless, and we don't assert positions. You are not a legal expert, neither is any of us, the question of whether NK is "Legally part of Azerbaijan" is a complex legal issue that's disputed. If UN's opinion is that it's legally part of Azerbaijan, fine, state it as the majority opinion, and the new NPOV version reflects just that by "Internationally recognized" phrase. Just because Armenia recognizes territorial integrity of other states doesn't necessarily mean it recognizes NK as legally part of Azerbaijan. Armenia's official position is that NK has never been part of independent Azeraijan, so NK's independence does not violate independent Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Whether this is right or wrong is once again a legal issue that you and me are not qualified to decide. We state the positions, maintain neutrality, and let the reader decide which side to choose.--TigranTheGreat 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What in your opinion de facto independent republic within Azerbaijan means? It makes no sense at all. If it is independent, then why is it within Azerbaijan? How don’t you understand that new version is not neutral, it’s simply pointless. There are facts that should be reflected. 1. Karabakh is a region of Azerbaijan in accordance with international law. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that. It remains part of Azerbaijan until it is recognized internationally as part of another state or an independent state. I know it's maybe hard for you to put up with this fact, but you need to. 2. The region is currently out of control of Azeri government. The article already touches upon de-facto independence in other section. It says below: Today, Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent state, calling itself the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. What’s the point in repeating the same thing many times? If you want to add the word de-facto, add it somewhere before the name of this self-proclaimed entity, but you should not delete the words about it being formally a region of Azerbaijan, as it is against the policy of Wiki. It’s not neutral to deny well-known facts. Grandmaster 20:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Francis. I don’t think you should move Eagle’s opinion from this section, it’s part of this discussion. Grandmaster 10:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grandmaster, I thought carefully what to do with Eagle's comments. Realistically they add nothing to the discussion, they are also a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Comments like Also who is Mikkalai that he locks the page for changes, and if these changes last were made by armenians. mikkalai or nikkalai himself is armenian, why such a right should be given to them. What he did was another face of armenian internet terrorism occuring in Misplaced Pages. should really be stricken from the record, deleted. They cause clutter and don't contribute to a harmonious editing environment.

However, in order to be impartial I have, instead of deleting his comments, moved them to their own section. If anyone choses to respond they may respond there. If you think he has something worthwhile to say and wish to paraphrase him here, go ahead, but I couldn't discern anything that seemed like a reasoned argument, only fulmination and invective. I am of course willing to reconsider, if either you or he can make a good case that he has something beneficial to add to the debate then by all means do it. As always I am available by email or on my talk page. I think that the majority of people here have been very civil and patient in these discussions so I don't see why we need to tolerate any deliberately inflamatory comments. - FrancisTyers 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If Eagle wants to enjoy the full benefits of participating in discussions, he will need to learn to refrain from insults and slanders.--TigranTheGreat 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I will make personal comments as long as I armenians make such personal comments about me and my behavour. Nobody has right or any better than me to judge me, this is especially true for armenian terrorists and fundamentalists.

Secondly, somebody tries to change the introduction the Nagorno-Karabakh page to such words as though is de-facto independent. I first of all would invite you to consider what does this independence word means. There is one meaning of independence and its freedom. The freedom of Nagorno-Karabakh and the reinging fundamentlist, terrorist regime temporarily occupying those territories are fed as pets by the Armenian diaspora and armenia, thus having zero economic, social, political and military freedom. As such there can't be words such as independence. de-facto word itself is also questionable. Self claims regime and its proponents can argue that it is de-facto something, but the fact of the matter and reality is that it is not recognized by anybody including Armenia. How such a territory can be de-facto something. As to the issue that the territories are temporarily out of Azerbaijans' control, vast areas of Columbia can't be controlled by the Columbian government, vast areas of Afganistan can't be controlled by the de-0juro governments of Afganistan, vast areas of Mexico are used for drug traficking and can't be controlled by the government, vast areas of many countries over years haven't been controlled by the de-juro governments. But in none of these cases those territories were identified or claimed to be independent or de -facto something as many armenian fundamentalists argue. Here one also mention the example of Nepal, Iraq, Greece+Turkey (many Turksih Greek disputed islands are not controlled by any governemnt - what those islands are de-facto independent), Bolivia, not to mention many African states.

So I think there should be an end to armenian absurd on this web page. Now they want to extend their absurd to the introduction of the web page. Francis I call you to the duty and this is the right time to lock that part of the web page for edition and keep it in the previous format as a rgeion within Nagorno Karabakh. I reject any changes made by armenians and others changes the first statement of the web page. Or call for arbitration. --Eagle of the Caucasus 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your personal attack, without it I don't think your comment qualifies for being moved. Firstly, some definitions:

independant: Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.

de facto: Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially established: a de facto government

Secondly Misplaced Pages has many articles on de facto independant states. I invite you to peruse the list at: List of unrecognised countries. Locking this page to prevent further editing would be a misuse of my administrative powers. - FrancisTyers 22:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what BBC news analysis says in Q/A about Nagorno -Karabkh's status. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/analysis/72268.stm

"Nagorno Karabakh is a fertile, mountainous area of 4,400 square kilometers in the southern Caucasus situated inside what is internationally recognized as Azerbaijan. The name itself, a Russian-Turkish-Persian compound, is proof of the region's complex history and means 'Mountainous Black Garden.' The Karabakh Armenians call the region Artsakh or 'Strong Forest.'"

Also I need to note the Azerbaijani is part of the Turkic etnicity and language, thereby meaning the Azerbaijani origin of the word "Karabagh". the persion origin is quite questionable as the "bagh" is original Azerbaijani word.

Here is waht the Columbia Univeristy Press Encycolopedia says about Karabakh.

"Nagorno-Karabakh (nəgôr'nə-kərəbäkh) , region (1990 pop. 192,000), 1,699 sq mi (4,400 sq km), SE Azerbaijan, between the Caucasus and the Karabakh range. Xankändi (the capital, formerly Stepanakert) and Shusha are the chief towns. The region has numerous mineral springs as well as deposits of lithographic stone, marble, and limestone. Farming and grazing are important and there are various light industries. The population of the region is mainly Armenian, with Azeri, Russian, and Kurdish minorities; more than half the pre-1990 Azeri population when Armenian nationalists began their uprising in the early 1990s."

When was this written? - FrancisTyers 22:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"A part of Caucasian Albania called Artsakh, the area was taken by Armenia in the 1st cent. A.D. and by the Arabs in the 7th cent. The region was renamed Karabakh (or Karabagh) in the 13th cent. In the early 17th cent., it passed to the Persians, who permitted local autonomy, and in the mid-18th cent. the Karabakh khanate was formed. Karabakh alone was ceded to Russia in 1805; the khanate passed to the Russians by the Treaty of Gulistan in 1813. In 1822 the Karabakh khanate was dissolved and the area became a Russian province. The Nagorno-Karabakh (Mountain-Karabakh) Autonomous Region was established in 1923. The autonomous status of the region was abolished in 1989. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the region became a focal point in a war between the republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan, as Armenian nationalists demanded the inclusion of the region in Armenia. By the end of 1993, Armenians had won control of most of the region; some 30,000 died in the fighting. An unofficial cease-fire was reached in 1994 with Russian negotiation. Nagorno-Karabakh's parliament declared (1996) the region independent, a move not recognized internationally. A final political resolution to the situation has not been negotiated, but the region is now effectively part of Armenia."

at http://www.answers.com/topic/nagorno-karabakh

Answers.com is a Misplaced Pages mirror. - FrancisTyers 22:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

From Somaliland, a de facto state within Somalia which has no recognition, I think this mirrors the NK situation better than the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or Kosovo. - FrancisTyers 17:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Somaliland (Somali: Soomaaliland) is an unrecognized de facto state located in northwest Somalia in the Horn of Africa. In May 1991, Somaliland people declared an independent Republic of Somaliland that now includes six of the eighteen administrative regions of Somalia, roughly the region between Ethiopia, Djibouti , Gulf of Aden and Somalia, an area of about 137,600 square kilometres. The capital of Somaliland is Hargeisa.

Page protected

Protected against revert war in the intro. Please take a look how the intro is done in other unrecognized states. mikka (t) 20:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected.

Number of Azeris killed in Armenia

The figures are available. 216 Azeris were killed in Armenia. See de Waals book.

Significantly, the emergency regime was installed in Yerevan - although there was no ethnic violence there - but not in Armenian mixed-population districts, from where the Azeri population began to be expelled. In most cases, the expulsion was organized by Armenian CP leaders and other officials. Azeri writers put the number of those expelled at 165,000 and those killed at 216, including 57 women, 5 infants and 18 children of different ages. Armenians dispute these figures.

Alexei Zverev. Contested borders in the Caucasus

Grandmaster 13:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No they are NOT. According to "azeri writers". Try again.--Eupator 14:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You’ll have to accept that, sorry. I’ve been recently explained by Armenian editors that you don’t have to explain or discriminate sources, you just have to cite them and say that according to such and such source such and such thing happened. You don’t need to add some pretext or anything, just state the fact and make a reference to your source. In this case it’s the same source as the one where Tigran took the number of 100 dead in Sumgait from, it’s library of the US congress.

It says: A similar attack on Azerbaijanis occurred in the Armenian town of Spitak. Large numbers of refugees left Armenia and Azerbaijan as pogroms began against the minority populations of the respective countries.

So we need to add references to LOC and Russian Trud newspaper, if you need number, you say that Azeri sources say the number of Azeris killed in Armenia is 216. That’s it. Grandmaster 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You can make the number 100000 for all I care, as long as you state that it's according to Azeris and not some neutral or reputable sources.--Eupator 17:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Armenian sources provide different numbers of Azeris killed in Armenia. We can cite them too. Grandmaster 17:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There you go.--Eupator 18:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

While you now understand the cite your source concept, there is still one thing you seem to ignore. This entry was above all about Nagorno Karabakh, which was transformed to the coverage of the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the rest about the history of the region. And now, the rest will be compleated with casulties of Azeris in Armenia. I just hope that the plight of the Azeris in Iran or Eastern Turkey will not be what follows. What is said about the institutions in Karabakh, the court system, the education system, the loans etc. what does it say about the comapgnies, the investments? Don't you think that it would be more relevent to have those things included in the article than starting to cite the Azeris casulties in Armenia? Fad (ix) 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think anybody is interested in the court or education system in Nagorno-Karabakh. The world does not recognize it. PACE declared the last election there illegal, as Azeri population could not participate in them. The companies and investments are also illegal, since its de-jure part of Azerbaijan, and any investments should be coordinated with Azeri government. You can add such info as well, but in my opinion people come here mainly for the information about the conflict. As for the numbers, it was Eupator who asked for them, and I could not deprive him of this information. Grandmaster 19:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that if we have information on number of Armenians killed, we need information on number of Azeris killed in order to be WP:NPOV. I also agree with Fadix that the page does weigh heavily on the conflict. I think that is unavoidable, perhaps a disambiguation page might be appropriate? We could have an article for the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and an article for the History and conflict. Or perhaps have an article for Nagorno-Karabakh war (or whatever the official name is in English) and then have a smaller section of this article {{main}} 'd. Just some ideas, I'm sure we'd all welcome other constructive suggestions. We should be very careful not to create a POV fork though. - FrancisTyers 19:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A further point, I think people are interested in the government of Karabakh, the Geography and all the other stuff that comes in a normal country article. - FrancisTyers 19:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a country, this is a region of a country. One can create as many articles as he wants, but I really see no point in doing that. You can make a section within this article and dedicate it to legal or any other system of this self-proclaimed regime, if you really need to. Grandmaster 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Enclave means a country or a part of a country within the boundaries of another. Its statue as an enclave is accepted and is not disputed from other parties than Azerbaijan. Karabakh government has international recognition to recieve aid packages independently from Azerbaijan or Armenia and as an enclave. And even during Soviet rules, it was an Autonomous Oblast, which means that Azerbaijan had no more control than an administrative territorial division, Azerbaijan role was meant to be not more than Karabakh being its protectorate. It is a semi recognized nation. Fad (ix) 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We have an article on Wales and Tennessee, both regions of countries and both have History, Government and Geography sections. I mean come on, how disputed could a section describing physical geography be :) The Somaliland article which is also a de facto state has information on Geography, Economy, History and Regions etc. - FrancisTyers 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Make separate articles on geography, economy, etc. They should be line with NPOV policy anyway. I’m just afraid that would start new edit wars, therefore it might be better to have everything in one place. Grandmaster 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is not Africa and somaliland can't be a comparison to Nagorno-Karabakh. Secondly, this place is not country and as I said in my note above, the fact government does not control the territory temporarily does not qaulify it the de-facto status. Stop making this page pro-armenian. I reject Francis proposal and proposal by other armenians to chnage intro and add other sections. --Eagle of the Caucasus 22:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution :) I specifically chose Somaliland because, like NKR it is a de facto independant state and not under the control of the parent state (in Somalilands case, Somalia, in NKR's case, Azerbaijan). NKR has a functioning government, like Somaliland. Another similarity is that neither state (Somaliland, nor NKR) have recognition from any other country in the world. The main difference is that Somalia does not have a functioning government whereas Azerbaijan does, and the fact that iirc no ethnic groups were expelled from Somalia. Taking into account these similarities and differences, I think we can conclude that Somaliland is a more similar example than the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Kosovo. If you disagree that the situation in Somaliland is roughly comparable to the situation in NKR with respect to recognition and de facto status, please provide evidence for your claims. You are welcome to reject my proposals, however, can you offer a different compromise proposal that takes into account the WP:NPOV policy? As a further note, could I ask you to outline your concerns regarding adding a section of the article on the Geography of the area? - FrancisTyers 22:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What about this? : Nagorno-Karabakh is an Armenian enclave and disputed territory within Azerbaijan, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku. The region is predominantly ethnic Armenian, and is under Armenian military control. The local Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan in 1991 and self-declared the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world. Fad (ix) 23:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with "within Az" stated as fact as upposed to majority opinion. It's disputed, Armenia's official position, and that of NKR is that it's not within Azerbaijan. Also, if it's de facto independent, it can't be part of Azerbaijan. Now, if we mean that it's surrounded by Azeri territory (i.e. enclave) then we need to clarify that. If we mean that it's internationally recognized as an enclave within Az., again, fine, it's NPOV, states an undisputed fact.--TigranTheGreat 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Fadix's version is totally unacceptable. It completely ignores the fact that Karabakh is legally part of Azerbaijan, and all international organizations refer to it as a region of Azerbaijan. You cannot deny the facts that are general knowledge on the grounds that they are not NPOV. The facts are facts, whether they correspond with you vision of the things or not. I suggest we keep everything as it is. The original version existed for a long time and was agreed by previous editors from both sides. It was acceptable to both parties before, so why did you decide to change it now?

And also, could you please explain what exactly is wrong with the current version of intro? As I noticed, you try to remove the words about NK being a region of Azerbaijan on the grounds that Armenians don’t share this view, while the rest of the world does. I already pointed out 4 UN SC Resolutions which refer to NK as Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan Republic. We should accept the established point of view. That’s what the Misplaced Pages policy requires. See Misplaced Pages:No original research:

Disputes over how established a view is

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up.

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Grandmaster 13:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Er? I don't see how my version is unacceptable? It stat it is within Azerbaijan. Besides, Karabakh doesn't even use Azeris currency, never has. It has its own self administrated government. And no, you are wrong when you claim that Karabakh is undisputly recognized as Azerbaijan territory. Its statue as an autonomous republic withing Azerbaijan is recognized by the very large majority of the sources. I have with myself the DVD collection of the French encyclopedia Universalis (which partly is holded by Britannica), and it claims Karabakh to be an autonomous republic within Azerbaijan. Besides, you should take a look at the other articles like Somaliland, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and see their introduction. You refuse a similar introduction for this cases. If Universalis or other such encyclopedias present first the information of it to be an autonomous republic, I wonder why Misplaced Pages can not. Also, consider that it declared its indendence, like the other cases and that the question here is about Karabakh and that you can not consider a regions position in the article regarding that region as a fringe. I believe you are misinterpreting there. Also, while Armenia has not officially recognized it to not start a war, it still has named it an Armenian Nahank over a year ago. Get this translated by an Armenian and you'll see that. It is true that it is officially part of Azerbaijan, but in reality, neither does it use the Azeris cuurency, neither has it the same government, neither is it administrated in any way by Azerbaijan. Right now, here is where I am heading as a version: Nagorno-Karabakh is an autonomous republic officially within Azerbaijan but de facto independent, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku. The region is predominantly ethnic Armenian, and is under Armenian military control. The local Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan in 1991 and self-declared the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world. Fad (ix) 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It’s wrong since Azerbaijan abolished autonomy, so it’s not a republic within Azerbaijan. It never was, by the way. It was an Autonomous Oblast (province). So your French encyclopedia does not appear to be pretty accurate. But anyway, the rules require to base our article on the established view, so can you say that the view of NK being a de-facto independent republic within Azerbaijan is an established view? It’s not, as it is supported by a minority of sources. At the same time I can cite plenty of sources claiming NK is a region of Azerbaijan republic, including UNO, PACE, governments of most countries of the world, etc. So which view should prevail in this article? Grandmaster 06:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is from PACE document:

5. The conflict concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh region is really a conflict between two principles: territorial integrity and self-determination. On the one hand, the borders of Azerbaijan were internationally recognised at the time of the country being recognised as independent state in 1991. The territory of Azerbaijan included the Nagorno-Karabakh region. On the other hand, the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh (the majority even before “ethnic cleansing” in 1992-1994) claim the right of self-determination. They are supported by Armenia.

6. According to the information given to me, Armenians from Armenia had participated in the armed fighting over the Nagorno-Karabakh region besides local Armenians from within Azerbaijan. Today, Armenia has soldiers stationed in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the surrounding districts, people in the region have passports of Armenia, and the Armenian government transfers large budgetary resources to this area.

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

This is from PACE Resolution # 1416

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

So in the view of the above resolution NK is not even a de-facto independent state, but is a territory, de facto annexed to another state. This should be reflected in the intro as well. Please note that this not an opinion of a certain person, but a resolution passed by the European countries.

Grandmaster 10:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The resolution does not specifically say that Armenia de facto annexed NK, it is making a general statement that independence can only be achieved peacefully and not through de facto annexation. Legal opinions usually state general statements of law, and then talk about the facts at hand. Again, we are trying to make an interpretation that we are not qualified to make. In fact, the resolution does state that the NK Armenians established their own government, which is not recognized. It puts quotation marks around "government" because otherwise it could be interpreted as a recognition of the government. But the fact that it states that they established a government, and talks further about that government, suggests that the government factually exists, albeit not recognized. This is the definition of "de facto independent" Check the Wiki article on the phrase de facto: "a nation with de facto independence is one that is not recognized by other nations or by international bodies, even though it has its own government that exercises absolute control over its claimed territory" Also, check that the CoE report (the one that also made this resolution) refers to the government of NK as "de facto authorities" on several occasions, such as in the sentence "The official line of Armenia and the N-K de facto authorities is that Azerbaijan had the stronger army..." Note that here Armenia and de facto NK authorities are mentioned separately. All of this shows that NK's de facto independent status (which is a reality) is not contradicted by the general statement that "independence can't be achieved by de facto annexation." --TigranTheGreat 14:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I disagree with the prior version because it asserts the majority view that "Karabakh is part of/within Azerbaijan," which is against the NPOV policies--we don't assert a view, we attribute it--"internationally recognized as part of/within" states the fact that it's the international community that holds this view--it's true, and it doesn't assert, thus it's neutral.

Regarding your quote from No original research policy: even if you were right about Armenia's viewpoint being tiny, the policy is not about assertion of viewpoints--it's about inclusion. We never assert views, whether it's majority or minority--we always attribute them: this is the central premise of WP:NPOV policy, also explained in its borderline cases (we talk about the talk of the world, not about the world). BUT, if a viewpoint is unpublished, then it's held by a tiny portion of people, then we don't include them. Remember, your quote is taken from the original research policy page. The prohibition against original research states that when you write something here, it has to be published, it can't come from your head, or from your friends. The very segment where you copied your quote from explains this: "The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article" The policy further explains that if a view is held by a very small number of people, then it's not published, and since we only write here things that are published, we can't include unpublished views. STILL, when we include a published, established view, the NPOV policy still applies and says that we can't assert it. Say, for example, I and my friends had the view that NK is part of Persia. Now, even Persians don't say this, so this this view is virtually unknown and not published anywhere. Therefore I couldn't include it.

So, if you were correct about your quote applying to Armenia's POV, then we would not even include it anywhere in the article, not even in the form of "Armenia thinks" etc. NPOV still would require that the "part/within Azerb." be properly attributed to the majority opinion. Remember, even the segment where you quoted from recongizes that we do include minority opinions, and state that the majority opinion is, well, the majority opinion ("provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority").

However, your quote does not apply to Armenian position since, obviously, it does need to be included. Armenia's (and NKR's) official position is that NKR was never legally part of independent Azerbaijan, and its declaration of independence was in accordance with the international law. This POV of Armenia is published and included in every thorough analysis of the conflict. It's on the official website of Armenia's Foreign Ministry (and NKR). For example, this is the Foreign Minister's statement from the website:

In addition to the duration and depth of its self-determination, Nagorny Karabakh’s situation is further reinforced and made complete by the following facts. First, it seceded legally, according to the laws of the day. Second, the territory in question has never been within the jurisdiction of independent Azerbaijan.

http://www.armeniaforeignministry.am/pr_06/060127_the_limits_of_leadership.html

The following is from a international legal analysis adopted by the Foreign Ministry:

Nagorno-Karabagh has never been part of independent Azerbaijan... This study has demonstrated that the independence of Nagorno-Karabagh was conducted in conformity with the requirements of internal and international legal norms. ...In 1991, Nagorno-Karabagh initiated the process of its independence in compliance with the USSR domestic legislation. ...After the collapse of the soviet Union, two states were formed: the Republic of Azerbaijan on the territory of the Azerbaijan SSR and the Republic of the Nagorno-Karabagh Autonomous Region. ... The establishment of both these states has similar legal basis... The establishment of the State of Nagorno-Karabagh was carried out in conformity with the principles and attributes required by international law for the creation of an independent state.

http://www.armeniaforeignministry.am/fr/nk/legalaspects/legalaspect_text.pdf

Now, you may not agree with this view, but it is nonetheless the well known official position of Armenia and NKR--that NKR legally has never been and is not part of Azerbaijan. And by the way, it's not just Armenians holding the view that NK has never legally been part of independent Azerbaijan. Any analysis focusing on the right of self-determination of NKR adopts this view. For example, Staravoitova's article on USIP, which you consider pro-Armenian and I see it as a view published on a reputable site by a reputable expert, states that "Moreover, Nagorno-Karabakh had actually seceded from Azerbaijan before the latter became an independent state and a member of the United Nations."

This view that NK seceded from Azerbaijan legally is also expressed in an legal analysis by US international legal experts, prepared by Public International Law and Policy Group and New England School of Law's Center for International Law & Policy. Fadix posted a link to it a while ago. Only one out of 8 experts is Armenian, and even he has nothing to do with Armenia--he has held prominent positions with the government in the US. But the point is that the view is not just Armenia's. Here is some excerpts from the analysis:

"for Karabagh, independence was declared not from the Soviet Union but from Azerbaijan. This act fully complied with existing law. Indeed, the 1990 Soviet law titled "Law of the USSR Concerning the Procedure of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR," provides that the secession of a Soviet republic from the body of the USSR allows an autonomous region and compactly settled minority regions in the same republic's territory also to trigger its own process of independence." ... Nagorno Karabagh has a right of selfdetermination, including the attendant right to independence, according to the criteria recognized under international law set forth above.

http://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf

Also, note that the importance of a view is not just about numbers but also about its significance. Armenia is a side of the dispute, and while the UN and COE do not agree with its view, they consider it as part of the negotiations. It is therefore a significant minority view. If Armenia's position was in fact insignificant, the international community wouldn't deal with it, they would just send troops to occupy NK just as they did with Iraq and Kuwait. Therefore, under the "original research policy," it needs to be included, and under the NPOV policy, both views (international and Armenian) need to be attributed and not asserted as Misplaced Pages's own views. The way to do it is to merely add the "internationally recognized" to the phrase "part of/within Azerbaijan."

By the way, I agree with Fadix that NK is internationally recognized as autonomous region within Azerbaijan, as opposed just any other part of that state. The reputable sources/encyclopedias he provides state that. Azerbaijan's abolition of NK was contrary to the International Law on self determination and the laws of USSR then in effect. NK's status was according to a treaty between Armenian and Azerb. SSR's in 1921, so its abolition violated the treaty. Also, it was against the USSR law then in effect, as the New England School of Law article says, "Baku flouted Articles 86 and 87 of the Soviet Constitution, which codified autonomous region status for Nagorno Karabagh and prohibited any change therein without its consent, and also violated its own law." Also, just because in their resolutions UN and PACE say "region of" does not mean they don't recognize the official pre-independence status of "autonomy." "Autonomy within" is a special case of "region of" and is fully consistent with these resolutions. If UN preserves the pre-Soviet-breakup borders, then it follows that the pre-Soviet-breakup status of a autonomy is formally recognized too, until its status can be finalized. In fact, the UN resolutions differentiate between NK's territory and the territory outside NK ("Azebaijan proper"), so the context makes the difference clear. UN started making resolutions only *after* the Armenian forces got out of NK and held the adjacent territories.

Finally, about your (Grandmaster's) statement about "the fact that it is legally part of Azerbaijan." "Legally part of Azerbaijan" is not a fact, it's a position. Legal positions are never facts, they are opinions--they can be authoritative opinions, majority opinions, but they are opinions nonetheless. For example, in the US, when a court decides a case, it has two parts. One is usually titled "statement of facts," and it lists the pure facts (e.g. "A planned to kill B, and A killed B"). Then, there is the "opinion" section, which applies the law to the facts--which by definition makes it an interpretation of the law, and therefore an opinion (i.e. "A murdered B," which is a legal and not a factual statement). Legal opinions are just that--opinions.

Second, as I said before, we are not experts of international law, and are not qualified to decide whether "under the international law" or "legally" NK is part of Azerb. We can, however, say that it is "internationally recognized as part of /within Az." This is a fact. It does not necessarily follow that this makes NK "legally" part of Azerbaijan. There are various and often conflicting sources of international law ("under which law--treaty law? Customery law?"). As the sources I quoted above indicate, international lawyers can debate endlessly whether declaration of independence is legal or not. There is no central authority in international law that makes binding laws. I am copying the following excerpts from Wiki articles in International Law just to illustrate that there is a great deal of uncertainty in International law as to what is law and what is not, and whether they are binding, in which cases they apply and when they do not. This is not to start a debate on international law, it's just to demonstrate that we aren't qualified to make conclusions based on international law:

Because international law is a new area of law its development is uncertain and its relevance and propriety is hotly disputed...Where there are disputes about the exact meaning and application of national laws, it is the responsibility of the courts to decide what the law means. In international law as a whole, there are no courts which have the authority to do this. It is generally the responsibility of states to interpret the law for themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/International_law

As you see, there is no generally acceptable interpretation of international laws. Just because UN states in a resolution "NK is part of AZ," doesn't mean this becomes a law under international law. In fact, this is a deal of great dispute:

The legally binding nature of Security Council Resolutions has been the subject of some controversy. It is generally agreed that resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter. The Council is also empowered to make resolutions under Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes); most authorities do not consider these to be legally binding. http://en.wikipedia.org/United_Nations_Security_Council

Now, Chapter 7 resolutions are the ones that authorize to attack a country. These resolutions specifically state that they are under Chapter 7. For example, when UN authorized use of force against Iraq in 1990, the resolution 678 was under the legally binding Chapter 7. None of the resolutions on NK are under Chapter 7, and they are not legally binding. Now, again, I am not trying to debate this based on International law, I am just saying that we are not qualified to decide whether under international law, NK is part of Azerbaijan. We can however agree on the undisputed fact that it is "internationally recognized as part of/within (ala Fadix) Azerbaijan. "Legally part of" is a legal term. As layment, we should avoid trying to interpret legal terms and stick to factual statements (such as my proposition).

I realize this was long but there were alot of points to touch.--TigranTheGreat 14:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I wont be able to address all the points you have touched upon because of shortage of time, but just would like to point out a couple of things. First, NK is legally part of Azerbaijan until its independence or annexation by Armenia is recognized by international community. Then it will have a different legal status. Armenia and certain individuals may think otherwise, but that’s irrelevant since their position is not accepted by international community. International recognition is a key issue here. You seem to agree with the fact the NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. See also Atkinson’s report: the borders of Azerbaijan were internationally recognised at the time of the country being recognised as independent state in 1991.

And also, since we started editing the intro part, it’s not now so much about NK being formally part of Azerbaijan, but de-facto independent. We should reflect the fact that it is de-facto annexed by Armenia, which is a violation of international laws. See the same report:

According to the information given to me, Armenians from Armenia had participated in the armed fighting over the Nagorno-Karabakh region besides local Armenians from within Azerbaijan. Today, Armenia has soldiers stationed in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the surrounding districts, people in the region have passports of Armenia, and the Armenian government transfers large budgetary resources to this area.

This fact was even accepted by Fadix. See his post above: Also, while Armenia has not officially recognized it to not start a war, it still has named it an Armenian Nahank over a year ago. And PACE resolution condemns this fact. So this definitely should be included into the intro. Grandmaster 13:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"NK is legally part of Azerbaijan until its independence or annexation by Armenia is recognized by international community." This is a legal opinion that you are not qualified to make. Furthermore, it is opinion nonetheless, and not a fact. There are experts who say that it is not legally part of Az. under International Law, since it seceded from Azerbaijan before the latter was independent. Also, "legal status" is inapplicable here, since there is no binding law under which NK is part of Az. If there was, NK's claims would clearly be seen as illegal, and there would be a legally binding resolution to bring it back under Azeri control by force (such as in Kuwait's case).

It is not accepted by the international community. For example, most people don't care or don't even know about NK. Most states do not take a position one way or another. PACE, OESC, and UN's General Assembly haven't taken a position either. UNSC's position is not binding and isn't "international community's" opinion. These organizations are simply waiting to see how the dispute will resolve. I did make my reservations on the term "international recognition" known earlier, and now I am restating them.

And by the way, even if it was clear that UN recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan, this still would not be a legally binding decision, and therefore would not mean that it's "legally part of Azerbaijan.

Atkinson's opinion that NK is internationally recognized as a region of Azerbaijan is his opinion and not a fact, an opinion that has been criticized by a OESC co-Chair for being pro-Azeri and hurting the negotiation process. It's not necessarily the position of PACE or COE.

PACE never asserts that NK is annexed by Armenia. As I explained earlier, it states a general principle that "seccetion should occur peacefully and not through violence or de facto annexation." It does state that NK is under control of local forces, and the COE report refers to the local authorities as de-facto authorities, which goes against your suggestion that it's de-facto annexed. It's never stated in PACE, and therefore cannot be included in the article. Atkinson's opinion is once again not PACE's opinion, furthermore he never says NK is de-facto annexed by Armenia--soldiers stationed in NK does not mean annexation, as any state, including NK, has the right to ask for assistance (just like US troops in modern Germany does not mean Germany is annexed by the US). The main point is who is in control, and PACE makes it clear that it's the local "separatists," or, according to Atkinson, the "government" established by local Armenians (and not by Armenia, note). I don't know anything about NKR being Armenia's Nahank, and even if that was the case, that would be "de-jure" annexation and not de-facto, so this again works against your suggestion.--TigranTheGreat 14:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro: Let's do it in parts

You will make no progress suggesting/rejecting complete paragraphs. I'd suggest to agree on some basic facts first. And then construct some first approximation of the intro, to be refined later in a normal way of editing. Let me start with some points.

Who has authorized to change the intro of the web page? Who has done it? can somebody make it clear. I suspet it is armenians, either tigran or mikkalai. I don't know why when Azerbaijanis don't agree chages are made, but when armenians don't agree things can't be changed. And those to revert chnages are blocked. is this the equal opportunity?

No, but it doesn't help to revert war on the article. You'll notice that people get more time and patience if they are civil, for example, Tigran does not go around calling me an Azeri when I do something against Armenian interests and Grandmaster does not go around calling me Armenian when I do something against Azeri interests.

Civility is one of the basic rules of Misplaced Pages, please follow it. - FrancisTyers 06:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To split the atricle?

First of all, NK is not "republic". It is an area. The republic is NKR. YOu may want to separate the two articles, to circumvent some problems. mikka (t) 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The split is not a solution. nkr is self claimed puppet regime not different than guerrillas of Columbia ruling Columbian forests.

Normally I wouldn't point out typo's, but you have repeated this one. The name of Colombia is Colombia (with two o's). And I'm afraid it is different, and different again from Nepal. - FrancisTyers 06:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting proposition. Perhaps we can create a separate page for NKR. On this page, in the meantime, we can say "NK is a region in Southern Caucasus. The name is also used to refer to NKR, a de-facto independent state whose territory comprises the region." And then provide further details, according to NPOV standards.--TigranTheGreat 17:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Official status

What is it official status of the area in Azerjn? mikka (t) 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• The area s not status in azerbaijan. It was an autonomy, but it was abolished. i assume you know it better.
  • So please explain what is it? How do you know in Azerbaijan that someone lives in NK? mikka (t) 03:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the official status of NK according to Azerbaijan should be stated as the official status of the region. That's because the status is disputed--Azerbaijan views it as an abolished former autonomy, Armenia views it as a republic that has legally achieved independence, others view it as a region/autonomy (see Fadix' encyclopedic sources) of/within Azerbaijan with disputed status awaiting its final resolution. I think the NPOV policies require that different views be stated and attributed to their adherents. So far I have proposed to do this via "internationally recognized as a region within Azerbaijan" (perhaps with Fadix' addition of "autonomous" to "region."

I also don't like "formally" as applied to NK's status. The reason is that, much like "legally," it is a loaded word that may have different nuances for different readers, and under Wiki guidelines, ambiguous words generally should be avoided in favor of more factual statements Words to Avoid. One component of the word could be "internationally recognized," which is more factual. Another component could be "legally," which is a legal term and itself a loaded word, and as I explained earlier, experts debate about interpretations of legal terms, and we are forbidden from making such interpetations under the prohibition against original research. As explained in the following illustration (involving the status of Jerusalem) from the NPOV tutorial, the best way to avoid debates over meanings of terms is to stick to the facts:

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

In our case, the facts are that NK is de facto independent, and NK is internationally recognized as a region within Azerbaijan. Those are the ones that need to be stated in the article--TigranTheGreat 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in this case, even the term "internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan" is not pure fact that we can stick to, but an interpretation, and it seems unwarranted at that. The organizations involved in the negotiation process have not and cannot officially recognize NK as part of Az., it's status is disputed and indeterminate, and most states have not recognized or taken an official position as to the status of NK. Therefore, the facts we should stick to are that 1) NKR is de facto independent, 2) it declared independence from Azerbaijan, 3) it is not recognized by any state, 4) it's status is disputed.--TigranTheGreat 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Enclave?

Is it connected territorially to Armenia? Anyway, it may be called only "ethnic enclave", not formal enclave. mikka (t) 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• No it is not. but in the light of my above suggestions, there is no menaing in including a word an enclave, as there is no meaning to say that the terroris guerrial regime is enclave. it is absurd.

Yes, it is geographically an enclave, as it has no common borders with Armenia. We can state that NK is an enclave lying completely inside the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan. This makes the issue of Azerbaijan's borders NPOV. Note that international recognition of Azerbaijan's borders does not mean "international recognition that NK is part of Azerbaijan." I don't think NK's status (as part of Az) is internationally recognized (as it's an ongoing dispute awaiting final resolution), but I am willing (if nothing else, at least for the sake of brevity) to a formulation stating that the *outer* borders of Azerbaijan are internationally recognized, while NK is lying inside those outer borders (like Lesoto within South Africa).--TigranTheGreat 16:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

De-facto

Since it has a functioning government, controls irs terrritory, and doing this for quite a long time, it is not like some piece of jungle controlled by guerilla. Therefore this must be mentioned into intro. mikka (t) 00:18, 31 January 2006

• Precedent: Somaliland, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria. - FrancisTyers 06:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is referred as de-facto independent in the media (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/3658938.stm, http://www.rferl.org/newsline/1998/02/5-NOT/not-200298.asp, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9148/nagornokarabakh.html), its government is referred to as "de-facto authorities of NK" in various COE documents and press releases (, ), it fits the definition of "de facto independent nation" in Misplaced Pages article de facto. So it definitely should be mentioned as de facto in the article.--TigranTheGreat 16:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

The current version of the intro in the article is unacceptable, fallacious and misleading. Due to the fact of various hysterical Azeri editors accusing FrancisTyers as well as Mikkalai of being undercover Armenians, I do not believe that either of them can continue to positively contribute towards a consensus. Arbitration is inevitable. --Eupator 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

BS!!! Dude, you have no idea what an arbitration is, the little problems generated by this article in no way justify the process of months (that is what the arbitration will cost). Besides, no arbitration cases will be accepted by any arbitrators on this article. Also, I don't think the current situation is that bad compared to other articles with worster situation which their arbitration cases was rejected. Fad (ix) 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Relax and caulm down first of all and thank you for your input.--Eupator 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if I understand, are you saying that you don't think that I can positively contribute towards a consensus? If so please lay out your reasoning. I have been attempting to be an impartial mediator here between the two sides, if you think me being called an Armenian by a user has damaged that then I would encourage you to come straight out with it and I will lay down my tools. - FrancisTyers 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with you or your impartiality (which I do not doubt) per say. Also it was not a user, they were users. However, the suggestion itself, baseless and ludicrous as it was potentially could have a lasting effect on your future decisions.--Eupator 01:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problem with Codex Sinaiticus' current compromise. --Eupator 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I do have problems with it. How can an independent republic, even if it is de-facto independent, be within Azerbaijan? It does not make any sense whatsoever. The original version says that it is a region of Azerbaijan, which is 100% true, and is under Armenian military control, which is also true. It further states that The local Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10th, 1991 and declared the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). You can add the word de-facto before the name of this self-declared entity, if you really need to. Otherwise the intro does not make any sense at all. If you going to keep on reverting the original version to this nonsense without prior agreement with other parties, I will have to apply for arbitration. Grandmaster 10:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The meaning can be clarified if we state the majority position ("within") not as fact but as an opinion--that's the very reason it sounds abit awkward. A better and NPOV solution is "It is a de facto indpendent republic. It is internationally recognized as a region within Azerbaijan." By the way about reverting, after unprotecting the article, Mikkalai suggested that we include the agreed upon version peacefully. This process was disrupted by Eagle who restarted the revert war by reverting back to the original. Putting back the original would be rewarding such disruptive behavior. --TigranTheGreat 15:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no more right than anyone else to make any decisions regarding this page. A mediator is not an arbitrator, a mediator tries to find common ground between both sides and build consensus inline with Misplaced Pages policy. I have eshewed using my administrator rights on this page - which extends to users I encounter on it - so you needn't worry about that. I am also an editor of this page and am interested in creating a high quality article inline with Wikipedias policies on WP:NPOV and WP:V. - FrancisTyers 01:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am for arbitration. I think Francis appears to be successful in mediation, but the disagreement between Azerbaijani and Armenian sides are too wide to be reconciled through discussion where there many Armenians versus one or two Azerbaijanis. The history section is completely wrong, most of pictures are pro-armenian. There is no WP:NPOV regarding pictures. Long live Enver Pasha. --Enver Pasha 03:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you start with the discussion of the introduction in the step-by-step section above? mikka (t) 03:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am against arbitration at this point. We have alot to clarify regarding our positions, as there seem to be misunderstandings regarding the NPOV policies (I will get back on Grandmaster's interpretation of the "original research policy," when I got time later, it's actually quite simple and easy:) ). When our positions are clear, when the admins are clear on what our positions are, then we will think about moving to the next step (which still does not have to be an arbitration)

I believe Francis' record of integrity and impartiality is impeccable, and so is mikkalai's. But I will still respect my "father-in-law" Eupator's opinion, though not sharing it :) Francis, thank you for restoring my true title on the page :) I was waiting for it --TigranTheGreat 07:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don’t we indeed refer our dispute to arbitration? If we cannot agree on such simple thing as what resolutions adopted on Karabakh issue meant, what are the chances that we can agree the text of the intro? We can discuss this issue forever, but I don’t see any light in the end of the tunnel. I think there are plenty of knowledgeable people in Misplaced Pages, and they can help us with interpretation of the rules of this resource and of the meaning of the resolutions. Grandmaster 21:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Azeri or Azerbaijani

Could editors please enlighten me as to which one is appropriate in which situation, should we standardise on one for the page? Does Azeri refer to the people and Azerbaijani to the language or is that too simplistic? - FrancisTyers 01:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The correct and formal pronouncation is Azerbaijani. Yes, please standadardize. Azeri is the shortened and informal version. --Enver Pasha 03:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've made these changes, If anyone objects they can revert back to this version. I would appreciate it if you would merge the other changes I made, but it isn't necessary. - FrancisTyers 09:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Issue of "International Recognition."

First, on the issue of stating the positions of international bodies in a NPOV manner. As I said earlier, the NPOV policy requires that positions, whether majority or minority, be attributed and not be asserted. Now, Grandmaster, recently, on the Nakhichevan page, you applied that policy on the Nakhichevan page, in a segment that was talking about a European Parliament resolution on the destruction of Armenian monuments in Azerbaijan. This link shows the changes that you made. Here is the version before your edit:

On January 19, 2006, the European Parliament condemned the Azerbaijani government for demolition of medieval Armenian cemeteries and khachkars in southern Nakhichevan in violation the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.

Here is the version after your edit (the main changes introduced by you are in bold)

On January 19, 2006, the European Parliament called on the Azerbaijani authorities to put an end the demolition of medieval Armenian cemeteries and historic carved stone crosses in southern Nakhichevan, which according to them was in breach of the terms of its 1993 ratification of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.

The actual text of the Resolution read:

European Parliament resolution on the European Neighbourhood Policy (2004/2166(INI)

"The European Parliament ... 67. Calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to put an end the demolition of medieval Armenian cemeteries and historic carved stone crosses in southern Nakhichevan, which is in breach of the terms of its 1993 ratification of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention" http://www.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade3?TYPE-DOC=TA&REF=P6-TA-2006-0028&MODE=SIP&L=EN&LSTDOC=N

In doing so, you confirmed the basic policy that when we state an official position of an international body, under NPOV we do not assert it, but we attribute it. You also decided to stick to the language of a source, instead of imposing our interpretations. We should be consistent in the way we apply the NPOV policy. We therefore should not assert the positions of international bodies as Misplaced Pages's position, and we should remain true to the language of whatever source we use.

Now, on the issue of who recognizes NK as a region of Azerb, and whether it constitutes as an "internationally recognized" status. I still don't think that NK is internationally recognized as region of Azerb. Now, states don't recognize that it's independent, but that doesn't mean they recognize it as a region of Azerbaijan. Recognition is an official act by a state or an organization, and it may very well be that most states simply do not take a position one way or the other--they either view it as a disputed area, or just don't care. For example, I am not sure if anyone has asked Uganda's position whether NK is part of Azerb. The above is perfectly demonstrated by Armenia's position. Now, Armenia's official position is that NKR is a legally independent state--that's what the President and the Foreign Minister state as Armenia's official position during various summits and negotiations. This is even though the Armenain Parliament has not officially recognized NKR's independence. On the other hand, as most analyses of the conflict note, the Armenian Parliament still has not revoked its 1990 decision of unification of NK with Armenia . Now, Armenia does this to maintain a bargaining chip ("if Azerb. attacks, we will officially recognize NKR"), but it just shows that non-recognition does not mean official position, nor does it imply recognition of the opposite.

Another good example of this is the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Now, Fadix is much more knowledgable on this, but the vast majority of scholars outside Turkey believe the Genocide happened. Also, most people outside Turkey knowledgable with the events believe that it was a Genocide. Now, only around 15 states have officially recognized the Genocide. However, this doesn't mean that the rest of the states take the opposite position that the Genocide didn't happen. They simply do not take a position. Also, just because one part of the organization makes an official position, doesn't mean it's adopted by the rest of the organization. For example, a committee in the US Congress recently recognized the Genocide. This does not mean however that the Congress itself recognized the Genocide.

Same with NKR. Now, the UN Security Council calls NK "region of Azerbaijan." Fine, let's assume that the UNSC recognized it as such. However, UNSC's position is not necessarily UN's General Assembly's position--UNSC is much narrower subbody of UN than the General Assembly. Moreover, the UNSC resolutions (or even General Assembly's resolutions) are not binding on its member states. So, these resolutions do not mean that the states themselves have recognized NK as region of Azerbaijan.

Same with the PACE. First, PACE's position is not necessarily the entire COE's position. As Atkinson stated, the PACE intitiative was made to introduce Parliamentary and "elected representative" dimension to the solution of the conflict. Furthermore, it's not the position of every European state. Now, the term "region of Azerbaijan" appears only in the "explanatory memorandum" by Atkinson, a Rapporteur from UK. The PACE resolution never refers to NK as a region of Azerbaijan, and for a good reason. PACE is involved in the solution of the conflict, and as such, it needs to maintain a neutral position. Atkinson's report (which was not PACE's report or resolution) was criticized precisely for that reason--that it was being pro-Azeri. For example, Kazimirov, one of the co-chair's (from Russia) of OSCE's Minks group, objected to Atkinson's report on that ground:

The draft resolution was strongly criticised in a letter to Atkinson by Vladimir Kazimirov, the veteran Russian mediator who negotiated the 1994 ceasefire. Kazimirov said the draft gave a very selective history of the conflict and said it was clearly biased in favour of Azerbaijan and therefore harmful to the prospects of peaceful resolution. “The Hippocratic oath, 'do no harm' to the negotiation process, is absolutely appropriate here, as each side will for sure use any bias in its own interests,” Kazimirov wrote http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=88

In other words, while PACE, or OSCE or any other group are involved in the negotiation process, they have to be neutral and are prohibitted from making official positions on the status of Karabakh, as it will harm the negotiation process. They can make general statements of principles, and which principles should be involved in solution of the problem (territorial integrity etc.), but they do not recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan. They do, however, view the status as subject of ongoing dispute, which is the whole point of the negotiations. It's not surprising, therefore, that Atkinson's phrase "region of Azerbaijan" does not appear in PACE's resolution.

In sum, while NK's indendence is not internationally recognized, neither is its status as a region of Azerbaijan. So far, from your sources, only UN's SC and US have recognized it as a region of Azerbaijan.--TigranTheGreat 14:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Official positions

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

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

During the Soviet Union

• Soviet position: Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous oblast within the Azerbaijan SSR.

After the Soviet Union

• Azerbaijani position: Nagorno-Karabakh is a non-autonomous part of Azerbaijan
• Armenian position: Nagorno-Karabakh seceded legally, according to the laws of the day. The territory in question has never been within the jurisdiction of independent Azerbaijan. ,
• Position of Security Council of United Nations: Security Council recognizes NK as a region of Azerbaijan, and supports territorial integrity of the Azerbaijan Republic and inviolability of international borders.
• Position of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE): NK is a region with disputed political status, currently under control of separatist forces. PACE Resolution 1416, PACE Recommendation 1690
• Council of Europe position: NK is a region under control of de facto authorities, whose status is subject to ongoing negotiations. COE Press Release
• Rapporteur D. Atkinson's position: NK is a region of Azerbaijan, under control of separatists who have established a "government," which are NK's de facto authorities Draft Resolution, Draft Recommendations, and Expanatory Memorandum by Rapporteur, presented by Atkinson to PACE's Political Affairs Committee, Background paper prepared by Directorate General of Political Affairs, attached as an Appendix to Expanatory Memorandum by Rapporteur
• Nagorno-Karabakh Republic position: Nagorno-Karabakh is an independant state. Office of the NKR
• European Union position: According to D. Atkinson EP does not recognize the independence of NK.

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

OSCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This statement will be included in the Lisbon Summit documents.

Grandmaster 10:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

These are principles suggested by OSCE for the final determination of NKR's status. They are not recognition of NK's current status as part of Azerbaijan--OSCE cannot make such determination, as it would undermine the very negotiation process which it itself monitors.--TigranTheGreat 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Armenia and NKR respect Azerbaijan's right of territorial integrity too. They just hold the position that Azerbaijan's territory does not and has not contained NK ever since its independence. So, the principles of territorial integrity and NK's self-determination are not contradictory.--TigranTheGreat 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

PACE

Resolution 1416 (2005)

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

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

Grandmaster 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

PACE Recommendation 1690

recalling its Recommendation 1251 (1994) on the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, place at the disposal of Armenia and Azerbaijan, if they so wish, experts who could help draw up a political status for Nagorno-Karabakh

One of many examples of PACE's position that NK's status is indeterminate, and is awaiting a final resolution.--TigranTheGreat 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

US Department of State position:

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

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

Grandmaster 12:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Russia’s position

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

1597-07-08-2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

Quotes from UN Security Council Resolution # 884

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

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

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

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

Grandmaster 12:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you condense the position of the UN down to a single sentence? - FrancisTyers 12:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

UN Security Council considers Nagorny Karabakh a region of the Azerbaijani Republic, supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic and of all other States in the region and the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory. Grandmaster 12:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

More quotes from UN Resolutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotes from COE reports:

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

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

I disagree with that. The position of UN is clear, it recognizes NK as a region of Azerbaijan, and supports territorial integrity of the Azerbaijan Republic and inviolability of international borders. The word de-facto was never used, and no special status of NK was recognized. Local Armenian forces are Armenian paramilitaries of NK. Grandmaster 21:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's hilarious and sad, each time you spout the "paramilitaries" when referring to a democratically elected president and parliament that governs, adopts and enforces laws.--Eupator 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not just me. PACE did not recognize the results of elections in Karabakh, because Azeri population could not participate in them. So its an illegal regime. See this:

Council of Europe urges Nagorno-Karabakh to refrain from elections'

Strasbourg, 24.08.2001 - The 43-nation Council of Europe today called on the Nagorno-Karabakh de facto authorities to refrain from staging the one-sided "local self-government elections" in the province, planned for 5 September.

"These so-called 'elections' cannot be legitimate," stressed Council of Europe Committee of Ministers' Chairman and Liechtenstein Foreign Minister Ernst Walch, Parliamentary Assembly President Lord Russell-Johnston and Secretary General Walter Schwimmer. They recalled that following the 1991-1994 armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a substantial part of the region's population was forced to flee their homes and are still living as displaced persons in those countries or as refugees abroad.

Grandmaster 07:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, your source goes against your claim that PACE doesn't see it as de-facto independent. The COE Press Release refers to the NK authorities as "de facto authorities." Just because the elections are not recognized by COE does not make the elections illegal--COE's position is not legally binding. "not legitimate" does not mean illegal, it means "not representative" and "not recognized by us," and at any rate is the opinion three individual members of COE and again is not legally binding. PACE never refers to them as "paramilitaries," instead here and in other documents they are referred to as "de facto authorities" who are "in control of the region." NK's status as different from other districts of Azerbaijan can be implied from UN Resolutions differentiating between "NK region" and "districts," as well as from the fact that it didn't respond to the liberation of the territory of NK itself (in 1992), but only to the liberation of the districts surrounding NK. Plus, UNSC condemns only the liberation of the outside districts, and not the NK territory.--TigranTheGreat 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, PACE refers to the local Armenian forces not as "paramilitaries" but as the army of Nagorno-Karabakh:

It welcomes the efforts of the CSCE's Minsk Group, the United Nations Security Council, the Government of the Russian Federation and the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS to encourage the warring parties to sign a peace agreement, as well as the agreement signed on 26 July 1994 by the Ministers of Defence of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the commander of the army of Nagorno-Karabakh

http://assembly.coe.int/documents/AdoptedText/TA94/EREC1251.HTM PACE Recommendation 1251]

PACE considers NK a territory of Azerbaijan, de-facto annexed by Armenia, and considers this a grave violation of Armenia’s obligations as a member of the Council of Europe. Grandmaster 21:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

PACE said no such thing. In fact PACE considers NK to be in control of "separatist forces," which in other documents are referred to as "de facto" authorities, or a "government" established by local Armenians. This is not de facto annexation, it's de facto independence by definition.--TigranTheGreat 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Then why the following sentence was included in resolution?

The Assembly reiterates that the occupation of foreign territory by a member state constitutes a grave violation of that state’s obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and reaffirms the right of displaced persons from the area of conflict to return to their homes safely and with dignity. Grandmaster 11:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation is "because they recognize NK as part of Az." Mine is "they are talking about the territories outside NK, which NK never really claimed as its own" Again, either one is an interpretation, which makes it an opinion which cannot be asserted as fact.--TigranTheGreat 15:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, instead of discussing in that section could you just change the wording and provide a source if there is not one. If the wording is radically different could you create a x position (2): and provide a sentence. Thanks - FrancisTyers 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am boycoting this page

As long as the provocators User:Enver Pasha and User:Talatpasha don't register under another log-in, I refuse to participate. For those whom wonder the reasons of my decision. They have purposly chosen this log-in name of two rulers of the Ittihadist party, who are accused of having planned the Armenian genocide. I hardly can concieve any Jews wanting to debate in an article, where idiots register logins such as Hitler or Himmler. Fad (ix) 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Chosing deliberately offensive usernames is against Wiki rules.--TigranTheGreat 15:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be a violation of WP:U--Eupator 15:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this looks like a violation. It also looks like 2 sockpuppet logins created specifically with a reason to be offensive, judging by their edit history (just the last two days). I've wikilinked the offending user names above, but I have no knowledge on whether they indeed are offencive as per User:Fadix. Whoever does, is welcome to report these two usernames to the admins for a permanent block according to the WP:U policy. --BACbKA 15:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Tigran, we can argue endlessly, but I think we should refer our dispute for resolution by third parties. We just need to determine, what we don’t agree on. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your point of view, according to your post, is the following:

In sum, while NK's independence is not internationally recognized, neither is its status as a region of Azerbaijan. So far, from your sources, only UN's SC and US have recognized it as a region of Azerbaijan.

I think that its status as a region of Azerbaijan is internationally recognized.

Your interpretation of PACE position: NK is a region with disputed political status, currently under control of separatist forces.

Vs mine: PACE considers NK a territory of Azerbaijan under control of separatist forces and de-facto annexed by Armenia.

And the text of the intro. I suggest to leave as it was for quite a long period of time.

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

Vs the current one:

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region and a de facto independent republic within Azerbaijan, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. The region is predominantly ethnic Armenian, and is under Armenian military control. The local Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10th, 1991 and declared the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world.

Grandmaster 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC) I am with you all the way about Dagliq Qarabag Grandmaster! 68.100.160.15 13:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Azeroglu

Quick suggestion, how about qualifying "de facto independant state" by who describes it as that. e.g.

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region of Azerbaijan, in the South Caucasus, which is described as a de facto independant state by X Y and Z . It is located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku. The region is predominantly ethnic Armenian, and is under Armenian military control. The local Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan in 1991 and self-declared the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world.

- FrancisTyers 13:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. The NK article does not need to have a radically different and complex introductuion compared to other similar articles. There is simply no justification for any such change.--Eupator 13:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I don't think we have exhausted our options here. We haven't really seen an input from other users. There is a weekend coming up, let's see what others are saying, then we will see what to do. Plus, right now you are involved in a dispute resolution on the Nakhichevan page, so you might want to just see how that goes while try new options here.

You said you don't see the light, I do. We present the basic, undisputed facts (not open to interpretation) in the intro (see my Jerusalem example earlier from the NPOV Tutorial--"Stick to the facts"). Then, just like in Kosovo case, we can have a special segment (this article is in want of segments other than the history) titled "International Status," where we put all the disputed facts and interpretations that we have been talking about.

You say that we are arguing endlessly on the meanings of the documents. That's precisely why we are arguing endlessly--because we are trying to agree with the *meaning* of primary sources, when in reality reasonable people always differ on interpretations of a text. Misplaced Pages policy makes things very easy for us. We don't try to agree on an interpretations--we pick basic facts that is not open to interpretation. We don't try to interpret sources (which is prohibitted under no original research policy), instead we can include published interpretations of these texts and attribute them as opinions, which they always are by definition (interpretation = opinion). This is explained in the No Original Research policy page:

Original research is a term used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material added to articles by Misplaced Pages editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Now, the policy says "new interpretation." If an interpretation is not new, then it must have been published, in which case we report others' interpretations:

That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Misplaced Pages) or through a public library.

And of course these third party interpretations, under NPOV policy, need to be reported as positions and not as facts.

So, isntead of trying to find the meaning of the texts, we can agree what the text actually says, and then we can add what third parties think of NK's international status--you can include Atkinson's view, I can include the New England School of Law's view, others can add other positions published by experts etc.

Now, you say the Dispute resolution people may be more knowledgable on this stuff. The problem is that the no original research policy applies both to regular editors and to administrators--if these people were to use their own knowledge to choose an interpretation of the text, and use it as fact in the article (as opposed to a view), this would be both original research and POV. Also, you and me may agree now on what a text means. However a year later others may come here, read the texts and say "well, Tigran and Grandmaster didn't interpret it correctly." This is what happens when you try to interpret something--there is more than one way to do it. To make this edit foolproof, we use facts, and we attribute interpretations.

So, in our case, other than the UN SC resolution, none of your sources say that Nagorno Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan. They say they don't recognize NK's independence. To you, it means "we recognize it as part of Azerbaijan." This may be an *intuitive* response for a laymen, but law, especially something as complex as international law, is often non-intuitive. I read the texts as "we don't want to decide on the status of NK one way or the other, you decide it, but we are suggesting what principles you should use (territorial integrity etc.)." There is a good reason for this, as explained by Russian OSCE co-Chair Kazimirov--taking a definite position rigs the negotiation process and renders it moot. Now, maybe I am wrong and you are right. There is no way to know this since none of us are experts in international law, and even if some expert comes here and says "your interpretation is right," that's his opinion, since again interpretations are opinions by definition, and we don't assert opinions.

So, I suggest that we put the undisputed language of the resolutions, as well as third party interpretations, to a section entitled "International (or Legal) Status." In the intro, we stick to the basic facts. And it should be easy to decide what the basic facts are:

• 1) NK is a disputed region in Southern Caucasus: Well, there is a dispute and noone denies it. And its in Southern Caucasus and not in Africa.
• 2) NK is an enclave lying inside intern. recognized azeri borders: I am willing to concede the last part, just for the sake of brevity to explain the geography). But it is an enclave, as the map shows clearly.
• 3) NK is de facto independent: It is not under Azerbaijan's control, even the CoE reports admit that there are de-facto authorities who are in control of the area, and have been established by local Armenians, it fits the definition of de facto in wikipedia ("nation with de facto independence is one that is not recognized by other nations or by international bodies, even though it has its own government that exercises absolute control over its claimed territory"). Not to mention that it is referred to as such in the media (, , ), and the term is accepted in Misplaced Pages (Somaliland, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria).
• 4) NK has declared its independence from AZ: We know that.
• 5) No state has recognized NK's independence. We know that.

So, my proposition, based on these facts, is the following:

Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed region in the South Caucasus. The name Nagorno-Karabakh is also used to refer to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), a de facto independent republic comprising the territory of the region. NKR is an enclave lying completely inside the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan. The region is predominantly ethnic Armenian and is under Armenian military control. The local Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10th, 1991 and declared the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any state.

Now, do you dispute any fact in this paragraph? I am not asking whether you want to *add* a statement (such as "NK is part of Azerbaijan"), but whether the existing statements are disputed. If they are not, the next step is whether you have an undisputed, basic fact that you want to include. "part of Azerbaijan" is disputed, Armenia doesn't view it as such, nor does NKR, nor do published sources some of which I have included before. Therefore it cannot be stated as a fact under the NPOV guidelines. "Internationally recognized as part of," again, is an interpretation of the texts you copied (i.e. they don't state it in those terms, we are inferring), which as I have explained we are not qualified to interpret, and any intepretation would be POV anyway. Then we can add the stuff we talked about in a separate segment about the status. And we need to read what others think first before deciding anything.--TigranTheGreat 14:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic (Azerbaijani: Naxçıvan Muxtar Respublikası, Armenian: Նախիջեվան, Turkish: Nahcivan Özerk Cumhuriyeti, Russian: Нахичеванская Автономная Республика) is an exclave of Azerbaijan.

Nakhichevan and Karabakh had the same statue, why is it that it is OK to word Nakhichevan this way and not for Karabakh? Still my version is clearly comparable as well as comparable to the other articles about disputed territories.

Nagorno-Karabakh is an autonomous republic officially an enclave of Azerbaijan but de facto independent, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku. The region is predominantly ethnic Armenian, and is under Armenian military control. The local Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan in 1991 and self-declared the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world. Fad (ix) 16:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a much better version than the current one (even in revised form). My main objection is "self-declared"--I know the term is used sometimes, but I find it silly and redundant, as I explained on my explanation to my recent edit (I am not gonna repeat what I said in my explanation:) ). It's clear that when you declare something, you do it yourself. The fact that the declaration is not recognized is mentioned right afterwards.

The other, less problematic part is "officially." It's not that bad, I just feel it has a connotation of "legally," which may be true for an undisputed area like Nakhichevan, but not for an entity whose political status is subject of ongoing dispute and negotiation.--TigranTheGreat 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What about generally accepted insteed of officialy? As for self-declared, I agree you may have a point there. If I declare something, it is obvious that it is my declaration, I don't need to say I self-declared it. Fad (ix) 18:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we talk "guideline-wise," "generally accepted" sounds like a weasel word (WP:AWW), i.e. something that we can't really support, but we provide a vague formulation to hide its unsupported nature. But let's forget about guidelines. Is it even true? Or is it rather the case that most people don't care one way or the other, and have no position on the issue. And what's the support for that term? You presented some encyclopedic entries that say that. Does it really mean it's generally accepted? Or just the views of these sources. Over the past days, it just occured to me that maybe we have been assuming that the world regards NK as region within AZ, when in reality they may be just viewing its political status as undetermined, awaiting a final solution.--TigranTheGreat 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I found this, another proof of de-facto annexation:

Армения и Нагорный Карабах вскоре создадут единое государство

«Если переговоры Армении и Азербайджана не дадут результатов и будут приостановлены, то я не исключаю признания Ереваном Нагорного Карабаха или присоединения Нагорного Карабаха к Армении». С таким заявлением выступил президент Армении Роберт Кочарян, сообщает агентство АПА. По словам президента, Армения фактически уже давно признала Нагорный Карабах: «В Нагорном Карабахе действует национальная валюта Армении драм, существует единая таможенная зона и многое другое. В настоящее время происходит серьезный процесс интеграции. Взаимоотношения Нагорного Карабаха с Арменией построены на конфедеративных началах», передает АПА.

http://www.moscow2000.com/news/view2.asp?Id=104307&IdType=undefined

Grandmaster 09:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This can hardly be proof of de-facto annexation. First, I don't know this source (moscow2000), I don't know how reliable or reputable is it. Second, Kocharyan says "we will either unite with NK or recognize it." Obviously unification is not the only option--the other is recognition of independence. The de-facto part applies to the second part in fact--"we have factually recognized NK" which *proves* that it's de facto independent. Use of currency doesn't mean annexation--after the collapse of USSR, in the first few years all republics used Russian ruble because they didn't have enough resoursces to have their own. They weren't annexed by Russia. European states have common customs rules--that doesn't mean one is being annexed with the other. Same with US and Mexico under NAFTA. Integration is what's going on globally--there is integration between the West and Transcaucasian republics, doesn't mean we are being annexed by US or UK or whatever.

You cannot prove de-facto annexation because simply it's not true. It's a matter of who calls the shots--if the NK authorities are in control, then it's de facto independent. If Armenia had appointed a governor, that would be de facto annexation. NK has always been independent of Armenia's policy, in fact there have been proposals that Armenia accepted and NK didn't, and that was the end of it. Even PACE, CoE, Atkinson, and UNSC recognize that the locals are in control, that they have set up a government, whom they call de-facto authorities. I don't see why you don't like the de-facto independent phrase. It doesn't mean it's formally independent. All it means that you are not in control, which is why actually Azerbaijan has problems.--TigranTheGreat 17:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Kocharyan: Armenia can recognize Nagorno Karabakh if negotiations with Baku come to a deadlock

President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan told in an interview that official Yerevan can recognize Nagorno Karabakh if the negotiations with Baku fail. “If the negotiations with Azerbaijan will exhaust themselves without any result, Armenia can recognize the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and let it join Armenia,” said Kocharyan.

According to Kocharyan, de-facto, Armenia recognized Nagorno Karabakh long time ago. “Currently, Nagorno Karabakh uses the Armenian currency – dram. We also have common custom zone, so the integration process continues. Now I can call the relations between Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh a disproportional confederation,” stressed Kocharyan. Grandmaster 21:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems more like a warning to Azerbaijan to ease the war rhetoric at the time the comment by Mr. Kocharyan was made. It doesn't hint some sort of an eventual integration of NK within Armenia as a Federation, on the contrary it suggests that if negotiations fail this might be a final resort among many.--Eupator 21:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So what in your opinion does disproportional confederation mean? Grandmaster 05:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

First, it probably means inaccurate / poor translation. We have to versions of the quote--one saying "confederacy" and the other adding "disproportionate confederacy." This makes the phrase disputed. Second, disproportionate confederacy means one out of proportion--i.e. an equal, horizontal, loose alliance between two entities of differing sizes, which actually goes against your claim of "de-facto annexation." The statement cleary states "we have factually recognized NK" which is de-facto independent--TigranTheGreat 12:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

International status

Hi Francis. Thanks for the inclusion of the section for international status. I was going to suggest that myself. It’s strange that such a big article made no summary of international reaction to the conflict. We actually did a very good job on collecting the available documentation, so we now need to make use of it. What I would suggest is that this section should not be written by Azerbaijani and Armenian editors. I would prefer some neutral people to review all the available international documentation and summarize it in this section. I think it’s pretty obvious that both involved parties would try to interpret the documents to favor their position, so a third party opinion in this case may be a solution. It’s better if there are more than one or two reviewers to avoid accusations of favoring one of the sides. What does everyone think? Grandmaster 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should interpret, admin or no admin. I think we should run as far away from interpretation as we can. The moment we start interpreting, it's like stepping into a swamp--you just keep sinking.--TigranTheGreat 22:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn’t read carefully what I wrote. I didn’t say that someone should interpret the document; I said that one or a number of impartial persons should review and summarize those documents in the section about international reaction, as obviously you and I have different understanding of the same documents. Grandmaster 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on now, there is no call for a pissy response :) I didn't say whether you said it or not, I decided it was important to reiterate a point which I had made earlier.

Now, Grandmaster, put your hand on your heart and be honest. Who came up with the idea of creating an section about "International Status?"--TigranTheGreat 12:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I thanked Francis for that. You claim a credit or what? Grandmaster 08:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course I do :) That was my suggestion. :) --TigranTheGreat 12:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said before and say now the entire page should be sent to arbitration. There is no entity called Nagorno Karabakh and it can not have a geography. Now with the support from armenian radicalism dominating this page and pro-armenian admin. the web page is like the "Prvada" about Nagorno-Karbakh, but there is not single truth. the guerrilla and terorist regime made an de-facto independent country, geography sectoin turned into a description of internaitonal borders of the terrorist regime, the history section still suffers from the armenian backwardness that is stuck in in or around 1st century with tigran --Enver Pasha 07:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why anyone should even take an idiot like you seriously, one has just to pay attention to your log-in to understand how a perturbed individual you are. Fad (ix) 18:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it OK calling names here? As far as I know Misplaced Pages rules don’t allow any personal attacks. Grandmaster 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should register Hitler log-in and go participate in the Palestine entry. Should I? Fad (ix) 01:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly ok when the so called user is a provocateur that's only here to disturb Misplaced Pages. Not to mention that his username violates wikipolicy.--Eupator 20:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Users are free to choose any names they like, as long as they are not obscene, etc. Grandmaster 20:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not when the choice is intentionally offending. --TigranTheGreat 12:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no specific rules on that. Grandmaster 08:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, I am always happy to teach you :) WP:UN: Misplaced Pages does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names. ... This includes, but is not limited to: Names which promote hatred; Names which refer to symbols of hatred, including historical figures who are widely associated with such ... Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name.

Come on, you gotta admit that the region exists--even you call it Darliq something. The dispute is on its political status.--TigranTheGreat 09:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

<insult removed>

It is good that you had one person in the history, tigran who ruled the territory for max say 30 years. And that rule mostly was ensured by persian, Azerbaijani, Albanian and Turkic commanders. Don't forget that the person can not be great if his rule lasts for 30 years. The same areas have been controlled for thousands of years by thus making even the lowest rank Turkic or Azerbaijani commander greater than tirgan the armenian.--Enver Pasha 19:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why you are not banned for the username violation yet boggles the mind. You should learn about turkics in the wikipedia article for turkic peoples. Turkics were shamanistic and nomadic people that encountered civilization for the first time via the Chinese and Persians not before 1000-1400 years ago. The name turk wasn't recorded by history before then :) --Eupator 20:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Because he has not been reported. Because we are being lazy. Not his fault.--TigranTheGreat 12:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Also you should learn that the first historical facts of Turks date back to BC. --Enver--Pasha 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please refrain from personal attacks, I would encourage you both to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would like to remind you that we are here to discuss the Nagorno-Karabakh article and not to discuss the history of the Turks. PS. I don't know the history fully, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but if TigranTheGreat can be an acceptable username, why can't Enver Pasha? Perhaps this user was responding to that? - FrancisTyers 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide :rolleyes --Eupator 23:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I hardly know anyone who could relate his grandparents entire family being killed by Tigran who is a figure of 2000 years ago etc. Enver founded the second branch of the special organization, placed Djevdet(his brother in law and known brutal psychopat) as the governor of Van, sent his Uncle Halil and brother Nuri to eradicate the remnent of the Armenian population. He released from the central prisons those condemned for murder and trained them under the auspice of his war ministry by choosing physicians to select those that could fit to the required cruelties and sent them follow the Armenian convoys in the camps. Enver was codemned to death by the Military tribunal for his role in the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. Him and Talat are believed with Sukru, Sakir, Dr. Nazim etc. from the restricted Branch of Ittihadist to be those who planed and executed the Armenian genocide. So, this idiot who registered EnverPasha and probably TalaatPasha by jumping in here knew exactly the reaction he will get when both figures are the most hated figures for the Armenians even thought both are still under the Turkish National Assembly considered as national heros. One side of my grandparents had relatives directly killed by Envers brother Nuri and Halils army(Halil even writes in his memoir that he has attempted to destroy the Armenians to the last individual), not to say the rest of the relatives from this side of my family were butchered undre his brothers in law and governor who was placed by him there for the task. It is not Tigran that you should place there as comparaison, Talaat is the Hitler of the Armenians and Enver the Himmler, I don't think any Jews will be indifferent when an idiot start registering Hitler and Himmler to go debate with them about the conflict in Palestine. Fad (ix) 17:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Francis, Tigranes II has never been accused of massacrin Turks. As Fadix explained, EnverPasha and Talat Pasha were both one of 3 main perpetrators of the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians, and convicted later, which, as you may have gathered from the AG page, is accepted by vast majority of scholars. As an added point, it is well known that they are quite hated (for obvious reasons) among Armenians. Now, let me ask you this. What are the chances that, after Eagle of Caucasus got temporarily banned, not one, but two users with names of these main culprits, taken from the same era, responsible for the same events, involved in the same government, would *randomly* appear on this page, as their *very first* editting in Misplaced Pages. I say the chances of that being a coincidence is no greater than a monkey typing perfect Shakespeare. If, say, TalatPasha appeared, you would expect that the next user would be something like, say, FluffyBird. Two users with those names at the same time--sorry, gotta be intentional.

Now, based on user editting histories, it has been suspected that both are sockpuppets of Eagle. Let me show you message posted by Eagle on the AG page just yesterday:

I remember and will always remember great Turksih commanders such as Enver Pasha, Talat Pahsa, Kazim Kara Bekir Pahsa with respect and dignity and protectors of civilians, Turks and even armenians. If they didn't eliminate armenian zealots and fundamentalist gerillas and militants, armenians would have killed my grandparents and there wouldn't be me. God bless these great commanders. They were really great, brave and honest people, as distinct from armenian terrorists including the terrorist andranik. With kind regards --Eagle of the Caucasus 00:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You tell me whether his knowledge of the names being offensive to us, as well as his intent to offend us, is not obvious. Usernames with intent to offend are not allowed.--TigranTheGreat 17:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. If I hadn't been a bit lazy I could have probably found it out myself :) It really is a shame that he can't take part in reasoned debate :( - FrancisTyers 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Russophobic passage

I strongly recommend the removal of this: It is alleged that Russian military forces inspired and manipulated the rivalry between the two neighbouring nations, providing weapons to both sides in order to keep both under control (a strategy known as divide and rule). This is so far fetched and stinks of baltant Russophobia. Instead, more needs to be said about how things escalated towards war. I'm talking about Sumgait.--Eupator 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t find anything Russophobic in this sentence. Russian people and Russian military forces are not the same thing. I just think that whoever included this sentence needs to provide a citation. On the other hand, Russian mercenaries fought on both sides of the conflict, and it’s a well known fact. Grandmaster 20:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think many will see it that way. The accusation is groundless. Second of all, no Russian, Ukrainian etc. fought on any side without being paid. It needs to be removed to improve the quality of the article.--Eupator 20:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be restated in a bit different way. It’s obvious that Russian military provided weapons and mercenaries, we’ve got proof of that in our article. Grandmaster 20:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm against the "divide and rule" bs primarily. The military did not provide mercs. They were purchased by Azerbaijan independantly without approval from Moscow. Who flew Azeri jets for example? Mainly Russian and Ukrainian pilots.--Eupator 20:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

7 Russian soldiers and officers were captured in Kelbajar by Azeri army. They served in Armenia and said that they were implementing orders of their commanders. They were not mercenaries. I’ll try to find sources for that to include in the article. But again, we can put it in a bit different form. Grandmaster 21:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a word of captured soldiers stands for much. However I would like to see this source, even if it is Azeri. My suggestion to entirely replace the selected passage still stands. Not enough is said on what led to the war.--Eupator 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See this:

IN ARMENIAN UNIT, RUSSIAN IS SPOKEN

Published on March 16, 1992

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5078/article2.htm

If you need the text directly from it’s source, it’s available in the archives of The Boston Globe for the same fee of $3.

This text has the names of Russain soldiers, captured in Kelbajar.

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/ab78acfb0828505780256737003f82a4?Opendocument

Grandmaster 09:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to state the facts, and not our interpretations of them. Ask Tigran for details, I think he wouldn’t mind to elaborate on this for you. We may have different views with regards to what led to war, so its better just state the proven facts and let the readers judge themselves. Grandmaster 09:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Finally you start giving me credit :) But, "divide and conquer" *is* an interpretation, which is not contained in any of the sources. It's not just Russo phobic--it's Armeno and Azero phobic. It portrays both our nations as little toys that we were just being played with, which I don't think is the case, and you should find it offensive too. At any rate, it's unsupported, and shall be removed.--TigranTheGreat 12:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I always give credit where credit is due. Unfortunately, we were little toys in a big game. But I don’t mind deletion of this one particular phrase, because it’s not sourced. Grandmaster 08:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Afghan/Chechen/merc/Turkish assistance to Azerbaijan

According to The Wall Street Journal, Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliev recruited thousands of mujahedeen fighters from Afghanistan (as well as mercenaries from Iran and elsewhere) and brought in even more Turkish officers to organize his army. The Washington Post discovered that Azerbaijan hired more than 1,000 guerrilla fighters from Afghanistan's radical prime minister, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Meanwhile, Turkey and Iran supplied trainers, and the republic also was aided by 200 Russian officers who taught basic tactics to Azerbaijani soldiers in the northwest city of Barda . Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev personaly engaged Armenian forces in NKR, it is said by some that Arab guerrilla Ibn al-Khattab joined Basayev in Azerbaijan between 1992-1993. In additon officers from the Russian 4th Army participated on combat missions for Azerbaijan on a mercenary basis.

1. The Wall Street Journal The Forgotten War. March 3, 1994.
2. The Washington Post Azerbaijan Throws Raw Recruits Into Battle. April 21, 1994.
3. EurasiaNet Chechen fighter's death reveals conflicted feelings in Azerbaijan. May 14, 2002
4. Contested borders in the Caucasus, Alexey Zverev.

Thoughts? --Eupator 20:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank TigranTheGreat and Fad (ix) for their assistance in this endeavor.--Eupator 02:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. I abandoned you 2000 years ago, so I owed you :) --TigranTheGreat 12:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope nobody minds addition of the following sentence to the text:

Both sides used mercenaries. Mercenaries from Russia and other CIS countries fought on Armenian side, and some of them were killed or captured by Azerbaijani army.

1. The Boston Globe In Armenian unit, Russian is spoken. March 16, 1992
2. UN Commission on Human Rights Report.

And then goes your text. Also I don’t think info on Khattab should be included in the text. There’s no proof of his participation in the Karabakh war, your source does not confirm the fact, and Misplaced Pages discourages the use of words like “it is said by some”. Grandmaster 06:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Grandmaster, unless you are going to write "A journalist writing on the eurasianet.org website reports that some people say that..." etc. The source really isn't particularly good for such a large accusation ;) - FrancisTyers 09:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s not even good to write “a journalist writing on the eurasianet heard from somebody that Khattab was fighting in Karabakh”. We need to know who he heard it from. Grandmaster 10:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's published in a third party publication, it's a piece of information, we don't fact check. Maybe we don't say "some," but it's ok to say "so and so publication says some." Plus, it was written by an Azeri journalist. As long as it's relevant, we are not at the stage to delete relevant info. You have filled the article with minute details on the Azeri view, and we have been patient. Let us add the Armenian version, and then we will consider what is "less important" and what is "more important." There is alot of deleting that should take place in the eventual version of the article, including from your additions. So far we are just dumping info.--TigranTheGreat 12:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You can’t dump just any info. It doesn’t even say who those some people were by profession (people on the street, journalists, military, etc). I’m simply referring you to Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words and Weasel word. Take a look at the examples of weasel words there. This sentence is a classical example of a weasel word use. Grandmaster 07:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you as always. This doesn't qualify as "weasel words" because we are quoting someone, and we don't need to fact check because Misplaced Pages does not report facts or the truth WP:V, however Grandmaster is right, the source does suck. "Some guy says that some people say that someone is a terrorist or something and fought in NK probably" is pretty vague and you would have thought that if it was true or feasible a better source could be found. I mean the source can be used but the question is do you think it is appropriate for the article. I would disagree. - FrancisTyers 11:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people think that this source sucks big time, while it is believed that certain unspecified persons may dismiss this idea :) Not too good for inclusion anyway imho. I agree with Francis. Grandmaster 08:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll find a better source. For now it stays. Not the biggest problem of the article. Meanwhile stupid "divide and rule" bs is still there.--Eupator 14:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agreed to removal of that particular phrase. You can do it right now. And I’m waiting for your better source. Grandmaster 19:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro

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

Self-proclaimed is redundant, all states declare themselves, noone else does it for them. What we mean is unrecognized, and it's already stated in the paragraph. Even if we accepted "de-jure," it would be "autonomous region within," just as your US State Dep't article mentioned. We still don't know if it's de jure part of Az, other than UNSC (Legally non-binding) and US, no other major document has stated "region of Azerbaijan." It's status is subject to ongoing dispute--it's a disputed region.--TigranTheGreat 12:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Self-declared (самопровозглашенный in Russian) is an international term, used by Atkinson, for example. It is widely accepted and used. You may have problems with it, but it’s a legit term. As for international recognition, whether binding or not, UN Security Council resolutions are international recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, especially considering that nobody recognized independence or annexation of Karabakh by Armenia. If you revert this new version, I will apply for arbitration. This can’t go on forever. Grandmaster 13:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll jump in this later today but GM, I think you mean mediation (like on the Nakhijevan page) :) Arbitration is something else.--Eupator 14:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually mean arbitration, because Francis and Mikka tried to mediate, but despite their efforts compromise wasn’t found. So the next step would probably be arbitration. Grandmaster 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

They wotn even look at it.--Eupator 19:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Grandmaster 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't make much sense to have de jure before the term de facto. The authonomy of Karabakh was accepted even during Soviet times and its authonomous statue precede generally it's accepted as part of Azerbaijan. Also, de jure uses is problematic, there was no injonctional cases or legal system that presented that, the legality is open to debate, while the de facto is clear. There are legal bases for Karabakh to be independent. Also, in all similar articles, the de facto precede the official territorial integrity, I don't see why this should not be the cases here. Even Britannica uses the term 'officially' and not terms open to reinterpretation such as de jure. Dove Lynch in his text: Separatist states and post-Soviet conflicts (International Affairs Volume 78, Issue 4, Page 831-848, Oct 2002) call it the Karabakh Republic inside Azerbaijan, again the de facto preceding anything else. Also, he uses the term de facto without adding other terms to reduce its importances. Tabibs version simply add-on to give an impression of "The alleged said to exist so called republic..." following the, don't forget it is part of Azerbaijan. Also, it is a convention that the locality precede, any works about authonomous regions or enclaves goes as this: 'an enclave x of the y." Comming to de jure part, Regional Power Rivalries in the New Eurasia: Russia, Turkey, and Iran by Alvin Z. Rubinstein, Oles M. Smolansky; M.E. Sharpe, 1995 in their section The Case of Nagorno-Karabakh present this as more complicated.

So, I think that my proposition was a better compromise because this version is even more problematic than the previous one. Fad (ix) 18:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

All the articles about such unrecognized entities state that they are formally or legally part of the states they claim independence from. I don’t see why this article should be different. There are two aspects of the situation – de-jure and de-facto. Both should be reflected. Since independence of Karabakh is not recognized, it remains de-jure part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That's false. Not one, not a single one has an intro like the one you want and the current absurdity. I will not accept anything short of what it's like on the Abkhazia and S.Ossetia pages. Nada.--Eupator 19:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The article for Abkhazia says: It is formally an autonomous republic within Georgia but is de facto independent, although not recognised as such internationally. Formally, legally or de-jure, but it’s recognized as part of Georgia. The same here. Grandmaster 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It had about the same statue as Karabakh, but it is you who refuse to have a similar sentence. Why should Karabakh be different than the rest? Fad (ix) 22:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is the same, then you wont mind if we change the current intro to: It is formally an autonomous republic within Azerbaijan but is de facto independent, although not recognised as such internationally :) --Eupator 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s not the autonomous republic, and never was. It was an autonomous oblast, now just a region. Grandmaster 21:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, feel free to show me where in Azerbaijani constitution there is such a thing as an Obslat division. Obslast the last time I have checked only remains as subdivisions in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus. Karabakh was an Obslast during the Soviet times and had the same autonomous statue as Nakhichevan, which article clearly state it as autonomous republic. also, an enclave in such cases is a synonym to country within, which is about the same thing as autonomous republic within. It has its unofficial embassies in many corners in the world, including the US. Britannica uses the best compromise in its uses as officially. De Jure can not fit there because legally speaking Azerbaijan changed Karabakh statue against the Soviet and its own constitution, also, Karabakh did use legal means to get out of the Soviet Union as an independent state, it has to be a cases on records and a conclusion to have that word there, to not forget that Azerbaijan already recognized Karabakh as part of Armenia during the first years of the Bolshevic rules before the Soviet made of it a protectorate of Azerbaijan. Such statues can not apply when the Soviet union does not exist anymore. On the other hand, it is officially accepted as a region of Azerbaijan, but the locality goes first as it is the standard, its autonomous statue goes first, and then that it is officially within Azerbaijan. So again, my version was a better compromise. Fad (ix) 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that it is an oblast within Azerbaijan. It was during Soviet times, and it was not the same as autonomous republic. An autonomous republic had more privileges than an autonomous oblast. The current constitution of Azerbaijan does not provide for existence of any autonomy in Karabakh. Secession of Karabakh from Azerbaijan was not recognized by Soviet authorities and was even considered illegal. As for locality going first, look at the article about Abkhazia, to which you were referring. And also, the article of BBC, which was also used as a reference in our article, says almost exactly the same as current version, minus de-facto status.

Status: de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, unilaterally declared itself an independent republic in 1991 Grandmaster 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also have a look at this, it’s an interesting article:

In order to understand the de facto state, several points must be made. First, Pegg’s definition is based on a distinction between empirical and judicial notions of statehood. The de facto state is not recognised by other states or the international community. As a result, it has no judicial status in the international arena. The de facto state has no judicial right to claim a certain territory, as this land already is part of a recognised state. Grandmaster 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also from the same article:

The separatist areas depend on other sources of external support for their existence. In the case of Karabakh, independence is really a sleight of hand which barely covers the reality that it is a region of Armenia. In February 1988, the Supreme Soviet of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region in Azerbaijan voted to unite with the Armenian Republic. Subsequently, the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was declared on 2 September 1991. Karabakh’s independence allows the new Armenian state to avoid the international stigma of aggression, despite the fact that Armenian troops fought in the war between 1991-94 and continue to man the Line of Contact between Karabakh and Azerbaijan. The strength of the Armenian armed forces, and Armenia’s strategic alliance with Russia, are seen as key shields protecting the Karabakh state by the authorities in Stepanakert. Grandmaster 06:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijans constitution as written after the fall of the Soviet Union, that it permits the independence of Karabakh or not is irrelevent. Armenia could write in its constitution that Karabakh is part of it, it won't make it part of Armenia. It has become standard in Misplaced Pages and is in other historic works(I guess not in many newspapers, but Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper) that the locality goes first..., and the other examples do present the locality first. And like I said, it is illegal under the subsequent treaties for Azerbaijan to annex Karabakh and Nakhichevan, while Azerbaijan left untouched the statue of Nakhichevan, which gave them the statue of an autonomous republic and an exclave of Azerbaijan, Karabakh statue was changed by Azerbaijan contrary to treaties. De Jure should be based on legal records such as treaties. If I preresent documents and treaties attesting to that, the term de jure can therefore not be presented as an accepted fact. Besides, given the clear impact of Goltz for years on anything one can get from the BBC, BBC can not be presented as evidence to establish the generality. Also, it is kind of amazing that you selectivally quoted a work(Lynch), which generally support what I have been saying. Also, not to say that the League of Nations which was the UN of the 20s and 30s (before the UN came to existance), has never recognized and refused to recognize in all the years of its existances as Karabakh being in one way or another part of Azerbaijan, even a refusal on its protectorate statue. De jure for all thos reasons mentioned can not be used. As for the Soviet refusal to grant Karabakh its independence, the decision was accepted and retracted soon after after threats that it may start a war. Fad (ix) 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, let’s start from the beginning. How do you now that locality goes first is a standard in Misplaced Pages? Why then the article on Abkhazia is different? Under which treaties it is illegal to Azerbaijan to annex Karabakh? Have you read any such treaties? Do you have any evidence that the article on Karabakh in BBC was written under the influence of Thomas Goltz? When did the Soviets retract their refusal to grant Karabakh its independence? You made so many false statements, and did not provide a single proof for any of those statements. It’s not even worth discussing them, until you provide evidence that what you wrote is true. Also, how does Lynches work support what you are saying, when it clearly states that the de facto state is not recognised by other states or the international community. As a result, it has no judicial status in the international arena. The de facto state has no judicial right to claim a certain territory, as this land already is part of a recognised state. How does this prove your point? Grandmaster 18:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, you can not claim that I am making false statments and in the same time claiming that I should source what I am saying. The second is to assume good faith but it could not be coupled with the first, it is contradictory and is assuming bad faith.

Under the Soviet constitution article 87. (1977), Karabakh is an autonomous region, the consitution permitted the instoration of law to Azerbaijan and not a changes of its statue, while Azerbaijan changed the statue of Karabakh. As for the Soviet.

From Mikhail Gorbachev Memoirs (Mikhail Gorbachev: Memoirs by Mikhail Gorbachev, Bantam 1997)

What could we do? What was the way out of the situation? Gromyko suggested the usual solution: `The army will appear on the street and order will be restored immediately.' Chebrikov objected. Yakovlev proposed that the administration of Nagorno-Karabakh should be transferred to Moscow. Shevardnadze was in favour of immediately giving Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous republic status. Ligachev tried to synthesize all of these ideas: `There are already 20,000 refugees. People are homeless. If republic status for Nagorno-Karabakh does not help, we must bring in the troops, dismantle factories, dismiss the Party organizations and Soviet executive committees and establish order.

I supported the proposal to set up an autonomous republic, but I felt that this matter had to be resolved by the conflicting sides themselves.

...

The other position was to ask: since the people of Karabakh wished to reunite with their motherland, and we recognized the right of nations to self-determination, why not allow this? After all, the Nakhichevan autonomous republic is a part of Azerbaijan, even though separated from Azerbaijan by Armenian territory. The Nagorno-Karabakh question could be solved in exactly the same way.

At some point it seemed that a possible solution was to give Karabakh, like Nakhichevan, the status of autonomous republic, while keeping it as part of Azerbaijan. There was a time when this proposal was on the point of being implemented. However, it was just at this moment that the Supreme Soviet in Yerevan passed a resolution to incorporate Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia and so everything fell apart.

Comming to the de jure part, both Azerbaijan and Karabakh held a referundum on the issue of independence in December 1991, the previous declaration of independence from Azerbaijan was not according to the law, as those repeated declarations from Karabakh of secession or union with Armenia. Azerbaijan also adopted its constitution under the Soviet Act governing procedures for the secession of a republic from the Union adopted on April 3, 1990, and it was according to this procedure that both Karabakh and Azerbaijan held their referundum to declare their official independence. Azerbaijan had always refused Karabakh government to take part in negotiations, which in part is due to the fact that Karabakh government has legal bases over the independence of Karabakh, they have used the same legal soviet means to brake from the Union. Until the cases is not on international courts, the term de jure can not be applied, because even when ignoring the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan already recognized Karabakh as part of Armenia in December 1, 1920 and that both Armenia and Karabakh have legal means to support their points.

And here is the request before the referundum

Also the declassified files from the CIA also gives legal grounds. , , , .

Comming to Lynch article, reread my version and propositions, you are puting words in my mouth. I have never denied that Karabakh is officially a region of Azerbaijan, what I said was that it was an autonomous region a de facto republic officially an enclave of Azerbaijan. The de jure can not apply, because there are more legal grounds for it to be independent or part of Armenia than being part of Azerbaijan. As for Abkhazia article, if you don't think it is different, I don't think you will have any problem having a similar introduction in Karabakh cases, will you? Fad (ix) 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, you referred to some treaties that make it illegal for Azerbaijan to annex Karabakh. Any references? Further you claimed that Goltz had impact “for years on anything one can get from the BBC”. How about proof? Then you said Soviets retracted their refusal to grant Karabakh its independence. How did you establish that? Then what this long citation from Gorbachev is supposed to prove? That Karabakh was an autonomous region of Azerbaijan SSR? I never denied it, some of you claimed that it was an autonomous republic like Nakhichevan, and this citation proves that it was not. Soviet rules may not allow to abolish the autonomy, same as they did not allow to unilaterally annex the territory of the neighboring republic, but an independent country can make its own decisions about its administrative division. Current Azerbaijani constitution provides only for one autonomy, which is Nakhichevan. Then the issue of independence. All the independence declarations in Soviet Union were illegal by Soviet laws. Republics of the former USSR gained independence after Belavezha Accords were signed and USSR was dissolved. After that the former Soviet republics were internationally recognized as independent states within their existing borders. It had not so much to do with the declarations of independence and Soviet laws, as much as it had to do with the collapse of the federal state. Even those republic who did not adopt independence declarations were recognized as sovereign states. Karabakh was never recognized as an independent state by anyone and remains de-jure part of Azerbaijan. As for recognition of Karabakh as part of Armenia by Azerbaijan in 1920, that was retracted by both Azerbaijan SSR and Soviet government. In fact, there were two different versions of that proclamation, one for Azerbaijan, and one for Armenia, and they stated different things. It was not a legal act anyway, since it was a declaration and not a decision, adopted by the government, and was aimed to attract public support of people in Armenia for the Bolsheviks. Then files from CIA, what are they supposed to prove and who wrote them? And finally, what in your opinion is the difference between the words de-jure and officially? Grandmaster 06:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Fadix, our discussion grows and includes absolutely irrelevant things that you keep bringing up. If you use an argument in the discussion, you should back it up with facts, regardless if you are going to include it in the article or not. You tried to dismiss BBC by claiming that Goltz had impact “for years on anything one can get from the BBC”. And then you ask “In how many articles was he referred to”? I don’t know, you tell me. Was it any article ever published by BBC? It’s quite possible that he was referred to in one or two articles, but it’s certainly not anything one can get from the BBC.

Then you say with regard to Gorbachev: he agreed to make of Karabakh an independent republic, even with greater independence than Nakhichevan. Do you even know the meaning of the word independent? Unlike me, you are native English speaker, you should know such things better than me. Nakhichevan was never independent, it was an autonomous republic within Azerbaijan.

Then this de-jure thing, main point of our discussion. Whatever happened between Russia and Turkey back in 1920s does not really matter. Same as League of Nation, which did not refuse to agree on Karabakh being part of Azerbaijan, by the way, it left the final decision to be made in Paris Peace Conference. But what matters for de-jure part is the status of Karabakh within Azerbaijan during Soviet times and after collapse of USSR. It was legally part of Azerbaijan SSR and Soviet government rejected Armenian claims to transfer it to Armenia. Then after the collapse of the USSR, according to Atkinson, the borders of Azerbaijan were internationally recognised at the time of the country being recognised as independent state in 1991. The territory of Azerbaijan included the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Since it’s internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, it is de-jure part of Azerbaijan, as BBC claims. Lynches article also explains that de facto state has no judicial status in the international arena. The de facto state has no judicial right to claim a certain territory, as this land already is part of a recognised state.

As for the treaties, you said it was “illegal under the subsequent treaties for Azerbaijan to annex Karabakh and Nakhichevan”. What treaties you were referring to? Grandmaster 20:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not a native English speaker, English is the fourth language I have learned.

Coming to Goltz and the BBC, you are entirely wrong here, not only has he been used as a source in various coverage’s of the situation, but also prepared many documentaries for the BBC, not only has he been involved for the BBC, but he even wrote for the Washington Post, New York Times, US News, World Report, Forbes Electronic Mailbox, Businessweek, the Nation. Also, the LA Times, National Georgraphic News Service, Pacific News Service, the London Sunday Times. He is just working on a documentary for the BBC about the Pipe Line and mark my word on it, that the ‘bad bad’ Armenians will be there.

Now my comment about independence, please stop trying to find bugs in my writings, read again what I wrote, I did not say that Nakhichevan was independent, but rather that Karabakh was to have a greater independence, this does not necessarily assume that it is independent, in fact, this was why I used the term ‘greater independence’ because Nakhichevan is not that independent, but rather dependent as an exclave.

De Jure, again, you are only reading in my writings what you want to read Grandmaster. De Jure means according to law, and this is the entire point, officially is NOT to be equated with de Jure, as I said, Karabakh declared its independence ACCORDING TO LAW, the same rules instored by the Soviet Union to brake from the federation that Azerbaijan used to held its official referendum in December, about the same time as Karabakh did and from it declared its independence. And here, what happened in 1920 is also VERY RELEVENT, because as I said, de Jure is about laws, and the fact of the matter is that Azerbaijan recognized that land to be part of Armenia, and that Armenia never recognized it to be part of Azerbaijan. In international laws as well as civil laws, no one can take from what is recognized to be yours without your consent. It is from this same reason that Turkey forces Armenians to drop their land claims over Turkey to start relations, because Turkey knows that while its predecessors signed a Treaty recognizing the existence of Armenia, Armenia never signed to recognize its lands taken away. It is like me deciding to sign papers taken away your properties without your consent. As for the League of Nations, please check when it was founded and when the conference was actually held. The League attempted to work on the formation of an Armenian nation even while Armenia was in the confederation and that it had to deal with the Armenian refugees, they did not recognize and refused to recognize it as part of Azerbaijan when the British without agreeing with the others in the allied side have taken the decision to place it temporarily under Azerbaijani jurisdiction in hope to get their Azeris version of the Chestler concession.

As for your quotes from Lynch, I don’t see what you are trying to show me there, and I don’t see how from it we could conclude that De Jure apply, it is a legal term, and until Azerbaijan refuse to accept the Karabakh government to participate in the negotiations and defend its position by legal grounds(as it attempted to do before Azerbaijan closed the doors and refused it to be part), there is no way to know where the de Jure claim apply. Fad (ix) 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Goltz’s track record that you have provided only proves that he is a reputable journalist. I would like to see any proof of him being involved in creating the article I was referring to.

I have sometimes difficulties with understanding your writing, sorry. I mean, phrases like he agreed to make of Karabakh an independent republic, even with greater independence than Nakhichevan are open for various interpretations. So you meant to say by that that he wanted to make NK an autonomous republic within Azerbaijan like Nakhichevan? OK.

As for Armenian SSR recognition or not recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan SSR, of course it did recognize it as part of Azerbaijan. Both countries were part of the USSR, the borders of the republics were defined by the Soviet Constitution, and Armenia accepted it. Then again this League of nation thing, which is really irrelevant, because both countries were made Soviet republics, and the world accepted and recognized this fact. So whatever their reaction was doesn’t really matter, since Soviet rule created new legal realities. But I must note that you did not make any reference to any source in support of your statements about League of Nations. As for de-jure status, not only BBC, but many other sources also use this word to describe the status of the region. For example:

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

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

Even an Armenian analyst refers to the status of Nagorno-Karabakh as "de facto independent state-de jure part of Azerbaijan".

Regards, Grandmaster 11:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said that he had a role, on the other hand his position has influenced the press in UK.

Comming to legality, you are wrong. According to the Soviet Laws Karabakh became independent because it has used the same legal means instored by the Soviet Union to brake as an indepedent republic as Azerbaijan did. Furthermore, while Azerbaijan accepted Karabakh as part of Armenia, Armenia did not, you are wrong about the constitution, when a federation does not exist, you can not rely on its existance to apply its laws, for this reason you can not clame in any way that Armenia ever recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, while it was recognized part of its own territory by all the parties involved. Karabakh legally speaking should be independent but is officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan. You rely on articles to establish a written on stone fact, which is against Misplaced Pages policies, just the fact that I can argument and present records supporting a de jure not accepted(and NOT an original research), shows clearly that de Jure certainly does not apply. Also, I ask again, why should Karabakh not have the same introduction as other similar articles? Fad (ix) 18:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Soviet laws don’t secure the independence. The countries of the former USSR became independent not because Soviet laws supported their independence, but because USSR ceased to exist. Since it was a federation of 15 countries, each of them became independent within the Soviet time borders. This fact was accepted by the international community. If Karabakh used the same legal means as Azerbaijan to become independent, why its independence is not recognized by anyone, while Azerbaijan is recognized as an independent state? I find your source pretty biased and really wonder who sponsors these guys, but since we don’t check the sources I agree that there can be various views on this subject, like on any other. You probably know the popular saying about opinions being like a certain part of human body and that everybody has one. It’s hard to find a point that is not disputed in this conflict. In opinion of these guys Karabakh should be independent, but in reality its not, and international organizations and leading countries of the world support territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Most of reputable sources use the words de-jure, formally or legally part of Azerbaijan to describe the status of NK. Since de-jure is used by such reputable sources like BBC, I don’t see why we can’t use it as well. Grandmaster 13:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is where you are wrong, most sources that use the term 'de jure' claim that Karabakh is not de jure independent, which is not to be equaled with de jure part of Azerbaijan. As I said, this term means legally, and Azerbaijan always refused to take part with Karabakh on a mediation about whatever or not legally speaking Karabakh should be independent because it knows that it will lose Karabakh from this process. That there are legal grounds to make Karabakh an independent republic clearly shows that the term de jure as an established fact can not be included there. Again, see my proposition, and you'll see that there is no such terms. Fad (ix) 19:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of sources that use this term claim that NK is a de-jure part of Azerbaijan. This is the latest article from BBC : Nagorno-Karabakh is legally part of Azerbaijan but has been controlled by Armenians since a war of 1988 to 1994. Indeed, since it was recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and international laws and conventions provide for inviolability of international borders, it is legally part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 06:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are simply making this up and you know it. Most claim that Karabakh is not de jure independent, not be be confounded with de Jure part of Azerbaijan. They claim that it is officially part of Azerbaijan, or that it is an enclave within Azerbaijan, de jure is a strong legal word. Also, again BBC, as I said, the BBC doesn't establish a truth.

Just for comparaison, Agence France Presse in its covering of the same situation writes this about the statue of Karabakh.

Le Nagorny Karabakh est une enclave arménienne qui a fait sécession de l'Azerbaïdjan à l'issue d'un conflit qui a fait près de 25.000 morts et des centaines de milliers de déplacés, entre 1988 et 1994.

It says that Karabakh is an Armenian enclave which separated itself from Azerbaijan and present the land as disputed, even Universalis in its map of the region highline Karabakh. The French press is very different than in the British press and respect a more neutral language, and the CIA text that I have posted about the enclave nature of the region is in the middle right side(more closer to a French interpretation of things than British), but you don't even accept the type of language the CIA maintains.

Making up what? I cited a number of sources that said that NK is a de-jure part of Azerbaijan. You say that they say that NK is not de-jure independent, so what even if they say so? If its not de-jure independent, it is de-jure part of Azerbaijan. It’s never been internationally recognized with any other status. Also, the article on Abkhazia to which you were also referring says it is formally an autonomous republic within Georgia, but as I said our case is different. NK currently does not have any formal status within Azerbaijan. Enclave is also not an accurate description, enclave is normally a part of a state, surrounded by the territory of another state. As for your files, there’s no indication that these files reflect position of CIA. It is not clear who wrote them. Grandmaster 08:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

WHAT??? Are you testing how far you can stire this up? I repeat, this time I hope for the last time. I already ADMITTED that Karabakh is officially part of Azerbaijan. But officially does not necessarly equal to DE JURE. What part of this do you not understand? You claimed that most sources say that it is de jure part of Azerbaijan, and to this I have answered that you are making this up. The term de jure is a legal term and in a disputed territory people prefer to not use it. Secondly, I was NOT talking about CIA files I have posted, but rather this one for the official entry for Azerbaijan, in which the term enclave is clearly mentioned. In fact, the term enclave is used generally to refer to the region while you refuse its inclusion, on the other hand you accept the term de jure, when it is not used that often. -Fad(ix)

The words officially recognized sound not accurate to me. How can something be internationally officially recognized without legal consequences? And also with regard to the legal grounds of separation of NK from Azerbiajan, this is from CoE file:

The Armenian side maintains that the N-K independence referendum was conducted in accordance with the USSR law on the “Procedure for Solving Issues of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR" of 3 April 1990. Article 3 of this law provided autonomous regions within the Soviet republics with the right to determine independently, by referendum, whether they wished to remain within the USSR or join the republic seceding from the USSR. It would however seem that according to this law N-K would have the choice of two options – to remain within the USSR or to join independent Azerbaijan; N-K independence does not seem possible. Grandmaster 14:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Karabakh was never part of an independent Azeris republic, the separation revert to either official positions or de Jure previous to the Soviet drawn borders. You can consult any documents to that effect. De Jure in a conflictual territory is not used. Again, I repeat, the term enclave is used very often, you refused because you establish what you consider a truth and judge from what you have established as truth to permit what to include, on the other hand you accept a term that the majority don't even use. I'd qualify this as double standard. Not only you can't make any compromise but you even want included concepts not used. -Fadix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is Fadix' proposal:

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

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

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

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

• throughout the above discussion, none of your sources state that NK is de jure part of Azerbaijan.

• They say it's not de jure independent. You are making the mental leap that "not de jure independent means de jure part of Az," ignoring alternative views that perhaps its de jure in the twilight zone. Under NPOV rules, we are not allowed to make mental leaps (i.e. interpretations) and report them as facts. We report them as views (among others). Plus you are not qualified to make that mental leap first place, not being an expert in international law.

• Your BBC article makes such mental leap by saying "its legally part of Azerbaijan"--it makes its own legal interpretation. Fine, we report them as its view, in the International status section (as I did).

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

Displaced People of Nagorno Karabakh

Why was this section deleted? It seems sourced. I've restored it and moved it down the page. Please do not consider the editor in question, consider the information added. - FrancisTyers 02:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's just with edits like these anyone is inclined to revert. --Khoikhoi 02:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that edit was horrific. This one however seems to be a marked improvement wouldn't you say... - FrancisTyers 02:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The armed campaign of Armenians for independence and/or unification with Armenia has resulted in total ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karabakh.

I don't find this to be that much neutral, besides the refugee crises has already been mentioned in the article, not to forget that per population Armenian has suffered not much less per population with the 350 thousand Armenian refugees. Fad (ix) 02:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite it in a more neutral manner. I think that a section on refugees has a place in the article. It might have more place in an article about Nagorno-Karabakh war, but seeing as that article doesn't exist and this article covers the war I see no reason why it should be removed. - FrancisTyers 02:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

By the end of 1993, the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh had caused thousands of casualties and created hundreds of thousands of refugees on both sides. In a national address in November 1993, Aliyev stated that 16,000 Azerbaijani troops had died and 22,000 had been injured in nearly six years of fighting. The UN estimated that just under 1 million Azerbaijani...

Another one

As a result of the war against Nagorno-Karabakh independence, Azerbaijanis were driven out of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as territories adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh; and these are still under control of the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenian military. With the alleged support of Soviet/Russian military forces, Azerbaijanis forced out tens of thousand Armenians from Shahumyan region (a region adjacent to Soviet-era Nagorno-Karabakh, that joined the self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic in 1991)...

I just find it irrelevent to add this again in the article. Fad (ix) 03:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add that information to the Displaced people section. - FrancisTyers 11:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A topic on the war sounds like a good idea Francis, I'll begin working on that article very soon --MarshallBagramyan 01:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Francis, Fad and marshal, pls refrain from personal attacks. Your words carry implicit bad words in my address. As to questions of fbad and mashalla, of course nothing would satisfy your desire expectation.

However, if you are going to mention armenian refugees in the article, then I need to mention 250,000 Azerbaijanis who left Armenia as well. Me and my family are one of them, around the Goyche (so called Sevan lake) lake, Basarkecher rayon (so called Vardenis by armenians). I put that note but you have deleted. Francis if you are going to be neutral, the statement about 250,000 Azerbiajni refugees should go into that piece. If armenian refugees from Azerbaija nare related to the article the, azerbaijani refugees should be related to the Karabakh as well.

I don't believe that I made a personal attack. Please outline where I made a personal attack. You may want to review the definition of a personal attack. If I did make a personal attack upon presentation of it I will apologise and seek to rectify my behaviour in order to attempt that I don't make any personal attacks in the future.

If you feel something should be included, please source it and include it. If you are questioning my neutrality or impartiality in this matter, please feel free to email me or give me a note on my talk page outlining your concerns with specific reference to edits I have made. Please don't make blanket accusations. - FrancisTyers 09:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Francis. I think he's right that we need to include 170 000 Azeris and 20 000 Kurds who fled to Azerbaijan from Armenia. This fact can be easily sourced, I’m a little busy right now, but I can help with this. Regards, Grandmaster 10:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead :) Note: this information might be better placed in the Nagorno-Karabakh war article. - FrancisTyers 10:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. Tak derzhat', Grandmaster. Brandmeister 12:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Brandmeister. Grandmaster 12:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the excerpt from the US Committee for Refugees World Refugee Survey 2005 - " Investigate > Publications & Archives > -

Despite a ten-year ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan, about 528,000 of the 800,000 ethnic Azeris from the Nagorno-Karabakh region remained internally displaced. Continued instability prevented many from returning except to territories under government control such as Fizuli, Agdam, and Terter. About 154,000 lived in the capital, Baku. The Government was reluctant to integrate them lest others interpret it as acceptance of the permanent loss of Nagorno- Karabakh. The Government required IDPs to register their place of residence in a vestige of the Soviet-era propiska system and only allowed them to live in approved areas. IDPs could only receive assistance in the camps or settlements where the Government initially assigned them, limiting their ability to look for work.

The Government estimated that 63 percent of IDPs lived below the poverty line as compared to 49 percent of the total population. Many were from rural areas and found it difficult to integrate into the urban labor market. According to the International Organization for Migration, 40,000 IDPs lived in camps, 60,000 in underground dugout shelters, and 20,000 in railway cars. Forty-thousand IDPs lived in EU-funded settlements and UNHCR provided housing for another 40,000. Another 5,000 IDPs lived in schools. Others lived in trains, on roadsides in half-constructed buildings, or in public buildings such as tourist and health facilities. Tens of thousands lived in seven tent camps where poor water supply and sanitation caused gastro-intestinal infections, tuberculosis, and malaria. " Source : http://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?area=investigate&subm=19&ssm=29&cid=1301

I would like to draw your attention to this fact from abive - "60,000 in underground dugout shelters "- dug out shelters are places dug into the raw land by displaced people and have been living there for over 10 years. a good example of the armenian crime against humanity. Then they talk about the genocide in 1915. The real genocide is happening right now in front of the world opinoin. for some reason people such Francis with great enthusiasm accept claims from Armenians, he has done nothing to find this statistics so easily available. Eagle of the Caucusus --71.195.182.195 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, please outline where I have accepted unsourced claims given by Armenians (as a bonus point out where I did it with great enthusiasm). Why don't you include the information in the article instead of questioning my integrity? - FrancisTyers 15:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This new sockpuppet of EOC still doesn't realize that you're just an editor like everyone else.--Eupator 15:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

this is one more example of personal attacks from the bitch eupator.

anoher example is when you ask why my addition is deleted and another armenian with sorry repleis that it was due to edits. For your information there was nothing wrong with edits, and I am the leat person in the earth to believe that armenian deleted that section becasue of the edit. So funny. And then you write in response.

I agree, that edit was horrific. This one however seems to be a marked improvement wouldn't you say... - FrancisTyers 02:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think nobody is better in this web page to judge others and their qualifications. As distinct from many armenians who are writing in the Misplaced Pages I am not paid by the armenian diaspora my entire day on edits, writing and lies. I am just trying to represent the armenian crime against humanity to represenet the voiceless displaced kids who died before reaching five, women and children who live in dugout shelter and camps. Aint it interesting that this is what Jewsh has epxerienced when persecuted by Nazi. Then they also were weak and couldn't get their noise heard as many Azerbaijanis nowdays.

I would like all people and editors who claim to be neutral to be more critical and neutral. hy Eagle of the Caucasus.

If you took the time to read my reply instead of jumping to conclusions you might see that I was referring to as a horrific edit. If you think the edit to that article was not horrific, both in terms of formatting and general carelessness then please outline your reasons. I go on to say This one however seems to be a marked improvement, congratulating you on your recent sourced edit - and yes there was nothing wrong with it. I continued by restoring the section that was deleted (accidentally or not). I suggest you view the history. On a further note that was not a personal attack as I was not attacking you, I was attacking one of your edits. - FrancisTyers 16:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To anonymous user, I don't have the slightest clue of the attacks you are talking about. And please, do consider that the term 'bitch' directed against a user is a personal attack. Fad (ix) 20:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The 2000 figures are outdated and inaccurate, as tens of thousands of Azeris have settled. The segment on IDP's needs to be updated to reflect the 2005 report (http://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?cid=1301)

By the way, the report also states that the Azeribaijani government prevents the IDP's from integrating with the rest of the population in order not to give the message that it's abandoning NK. If we are writing how bad the Azeri IDB's live, we need to include this info as well to make it clear that it's not just the fault of Armenians.--TigranTheGreat 07:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

relevent information to add

The Karabakh Armenians. ... Until the middle of the eighteenth century they maintained their independence under their own Maliks, who took part in the Transcaucasian Campaign of Peter the Great.

W. E. D. Allen, New Political Boundaries in the Caucasus, The Geographical Journal Vol. 69, No. 5 (May, 1927), p. 436

Armenian and Azerbaijan fail to reach a deal on Nagorno-Karabakh

See BBC News article. What the hell? --Khoikhoi 22:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that there was no agreement. Prior to the meeting, there was optimism by Yerevan and OSCE, however, there were some pessimistic statments from Baku. MkhitarSparapet 21:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I'd like to archive the talk page, does anyone have any specific objections? PS. I think we're doing a good job on the article, rarely have I seen one so well sourced... although there is always room for improvement :) The early history section could do with more sources. - FrancisTyers 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do archive. It's endless. Grandmaster 16:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

New edits

The new edit to the article states:

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

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

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

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

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

The sticking points were the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh and whether Armenian forces would withdraw from the border town of Kelbajar (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021101632.html)--TigranTheGreat 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan does not discuss sovereign status of NK, it discusses its status within Azerbaijan. It makes difference. Grandmaster 07:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Алиев предложил важнейшие уступки по самому чувствительному вопросу, а именно по поводу статуса Нагорного Карабаха. "Он, в сущности, предложил, чтобы Карабах стал частью Армении", - сказал один чиновник, участвовавший в переговорах.

Aliev offered the most important concessions on the very sensitive issue--namely, the issue of the status of NK. "In essense, he offered that Karabakh be part of Armenia,"--said one man participating in the negotiations.

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

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

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

More on "Weapons Delivery"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was Armenian lobbyists like Starovoytova and Rizhkov, who claimed that Rokhlin was lobbying for Azerbaijan. No one else did. Rodionov’s statement is important for the situation, it partially officially confirmed the claims of Rokhlin, so it is important to show that. Plus it has relation to the current situation. Grandmaster 07:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

They are Russians, if they accused him of being an Azeri lobbyist than that is good enough. According to which Russians are Rizhkov and Staravoytova Armenian lobbyists? You are starting a revert war again. I'm going to re-add all the info you removed.--Eupator 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Read your own source. It’s Petrosyan who thinks he was lobbyist for Azerbaijan. So you should say that an Armenian journalist thinks that Rokhlin was Azerbaijani lobbyist. Grandmaster 16:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The latter, as is known, openly lobbied for the interests of Azerbaijan. It is known to unidentified sources that he lobbied the interests of Azerbaijan. Very compelling proof. Grandmaster 16:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

WOW, I can't believe I didn't pay attention to those dates (94-96). That line was clearly missleading and was placed there with mischievous aims. Good catch my philhellene son in law.--Eupator 03:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Weapons supply has relevance to the conflict, even after ceasefire the conflict is still not resolved, and it shows how certain forces are trying to change the balance in the region, plus it is important that Russian authorities officially confirmed a part of weapons supplied. Stop removing that info, you yourself agreed to its inclusion, when we were discussing this part. The issue has never been officially closed, it’s still open to this day, Russian authorities simply don’t want to investigate it any further, but that’s a different thing. As for weapons contributing to victory, that’s the opinion of western intelligence, and is clearly attributed. As for the intro, your version is more POV than anything there was before, and I’m going to replace it with the existing version until we agree on something else. I already suggested trying dispute resolution. Grandmaster 06:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, why are you removing Washington Times citation? It is a source that should be included. We don’t judge, we just report, remember? WT basically says that Western intelligence sources confirm Rokhlin’s claims. Grandmaster 20:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the alleged weapons delivery was after the war was won already. I want to see the exact quote by Washington Times with the link in your reply here.--Eupator 20:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Rokhlin claimed the weapons were supplied in 1993 – 1996. Rodionov confirmed part of his claims, apparently because he was afraid of diplomatic scandal. See below the beginning of the article, I can e-mail it to you in full.

Russia secretly has shipped more than $1 billion worth of arms to Armenia, apparently to be used against pro-Western Azerbaijan and to force the Azeris and their strategic oil reserves into Russia's orbit.

Aman Tuleyev, minister for relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States, has acknowledged that Moscow supplied Armenia with 84 T-72 main battle tanks, 72 heavy howitzers, 24 Scud missiles with eight launchers, 50 armored personnel carriers and millions of rounds of ammunition.

Lev Rokhlin, the chairman of the Defense Committee of the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, told a closed Duma session April 2 that Moscow had shipped $1 billion worth of weapons to the tough, nationalist government of President Levon Ter-Petrosian in Yerevan. His report was similar to Mr. Tuleyev's acknowledgment.

Between 1992 and early 1994, when the conflict was at its height, Russian heavy transport aircraft were said to have ferried 1,300 tons of ammunition across the Caucasus to the Armenian capital. Most of the tanks were flown in aboard giant Antonov planes from the city of Akhtubinsk.

The Azeris say Russia also supplied 1,000 hand-fired Strela-2 and Strela-3 anti-aircraft missiles, which were moved by ship across the Caspian Sea, then sent overland through Iran to Armenia. Iran has denied playing any role.

Western intelligence sources said the weapons played a crucial role in Armenia's seizure of large areas of Azerbaijan, which created a million refugees, more than from any other conflict in Europe since World War II.

Although Russia's military support for Armenia in its long conflict with Azerbaijan has been well-known, the extent of the arms transfers came as a surprise. Grandmaster 20:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Excerpts from Rokhlin’s speech in Duma :

From August 1992 through January 1994, 66 Il-76 flights and 2 An-12 flights airlifted around 1,300 tonnes of ammunition from Mozdok Airfield to Yerevan.

I will remind you that air deliveries of ammunition from Mozdok to Armenia began in late 1992.

I would like to quote one of the documents as an example. This is a letter from Republic of Armenia Minister of Defense Sarkisyan to Minister of Defense Grachev of 2 November 1993: Dear Pavel Sergeyevich! Considering existing difficulties in restoring armored equipment of the Republic of Armenia Armed Forces, I ask you to give assistance in procuring spare parts in accordance with the enclosure. I guarantee payment. And Grachev's resolution of 4 November 1993: "I authorize sale in accordance with the established procedure."

So we should correct that He had claimed that munitions (worth 1 bil. US dollars) had been illegally transferred to Armenia during 1992-1996. Also note that Russian officials never denied Rokhlin’s claims, and he was soon killed in very strange circumstances. Grandmaster 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Если верить Рохлину, большинство поставок тяжелого вооружения в Армению было осуществлено уже после окончания боевых действий, то есть в 1995-1996 годах

IF we believe Rokhlin, most of the delivery of heavy weaponry to Armenia was done already after the end of military actions, i.e. 1995-96. De Waal,

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

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

De Waal also says in his book:

Однако ряд поставок был осуществлен уже летом 1992 года. С августа 1992 года по июнь 1994, по утверждению Рохлина, масштабные поставки в Армению боеприпасов шли со складов российской военной базы в Моздоке. В тот же период Россия поставляла Армении запчасти и горючее. Он, правда, не уточнил, когда именно были отправлены в Армению другие виды боеприпасов, в частности 350 тысяч ручных гранат.

So Rohklin exposed the facts of supply of ammunition, spare parts for tanks, etc in 1992-94. Western intelligence says that Russian help played significant role in Armenian successes. As for the later supplies of arms to Armenia, it should also be reflected, because Armenia is a party to the conflict (otherwise why would Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents discuss Karabakh issue), and the presence of the troops of the Republic of Armenia on occupied Azerbaijani territories was confirmed by D.Atkinson in his report. So this information is more than relevant and should remain in the article. Grandmaster 06:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Int. Status Section

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

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

You attribute your views to them, it against the rules, I think that they confirmed NK being part of Azerbaijan. We should just cite the source and let the readers judge. Grandmaster 06:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I do no such thing. I am not saying "Res. doesn't consider it." I am saying "it doesn't state it" which is a fact, and it's not apparent from your quotes of the text. Whether it implies/means/considers, the readers will decide from the text that you added. --TigranTheGreat 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It is your POV you try to push into the article. Just cite the source and let the readers decide. Resolution claims that the region is under control of separatist forces. Separatist forces are those who try to separate a region from a country, which means that the region in question is part of the country. Don’t give your own interpretations, nobody needs them, let the reader decide. Grandmaster 13:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I do no such thing. We don't just cite the source, we provide facts and then let the readers decide. One fact is the ommission of a statement "NK, part of Azerbaijan." Readers don't need to search the entire document to find out that it's not there, we provide this basic fact, and let them decide. Now, this: "Separatist forces are those who try to separate a region from a country, which means that the region in question is part of the country" is your POV. Mine is "control under separatists" means "the region *used* to be part of the country, but now they have already separated the region from it" As you see, you are trying to push your POV, while I am not. The ommission is a fact, and that fact shall be stated.--TigranTheGreat 00:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your “provision of facts” is simply an attempt to present your POV as a fact. I’m telling you again, just give the citation and let the readers judge, nobody needs your interpretation. Grandmaster 06:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Basayev

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

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

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

Basayev was not a terrorist when he fought in Karabakh, don’t forget to mention that. He became a terrorist after the war in Chechnya and his raid to Budennovsk, but that was later. Grandmaster 06:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As the source clearly mentions, his terrorist career began with the Russian plane hijacking (which was late 1991). This is even on the Shamil Basayev article. He also ethnically cleansed Georgians in Abhkazia before NK, which is terrorism too (use of violance against civilians for political gain).--TigranTheGreat 22:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The introduction

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

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

Don't you realise that you are contradicting yourself and in infrigement of NPOV policy? How is it OK to use de jure as an established fact even if others do oppose it, including Armenia, but on the other hand the opposition of Azerbaijan of the statue of autonomous region is enought to remove that sentence?

I repeat, the statue of Karabakh was that it was an autonomous region and an enclave, this statue was recognized prior the fall of the Soviet union, but the constitution of Azerbaijan which changed the statue of Karabakh can NOT be endorsed as an established fact. The official CIA entry of Azerbaijan use the term enclave, the enclave statue of Karabakh is recognized by most as well as the statue as a disputed region. But yet, YOU REFUSE any concession that would make this article similair to what the CIA consider it, and I have given examples to you about the way the statue of Karabakh is clearly different for the French compared to the British. What you request is to present the Azerbaijani government position as endorsed by everyone to the point of making it an established fact.

But again, I will make another concession and this time it is the last one, it is now for you to make concessions.

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

This is the last concession I make, it is in fact the third time I modified my own concession and it is for you now to make concessions. And be FrancisTyers witness, I am not making any more concession as this language is the most moderate more than humanly possible. Fad (ix) 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just realised that Tigran already made a similar edit. Fad (ix) 02:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the US State Department position, quoted by Grandmaster, says autonomous next to the region/enclave, much like the Encyclopedias quoted by you. I am copying the quote below:

US Department of State position:

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

The UN resolutions etc. do not contradict this either--saying "region of" doesn't mean "no autonomy." So it is consistent with those documents. I am willing to concede to the "officially" characterization, for the sake of agreement and compatibility with the other articles (though I believe to be strictly NPOV, the other articles need to be changed too). I guess we can assume that officially means "what encyclopedias say, and the way it was on paper before the dispute started." So I think we should go with:

Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed region, officially an autonomous Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan but de facto independent, in the South Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijan's capital of Baku.--TigranTheGreat 09:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you even know what enclave means? You try to push that word into the article, but apparently you don’t realize its meaning. Enclave is a state, surrounded by the territory of another state. Since NK is not recognized as an independent state, it cannot be an enclave, simple as that. Vatican and Lesoto are enclaves, but they are independent countries, unlike NK. And no, it’s not a disputed region, there’s no such status in the world. It is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, therefore according to international laws that provide for inviolability of the international borders, it is legally part of Azerbaijan, until it is recognized with some other status. As for the autonomy, it was abolished by Azerbaijani parliament, and nobody but US department of state claims that it still is an autonomy. None of the resolutions of international organizations claim that. If you still insist on changing the current intro, I’m going to apply for official mediation (for the moment). I hope you’re OK with that, because these edit wars can’t go on forever. If you change the intro again without agreement with me, I will take it as your agreement to apply for mediation. Grandmaster 13:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I really have enought of POV pushers. Grandmaster, I WAS THE ONE who posted on this very SAME talk page the definition of the word enclave. An enclave means a state within the border of another, which is the statue of Karabakh and ONLY Azerbaijan in its constitution includes Karabakh as a region like any other regions in Azerbaijan. WHAT INTERNATIONAL LAWS??? Patiences have limits if you can not make compromises and here to push your national position you should maybe reevaluate your participation in Misplaced Pages. Legally CAN NOT be used in a disputed territory, by nature a disputed territories statue IS DISPUTED. Even the recent BBC article, which contradicts itself uses the term DISPUTED. I repeat, which nation recognized simply as a territory of another, like any regions of that country(in this cases Azerbaijan) recieves its own aid packages and its own international loans? WHICH ONE? Give me just ONE EXEMPLE of such a region which is neither an enclave, neither an autonomous region but simply like any other ones in a country? Will the World Bank allow another region of Azerbaijan that has no particular different statue to recieve loans? Do you even know how many other regions that the United states sent aid packages independently from others to manage? This is a recognition of the administrative power in places, by the World Bank and countries such as the United States. The enclave nature is disputed only by Azerbaijan because it changed the statue, a change as much recognized as the republic of Karabakh. , , just search the words Karabakh and enclave and compare with a search with de jure and Karabakh, which is most of the time used to clarify that Karabakh is not de jure recognized to NOT be equaled with de jure part of Azerbaijan.

And lastly, be othet editors witnness of this, three times I have made compromises and made of that section as much moderate as possible, while you are here for a revert war, I appologise, but I am not the man for revert wars... push a national POV but then, don't wonder why others will get angry and all discussions will be fruitless. Fad (ix) 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A few mistakes mistakes in your argument, Grandmaster

• Enclave doesn't necessarily mean an internationally recognized independent state, it means "A distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enclave). So it's a valid term (and quite useful, in clarifying the geography), so it needs to be there.

• Armenia and NK dispute that it's part of Az, so it is disputed. Simple as that. Plus, there is a "dispute" that needs to be "resolved," as stated over and over even in the PACE and COE documents. So it is an accurate statement.

• The "abolition" of autonomy by Azerbaijan was illegal, as it violates right of self determination already given to a group (Milosevic tried to do that with Kosovo, the int. community didn't like it, we all know the rest of the story). Your source (US dept's of state) and encyclopedias quoted by Fadix use the term, so it's ok to use. UNSC resolutions do not deny this fact--just because they don't mention it, doesn't mean its' not there. They are consistend with the sources stating "autonomy." We can add "officially" qualifier to "autonomous."

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

• GM:It is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan,: You don't know that. It is not recognized as independent, your interpretation that "this means it's part of Az" is yours, and it goes as POV in the relevant section.

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

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

If you cite a source, do it properly, Tigran. Don’t select parts of it that suit your POV. The proper citation is here:

1. A country or part of a country lying wholly within the boundaries of another.

2. A distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit: ethnic enclaves in a large city.

"Distinctly bounded areas" relates to places like ghettos in the cities, etc. It cannot be applied to NK. Plus, there’s meaning # 1, so by including the word enclave we are simply misleading the readers. There are only 3 enclave states in the world: Vatican, Lesoto and San-Marino. NK is not one of them, it’s never been internationally recognized. And "disputed region" is not an international term, there’s no such status. UN never referred to NK as a disputed region, and confirmed the inviolability of Azerbaijan’s borders. Also see this with regard to inviolability of international borders:

Reaffirmation of Principles of International Law

The Security Council resolutions refer to principles of international law which must guide any solution of the conflict, such as the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, which were reaffirmed for both Georgia and Azerbaijan. The resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh involve, however, two elements which are absent from the resolutions on Abkhazia:

1. after the sentence relating to the reaffirmation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the following phrase was added: "and of all other States in the region";

2. the affirmation of the principles of the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory - both of which may be deduced from the two above-mentioned principles. These differences - which were probably politically motivated - had no legal consequences for the affirmation of the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Azerbaijan or Georgia.(23) In both cases, these principles of international law prescribe that any solution of current disputes and any territorial change must be freely accepted by the legal representatives of these countries. Consequently, neither Nagorno-Karabakh nor Abkhazia can be recognized as independent States without the consent of the Azeri and Georgian authorities respectively. Grandmaster 05:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I will be requestion formal mediation for the introduction

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

• Misplaced Pages does not present something as fact, unless it is a mathematical identity..., or that the position is relevant to a definition or a name agreed without opposition. Example, Baku is called Baku... Example, Enclave... it is used by its definition. Karabakh has a recognized autonomy by the World Bank and various countries in the world, the definition is either the first one or the second. Grandmaster is refusing to use a term which has a definition that applies. By comparaison it would be the same thing as claiming that a Prius is not a car (when the definition of the term car applies).

• Grandmaster on the other hand uses a notion(not to be confused with a definition, but rather its interpretation which is completly different), an interpretation. It takes in principle an infinit numbers of evidences to establish something as a fact when it is a question of interpretation, and while I do not request that much, clearly the version that Grandmaster is editwaring and POV pushing on (and here I am not accusing him of vandalism like he is wrongly accused me in the past) present an interpretation as a fact, not only this it goes against the standards. It is clearly misleading and POV. I have in various occasion made propositions and proposed by Grandmaster will still refuse them. I am warning the ditiors here so that they know the next step to take. Fad (ix) 21:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics