| Revision as of 01:27, 4 August 2011 editBars77 (talk | contribs)190 edits →Image gallery← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:12, 4 August 2011 edit undoBars77 (talk | contribs)190 edits →Image galleryNext edit → | ||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
| ::::: :):):):) i think gorzaim was carried away a bit :) was it five rows of pics?! LOL. ] (]) 01:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | ::::: :):):):) i think gorzaim was carried away a bit :) was it five rows of pics?! LOL. ] (]) 01:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: i removed unrelated, repetitive or poor-quality pics e.g. soviet buildings. i also read in ] - "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." this is totally ok for this gallery. i would not say that, per golbez, "the gallery, as it is, is indiscriminate." this gallery had its logic. i think my edits are a compromise but i still beleive that 3 rows are ok. ] (]) 03:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:12, 4 August 2011
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nagorno-Karabakh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | 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. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Nagorno-Karabakh received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Transnistria
Recognition by Transnistria does not count, as it is not a recognized state. Grandmaster 05:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a chain. Russia, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Venezuela recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia (making them on par with Kosovo and Taiwan as partially-recognized non-UN states), which recognize Transnistria (recognized only by partially-recognized non-UN states), which recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh (recognized only by a generally non-recognized state). Either way, if not in the intro, this recognition needs mentioning. --Golbez (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- The difference is that all states which recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia are sovereign, while Transnistria is itself a separatist state, that's probably the reason why it has recognized NKR. Brandmeister 14:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is likely that all unrecognized entities try to recognize each other to gain some legal credibility or status, unless some of them don't want to spoil relations with de-jure sovereign states to which those entities belong. For instance, Transnistria may not recognize Kosovo not to irritate Serbia or Russia while rush to recognize other unrecognized entities which parallel to itself in status. So, recognition by one separatist entity by another does not count. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- In itself, no. But Transnistria is recognized by a partially recognized country, and that confers upon it more legitimacy than if it was recognized only by other non-recognized (or circle-recognized) countries. --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Says who? Only a recognition by a de-jure state counts as recognition. A country that does not exist de jure cannot legally recognize anything. I mean, if no one recognizes Transnistria as a state, who cares about their recognition or non-recognition of anything? Only a country recognized by the international community can become a member of international organizations, join international conventions, etc. That is because it exists de jure, and its existence is generally admitted by the international community. If you still insist that NK is partially recognized, we can ask the wiki community for their opinion. Grandmaster 18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- South Ossetia and Abkhazia are recognized by four fully-recognized UN members. Does that make them, in turn, de jure states? That gives them a status identical to that of Kosovo and Taiwan - they are non-UN members recognized by more than one UN-member country. If that makes them de jure states, then does that make Transnistria, recognized by them, a de jure state? And does that further filter down to Nagorno-Karabakh? That is the question being asked here.
- Please calm down a bit, trust me when I say the world will not end if we continue discussion here a little longer before rusing to the 'wiki community'. Though I suspect the Azeri press, if they picked up on this, would have a conniption fit. They hate us already. --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Golbez, I think what Grandmaster meant was that the "chain" pattern you're trying to present here can't possibly work. De-jure status is an internationally recognized norm. Recognition by self-proclaimed entities like Transnistria are similar to those done by individual politicians, political parties, social or nationalist groups which are in hundreds throughout the volatile regions, etc. In other words, if an entity has no legitimate status, it can't grant one, so to speak, to another entity. If we use the same "chain" pattern you speak of here, then we should go on and recognize 3,000 ethnicities including hundreds of tribal communities in Africa and Asia as well, because whichever way we turn, one chain will lead to recognition by another. The question is should they be considered "recognized" as independent states. That's my take. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- But Transnistria is now recognized by a partially-recognized country. Doesn't that give them any legitimacy to then recognize others? No one's talking about these tribes; not one single one of them is recognized by anything, be it a UN member or a country recognized by a UN member. So that analogy seems completely wrong. Here's the chain:
- Russia, Nauru, Nicaragua, and Venezuela are 100% recognized UN members.
- They have recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This confers a similar status to them that Kosovo and Taiwan enjoy: non-UN members recognized by multiple UN members. This gives them a certain diplomatic legitimacy; they are de jure partially recognized, non-UN member states.
- South Ossetia and Abkhazia recognize Transnistria. As partially recognized states, does this now mean Transnistria is de jure recognized as an independent nation? Note that Israel (a partially-recognized UN member) has been rumored to want to recognize Somaliland, which I think we would all agree would confer legitimate partial recognition upon that de facto independent state. If Taiwan and Kosovo were to do the same, would that recognition be less legitimate?
- Transnistria recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh. Now, we're three links removed from the UN here, and things get fuzzy. However, if South Ossetia and Abkhazia are de jure independent, then does that mean Transnistria is such due to their recognition? And, if it is, what of Nagorno-Karabakh?
- I don't see at all how your tribe analogy comes into play whatsoever. To compare Transnistria with independent politicians? Perhaps. But not South Ossetia and Abkhazia, not anymore, and they have chosen to recognize Transnistria's independence. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, let me explain how tribal analogy fits into your logic. Let's consider a hypothetical chain. If we follow your logic, then: 1) Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetia; 2) South Ossetia recognizes Transnistria; 3) Transnistria recognizes Northern Cyprus; 4) Northern Cyprus recognizes Cabinda; 5) Cabinda recognizes one of Yoruba tribes; 6) That Yoruba tribe recognizes Ijaw, etc. Does that mean Ijaw is or should be an independent entity if and when it decides to, just because some country at the beginning of the chain recognized another self-proclaimed entity? I am not saying any or some of the tribes are claiming autonomies and independence. Most of the cases might not even reach the media, but the fact that thousands of ethnicities differ in culture, language, life style and want to be independent does not give anyone a pretext to accept these entities as legitimate or rather, partially de-jure. There are formal ways of state recognitions under constitutions of states and international laws and everyone follows them. The argument of "partial-recognition" in case of Nagorno-Karabakh is not valid and should not be incorporated into the article. By the same token, Pakistan does not recognize Armenia as a state and Armenia does not recognize Turkey and Azerbaijan. Should we then also add partially recognized to Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan articles? hope this clarifies the tribal argument. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, don't know why you need the first three steps of that; Northern Cyprus is already recognized by Turkey. And let me paint this another way: 1) Turkey recognizes Cabinda, 2) Cabinda recognizes one of Yoruba tribes. Or, perhaps simply, 1) Turkey recognizes one of Yoruba tribes. Is Yoruba a de jure independent nation at that point? (assuming, hypothetically, that they have declared independence, etc) It certainly would qualify by Misplaced Pages definitions. Does Yoruba's recognition of Ijaw then confer legitimacy?
- As for 'partially recognized', that is far more relevant when dealing with a previously-unrecognized country than an otherwise-full recognized, UN-member country, so that's getting a little pedantic. It merits mentioning in a 'foreign affairs' section, but nowhere else. And FYI, Armenia recognizes Turkey and Azerbaijan just fine. They have diplomatic relations and recognition of both countries. So I don't know where you got that from.
- Let's get away from the tribal thing and ask: If South Ossetia and Abkhazia themselves recognized Nagorno-Karabakh, would that count it as partially-recognized? If not, what if it was Taiwan and Kosovo? The only problem here is that Transnistria is one step removed from that, being only partially-recognized by partially-recognized countries. It could be validly said that legitimacy moves down the chain; it could also be validly said that it stops after the UN members stop being involved, in which legitimacy is only conferred upon South Ossetia and Abkhazia but not upon Transnistria. This is an unusual situation (which would be vastly simplified if Armenia or Cyprus finally sacked up and recognized the NKR). --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you're getting the point. That was a hypothetical example. None of those tribal entities should be independent or in de-facto control of a physical territory to be candidates for recognition. The mere fact that this whole logic of "chain" you promote does not work in international arena says it all. Misplaced Pages is encyclopedia. It relies on commonly accepted norms. Who came up with this "chain" thing in the first place? What makes it a base for making "NKR" partially recognized? Nothing. Whether you remove any entities from your chains or not, the result won't change. Illegitimate entity is illegitimate until the sovereign state it is in and the international community recognize it as legitimate or come up with any official solution like in case of Aland Islands. Otherwise it will remain unrecognized and unaccepted by the international community and lack diplomatic relations. For your information, Armenia does not recognize Azerbaijan and Turkey and does not have any diplomatic relations. Where did you get that? Hand-shaking during negotiation meetings does not mean diplomatic relations. Armenia denounces the internationally recognized borders of both Turkey and Azerbaijan. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- The "sovereign state it is in" doesn't necessarily have a say in the matter. Taiwan has been "legitimate" for decades. And as for the "international community", that's called the UN, and there are currently seven non-UN members recognized by UN members: Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Each of these has varying amounts of legitimacy (and I listed them from most to least, as far as I see it), but the fact remains, they do have some. Some countries are not simply "legitimate" or "illegitimate"; in these cases, it definitely depends on who you ask. To Greece, Northern Cyprus is illegitimate, an occupied territory; to Turkey, it is an independent nation. Both points of view are valid. As for Armenia not recognizing Turkey and Azerbaijan, if you could supply sources for your assertion we'd love for you to be able to add that to List of states with limited recognition; being a featured list, we like to keep it up to date, and so far no one has thought to add that. However, Armenia–Turkey relations seems to disagree with you, the borders having been accepted and reopened back in 2009. And if Armenia does indeed not recognize Azerbaijan, I again call upon them to sack up and recognize the NKR and put us all out of our misery. --Golbez (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you should be making political statements calling any country to recognize an illegitimate regime which caused one of the biggest refugee crisis in late 20th century. One can't recognize a guest if he comes in and claims one of the rooms of your house by forcing your folks out. The states you mention do have a certain legitimacy, but only for states they are recognized by. They are not recognized by the rest of the world. Nagorno-Karabakh is not recognized by any other state. Transnistria is not a state. If any of the UN states do recognize Nagorno-Karabakh, we can come back and start discussing it over. At this point it is meaningless. If you'd like to mention it had been recognized by another self-proclaimed entity in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic page in the appropriate subsection, I won't be opposing the motion.
- For your information, Armenia does not recognize Azerbaijan and Turkey's territorial integrity. You may find relevant information online. Armenia sees the Eastern Turkey as "Western Armenia" and Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia. The Armenian army is deployed in Karabakh, Armenian currency is used there and to start with, at the beginning of the conflict, Armenia included Nagorno-Karabakh in its annual budget. In addition to that, obviosuly you don't follow the news. There are no open borders between Armenia and Turkey. There were protocols signed to open them but since Armenia refuses to withdraw from occupied territories of Azerbaijan, the borders were not opened. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- We know Russia, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Venezuela are states. Are South Ossetia and Abkhazia states? And don't tell me to do the research, my information says Armenia recognizes Turkey, you have yet to offer any evidence to the contrary. --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- We're not in a Political Science class determining whether some unrecognized (by international community) are considered states or not. As far as your question is concerned, S.Ossetia and Abkhazia are self-proclaimed entities recognized only by Russia after S. Ossetian War of 2008 and by certain countries with political and economic motives. But that's far from this discussion. On the other end of the spectrum you should see states of Eritrea or East Timor for comparison. Now, as far as Armenian recognition of Turkey goes, you must have missed the noisy discussions before Turkish-Armenian protocols were signed. One of the points of discussion was Armenia's need to accept Kars Treaty and officially recognize the territorial borders of Turkey, which it refused to when it declared independence in late 1990. Here are few links to articles on the issue you can read: , , , , , , , , , Tuscumbia (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- A good number of those predate the 2009 accords, and again, if you can properly cite a deliberate lack of recognition, please add an entry to the list of unrecognized countries, or at least bring it up on the talk page. --Golbez (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- And I'm not necessarily saying I like the NKR; I'm saying, if Armenia grew a pair and actually recognized or annexed them, rather than dancing around the bush while still occupying the southeastern quarter of Azerbaijan, then this whole argument would be completely moot. But because they, for some reason, have done neither of those, we still have this situation. --Golbez (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any reliable third party source calling NK a partially recognized state? And preferably more than just one, because we cannot engage in OR and present our own opinions or minority views as facts. Grandmaster 10:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- And I agree but it's not up to us to decide if Armenia should recognize it or not. If it ever does, we can discuss. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- We know Russia, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Venezuela are states. Are South Ossetia and Abkhazia states? And don't tell me to do the research, my information says Armenia recognizes Turkey, you have yet to offer any evidence to the contrary. --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Transnistria's recognition fits to NKR, one can not de jure recognize the region, but NKR proper. So I have nothing against mentioning that fact there. Brandmeister 21:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- The "sovereign state it is in" doesn't necessarily have a say in the matter. Taiwan has been "legitimate" for decades. And as for the "international community", that's called the UN, and there are currently seven non-UN members recognized by UN members: Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Each of these has varying amounts of legitimacy (and I listed them from most to least, as far as I see it), but the fact remains, they do have some. Some countries are not simply "legitimate" or "illegitimate"; in these cases, it definitely depends on who you ask. To Greece, Northern Cyprus is illegitimate, an occupied territory; to Turkey, it is an independent nation. Both points of view are valid. As for Armenia not recognizing Turkey and Azerbaijan, if you could supply sources for your assertion we'd love for you to be able to add that to List of states with limited recognition; being a featured list, we like to keep it up to date, and so far no one has thought to add that. However, Armenia–Turkey relations seems to disagree with you, the borders having been accepted and reopened back in 2009. And if Armenia does indeed not recognize Azerbaijan, I again call upon them to sack up and recognize the NKR and put us all out of our misery. --Golbez (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you're getting the point. That was a hypothetical example. None of those tribal entities should be independent or in de-facto control of a physical territory to be candidates for recognition. The mere fact that this whole logic of "chain" you promote does not work in international arena says it all. Misplaced Pages is encyclopedia. It relies on commonly accepted norms. Who came up with this "chain" thing in the first place? What makes it a base for making "NKR" partially recognized? Nothing. Whether you remove any entities from your chains or not, the result won't change. Illegitimate entity is illegitimate until the sovereign state it is in and the international community recognize it as legitimate or come up with any official solution like in case of Aland Islands. Otherwise it will remain unrecognized and unaccepted by the international community and lack diplomatic relations. For your information, Armenia does not recognize Azerbaijan and Turkey and does not have any diplomatic relations. Where did you get that? Hand-shaking during negotiation meetings does not mean diplomatic relations. Armenia denounces the internationally recognized borders of both Turkey and Azerbaijan. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, let me explain how tribal analogy fits into your logic. Let's consider a hypothetical chain. If we follow your logic, then: 1) Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetia; 2) South Ossetia recognizes Transnistria; 3) Transnistria recognizes Northern Cyprus; 4) Northern Cyprus recognizes Cabinda; 5) Cabinda recognizes one of Yoruba tribes; 6) That Yoruba tribe recognizes Ijaw, etc. Does that mean Ijaw is or should be an independent entity if and when it decides to, just because some country at the beginning of the chain recognized another self-proclaimed entity? I am not saying any or some of the tribes are claiming autonomies and independence. Most of the cases might not even reach the media, but the fact that thousands of ethnicities differ in culture, language, life style and want to be independent does not give anyone a pretext to accept these entities as legitimate or rather, partially de-jure. There are formal ways of state recognitions under constitutions of states and international laws and everyone follows them. The argument of "partial-recognition" in case of Nagorno-Karabakh is not valid and should not be incorporated into the article. By the same token, Pakistan does not recognize Armenia as a state and Armenia does not recognize Turkey and Azerbaijan. Should we then also add partially recognized to Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan articles? hope this clarifies the tribal argument. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- But Transnistria is now recognized by a partially-recognized country. Doesn't that give them any legitimacy to then recognize others? No one's talking about these tribes; not one single one of them is recognized by anything, be it a UN member or a country recognized by a UN member. So that analogy seems completely wrong. Here's the chain:
- Golbez, I think what Grandmaster meant was that the "chain" pattern you're trying to present here can't possibly work. De-jure status is an internationally recognized norm. Recognition by self-proclaimed entities like Transnistria are similar to those done by individual politicians, political parties, social or nationalist groups which are in hundreds throughout the volatile regions, etc. In other words, if an entity has no legitimate status, it can't grant one, so to speak, to another entity. If we use the same "chain" pattern you speak of here, then we should go on and recognize 3,000 ethnicities including hundreds of tribal communities in Africa and Asia as well, because whichever way we turn, one chain will lead to recognition by another. The question is should they be considered "recognized" as independent states. That's my take. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Says who? Only a recognition by a de-jure state counts as recognition. A country that does not exist de jure cannot legally recognize anything. I mean, if no one recognizes Transnistria as a state, who cares about their recognition or non-recognition of anything? Only a country recognized by the international community can become a member of international organizations, join international conventions, etc. That is because it exists de jure, and its existence is generally admitted by the international community. If you still insist that NK is partially recognized, we can ask the wiki community for their opinion. Grandmaster 18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- In itself, no. But Transnistria is recognized by a partially recognized country, and that confers upon it more legitimacy than if it was recognized only by other non-recognized (or circle-recognized) countries. --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is likely that all unrecognized entities try to recognize each other to gain some legal credibility or status, unless some of them don't want to spoil relations with de-jure sovereign states to which those entities belong. For instance, Transnistria may not recognize Kosovo not to irritate Serbia or Russia while rush to recognize other unrecognized entities which parallel to itself in status. So, recognition by one separatist entity by another does not count. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- The difference is that all states which recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia are sovereign, while Transnistria is itself a separatist state, that's probably the reason why it has recognized NKR. Brandmeister 14:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hocalı Massacre
This article should mention Azeris who are massacred by Armenians during the war in Hocali. People should know what really happened in there. Here is a reference for Hocalı massacre:]--Lonewolf94 (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is about the region. If you want to know more about actions in the war, we have an article on that. --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. Hocalı was spelled very different than it is in Turkish. so I couldn't find the link and thought that we should add it to this part.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I found no evidence that the Askeran fortress was built by Panakh Ali "Khan." Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi does not mention it was built by Panakh. He says Shusha fortress was built by him but not Askeran. This is most likely a misconception and unsourced POV. Xebulon (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Xebulon (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- It was indeed built by him, see another source. Twilightchill t 08:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very sure this happened. Gingermint (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Recognized by Whom?
I changed "internationally recognized" to "presently recognized" as, 1. if everyone recognized it then it wouldn't be a disputed region, 2. there is no source for nor indication of specifically what "internationally" mens. The UN? What? 3. The statement was too vague and, devoid of source or any solid meaning, seemed to have a slant as to a supposed legitimacy of claim. Gingermint (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I feel like I brought this up years ago, with similar arguments, but really, since no UN-member nation recognizes the independence of the NKR, and no one regards the area as terra nullius (the only ones really existing are Bir Tawil, Western Sahara, and Antarctica), it is a safe and unbiased assumption that the region is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. I don't see how it's more vague than 'presently'; 'presently' makes no attempt to say who recognizes it as such. There are many disputed regions where one party is internationally recognized as the legitimate owner, except by the party that disputes it. The NKR makes that slightly more complicated by having reciprocal recognitions with other otherwise unrecognized countries, but that doesn't change the fact that, of the countries that matter (the members of the United Nations, plus those which have UN-member recognition), the NKR is entirely unrecognized - even by Armenia. Since it is unrecognized, and no one has explicitly regarded the area as terra nullius as Bar Tawil and, according to some nations, Western Sahara, then it is not a leap to say it's internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. --Golbez (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
POV/NPOV
There has been an unilateral POV rewriting of the text, which, while being tolerated by WP:BOLD, was subsequently restored and this is unacceptable. The wordings like "the original and historical name for Nagorno-Karabakh is Artsakh" or "Nagorno Karabakh and other east Armenian territories" are dubious and debatable contributions, just like removal of NK's international status from the lead or alterations of references, like the addition of "it is speculated that". Also there is no "fake conclusion" from the Penny cyclopaedia as everyone can verify the reference. Except some good-faith input, all are subjects to reversion. --Ehud (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- The latest contributions are not unilateral - see input. nk does not have any international status as of yet that is why there are negotiations managed by the minsk group. the peace talks are not held on the assumption that nk is part of some other territory. hewsen he was speculating (see his text), and academic speculation is a normal legitimate process but i may remove it per suggestion. i cast another look at penny cyclopedia and penny does not mention anything about 1822, it mentions 1832, and says nothing about who migrated from where. read it again, and cite quotes in case i am missing it all. everyone indeed can verify the reference. i will work on consensus and preserve some edits by ehud. yes - and you completely and without explanation deleted the "Antiquity and the Middle Ages" section with references in the demography. please avoid doing this - it can be viewed as vandalism. Bars77 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, why do you remove the fact that the area of Nagorno (Mountanous) Karabakh is 4,400 square kilometres (1,700 sq mi) and move it a few paragraphs below that and attaching something about "country's" constitution? Which country? Have you checked any sources? Anyone recognizing separatist authorities as a "country"? I don't think so!
Then, you go on to remove the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is an internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, although it has not exercised power over most of the region since 1991 and you add that its international status is undetermined by adding and is violation of WP:OR which does not say anything like that you entered. I am sorry but your obvious POV can't be a part of this article. You also without explanation removed House of Aranshahik, which descended of the earliest kings of the Caucasian Albania as reference to Caucasian Albania. Unacceptable!
I will also change the POV language which you inserted although the previous editor unpoved it. All your edits try to picture the territory as if it was all time Armenian, which you know is not true. I am sorry but you will have to come to consensus on every edit for this article because it's controversial article. If you don't wanna be to taken to arbitration. Dighapet (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Bars77 should be commended for restoring parts of the article as asked here on talk pages. I wish there were more editors like Bars77 who would try to accommodate the opposite side's point of view irrespective of the latter's emotional outbursts and threats (like I see here with Dighapet). I worked on the text a bit, and replaced "east Armenian lands" with a different phrase. Gorzaim (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
i am not sure i can agree with the latest revision by ehud at least because it comes from a biased source, an azerbaijani diplomat. makes no sense to me. negotiations on status would not take place if there was a strong case of such recognition. this is not a balanced view. a balanced view should signal that this recognition is soft not hard, tentative and does not reflect the position of the leaders of international community which manage the talks. Bars77 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- He reports the UN stance, not his personal or something, and the source is verifiable. The negotiations are esentially about the perspectives of local Armenian population in light of Azerbaijan's integrity, not about NK's recognition. Ehud (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I dont understand this phrase "perspectives of local Armenian population in light of Azerbaijan's integrity, not about NK's recognition." Not true. Negotiations are about an international status for NK, meaning that the international community views the status of the province as not being settled. This concerns both the interim status and final status. Both are subject of negotiations by the Minsk Group. Hence the Madrid Principles. Therefore, the previous definition is more balanced. It says that there are organizations and politicians saying that NK as part of Azerbaijan but on a practical level the region's interim status and final status remains subject to negotiations. Gorzaim (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is a UN General Assembly Resolution 62/243, which expresses international stance on behalf of that (and probably this is not the sole relevant document). Please do not make further unilateral reverts. There is also some text which belongs to Artsakh, not here, however I did not remove that now. --Ehud (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- the previous version said very well that there are organizations and state agencies that recognize nk as part of azerbaijan. this is a non-binding resolution, and most un nations and all of security council's members abstained or voted against the resolution - so, the vote showed that nk, in fact, is NOT universally recognized as part of azerbaijan. i am adding "states" to the mix. Bars77 (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which "international organizations, states, NGOs and politicians"? This is unreferenced. The resolution text meanwhile states on a number of occasions, on behalf of the UN General Assembly: "the armed conflict in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan". Also in preceding UNSCR for instance: "the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic". Ehud (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- the absolute majority of countries (over 100) did not support the resolution, and security council's members voted against it. it was a fiasco for azerbaijan's claims on nk. thank you bringing up the un resolution by the way. un is just an organization, one of many. moreover, un secretary general always said that un is not the venue to deal with the conflict and it is the prerogative of the minsk group and osce. Bars77 (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- i.e. the international community as a whole does not recognize nk as part of azerbajian but some states do. Bars77 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which "international organizations, states, NGOs and politicians"? This is unreferenced. The resolution text meanwhile states on a number of occasions, on behalf of the UN General Assembly: "the armed conflict in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan". Also in preceding UNSCR for instance: "the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic". Ehud (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
What? When Armenian parlament discussed something and then when law is accepted by majority of votes, do you go question laws when they are enforced? No! Because in jurispridence, there is laws and understanding on majority election. That's how everything works. Your discussion here is so unbased on anything. All countries support Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and many have it on their websites or legal documents, many express their positions in meetings with Azerbaijan's government and in international events, but here you come with unbased argument that it's contested. It's not contested. It's occupied. And learn something from politics. UN is a gathering where member countries join to rule the world together. It's not "just" organization. Dighapet (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- no. un is not the parliament of the world. and the un resolution in question was not adopted by the majority of votes but by minority of votes. it showed that the majority does not recognize nk as part of azerbaijan. hence, the world is very very far from having a consensus on this issue. Bars77 (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- to be precise according to the vote only 20% of countries recognize nk as part of azerbaijan Bars77 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- What do the other 80% recognize it as? See my treatment of terra nullius in the section above this one. --Golbez (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- terra nullius is not a relevant concept since it is to "describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty" (see defintion in the article). terra nullius is "designated wilderness" with no sovereignty at all and is usually referred to places which are unpopulated or cannot be populated in principle. terra nullius is not the same as places with disputed sovereignty. palestinian territories, or an even better example - city of jerusalem - are not terra nullius simply because their sovereign status is contested. there are countries which do recognize jerusalem as capital of israel and keep their embassies in the city, and there are those countries which do not recognize israel's sovereign rights to jerusalem. most states in the worlds avoids expressing opinions about political status of jerusalem. nk is a politically disputed land whose sovereign status is unclear and is subject to negotiations. most un countries, 107 out of 192, did not wish to express any opinion on the matter. Bars77 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure if Bars77 interpreted Golvez's argument on terra nullius correctly but his view on Jerusalem is relevant. Russia, US and France which mediate the talks do not believe that NK has any international status. To make things simple, I prefer to state simply: "Nagorno Karabakh is a disputed territory." Gorzaim (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Right. I was saying, no country regards it as terra nullius, therefore all countries must regard it as belonging to someone. Seeing as how no country has recognized the NKR, it is not a baseless assumption to believe they all - if implicitly - recognize it as part of Azerbaijan. Even Armenia does. --Golbez (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure if Bars77 interpreted Golvez's argument on terra nullius correctly but his view on Jerusalem is relevant. Russia, US and France which mediate the talks do not believe that NK has any international status. To make things simple, I prefer to state simply: "Nagorno Karabakh is a disputed territory." Gorzaim (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Golbez - yours is a somewhat extreme, very formalistic and I believe wrong or at least impractical view of state sovereignty. It does not apply to the reality of international relations, especially to many cases of partially-recognized states such as Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkhazia, to phenomena like Jerusalem, Western Sahara or Saudi–Iraqi neutral zone or to cases of intentional international agnosticism/relativism like Nagorno Karabakh, where as many as 154 countries out of 192 do not have a clear position on the subject of NK's belonging. Gorzaim (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Western Sahara is one of the few zones in the world that is actually recognized by some parties as terra nullius, so that doesn't quite fit. The Saudi neutral zone has been defunct for years. Jerusalem, I believe, is recognized either to be Israeli or Palestinian, I'm not sure if anyone formally waffles on the matter. (And anyway, Israel-Palestine is a far, far more complex issue than NKR-Azerbaijan. The NKR isn't an observer at the UN, for example.) Kosovo is just like NKR, there are three possibilities: You recognize it as Serb, you recognize it as independent, or you don't care - but lack of caring is an implicit acceptance of Serb ownership, just as, in this case, lack of caring is implicit acceptance of Azeri ownership, the 'default position'. No country becomes de jure independent by default, it requires explicit recognition from others. That I see things smoothly and formally is a clarity of vision rarely found in these discussions. :) --Golbez (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Here is how Kosovo status is defined in the article on Kosovo: Kosovo's "political status in the community of nations has been highly contentious since 1999." Definition of Western Sahara: "disputed territory in North Africa." Abkhazia: "is a disputed political entity on the eastern coast of the Black Sea and the south-western flank of the Caucasus." Gorzaim (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- And rightly this should mention its disputed nature, I absolutely never said it shouldn't. My only reason for getting into this thread was to respond to Bars77 appearing to say that 80% of the world doesn't recognize it as part of Azerbaijan, when there really is only one other option, not two - if they do not recognize it as independent, then they recognize it as Azeri, implicitly. He seems to think that 80% of countries not caring somehow grants more legitimacy to the NKR's independence. It doesn't, in fact it grants less, IMO. --Golbez (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Here is how Kosovo status is defined in the article on Kosovo: Kosovo's "political status in the community of nations has been highly contentious since 1999." Definition of Western Sahara: "disputed territory in North Africa." Abkhazia: "is a disputed political entity on the eastern coast of the Black Sea and the south-western flank of the Caucasus." Gorzaim (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Golbez: I disagree about Kosovo that lack of caring is necessarily an "implicit acceptance of Serb ownership." Lack of caring regarding Kosovo in many countries is due to implicit willingness to recognize it as independent. And remember that there are no known international peace talks on Kosovo status anymore, unlike in case of NK. "Israel-Palestine is a far, far more complex issue than NKR-Azerbaijan" - there are people who would dispute that. "If they do not recognize it as independent, then they recognize it as Azeri" - I totally disagree because the default situation is of unclear nature. It is unclear/undetermined if Azerbaijan SSR, which was just another Soviet autonomy (albeit of highest order), could secede from the USSR and automatically "grab" NK with it. At least that would contradict USSR's law on secession adopted in 1991, under which NK would go free if Azerbaijan seceded. Anyway, see how disputed regions were defined in cases of Kosovo, West Sahara, Abkhazia etc. NK should be treated with similar sensitivity and ambiguity. It is just that - disputed. Gorzaim (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
About Bars77's position: " He seems to think that 80% of countries not caring somehow grants more legitimacy to the NKR's independence." I think "80% of countries not caring somehow grants more legitimacy to the NKR's de-facto independence but not to its de jure independence (here I agree with you)." Gorzaim (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- We can assume it's only the de jure independence that's being discussed; the NKR's de facto independence has remained unchallenged for twenty years. --Golbez (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Any mention that "NK is recognized as part of Azerbaijan" signals that there is a strong, definitive and universally shared opinion about NK's international status, which obviously isn't the case. We may do it this way: "there is a lack of consensus regarding Nagorno Karabakh's international status" instead of mentioning states, organizations etc., which recognize NK as Azerbaijan. I think it is best is to keep it as "disputed territory." Gorzaim (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- But there isn't. Of every country who has cared to speak on it, 100% say it is part of Azerbaijan. That there exist many who haven't cared to doesn't really dilute that. The consensus among those who have stated an opinion is total. --Golbez (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Any mention that "NK is recognized as part of Azerbaijan" signals that there is a strong, definitive and universally shared opinion about NK's international status, which obviously isn't the case. We may do it this way: "there is a lack of consensus regarding Nagorno Karabakh's international status" instead of mentioning states, organizations etc., which recognize NK as Azerbaijan. I think it is best is to keep it as "disputed territory." Gorzaim (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- "but there isn't?" what??? i don't understand golbez's english. the minsk group countries manage a process to formulate the status for nk, both interim and final. how can u strive to formulate an interim status if you believe nk is part of azerbaijan? absurd. and golbez says that countries who are not taking a stance do not matter. states who refuse to be biased may have strong opinions: they strongly oppose to taking a definitive stance. they care. their neutrality is a stronger factor than the the bias of those who chose not to be impartial. also read cafrefully again what gorzaim was saying above - |||It is unclear/undetermined if Azerbaijan SSR, which was just another Soviet autonomy (albeit of highest order), could secede from the USSR and automatically "grab" NK with it||| Bars77 (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, when I wrote that I had a feeling I was being too vague. I meant, there isn't a lack of consensus. The consensus is total among those who have stated an opinion. If you're going to include the ones that didn't, does that mean Barack Obama isn't really the president of the United States, since more than 50% of eligible citizens didn't vote? :) (As for the legal particulars of if the NKR seceded from the AzSSR, or from the USSR, or from an independent Azerbaijan, and whether or not it was legal to one or any of these things... most countries, I think, don't care, because they're probably just as confused about it as we are. It seems mostly a matter between the NKR and the rest of the former Soviet Union.) --Golbez (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's right. I don't think the international recognition of NK within Azerbaijan could still be discussed somehow. In addition to UN resolutions you wouldn't find NK as a separate entity on geographical maps. This is not really an issue worth of editwarring. Ehud (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- someone here is drawing wrong conclusions from a discussion on such a complicated issue. i encourage you go through all the arguments again and again. or you may go and try to change formulation of status on articles on jerusalem, abkhazia, kosovo, west sahara and a half a dozen other places first. definition of nk's status now is way too generously skewed in favor of the azeri position in the dispute. i will need to repeat "how can u strive to formulate an interim status if you believe nk is part of azerbaijan? absurd." presently, the international community has a consensus that it is the minsk pro cess that should deal with the issue, and the minsk process leaves the question of interim and final status of the province an open issue. there are no governments or organizations (including un) that question the supremacy of the minsk process. Bars77 (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- The Minsk Group co-chairs do recognize NK within Azerbaijan. And no one questioned the UN stance on that: all UN resolutions on the NK conflict explicitly say "the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic". It's UN job in particular to determine what is or is not internationally recognized. Ehud (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- someone here is drawing wrong conclusions from a discussion on such a complicated issue. i encourage you go through all the arguments again and again. or you may go and try to change formulation of status on articles on jerusalem, abkhazia, kosovo, west sahara and a half a dozen other places first. definition of nk's status now is way too generously skewed in favor of the azeri position in the dispute. i will need to repeat "how can u strive to formulate an interim status if you believe nk is part of azerbaijan? absurd." presently, the international community has a consensus that it is the minsk pro cess that should deal with the issue, and the minsk process leaves the question of interim and final status of the province an open issue. there are no governments or organizations (including un) that question the supremacy of the minsk process. Bars77 (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- thank u for bringing up documents that keep refuting your own arguments. the document in fact is about criticizing and opposing the un resolution of 2008: "Unfortunately, this draft resolution selectively propagates only certain of these principles to the exclusion of others, without considering the Co-Chairs' proposal in its balanced entirety. Because of this selective approach, the three OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries must oppose this unilateral draft resolution." they also say: "they reaffirm their support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and do not recognize the independence of NK." well, armenia also supports the territorial integrity of azerbaijan, and non-recognition of nkr is beyond the scope of the argument (i.e. no one argues here that nkr is a recognized state. Bars77 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whether or not OSCE criticizes UN resolution, this doesn't affect NK's international unrecognition. Roma locuta, causa finita. Ehud (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- discussants on this page myself including do not try to refute that nkr is an unrecognized state. mr. ehud painstakingly fails to make arguments relevant to the logic of discussion, and i question the usefulness of his continued participation in this forum. Bars77 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- "but there isn't?" what??? i don't understand golbez's english. the minsk group countries manage a process to formulate the status for nk, both interim and final. how can u strive to formulate an interim status if you believe nk is part of azerbaijan? absurd. and golbez says that countries who are not taking a stance do not matter. states who refuse to be biased may have strong opinions: they strongly oppose to taking a definitive stance. they care. their neutrality is a stronger factor than the the bias of those who chose not to be impartial. also read cafrefully again what gorzaim was saying above - |||It is unclear/undetermined if Azerbaijan SSR, which was just another Soviet autonomy (albeit of highest order), could secede from the USSR and automatically "grab" NK with it||| Bars77 (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Image gallery
I think the image gallery is not only becoming way too large, but it's unnecessary. A simple boilerplate link to commons handles all this. Per WP:IG, image galleries should supplement the text if needed, not just be pictures of the subject. I suggest pruning or (better) removing it altoether. --Golbez (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not think image gallery is becoming large. It is in full compliance with WP:IG. Thanks. Gorzaim (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- It takes up nearly two entire pages on my large monitor; do you see many other Misplaced Pages articles that have image galleries doing that?
- Furthermore, "However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Misplaced Pages articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" There is nothing in this gallery that is so relevant to the subject yet cannot be put into the text. "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. " I would definitely say the gallery, as it is, is indiscriminate, with items ranging from a constitution, to clothes, to art, to a royal standard, to an airport. There is nothing linking these except "Nagorno-Karabakh", making it indiscriminate. If they cannot fit into the text, then we have a link to commons where people can find all the photos and images about NK that they want. --Golbez (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- :):):):) i think gorzaim was carried away a bit :) was it five rows of pics?! LOL. Bars77 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- i removed unrelated, repetitive or poor-quality pics e.g. soviet buildings. i also read in WP:IG - "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." this is totally ok for this gallery. i would not say that, per golbez, "the gallery, as it is, is indiscriminate." this gallery had its logic. i think my edits are a compromise but i still beleive that 3 rows are ok. Bars77 (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)