Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:47, 11 October 2012

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Nagorno-Karabakh is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2007 Arbitration case. Per a 2012 complaint at WP:AE about apparent sock editing, Nagorno-Karabakh is under a single reversion restriction. This is a modified 1RR restriction to limit the power of newly-created accounts to prevail in disputes, while still leaving the article open to editing: All editors are under a 1RR per day restriction. Editors with less than 500 article edits, less than three months old or are anonymous editors are under a 1RR per day restriction with no exceptions. Editors not subject to the #2 above can revert edits by those who are subject to #2 without breaking 1RR, but are still subject to the general edit warring policy. Violations of the special 1RR by any editor can be reported at WP:Arbitration enforcement or to any admin.

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. Armenia Nagorno-Karabakh is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Azerbaijan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Caucasia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia

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.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Sebeos

Do we have a third party secondary source for this line:

Tigran the Great, King of Armenia, (ruled from 95–55 BC), founded in Artsakh one of four cities named “Tigranakert” after himself.? Grandmaster 07:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Tigranakert of Artsakh, it is uncertain which Tigran founded the city, so I propose paraphrasing. Brandmeister 13:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I propose to delete this sentence until a proper secondary source is found. Grandmaster 22:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a perfect secondary reference for Tigranakert, confirming it was built by Tigran II: Caucasian Knot, p. 53. This reference is available from Google Books . These authors are first class peer reviewed Western academics who were praised by the top WP-confirmed expert on Karabakh Thomas De Waal (there has been a discussion about that already); Caucasus' foremost US expert Cyril Toumanoff; and Robert Hewsen among others. Bagrat Ulubabian (he was discussed above too) also has plenty of references to Tigranakert. Ulubabian is not a Western scholar but he was peer-reviewed and endorsed by Cyril Toumanoff, Robert Hewsen and the authors of "Caucasian Knot." Zimmarod (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is Cyril Toumanoff-endorsed list of academics working in the field of Caucasian studies can be used a guide for WP:NPOV sources on the subject:

This article uses secondary references from the following authors that Toumanoff's mentioned: Bagrat Ulubabyan, Patrick Donabedian, Claude Mutafian, George Bournoutian, Christopher J. Walker. George Bournoutian was used extensively by Thomas de Waal too. Zimmarod (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The works of the authors like Chorbaijan and Ulubabian received a lot of criticism. I quoted some here, when discussing the same source with the previous sock of the banned user: So it is better to refer to third party sources, which do not get any substantial criticism, but are generally accepted as best sources on the topic. If what Chorbaijan says is something generally accepted by the international scholarly community, you should have no problems finding a third party source saying the same. If it is just a minority view, then it cannot be presented as a fact. Grandmaster 20:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I see that other works by Chorbaijian received similar criticisms for partisan interpretation of history and modern politics. Here is for instance a review of his another work:

The volume edited by Chorbajian is of a different nature. Already the dedication to 'colonized and genocided people everywhere' makes it clear that there is a candidly pro-Armenian political normative agenda at work. Chorbajian's introduction argues that there is an international corporate conspiracy against the rightful historical aspirations of the people of Nagorno-Karabagh. His thesis is that Western political and even commercial interests stifle the rights of the Armenians in Karabagh.

The Western literature has rightly seen the Nagorno-Karabagh problem as a conflict between Azeri territorial integrity and Armenian self-determination. Chorbajian deals with this dilemma by embracing absolutely the right of the Armenian inhabitants of the region to self determination, while demonizing the principle of territorial integrity. He also suspects all sorts of hidden motives behind the arguments of those respected analysts such as Edmund Herzig, who point out that it is difficult to resolve the tension between these two principles. Another aspect that is striking in Chobajian's analysis is the fallacy of historical mythmaking. As any nineteenth-century nationalist intellectual would, he denies the basic notion that historical facts are there to be interpreted, and instead offers the reader a unilateral historical chronology that is supposed to show the birthright of Armenians to Nagorno-Karabagh. This is not to say that the aspirations of the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabagh are not legitimate, but just that overtly partisan analysis camouflaged as an academic text is not a solution.

Ethnicity and Territory in the Former Soviet Union: Regions in Conflict by James Hughes; Gwendolyn Sasse; The Making of Nagorno-Karabagh: From Secession to Republic by Levon Chorbajian. Review by: Alessandro Volcic. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 78, No. 4 (Oct.,2002), pp. 929-930. Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

If Chorbajian is such a top scholar, why does he get such poor reviews? Grandmaster 21:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)is

"Chorbaijan and Ulubabian received a lot of criticism" is a statement designed to mislead. Levon Chorbajian is not on Cyril Toumanoff list and his input from the "Caucasian Knot" volume is not used in this article. Your comment on Chorbajian is irrelevant. Only Patrick Donabedian's and Claude Mutafian's input is used. They are on Toumanoff's list. Their chapters are clearly marked with their names, and were originally written in French, before Chorbajian put them in "Caucasian Knot." I found no evidence that Bagrat Ulubabyan "received a lot of criticism." This was discussed before in the talk. Victor Schnirelmann criticized him, but only for his view on Caucasian Albanians while Cyril Toumanoff praised him as did Patrick Donabedian's, Claude Mutafian and Robert Hewsen (whom even you use for reference). So, on balance he is ok. You mentioned the link but I found there only one reference to a journalist named Grigorian who said that someone is a diasporan Armenian. Supposed racial background is not a reason for the disqualification of sources. I know at least two pro-Azeri editors, your ruwiki meat Brandmeister and Tuscumbia, who were banished from AA for one year each for making such comments. And you used diasporan Azeri sources, such as Firuz Kazemzadeh in Shamkhor Massacre. Any sources are ok if they are cross-endorsed by top academics. Zimmarod (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There were two negative reviews, one from Peace News magazine, and another one from Cigdem Balim-Harding. I don't know how you missed them. Reposting it here:

The Caucasian Knot is also about the Caucasus but it is devoted to the ongoing dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabagh region. It is translated from the French Artsakh: Histoire du Karabagh (1991). There is a Preface by G. Chaliand, and an Introduction to the English Language Edition by Levon Chorbajian. It is comforting to come across academics like Chorbajian who seem to know the answers to all the problems of the area. The simplistic analysis of Bolshevik politics and of the essence of Western politics is amazing. His final sentence to the Introduction sets the tone for the rest of the book: 'While too many journalists and foreign policy specialists in the West continue to be guided by Russocentrism ... ' (p. 42).

The Introduction (from the French original) by P. Donabedian and C. Mutafian is along the same lines as Chorbajian's Introduction, with sweeping generalisations and a romanticised and censored account of affairs. Sections titled 'The History of Karabagh from Antiquity to the Twentieth Century', 'Karabagh in the Twentieth Century' and 'Conclusion' follow the two Introductions. What could have been an excellent book unfortunately reads like a propaganda document distributed by the Armenian state. Among the more amusing expressions in the book is the name 'Tatar' which the authors consistently use to refer to the Azerbaijanis. This is not only historically wrong but has also traditionally upset the Azerbaijanis!

Even the most accommodating reader will start asking questions about the validity of some of the claims made in the book. I am sure I have come across similar volumes written by Azerbaijani nationalists. The book contributes very little to the sad state of affairs in Nagorno-Karabagh (or the 'Black Garden', as Goldenberg calls it from its translation). The contents and the style of this book contrast sharply with Goldenberg's account of the conflict in her work. Maybe the only thing to say is that 'both sides are trapped within the logic of war' (Goldenberg, p. 173).

University of Manchester

Cigdem Balim-Harding

Pride of Small Nations: The Caucasus and Post-Soviet Disorder by Suzanne Goldenberg; The Caucasian Knot: The History and Geo-Politics of Nagorno-Karabagh by Levon Chorbajian; Patrick Donabedian; Claude Mutafian. Review by: Cigdem Balim-Harding. Europe-Asia Studies , Vol. 48, No. 4 (Jun., 1996), pp. 678-679

And Shnirelman criticized Ulubabyan for a number of reasons, it particular, he considers Ulubabyan to be one of the creators of the Armenian myth of Albania. Kazemzadeh is Persian, btw, and the top authority on the period between 1918-1920s. The reason for disqualification is not the racial background, we refer to Hewsen, for instance, who also has an Armenian ancestry, but the partisan nature of those sources. Grandmaster 09:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Btw, de Waal, to whom you refer, cautioned about partisan scholarship on both sides :

Despite all this, historians on both sides have managed the feat of writing histories of the region that stretch back hundreds or even thousands of years and suggest an unbroken Armenian or Azerbaijani presence. And, of course, not content with championing their own claims, they denigrate those of the enemy. It is common to hear in both Armenia and Azerbaijan that the other nationality is really "gypsies", and roaming people who never enjoyed proper statehood.

This is why it is better to use neutral, third party sources, but so far you have only used secondary sources from one of the sides. Grandmaster 09:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Link to the Peace News does not work, and I have no evidence that what you claim is true. There is also no evidence that the woman named Cigdem Balim-Harding ever said anything like that. I looked at the earlier discussion and older users expressed similar concerns, which remained unadressed. Peace News is a little radical leftwing website, not a reputable academic publication that says : "Peace News draws on the traditions of pacifism, feminism, anarchism, socialism, human rights, animal rights and green politics." Socialism ... ??? Anarchism ... ??? What next "source" are you going to refer to - a Nazi website and presidential website of Ilham Aliyev? Well ... Cigdem Balim-Harding is a mediocre Turkish-born academic who feels for her Azerbaijani "brothers" and "sisters." She is not peer reviewed, and she never authored any monograph. Google Books and Amazon.com are exploding with books and articles that refer to "Cacausian Knot, " to Patrick Donabedian and Claude Mutafian. I browsed Amazon.com to find what Cigdem Balim-Harding wrote but search came up with zero results. On Tom de Waal - in the quote that you brought up he argues against academics from Armenia and Azerbaijan. Again, an irrelevant argument. Donabedian and Mutafian are French-born and French citizens. And I agree with Tom in that we should avoid academics from Armenia and Azerbaijan. Unless, they are peer-reviewed by the world's top scholars. I would not use Bagrat Ulubabyan but since he was endorsed by Toumanoff and Hewsen we can use him. Shnirelmann's criticism can be noted but it is a fringe opinion. Grandmaster, you do not meet expectations for consensus building so far. Zimmarod (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Google returned 1,360 (!) references to the book "Caucasian Knot" in other books and magazines. You are trying to discredit an excellent source of knowledge that everyone is using, and you are doing this awkwardly. . Zimmarod (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Cigdem Balim-Harding is a western academic. She is as good as Donabedian et al are. You are trying to dismiss her on the basis on her ethnicity, which you yourself consider inappropriate when it comes to the Armenian scholars. Peace News is a pacifist magazine, which promotes peaceful resolution of conflicts. It is quite a neutral and well-known source. The link is dead now, but it was available at the time. And the fact that someone is French born does not make him free from bias. And Shnirelman is a leading expert on the nationalist scholarship in the former USSR, he is definitely not fringe. And the number of google hits is not an indication of the quality of the source. Grandmaster 05:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to find third party sources, not related to the sides of the conflict, if what you claim is generally accepted in the international scholarly community. Due to widespread partisan scholarship on both sides, the sources from the region and diasporas must be treated with caution. But there are third party sources, which the rules require us to use. Therefore we should stick to non-partisan sources, to maintain neutrality. Grandmaster 05:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are into good faith you should not insist on Cigdem Balim-Harding because there is no proof that she ever said what you allege. The same concerns the leftwing online source. No proof. Cigdem Balim-Harding and Donabedian are Western scholars, as you hinted, but not of the same caliber. Cigdem Balim-Harding is virtually unknown and she is not peer-reviewed. Donabedian is endorsed by the giants of academia and top regional experts, and is neutral, non-partisan and third-party as per WP:NPOV. Dont invent your own NPOV rules. The same is true about other high-caliber Western academics such as Claude Mutafian, Robert Hewsen and George Bournoutian. All four are very widely used in Western academia. Bagrat Ulubabyan was an Armenian-based scholar but he is also ok since he was cross-endorsed by top academics in the West. Schnirellmann's criticism does not undermine Ulubabyan since Schnirellmann is a fellow Soviet academic as well just like Ulubabyan, and his criticism does not triangulate (confirmed) with/by other sources. Zimmarod (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If what those sources say is generally accepted in the western academia, why are you unable to find a single third party source saying the same? You have only a couple of sources of clearly partisan nature, which received criticism from other scholars, but none that were unrelated to the sides of the conflict. As for Balim-Harding, what kind of proof do you need? I provided a reference, which you can check in JSTOR. I do not mind Hewsen, he is a respected scholar, and I haven't seen any substantial criticism of his work so far. But Donabedian and Ulubabyan are clearly partisan, and are not very prominent in the scholarly world. I see nothing outstanding in Donabedian's career. He was a diplomat, and an art historian, but not an expert on the ancient history. Mutafian is a mathematician, and not a professional historian. All three authors (Chorbaijian, Donabedian and Mutafian) are not professional historians, trained and specialized in the ancient history. Yet you claim that they are top international authorities in the ancient history of the region. See their biographies from the same book you refer to:

Patrick Donabedian is cultural attache at the French Embassy in Yerevan. Trained as an art historian, he is a graduate of the University of Paris X-Nanterre and holds a PhD from the Academy of Fine Arts in Leningrad. His work on the medieval art of Transcaucasia, in particular Karabagh, has taken him to the USSR, where he lived for several years. He is the author of numerous studies published in specialized journals, and the co-author of Les Arts Armeniens (Paris: Mazenod, 1987), published in English as Armenian Art (New York: Abrams, 1989).

Claude Mutafian is a former student at the Ecole Normale Supeneure and a graduate of the University. He is a Senior Lecturer in mathematics at the University of Paris XIII— Villetaneuse. He is particularly interested in regions of the Near East whose history is linked with that of Armenia. He has published a series of algebra texts with Editions Vuibert and, more recently, La Cilicieau carrefour des empires (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1988).

So a journalist/sociologist, art historian/diplomat, and a mathematician turned historian, who published algebra texts. How come they are "high-caliber" western historians, as you claim? We should refer to specialist sources with good reputation, and I see that these people are not trained specialists in the ancient history, and their work attracted criticism for partisanship. And I don't see how you can discount Schnirellmann's criticism because he was a Soviet academic. I see no logic, especially considering that he published his criticism after the collapse of the USSR. Grandmaster 21:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the talk you were having with Zimmarode and this does not make sense, Grandmaster. Donabedian and Mutafian are the most frequently cited authors on Karabagh who won recognition from Tom de Waal, Tumanoff, Hewsen and other experts whom you use yourself. Both of them have PhDs in history and art (you wrote this yourself). They were born in the West and educated in the West. They are the most "specialist sources with good reputation." I find you on very thin ice with these weird denials. Sprutt (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Repeating the same arguments by different accounts with very few contributions is not going to make anyone's position stronger. If something is generally accepted in the international scholarly community, there should be no problems finding a third party source supporting this position. Grandmaster 18:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ulubabyan, an activist of the Nagorno-Karabakh separatist movement in the 1980s heavily criticised for unacademic claims such as that of Armenian ancestry of the Udi people, is also out of discussion. Tom de Waal is a journalist, and the nature of his work requires him to cite many controversial authors, many of whom have not even been relevantly trained, so their names appearing in de Waal's work is not a sign of anything. Toumanoff may have cited them in issues related to their area of expertise, such as history of art. But controversial statements from art historians and former mathematicians should definitely be backed up by more appropriate sources, especially where there is opposition view, such as Balim-Harding's. Parishan (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you just call de Waal a journalist? If I had nothing better to do, I'd probably find a link where you and your grandpa argued that he was the most quilified source in the whole world. VartanM (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Seryozno? It seems were Ulubabyan, Mutafian and Donabedian supported not by a dozen but by a hundred of well known Western academics and regional specialists, the Grandmaster/Bloombaster/Parishan ruwiki meatpack would invent 100 tricks and excuses to question their reputation. Thomas de Waal is a "journalist" (that he is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace of course does not matter to the meatpackers), Toumanoff is an "old dude who lost his mind," Robert Hewsen is perhaps a drug addict (per Balim-Harding, no proof, but that does not matter for the meatpackers), Mendeleev is a German spy, Mozart is a pimp, Leonardo da Vinci is a nutcase, Bagrat Ulubabyan claims Armenian ancestry of the Udi people (he never did but who cares), 1,000 or so references to "Caucasian Knot" not matter ... Sprutt (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If they are supported by hundreds of well known academics, how come you cannot cite a single third party source supporting what they write in their work? What we have here is a bunch of questionable interpretations of primary sources, occasionally supported by a couple of partisan secondary sources. That is not acceptable. Such contentious articles must rely on third party sources with impeccable reputation for accuracy and objectivity. Therefore you must be able to provide non-partisan secondary sources for your interpretations of the primary ones. Grandmaster 18:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

All this is your personal opinion. Donabedian's and Mutafian's work used as references in hundred books and articles and are supported by Dowsett, Hewsen, Walker, de Waal, etc, who repeat their observations and arguments. de Waal is good case for illustration. Instead of retelling of what the "Caucasian Knot" says, he simply redirects the reader to the book openly supporting its academic value. Second reason is that Nagorno-Karabakh is rather uncommon area for Western academics. One good book "Caucasian Knot" is big enough and good enough to dominate the academic market for years. Again, de Waal is good case. He wrote his book "The Black Garden" and other folk in academia are reluctant to compete with him. That's why since 2002 there was no competing effort to write second "Black Garden." Donabedian's and Mutafian's work is "impeccable reputation for accuracy and objectivity." The weird babe Balim-Harding called them "Armenian state propaganda" (no proof that she did) but this epithet in itself is highly alarming. If they were smacking of "Armenian state propaganda" people like de Waal, who is very cautious writer, and dozens of other names, would disregard "Caucasian Knot." Hundreds of references to the "Caucasian Knot" are testament that their work is not something which can brushed by the strong epithet "propaganda." Balim-Harding, obscure language teacher educated in racist schools in Turkey, and if she ever said anything like that, probably lost her nerve for moment, for which she regretted later since her "criticism" is bizarre and unfortunate outbreak of bad emotion. Sprutt (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I remember when we had a discussion with regard to Blue Mosque, Yerevan, and you can read it at talk of that article. Then certain people supporting pro-Armenian position objected to the use of de Waal as a source on history because he was a journalist. He wrote that the mosque in Yerevan was called "Persian" to obscure its Azerbaijani origin, but that info was deleted from the article. I think de Waal is a reliable source on history, and especially modern history, but in this case we have a substantial criticism of Caucasian Knot from other sources. Plus, the mention of that book in a positive context by de Waal does not mean that he endorses everything written there. You know that contentious articles require multiple sources of best quality. I really don't see why you keep insisting on the use of those 2 partisan sources, representing the Armenian POV. If what they say is generally accepted in the international academia, then you should be able to find other sources of non-partisan nature saying the same. If you are unable to find such sources, then it is a fringe view. Grandmaster 06:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Too late, we already have a consensus with Parishan that he is just a journalist. I have his comment printed and framed on my wall. VartanM (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

And is a journalist who should not write about architecture. That mosque is, architecturally, a late-medieval Persian-style mosque (i.e., it is not a centrally-planned Ottoman Turkish-style mosque, or a multi-aisled Syrian-style mosque). Meowy 16:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a typical Azerbaijani mosque, similar to those that could be found in Ganja, Karabakh and Nakhichevan. It was built by the Turkic ruler of the region. But it is offtopic here. I think de Waal is a good source on the recent history, but not on the ancient one, as he is not a trained historian. Grandmaster 18:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Setting aside any comments about the validity of using "Azerbaijani" in a 18th-century context, there is no such thing as an "Azerbaijani mosque" in this period because there were no architectural features that are unique to mosques used by "Azerbaijanis" and there was nothing distictively different about the Islam practiced by "Azerbaijani" Muslims. But, yes, this is off-topic for here. Meowy 01:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Все это ложь и манипуляции. Lies, lies and more lies. There is no "substantial criticism of Caucasian Knot from other sources." This is lie. I insist on "Caucasian Knot" because it is the most cited books on the history of Karabakh, and because its authors are key academics with impeccable reputation. Sprutt (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

How come it is the only secondary source that you can provide? Why there are no other sources supporting what this one says? Grandmaster 07:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You are asking the same question the third time. Go back, scroll up to my reply of 25 May, and read it again. Sprutt (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

But you failed to provide a clear answer. It is not such an obscure topic, there are many works written on it by independent researchers. How come that no one shares the opinion of these authors? And calling Turkish schools "racist" is a racism on itself, and not a good argument to reject a source. Grandmaster 18:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there those who criticize the "Caucasian Knot"? Are there quality sources (peer-reviewed and not based on Azerbaijani "scholarship" ) that refute "Caucasian Knot"? No. I agree this is the most well cited book on NK because it is widely accepted as standard for academic work on the region. Zimmarod (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you should stop switching accounts and agreeing with yourself. I cited criticism above, and it has nothing to do with Azerbaijan. But the problem here is that if something is generally accepted in the international scholarly community, there must more than just one source supporting this position. All you have to support your large rewrite is one partisan source. That is not enough. Grandmaster 21:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

area

It is not 4.400 sq/km but sq/miles!!! the area is 11,458.38 km2 but 4,424.10 sq mi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.55.206.101 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Map of ethnic distribution is perhaps a good idea, but its rendering by A.Tsutsiev and attempted reproduction of Parishan are imperfect. Relative sizes of settlement are hugely distorted: the bigger towns of Stepanakert, Shusha and Mardakert are only a bit bigger than some small village. Some villages are not shown at all: where is Chapar in the Mardakert district? The Shahumyan region is shown on the original map but not on this one. Why? Engage in discussion and improve the map. Sprutt (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You can only question Tsutsiev's rendition if you have information proving him inaccurate. I did not invent anything; I used the same scale of circles and choice of significant settlements, as he did. If you could render a better map, be my guest, otherwise leave it be. Parishan (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary Issues

It has been some time since this article was last updated regarding the contemporary situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan in respects to the ongoing struggle over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave. There has been many developments in the last few weeks. Given the recent statements by the president of the parliamentary assembly of the Organization of Security and Co-operation, it can be understood that the efforts to remedy the ongoing conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh are surely failing. Also in the past month there have been bilateral relations between the Azerbaijani parliament and the Moldovan parliament regarding the involvement of GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) as an influential party in the peace talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. This source was particularly relevant to the Article on Misplaced Pages because if contained statements and facts regarding the contemporary issues in the Nagorno-Karabakh area that the Misplaced Pages article lacked. I was unable to find any relevant information to the current positions held by the government officials of Azerbaijan and Armenia nor the Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Aliyev, M. (September 23, 2012 Sunday ). President of OSCE Parliamentary Assembly: Minsk group's activity not satisfactory. Trend News Agency, Baku, Azerbaijan.

On the 9th of July 2012 the president and parliament of Azerbaijan made desperate requests to the Assembly on the Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe to step up the efforts to settle the ongoing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. This request from Baku comes after a twenty year period of no results from the OSCE which has led to current frustrations. As peace talks continue to be held, the Secretary General of the OSCE has put forward several proposals that aim to remedy the situation in conjunction with upcoming elections in Azerbaijan. Despite these attempts to bring a level of progress and achievement to the peace talks, Armenia has yet to implement any of the resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave suggested by the U.N. Security Council. I recommend this source and others like it to anyone who refers to the Misplaced Pages article in regards to contemporary issues in the Nagorno-Karabakh area. Recent developments have transpired in the ongoing efforts to arrive at an acceptable resolution of peace which the Misplaced Pages article lacks in information.

Mehdiyev, E. (September 11, 2012 Tuesday ). Deputy parliamentary speaker: Azerbaijan attaches great importance to cooperation with OSCE. Trend News Agency, Baku, Azerbaijan.

The ongoing conflict and lack of resolution between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave brings about several critical issues regarding the regions security and foreign investment in the development of industry there. Economic and environmental rights are and have been lacking in the Nagorno-Karabakh region for the last few decades regardless of Azerbaijan’s twenty year membership in the OSCE. The OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier recently stated his support for a peacefully negotiated resolution Between Azerbaijan, Armenia and the OSCE over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. If a level of peace is not established, economic development will not take shape either. The ongoing war in the South Caucasus has deterred many foreign investors from entering the region. Azerbaijan and Armenia wish to develop their economies and the only way to bring this about would be through developing foreign confidence by refraining from any acts that would escalate the conflict between them. It is evident that peaceful negotiations are the only way to develop progress and a permanent peace in the region. This source is relevant to the Misplaced Pages article and I would recommend it because it provides information about the threat to security and economic development in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The Misplaced Pages article lacked any information regarding the contemporary issue of economic development and security. I believe that this information would be a great help to anyone trying to understand what sort of progress and achievements are being attempted in the region.

M.Aliyev, (July 9, 2012 Monday ). OSCE Secretary General: Nagorno-Karabakh conflict poses enormous threat to region's security. Trend News Agency, Baku, Azerbaijan.

(Veggietotalitarian (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC))

Intro

Intro is based on consensus. Any changes to the intro must be discussed and agreed at talk. So please propose and discuss any changes before making them. --Grandmaster 07:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

NKR's change of status as a state with limited recognition has never been part of any consensus by WP discussants. Nagorno-Karabakh changed its status from an unrecognized state to a state with limited recognition as a result of Aug 2008 Russian-Georgian war, and Russia's subsequent recognition of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia as independent states. Note, that Russia is a permanent member of UN Security Council. Its recognition of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia counts heavily. Also, NKR's independence is supported by 2 US states, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Sprutt (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed Grandmaster'r revert comment "recognition by unrecogized states does not count as reognition." This is a reckless disregard of logic of someone else's argument. Abkhazia and S. Ossetia are not unrecognized states. Sprutt (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Sprutt. Recognition by any state recognized or with limited recognition stops the state from having status of unrecognized. 517design (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

And who will stop Sprutt from spreading his Armenian nationalist POV in WP? --E4024 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

NK has no recognition from any internationally recognized state, a UN member. Recognition by unrecognized or partially recognized state is not recognition. South Ossetia could be called a partially recognized state, because it is recognized by Russia, a real state, but which real state recognizes NK? None. US states are not independent states, they are practically provinces of USA. Their recognition means no international status. Therefore, NK is unrecognized. This was discussed a few times in the past. Grandmaster 20:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for being recognized as a state with limited recognition are the following -

1. have de facto control over a territory, a population, a government, a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

All of the terms are present in case of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. For international relations of NKR see Foreign relations of Nagorno-Karabakh and List of representative offices of Nagorno-Karabakh articles. Representing office in the US is registered in the US Department of Justice as Representative Office of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

2. be recognized as a state by at least one other state

This term is ok about NKR for South Osetia and Abkhazia are both "states". There is no obligatory precondition for any state to be UN member to be called a state. Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not a UN member, is not an internationally recognized state, but it is a state with limited recognition, anyone want it or not. 517design (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This is personal interpretation, and the issue has never been discussed in the context of Abkhazia/S.Ossetia's recognition of NKR. Recognition does not produce any "international status." There are states which are recognized such as NKR, Japan or Kosovo and there are states which are not recognized. Please read carefully the passage in List of states with limited recognition:

NKR meets both declarative and constitutive criteria of sovereignty. Please don't misrepresent your personal opinion as some sort of established view. Sprutt (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

According to that definition, NK is a self-declared state (declarative definition). We can mention it. But since NK has no recognition by any member of the international community, including Armenia, it is not a state de-jure (constitutive definition). So NK does not fit the second definition. What we are talking about here is that NK has no recognition from any de-jure state, a member of UNO. Therefore it is unrecognized. That makes it different from S.Ossetia or say TRNC, which have a recognition from a de-jure state, but not by the international community. Grandmaster 07:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The international community appointed the Minsk Group, chaired by Russia, USA and France, to resolve the conflict, and they clearly stated: "the three Minsk Group Co-Chair countries ... reaffirm their support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and thus do not recognize the independence of NK". That means that NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and not recognized as an independent state. This is the position of the international community, i.e. real, not quasi states. Grandmaster 07:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Grandmaster's comments are irrelevant. N.-Karabakh can be regarded as a recognized state. But we want to have a balanced view as required by WP:NPOV, and the best option is to call N.-Karabakh a state with limited recognition. That's fair. Almost forgot, Grandmaster - stop ordering around here, mind WP:OWN. Zimmarod (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

NKR is recognized by three entities that are separatist themselves and are not shown on maps as separate countries, just like NK. It's quite controversial to regard them as "states". UN has the upper hand here. Also, the Nagorno-Karabakh War ended in 1994, so Azerbaijan doesn't exercise power in NK since at least that year, not earlier. Brandmeister 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Abkhazia and S.Ossetia are recognized by Russia, perm UNSC member, and several other UN states. NKR is one step below that. "Unrecognized" is simply against the fact. Sprutt (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Recognition means recognition by the member of the international community, i.e. a country that has wide recognition and is a member of international organizations such as UN. That follows from your own definition. Abkhazia and S.Ossetia cannot be regarded as members of the international community. They are only recognized by Russia and Nicaragua. That makes them countries with limited recognition, but since they are not members of the international community, recognition by Abkhazia and S.Ossetia does not mean recognition by a de-jure state. The difference of the NK is that it has not been recognized by a single de-jure state. Therefore it still remains unrecognized, as Minsk Group Co-Chair countries stated. If Armenia recognizes NK as an independent state, then NK could be called a state with limited recognition, because it was recognized by a de-jure state, member of the international community. But unless that happens (very unlikely), NK will remain an unrecognized state. Grandmaster 06:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment If Abkhazia and South Osetia recognized NKR, then it should be stated and sourced that it has a limited recognition by Abkhazia and South Osetia. All the arguments about Abkhazia and South Osetia not being widely recognized is irrelevant, since the reader can click on their wiki links and read about them. George Spurlin (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If all those three are played by the same "puppet master" the recognition among them does not count... --E4024 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not for me or you to decide, there is partial recognition and we should state the facts and move on. George Spurlin (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Grandmaster continues inventing terms like "de-jure state" etc. There are states that are not recognized, like Abkhazia or NKR before 2008, there are states with limited recognition (Abkhazia, NKR or Transnistria after 2008), and there are recognized states like Uruguay. "Unrecognized" no longer applies. Sprutt (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

De-jure state is not my invention, it is a term widely used in literature. Again, recognition by a quasi state, non-member of the international community cannot be regarded as international recognition. See how many scholarly sources from 2008-present mention that NK is unrecognized. It is not my opinion, it is sourced info. Grandmaster 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

But there is recognition, right. We should find a neutral way of stating that fact, instead of arguing about for days. George Spurlin (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The NK is internationally unrecognized, that is sourced info. So by saying that it is unrecognized we only follow the sources. Unrecognized means that it is not recognized by any de-jure state, member of the international community. At the same time, NK is recognized by 3 quasi-states, that have very limited recognition (S.Ossetia, Abkhazia) or none at all (Transnistria). The recognition by those 3 entities cannot be regarded as international recognition, as they do not have a status of a de-jure state. We can mention that while the international community does not recognize NK as a state, it is recognized by similar unrecognized or largely unrecognized entities. If you have any ideas on how to formulate it the best way, please propose at talk. But why recognition by those 3 is important for this particular article anyway? This one is just about the region. Grandmaster 19:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm in no way proposing a language that would state that NK is internationally recognized, but the fact that it's recognized by those 3 quasi-states must be included. I also agree with your point that this should be discussed at the NKR page and not here, unless of course if its already included in the NKR page. George Spurlin (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Finding a neutral way? Why? Are we in love with that unrecognised entity? We should just follow the academic views, and, if necessary eliminating ethnically Armenian or Azerbaijani writers... E4024 (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to be flexible, and I propose to omit the question of status altogether (recognized, unrecognized, semi-recognized, etc.), mentioning that NK is a disputed territory, hence negotiations about its status. Sprutt (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Are they? I thought the negotiations were on how to end the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territories, including N. Karabakh, but not limited to it. (On the other hand, yes, you are more flexible then the Armenian govt, I wish you represented Armenia in those talks. :-) Any idea where the problem of the occupation, by Armenia of course, of Karki is being negotiated; could it be within the same process? So I believe the negotiations are not on the status of N. Karabakh. They are on how to return Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani territories to their lawful sovereign, Azerbaijan, in a peaceful way. (In those talks Azerbaijan has promised to give the highest level of autonomy to N. Karabakh, that is common knowledge; but is not negotiating anything on that autonomy.) In short, as you also know very well, N. Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan and this article should handle it within this context. --E4024 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:E4024, note that Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a forum. Keep your personal opinion about world politics to yourself. Thanks. Sprutt (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that NK is internationally unrecognized as an independent state is a sourced info. I can cite hundreds of sources to support this statement. It is a fact that NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. See the statement of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group above. So why omitting verifiable facts? Here's a very recent book on the subject, it refers to all 4 quasi-states in the post-Soviet area as unrecognized states: If the info about recognition by 3 quasi-states needs to be included, we can reach an agreement on the best way of doing it. Something like "The independence of NK is recognized only by unrecognized or largely unrecognized Abkhazia, S.Ossetia and Transnistria, none of which are members of the international community". Grandmaster 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just because you can source it doesn't make it true. I can cite hundreds of sourced to support that the world is ending in 2 months. Again you all need to stop fighting about un/recognition and figure out way to properly and neutrally state the facts. George Spurlin (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Thomas D. Grant, The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1999), chapter 1.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Armenian articles
• Unknown-importance Armenian articles
• WikiProject Armenia articles
• B-Class Azerbaijan articles
• Top-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles
• Old requests for peer review