Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh

The term "separatists" is not neutral and should not be used in the article.

Also it is not a correct statement that .."Nagorno-Karabakh, formally part of Azerbaijan, is now predominantly ethnic Armenian..".

It is well known, that Nagorno-Karabakh was always predominantly ethnic Armenian (75%), and it was part of the Soviet Azerbaijan, which does not exist now.

Rovoam 11:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How come there is not a single Azerbaijani weblink below your page on Nagorno-Karabkh? How can you maintain impartiality when you have four website links which are all pro-Armenian? I am sorry to see that Wikipedia is far from impartial on these issues and thus looses credibility...

Truly worrying...

Kubilay Gultekin

Say, are those ethnic statistics correct? I thought Many Azeris left during the war

The numbers probably refer to the last census (pre-war). There are no Azeris left in NK. I'll rewrite this page when I have time apoivre 12:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

i have no personal knowledge. available references give the current stats as i modified them. Badanedwa 21:07, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

---

wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a battlefield. do not remove one language/ethnos or the other, or link to racist web sites. Badanedwa 21:07, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

I can see a map from Estonian Wikipedia. We asked Estonians to put Slovene names into the map and they did it so I can see no reason why they wouldn't do it with English --Fpga 07:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article is entirely Point of View, copied from the web site of the NKR office in Washington, DC. Zfr 23:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see that it is. The article pretty much just describes facts and events, and I don't think I've ever heard a different description of the conflict.

For comparison, here's a statement that clearly isn't NPOV: "The Azerbaijani government has contributed very little towards the resolution of the conflict, presumably waiting for the economic burden of holding a cease-fire and reductions in trade with other countries to force Armenia into retreat, while Azerbaijan itself is not significantly affected economically, and enjoys high levels of trade with other countries because of its oil reserves."

The above statement is strongly believed in by most Armenians, and would generally be cosidered an only mildly biased point of view. Since the article doesn't even come close to saying statements like that, I would say it's safe to call it a NPOV article.

Oh, and if anybody is aware of different interpretations of the conflict, please mention them here, I, for one, would love to hear them. --Aramgutang 04:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

removed paragraph

I added a paragraph, that Aramgutang removed. In deference to his experience with the subject, I'll trust his judgment -- but let me just say that this question is what draws some to the NKR question, not as an abstract problem but as one of the relationship between ethnicity and territory.

Here is the excised paragraph:

The dispute is a problem of border geometry: Nagarno-Karabakh, mostly populated by Armenians, is essentially surrounded by Azerbaijan, while the Azeri-populated enclave Nakhichevan is surrounded to the North and East by Armenia. If Armenia and Nagarno-Karabakh are to be united as a contiguous territory, it would require keeping Azeri-populated land in between and permanently separating Azerbaijan proper and Nakhichevan; likewise, if Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan are to be united in contiguous borders (once true, but no longer realistic), it would require seizing much Armenian-populated land, particularly Nagarno-Karabakh. -anonymous.

This is simply wrong. Look at the maps and you will see yourself. Only a thin slice of southern Armenia will help connect mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. Separation of these two is completely unrelated to Karabakh, geographically. roozbeh 19:55, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph because Nakhichevan has very little to do with Karabakh, and there's no dispute concerning its borders. Azerbaijan has never expressed intent to form a contigious border with Nakhichevan, and Armenia is not trying to form a contigious border with Karabakh either. However, since there are less than 10km separating the Karabakh border and Armenia next to the town of Lacin, Armenia is pushing for an open transport corridor through it, not a unification of the border. In fact, if you find a more detailed map, you will see that there are 2 other small regions enclaved by Armenian territory that are controlled by Azerbaijan, and 1 other such region enclaved by Azerbaijan, yet controlled by Armenia. Thus both countries are fine with having enclaves they control separate from them, as long as the ethnic majority of an area determines who it's controlled by (except for the case of Karabakh, obviously). The separation of Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan has not been an area of dispute and has existed thoroughout history, and thus has pretty much nothing to do with the Karabakh conflict. Also, I find that the sentence "If Armenia and Nagarno-Karabakh are to be united as a contiguous territory, it would require keeping Azeri-populated land in between and permanently separating Azerbaijan proper and Nakhichevan" simply doesn't make sense. Please explain or correct it if you can. --Aramգուտանգ 01:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where is truth?

As far as I see all the information about Daglig Garabag is subjective. It is obvious that it was written by armenians. So it is completely biased and cannot be taken as fact, since it is given in one format and one point of view: armenian. To be fair the information should be given regarding only facts not assumptions. Or if you insert information it should not be describing only one position of armenians but azeri's as well. Let's say if you write massacres over armenians in some azeri towns were conducted, you should also mention massacres conducted by armenian vandals over azeri population in azeri city of Hodjali in Daglig Garabag in 1992. You should mention that over 300,000 azeri people were forced to leave their homes in armenia where they lived for centuries. You should mention that there also was azeri population in Garabag which was against the independence of autonomous republic. You should mention that until 18 century the majority of the population of present armenia (not even Garabag) consisted of azeri people not armenians. It is after russian politics the christians (armenians) from Persia and Eastern Ottoman Empire started to move and dislocate to present Armenia and Garabag territories. It's not just words, it's fact, which you can discover in archives (of course if you wish). So the point here is not deny everything presented by armenians, but to put information that would reflect the true historical events. The matter is to deliver to the readers the very objective and rich information from different points of view, not just armenian. And let the reader deside what to choose, let him search the truth.

Well, of course, that's the whole point behind Wikipedia. That's why there's a notice on top of the article about its disputed neutrality. And like I've said before, you're welcome to add any valid couterpoints to the article, as long as they're backed up with sources. As an Armenian, I have little motivation to go out and find arguments against what I've believed in all my life, it is you who should collect the facts you wish to be known and incorporate them into the article. Also, I would disagree that the article has assumptions in it (besides maybe the phrase "Karabakh was subdued by Azerbaijan, with approval from the Allies interested in the oilfields nearby Azerbaijan's capital, Baku."), it mainly describes only facts. Like you said, some facts may be missing, so feel free to fill them in. Also, please try to provide neutral sources, since for every Azeri site claiming one thing, I can find you an Armenian site claiming the opposite, it is the hard to find independent press (non-Turkish, which are Azeri biased, and non-Russian, which are Armenian biased) aticles and international body reports on the subject that count.

P.S. A word of advice, in the future, try to sign your posts (by writing "--~~~~"), and also, your contributions and opinions will be held in higher regard if you have a registered username. --Aramգուտանգ 10:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

comparative example

This is a letter I sent to an Armenian university professor, Dr. Papazian, at U of Michigan-Dearborn, after reading some of his questionable comments.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO RESPOND

I have a special interest in learning about the Nagorno Karabakh region and in my search came across your fact sheet. I was born in Baku, but I am Jewish and in no important way consider myself Azerbaijani, for obvious reasons. I am also a college student and very interested in international political developments.

The reason that I am contacting you is for some sort of clarification on the information you provided as well as a response to an Azeri view that I have found on the following web site:

http://www.ehtiram.s5.com/whats_new.html

All of my relatives from Azerbaijan, Jews, of course, believe that ultimately N-K is a part of Azerbaijan. From what I've read, I also believe that to be true.

Real independence can only be granted by an international organization, such as the UN. There is also never a situation where solely a majority vote justifies independence, even in a legal region. Legally, I have a unique US address that no one else may have, but I have no right whatsoever to independence due to a majority vote of my home's inhabitants.

On the web page provided, they make a argument that self-determination is granted to colonies, and never to autonomous regions of already formed nations, unless both sides agree. Neither is the case with N-K. Even the UN guarantees the territorial integrity of its members. In addition, an Armenian country already exists.

I am constantly comparing the case to the establishment of Israel, which is of great personal interest to me. Unlike N-K, the territory was: (1) a colony (British), (2) was given independence by an international body (UN), (3) a similar Jewish nation did not previously exist.

However, I am in favor of a Palestinian country, one with UN recognition, simply because no other alternative exists. The Palestinians cannot move to another Arab country because that would benefit Israel, and would not lead to its destruction, a goal shared by most Arab nations. That it why they keep the Palestinians in limbo.

Why can't Armenians in N-K simply move to Armenia?

The added notion that N-K should be independent is ridiculous. Armenia denies trying to annex N-K. Since no N-K nation ever existed, there is no need for one to exist now.

posted by User:Kalbagdola on 13 January '05

---

From the POV of a neutral American, I would dispute any claim that any individual or group of individuals doesn't have a right to self determination. Self determination is a core ethic of the UN as well as its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so asserting that NK would need UN approval to be independent is factually wrong. Furthermore, as an American, which was founded on the principle that all sovereign power originates in the people AS INDIVIDUALS, and only delegated to governments, the people of NK can decide whatever they want. Finally, as to the issue of contiguity, such a concept has no ethical, moral, or legal mandate whatsoever. Many nations have non-contiguous territory (the US among them), so why can't you people just get along? - User:Mlorrey 17 Jan 2005

---

RESPONSE

By your reasoning, the population of Manchester, NH would have the option of leaving the union and taking the town with it. Certainly that is not ever going to happen. As appealing as secession is, even to me, it is illegal. Your comments concerning U.S. are plainly wrong. In addition, I have no contiguity issues, as Azerbaijan itself has an exclave.

The question here is a modern one. Putting aside histrical rights, does one sovereign nation have the right to occupy another's territory for non-defensive reasons? That is why there is not a single government that recognizes N-K, including Armenia. (kalbagdola, 1/17/2004)

---

The term "separatists" is not neutral and should not be used in the article.

---

"(3) The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility of the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self- determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations." See: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted UN General Assembly Resolution 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December 1966.

States have ratified or acceded to the Covenant (as at April 1999): Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan.

Also Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.