Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh

Archives:

• Archive1,
• Archive2,
• Archive3 (?? - 15:23, 27 December 2005)
• Archive4 (15:23, 27 December 2005 - 20:04, 12 January 2006)
• Archive5 (20:04, 12 January 2006 - 11:37, 26 January 2006)
• Archive6 (11:37, 26 January 2006 - 18:59, 21 February 2006)
• Archive7 (18:59, 21 February 2006 - 23:51, 10 June 2006)
• Archive8 (23:51, 10 June 2006 - ongoing)

Intro

Golbez and Francis, I am apalled that you have been ok with the "NK is part of Azerbaijan" part. It's a blatant violation of NPOV--it's clearly a position, and we on Wiki never assert positions. It's even worse than the "de jure" version, which was actually proposed by Azeri users. They could never dream about this one. From what I read, this was a misguided attempt at compromise by admin EIC. It's still non-NPOV.--TigranTheGreat 07:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I love you too. Please don't get riled up over TWO WORDS like that. Jesuchristo. You are allowed to mention it to me first before spitting on my grave. --Golbez 07:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I will also note that neither of you are allowed to revert for about 23 hours. Good job! --Golbez 07:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a position, it's a fact. NK is legally part of Azerbaijan. Your current edit is POV, and not neutral at all. Grandmaster 07:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, position of US State Dept, US President, UN, PACE, OIC, etc., are not POV, but NPOV. Plus it's consistent with other Wiki pages, such as on Abkhazia, S.Ossetia, etc. --AdilBaguirov 07:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro should be restored to say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan, as it legally is a region of Azerbaijan. THis fact is accepted by the international community, and it's not a position, but a fact, that it is recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 08:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Aw cmon, what's wrong with what I got there now? --Golbez 08:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It ignores the fact that it is de-jure part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 08:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In what way? So you have to wait for the second sentence for that. --Golbez 08:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I like that better. Grandmaster 09:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the impression, never meant to spit. Just saying I was really surprised.

De jure is defective--Armenia never accepts NK as de jure part of Az. Plus, if we mention de jure, we need to mention de facto. I am against both--we mention something only once. It already states that noone recognizes NK's independence from Az. If this means de jure, just leave it at that.--TigranTheGreat 09:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, congrats on the Latino guy winning the gubernatorial elections in Cali (you are in Cali, right?).--TigranTheGreat 10:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

They had a primary for the democratic candidate; the election against Arnold Schwarzenegger is not until November. Assuming you mean California, Cali has no governor. --Golbez 16:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that NK is a region of Azerbaijan and is internationally recognized as such. It’s not an opinion, it is an undeniable fact. No one can say that NK has any status other than a region of Azerbaijan. So the intro should say that. Since Tigran resumed the edit war over the intro, I think we have every right to submit this dispute for arbitration. It has already passed all stages of dispute resolution, including mediation and RfC, so we should have no problem with presenting our case to arbcom. Grandmaster 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration is not for content matters; you would have to show a lengthy campaign of edit warring. --Golbez 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You can go ahead and present it but I guarantee you it will be denied. Compared to TRNC this article is ridden with Azeri pov. The fact that it's recognized as part of Azerbaijan is not disputed but is secondary to it's de facto independence.--Eupator 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite a specific instance of "ridden with Azeri pov"? It's much easier if you do that, then make blanket assertions. --Golbez 17:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro is not fine and it's nothing like South Ossetia. It's de facto independance must be mentioned first. Azeri pov you say? "This was the name for the area from about 2nd century AD when it was part of Caucasian Albania to 13-14 centuries. Before that the name of Orkhistene was used in the area.[5]" Hogwash.--Eupator 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for being an outsider, but could you explain what your quoted passage has to do with Azeri pov? --Golbez 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It was sourced from the website of the Azeri Embassy. It was mentioned in the ref tags.--TigranTheGreat 20:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The source alone cannot make something POV, but yes, I did notice that. --Golbez 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, the POV aspect of the quote is this. The Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan has tried to make NK look as a completely historically Azeri land in a 2 step process: 1) Claim that it was part of Caucasian Albania for as many centuries as they can, and 2) Claim that Azeris are the modern Caucasian Albanians. The quote here is an instance of step 1)--even though it clearly contradicts contemporary Greek sources.--TigranTheGreat 07:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, "within Azerbaijan" is ambiguous--it can mean two things--1) within the borders of Az (your intended meaning), and 2) "belonging to Az." (as asserted by Wiki), which we should avoid. We should say "within the borders of Az."--it will clarify that we mean the 1st and not the 2nd.

South Oss. is different for 2 reasons. First, SO doesn't completely lie within borders of Georgie, whereas NK does--that was what you wanted to clarify in the beginning. Second, I agree with Eupator, SO article mentions "de facto." It counterbalances the "within Georgia." I am willing to make concession on "de facto"--it will draw unnecessary "de jure" objections--but the "within borders" needs to be specified. Note that I have already made concessions on "disputed region" and "enclave." I say, forget the Latin terms and let the reader decide--he will read the "not recognized by anyone" and will assume "de jure," and he will read "declared independence" and hopefully will assume "de facto."--TigranTheGreat 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Have we reached a concensus on the introduction? If we haven't then we should keep the tag on, if we have then I think we should take if off once and for all. Overall, it looks pretty neutral as it currently stands, though this is just my take (and perhaps, as an Armenian, I may be looking at it differently). -- Clevelander 20:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, NK is part of Azerbaijan -- that is recognized by everyone, UN above all. Hence, it should of course state the obvious and NPOV statement, which is "(with)in Azerbaijan", and not "within the borders of Azerbaijan". --AdilBaguirov 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not recognized by everyone - there are about a hundred thousand people in Nagorno-Karabakh who forcefully disagree. --Golbez 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention 3 million Armenians in Armenia, and int. law scholars in New England School of Law:)--TigranTheGreat 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, as a figure of speech, "everyone", "perfect", "completely", etc., are often used to denote majority agreement and concensus on any one issue. If we are to believe everything that one group thinks is correct and right, in this case what Armenian group thinks about military occupation, then we in essense get Nazi supporters, fascists, KKK supporters, Holocaust deniers, etc. weightening in, and we should give them at least 50% of the spotlight. That is we can't be selective and approach with double standards such issues -- military occupation and ethnic cleansing of NK and surrounding 7 regions is an illegal, immoral and inhumane act -- just as gasing people in concentration camps or lynching. Thus, what is thought by 3 million people in Armenia plus anywhere from 60,000 to 120,000 is while notable, at the same time only important vis-a-vis discussion of the military situation, but not the whole political, economic, cultural, etc., aspects. It is also peculiar that Armenia has claims to everyone of its neighbours - aside from Azerbaijan and Turkey, claims also Javakhetia from Georgia and hints about northwestern regions from Iran. Meanwhile, the "international law scholars in New England School of Law" do not know Russian and did not have access to all the Russian-only documents -- their assessment is completely biased and unworthy, it contradicts the USSR Constitution, not to mention all the other laws on the books at the time. For myself, a person who has read those laws and the Constitution (which is available in English in certified translation, online) to read this paid-for "analysis" is quite ironic. --AdilBaguirov 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are directed to read Godwin's Law. --Golbez 09:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I just glanced through the discussion quickly. IMHO, both “within Azerbaijan” and “within the borders of Azerbaijan” in the introduction section are somewhat ambiguous and not very neutral. San Marino is also frequently defined in a similar way, though it is an internationally recognized nation surrounded by Italy’s territories. I’d suggest reorganizing the intro section as follows:

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region, internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, though its majority Armenian population declared separation from Azerbaijan as the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR) on December 10 1991 and has claimed de facto independence since then.

The region, located about 270 kilometres (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, and close to the border with Armenia, was established in 1923 by the Soviet Union as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of the Azerbaijan SSR. In the waning days of the Soviet Union, the region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan culminating in the Nagorno-Karabakh War between the two nations, which claimed several thousands of casualties on both sides and created a large tide of IDPs, chiefly to other parts of Azerbaijan. Although the region’s independence has been unrecognized by any international organization or country, including Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and some surrounding districts of Azerbaijan remain, since the end of the war in 1994, under Armenian military control, which is regarded by Azerbaijan and the OSCE as occupation.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group, where, among other issues, the future status of the region is being discussed.

Tell me what you think. Regards, Kober 09:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"San Marino is frequently defined in a similar way" Perhaps, but it isn't on Wikipedia. There's some merit in these but I think it makes the intro a bit awkward. --Golbez 09:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a standard reference. Also, my suggestion seems to me more neutral. Can you tell me what makes it awkward? Thanks, Kober 09:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merely the grammar. If you get rid of all the dependent clauses in the first sentence, you are left with "Nagorno-Karabakh is a region". Not very helpful. --Golbez 09:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, nowhere in your suggestion do you say that it's within the borders of Azerbaijan, which could mean it's an exclave of sorts, like Nakhichevan. That's a major issue here, it's enclaved within Azerbaijan. --Golbez 09:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the dictionaries an enclave is:

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

2. A distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit: ethnic enclaves in a large city. [1]

Since NK is not a country or part of another country lying wholly within the boundaries of another, it’s not an enclave the way Nakhichevan is an exclave, i.e. part of another country. It could be an ethnic enclave, but still no parallels with Nakhichevan, which is a legal part of another country. NK is legally part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 09:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, please don't make a fight where one exists. It was damn clear that I was not suggesting we call N-K an enclave, I was simply searching for a simple way of explaining in this talk page what I meant. --Golbez 10:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that was not my intention. I just think that parallels with Nakhichevan are not justified, which was my point. Grandmaster 10:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Kober's proposal makes a lot more sence than the current version with strange wording about "region within the borders of Azerbaijan". It describes both the current international status of NK and separatist control over the region. The words "region within the borders of Azerbaijan" show no connection of that region with Azerbaijan, and therefore it's unclear why the Armenian population declared independence from it, if there was no connection. Grandmaster 09:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. --Golbez 10:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That’s why I think it should say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan, because it’s the only legal status the region has and it makes clear that the Armenian population declared independence to change that status. Grandmaster 10:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We can simply add enclave before region in the first sentence, though it is only the de facto status that makes NK an enclave, I guess.--Kober 10:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think enclave is appropriate here, because it could be construed as NK is a state or part of another state, which it’s not. Grandmaster 10:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good thing that wasn't what I was doing! My point was, we have to give the geographical context. Consider these two options: "Nebraska is a region claimed by the United States", and "Uruguay is a region claimed by the United States". One is an exclave; the other is surrounded by the borders of the United States. My only point was, perhaps we should point out that N-K is surrounded completely by the rest of Azerbaijan. So far as I know, until I put that into Geography just now, it was absent from the article. --Golbez 10:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with you.--Kober 10:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you last edit makes perfect sense, including the part that explains geographic situation of NK. Grandmaster 10:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I like Kober's introduction better than the one we have now. It's not only more neutral, IMO, but it reads better. I say we add it. -- Clevelander 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't, IMO the first sentence has very poor readability. --Golbez 21:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Greeks, Karabakh, and Orkhistene

Good catch, Eupator. Who has added that nonsense? Ptolomeus' 2nd AD map includes the region as part of Armenia. Plus, there is no source that "Artsakh" was used starting 2nd AD. Orkhistene was the Greek name, not the local name (which clearly is a variation of "Artsakh." The section needs to be changed.--TigranTheGreat 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As Mr. Tigran mentioned above the territory of Artsakh was part of the Armenian Kingdom until 428, that is undisputed. The border with C. Albania has always been the river Kura with the exception when C.Albania was subjugated by Tigranes the Great. See also: Paytakaran/Arshakuni Dynasty.--Eupator 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all those allegations by Eupator and TigranTheGreat are very much disputed, and such claims as Artsakh being part of Armenia are not true, as neither is the border of Kura river -- you've been misreading Strabo, who clearly said that Kura: "the Cyrus [flows] through Iberia and Albania" (11.1.5), and again:

"Parts of the country are surrounded by the Caucasian Mountains; for branches of these mountains, as I said before,1 project towards the south; they are fruitful, comprise the whole of Iberia, and border on both Armenia and Colchis. In the middle is a plain intersected by rivers, the largest being the Cyrus. This river has its beginning in Armenia, flows immediately into the plain above-mentioned, receives both the Aragus, which flows from the Caucasus, and other streams, and empties through a narrow valley into Albania; and between the valley and Armenia it flows in great volume through plains that have exceedingly good pasture, receives still more rivers, among which are the Alazonius, Sandobanes, Rhoetaces, and Chanes, all navigable, and empties into the Caspian Sea. It was formerly called Corus." (11.3.2).

And again: "IV. The Albanians are more inclined to the shepherd's life than the Iberians and closer akin to the nomadic people, except that they are not ferocious; and for this reason they are only moderately warlike. They live between the Iberians and the Caspian Sea, their country bordering on the sea towards the east and on the country of the Iberians towards the west. Of the remaining sides the northern is protected by the Caucasian Mountains (for these mountains lie above the plains, though their parts next to the sea are generally called Ceraunian), whereas the southern side is formed by Armenia, which stretches alongside it; and much of Armenia consists of plains, though much of it is mountainous, like Cambysene, where the Armenians border on both the Iberians and the Albanians.

[2] The Cyrus, which flows through Albania, and the other rivers by which it is supplied, contribute to the excellent qualities of the land; and yet they thrust back the sea, for the silt, being carried forward in great quantities, fills the channel, and consequently even the adjacent isles are joined to the mainland and form shoals that are uneven and difficult to avoid; and their unevenness is made worse by the backwash of the flood tides." (11.4.1, 11.4.2)

And another relevant passage on attempts of Roman conquests, which against Albania have failed: "[4] The inhabitants of this country [C.Albania] are unusually handsome and large. And they are frank in their dealings, and not mercenary;5 for they do not in general use coined money, nor do they know any number greater than one hundred, but carry on business by means of barter, and otherwise live an easy-going life. They are also unacquainted with accurate measures and weights, and they take no forethought for war or government or farming. But still they fight both on foot and on horseback, both in light armour and in full armour,6 like the Armenians.7

[5] They [C.Albania] send forth a greater army than that of the Iberians; for they equip sixty thousand infantry and twenty-two thousand8 horsemen, the number with which they risked their all against Pompey. Against outsiders the nomads join with the Albanians in war, just as they do with the Iberians, and for the same reasons; and besides, they often attack the people, and consequently prevent them from farming. The Albanians use javelins and bows; and they wear breastplates and large oblong shields, and helmets made of the skins of wild animals, similar to those worn by the Iberians. To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared. The pass from Iberia into Albania leads through Cambysene, a waterless and rugged country, to the Alazonius River. Both the people and their dogs are surpassingly fond of hunting, engaging in it not so much because of their skill in it as because of their love for it." (11.4.4, 11.4.5)

And of course Strabo himself used "Orchistene" ("and Orchistene, which last furnishes the most cavalry", 11.14.4), never "Artsakh" - hence I don't understand what is the "objection" to an Azerbaijani article which mentions it (and the reason for the reference was in response to someone's inclusion of "citation needed" next to Orchistene, which to me meant that the person didn't know about this forgotten name). By the way, Artsakh being used from 2nd century only was there before my edits - I've only added Orkhistene.

But for the borders of Caucasian Albania -- on the south going along Araxes, on the North - Derbend, on the East - Caspian sea and West -- Khnarakert castle (which is in present-day Qazax region of Azerbaijan, near Georgia and Armenia) borders see Movses Dasxuranci (Moisey Kagankatvatsi, Kalanketly) and Movses Khorenatsi (from Khorene), who say that very clearly, as well as a host of other authors. But of course the info from Dasxuranci/Kagankatvatsi is most reliable, as they (he) are Albanian historians. I can easily produce quotes in Russian and my translation into English.

Tigranes II never conquered C.Albania -- that is an insinuation of the Armenian scholars, and has been disproven already in the 1980s in the USSR. There is simply no evidence of that. Neither does Movses Dasxuranci mention that.

And I will look at those pages you've edited - thanks for pointing it out to me. --AdilBaguirov 00:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are you kidding? Oh and btw, Movses Dasxuranci was Armenian.

Strabo eh?

“[5] As we pass from Europe to Asia in our geography, the northern division is the first of the two divisions to which we come; and therefore we must begin with this. Of this division the first portion is that in the region of the Tanaпs River, which I have taken as the boundary between Europe and Asia. This portion forms, in a way, a peninsula, for it is surrounded on the west by the Tanaпs River and Lake Maeotis as far as the Bosporus7 and that part of the coast of the Euxine Sea which terminates at Colchis; and then on the north by the Ocean as far as the mouth of the Caspian Sea;8 and then on the east by this same sea as far as the boundary between Albania and Armenia, where empty the rivers Cyrus and Araxes, the Araxes flowing through Armenia and the Cyrus through Iberia and Albania;”

“[17] Further, the greater part of the remainder of Colchis is on the sea. Through it flows the Phasis, a large river having its sources in Armenia and receiving the waters of the Glaucus and the Hippus, which issue from the neighboring mountains.”

“…the Moschian country, in which is situated the temple,26 is divided into three parts: one part is held by the Colchians, another by the Iberians, and another by the Armenians. There is also a small city in Iberia, the city of Phrixus,27 the present Ideлssa, well fortified, on the confines of Colchis”

“[2] Parts of the country [Iberia] are surrounded by the Caucasian Mountains; for branches of these mountains, as I said before,1 project towards the south; they are fruitful, comprise the whole of Iberia, and border on both Armenia and Colchis. In the middle is a plain intersected by rivers, the largest being the Cyrus. This river has its beginning in Armenia, flows immediately into the plain above-mentioned, receives both the Aragus, which flows from the Caucasus, and other streams, and empties through a narrow valley into Albania; and between the valley and Armenia”

“[5] From the country of the nomads on the north there is a difficult ascent into Iberia requiring three days' travel; and after this ascent comes a narrow valley on the Aragus River, with a single file road requiring a four days' journey. The end of the road is guarded by a fortress which is hard to capture. The pass leading from Albania into Iberia is at first hewn through rock, and then leads through a marsh formed by the River Alazonius, which falls from the Caucasus. The passes from Armenia into Iberia are the defiles on the Cyrus and those on the Aragus. For, before the two rivers meet, they have on their banks fortified cities that are situated upon rocks, these being about sixteen stadia distant from each other--I mean Harmozice on the Cyrus and Seusamora on the other river. These passes were used first by Pompey when he set out from the country of the Armenians, and afterwards by Canidius.2”

[5] In ancient times Greater Armenia ruled the whole of Asia, after it broke up the empire of the Syrians, but later, in the time of Astyages, it was deprived of that great authority by Cyrus and the Persians, although it continued to preserve much of its ancient dignity; and Ecbatana was winter residence4 for the Persian kings, and likewise for the Macedonians who, after overthrowing the Persians, occupied Syria; and still today it affords the kings of the Parthians the same advantages and security.

“[4] In Armenia itself there are many mountains and many plateaus, in which not even the vine can easily grow; and also many valleys, some only moderately fertile, others very fertile, for instance, the Araxene Plain, through which the Araxes River flows to the extremities of Albania and then empties into the Caspian Sea. After these comes Sacasene, this too bordering on Albania and the Cyrus River; and then comes Gogarene. Indeed, the whole of this country abounds in fruits and cultivated trees and evergreens, and even bears the olive. There is also Phauene, a province of Armenia, and Comisene, and Orchistene, which last furnishes the most cavalry.”

The map of Ptolemy corraborates evertyhing Strabo said.--Eupator 00:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is hillarious! Eupator simply repeated me for no reason - basically, spammed, -- for unknown purpose. It's hard to disagree with the above Strabo wrote it, and if you look at the map, where Kura (Cyrus) and Araxes begin, and consider all the quotes, you will see VERY CLEARLY that the previously disseminated myth about border of Armenia and Albania being on Kura (Cyrus) is FALSE, and by copying Strabo's paragraphs -- which I've already provided -- you proved it once more. Kura, as Strabo said several times, flows THROUGH Albania, that means in the middle, not along or bordering, or anything like that. So thanks for exposing this major issue that has plagued many books from Armenia, which falsify Strabo's writings.

Finally, Movses Dasxuranci and Moisey Kalankatuyski (Kagankatvatsi, Kalankatly), which are two collective authors sometimes paired into one, could not have been Armenian as is obvious from the book -- he was ordered to write the book by "his king" great prince Jevanshir, and wrote about "our country, Albania". Same thing with the second and third authors of the "History of Caucasian Albanians". And finally, once again, both them, Albanian historians, and Armenian, Movses of Khorene, CLEARLY specify the border of Armenia with Albania as I described above. The issue of borders has been proven by the 1980s. Eupator, when it comes to history, leave it to those who are better versed in it. --AdilBaguirov 01

28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this is not a circus or some azeri science conference it's an encyclopedia. Let me spoon feed you like a baby: and then on the east by this same sea as far as the boundary between Albania and Armenia, where empty the rivers Cyrus and Araxes, the Araxes flowing through Armenia and the Cyrus through Iberia and Albania. Do you need someone to read this for you? The river Araxes empties into the Kura on the border of Armenia and Albania!

Movses Dasxuranci/Kalankatuaci was 100% Armenian with an Armenian name. What that mongoloid Farida Jafar gizi Mamedova teaches you people wont pass here.--Eupator 02:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you can’t do without incivility or personal attacks. The source says that Cyrus flows thru Albania, and not along its borders. As for Movses, have you seen his birth certificate? How do you know his ethnicity then? Grandmaster 05:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, the Kura being the border is not the issue here (and BTW, Ptolomeus' map shows Kura as the border). The issue is where was Artsakh. Strabo, Plinius, and Ptol. (1c bc-2 c ad) all say it was part of Armenia. By the way, Strabo also says that everyone in Armenia (including Artsakh) spoke Armenian.

The problem with the prior version in the article is that it suggested the local name was Orkhistene before 2 AD, and then all of a sudden it became Artsakh. Greeks never said any of that--they themselves called Artsakh Orkhistene--they always distorted local names to fit their language.

By the way, Movses Khorenatsi and Kaghankatvatsi lived in 5th-7th cc. In their time Artsakh had been attached to Albania. Both historians generally use myths when describing events more than a few centuries before them. Generally, that far back, they are not taken too seriously. Strabo and the other Greeks were contemporary in 1c BC- 2nd c ad. They are much more reliable.--TigranTheGreat 07:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

TigranTheGreat, the maps from those times are imprecise and irrelevant - one look at them and modern physical maps is enough to understand why. So bringing all those mythical maps is not helping anything. Meanwhile, I do not recall Strabo saying anything about everyone speaking Armenian in Artsakh -- especially since there was no Armenian language then (I mean ancient Armenian, grabar), and Armenians spoke either various (Caucasian or Semitic or other) dialects or Greek, or Pahlavi and other Indo-European languages. Maybe you have a reference to Strabo? Moreover, Armenia after the downfall of ethnically non-Armenian Tigranes II Great, has become once again a vassal state under the influence of both Rome and Parthia. Meanwhile, C.Albania retained its independence, even if somewhat nominal. Since Strabo never says that Artsakh was conquered by Tigranes -- which would not have mattered anyway, as his relevant conquests lasted only 15 years (85-69 BC), with total empire lasting less than 30 years (95-65BC) -- and Armenia was a vassal state, ruled even in the I century AD by (see below) various non-Armenian kings, it was simply in no position to hold any Albanian territories, such as Artsakh -- read again Strabo about the size, strength and determination of the Albanian army and the fact that it got help from nomads from the north. Of course Albanian historians MK and MD and Armenian Movses of Khorene (by the way, their Armenianized names mean nothing -- just like "Napoleon Allahverdyan" is not a French Muslim, or French-Turk/Iranian, but clearly Armenian, despite nothing in that name being Armenian, or "Robert Kocharyan" for that matter, a Western and Turkic name with Iranian suffix -yan, or Karen Demirchyan or Abel Aghanbekiyan, etc.) have a lot of anecdotal evidence, but when all of them coincide on the fact that Albania's southern border went on Araxes and Western on Khnarakert, it is not anecdotal. MK/MD book has many more references showing what size was C.Albania and that Artsakh was very much part of it.

Armenian kings in I c. AD:
1. Ariobarzan (Atropatenan/Median) A.D. 2‑4
2. Artavazd IV (Atropatenan/Median) 4‑6
3. Tigran V (Jewish) 6‑14
3a. Erato (Tigran IV, again, first ruled 8 B.C.‑5 A.D.) 14‑15
4. Vonon (Parthian) 16‑17
5. Artashes III or Zeno (Roman) 18‑34
6. Arshak I (Parthian) 34‑35
7. Mithridates (Georgian) 35‑37 and 47‑51
8. Hradamizd (Georgian) 51‑53

--AdilBaguirov 07:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just maps, but contemporary Greek accounts that state that Artsakh was part of Armenia in 1c BC- 2 c AD. MK/MD say it was part of Albania because in 5th c AD it was attached to Albania. What MK/MD say about 2c BC is generally considered myth, and not taken seriously.

If you believe MK/MD, I tell you what. They say that in 2nd c BC, Albania was founded by an Armenian named Aran (from the Armenian family of Sisakan, which descended from Armenian patriarch Hayk, who himself was grandson of Japhet). They also say that this Armenian founder of Albania was appointed as a governer of Albania by the Armenian king, with Albania being part of Armenia. Are you going to accept that? If you believe one, you have to believe the other. Historians believe neither--they regard it as myth.

Armenian language has existed for 4000-5000 years (since INdoeuropean split). It definitely existed under Tigran, there is no dispute about that. Strabo says everyone in Armenia speaks the same language. You can easily look up your Strabo section on Armenia, it's there.

In sum, Greeks say Artsakh was part of Armenia.--TigranTheGreat 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"(Making seperate section for the Greek discussion. Golbez/Francis, feel free to change however you like.)" I have no opinion at all on this section, consider my interest to be the remainder of the article. There's way, way too much here for me to start being familiar with it, so have your argument over that sentence. :) I'll stay down in the "one last try" section. ;) --Golbez 23:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey TigranTheGreat, the modern historians have established pretty well what are the borders of C.Albania - and if we are to read even ancient historians correctly (for example, the very same Strabo, whom some Armenian historians have been famous for misreading and then mistranslating, present the key word about Kura river flowing "through" as "along", which would give them then the result they wanted) - that the border was not on Kura river, but way to the West.

I like your sense of humor about Aran, Hayk, Japhet, Sisak, etc. - let me tackle that for you. To begin with, everyone except for a few lunatics, can mistake words about mythical and fairy tale rulers and kings for all other words. There is a clear distinction between those words, which MK/MD himself admits just before telling us about Valarshak, Aran, etc., that: "From the beggining of creation of human race to king of Armenia Valarshak, we cannot tell anything CREDIBLE to our listeners/readers about those living near the high mountains of Caucasus" (chapter 4). The words about Noah, Hayk, etc., are all very interesting -- but not for their historical accuracy value, but rather, as a study of a nation's folk tales and myths. Meanwhile, their data about the borders, however imprecise, was definitely not from the mythical perspective.

Secondly, you must have misread MK/MD and even Movses of Khorene, since you make several interesting claims: "Albania was founded by an Armenian named Aran (from the Armenian family of Sisakan, which descended from Armenian patriarch Hayk, who himself was grandson of Japhet). They also say that this Armenian founder of Albania was appointed as a governer of Albania by the Armenian king, with Albania being part of Armenia. Are you going to accept that?"

I don't know where did you read this, but certainly not from the above 2-3 authors. To begin with, Armenians simply cannot have an exclusive claim on mythical Japhet, who was according to the authors above (via his sons) the ancestor of the Caucasian Albans (see Chapter II of MK/MD).

Also, no one ever says that Sisak family was "Armenian" and hence, Aran could have been "Armenian" - that's simply not true, it is not in the text. MK/MD makes it clear that: "someone from the family of Sisak, one of descendants of Japhet, by the name of Aran, inherited the plains and mountains of Albania, FROM ARAXES RIVER TILL KHNARAKERT CASTLE" (Chapter 4). That's it, no word about some perceived Armenianess of those characters.

Then, perhaps you didn't know, but king Valarshak, the founder of Armenia, even in Armenian is known as Valarshak (Vagarshak) Partev -- i.e., Parthian. It is not a secret that he, like so many other "Armenian" rulers, was Parthian. So much for the "Armenian" nationality you stuck on him.

Thus, I've got no problem accepting all more or less logical information from ancient writers, realizing full well that much of info can be mistaken. However, when it coincides with info of other independent writers, it becomes more credible. Likewise, I've got no problem accepting both the factual recollections about the borders and the nice mythical story about Japhet, Sisak, Aran, Vagarshak, etc.

About the language and Strabo -- this is yet another example of misreading and puting words in the mouth of an ancient historian. Firstly, let's of course treat ancient authors with caution and see comments that are made by modern scholars. Then, let's remember that he was NOT a contemporary of these particular events you are alluding to. For example, his info about Hannibal and Artaxata, is disproven by Enc. Iranica. Secondly, NOWHERE does Strabo talks about "Armenian language" -- this language did not exist yet, and all that stuff about 4,000, even 5,000 years old Armenian language is bunch of fairy tales mixed with myths mixed further with balooney. There is no evidence about one common Armenian language - as the real "ancient Armenian", grabar, was developed in the early ADs, not BCs. That's why I've asked for the quote from Eupator, and he didn't quote it, because it would have become obvious. Moreover, Strabo writes the following:

"According to historians, Armenia, which was formerly a small country, was enlarged by Artaxias and Zariadris, who had been generals of Antiochus the Great, and at last, after his overthrow, when they became kings, (the former of Sophene, Acisene, (Amphissene?) Odomantis, and some other places, the latter of the country about Artaxata,) they simultaneously aggrandized themselves, by taking away portions of the territory of the surrounding nations: from the Medes they took the Caspiana, Phaunitis, and Basoropeda; from the Iberians, the country at the foot of the Paryadres, the Chorzene, and Gogarene, which is on the other side of the Cyrus; from the Chalybes, and the Mosynœci, Carenitis and Xerxene, which border upon the Lesser Armenia, or are even parts of it; from the Cataones, Acilisene,6 and the country about the Anti-Taurus; from the Syrians, Taronitis;7 hence they all speak the same language."

In other words, according to the understanding by certain Armenian historians, the inhabitants of Medes's provinces such as Caspiana (Talysh) (!) must have been Armenian, since they spoke "the same language" (which we are lobbyied to think was Armenian) with provinces of Iberia (Georgia), Syria, etc. Increddible! This is how history is being "rewritten" and thus (mis)understood by some. The truth is, if the "one language" is to be believed at all, then it was certainly Aramaic or Persian, and not unexistant Armenian, which outside Christian literature, never played any significant role, especially as a lingua franca. Nice try though. And of course neither Artaxias nor Zariadris were Armenian, hence where did Armenian language come in, is hard to understand. --AdilBaguirov 07:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you really expect to be taken seriously with remarks such as this? I will not go on and post the relevant materials, as it has nothing to do with the article, but before throwing words, terms and names to give the illusion that you know of what you are talking about(which has become quite pathological here in Wikipedia), you should read the three papers by Werner Winter about the problem of Armenian phonology, I. M. Diakonoff paper about Hurro-Urartian Borrowings and such relevant materials. And those are few, placing this into context, your words like This is how history is being "rewritten" and thus (mis)understood by some. Makes you look like an idiot, see, I did not say you were one, but that it makes you look like one. Dialects like Zaza, various Caucasian languages, (many which Circassians still speak of) etc. Are expected to have been distinguishable back from 600 BC, and they never up to now have had any alphabet or written rules. I'd rather see you use the same standard applied to the Azeris identity, had you done so, neither any Azeris language nor Azeris identity could have existed before the 1930s. I will not be claiming any thousands of years BC, but the Armenian dialects were clearly formed at least in 600 BC, since in the formation of the language there were few rule and many word barrowing from Hurro-Urartian which up to now are still distingishable. And for the relevant years it is unlikely that Aramaic for at least to the geography could have been those concerned, possibly Armenians or some tribal groups of Persians. But Stabro makes many mistakes in his writtings. All in all, there was no Caucasian Albania in the far BC years, and yet many scholars even deny there ever was one beyond a geographic region, much like 'Anatolia.' The only source, the author who wrote its history wrote it in Armenian, and who don't even know about his ethnicity and had no other contribution than Armenian. And the decyphrer key for the subsequent alphabets were written in Armenian too. It could have been an Armenian satelite state for all we know. As for the mythological stories about Noah, the sun of the sun or etc., are Armenian mythologies, the Albanian Noah connection was an Armenian mythology too. Those mythologies were recycled by Armenians from Jewish settlers in Nakhichevan, from which Armenians have fabricated legends. Fad (ix) 17:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, most of what you say is irrelevant to the section at issue. Do you admit that Strabo states that Orkhistene is part of Armenia?

I am Armenian, I know Armenian perfectly, and I can assure you that "tsakh" is very much Armenian word. There is absolutely noone objecting to this. If you have neutral sources stating otherwise, please tell us. I didn't ask you whether "Arsak" in Azeri really comes from "land of saks." If a group has its own name for something, and own explanation for its own name, we simply state it.--TigranTheGreat 20:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, before writing, think through please, and unlike you, I can read (and have done so) Dyakonoff in original Russian. Thus before throwing names you haven't read -- except in misinterpretations of some writers -- think about it. --AdilBaguirov 22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, and Fadix, you guys obviously have been misreading a lot of sources - perhaps you should stop relying on ideologically motivated sources, and read independent one's? Take an example from me - I easily cite Armenian authors despite not always supporting their points of view. Try to match that if you can -- cite a few Azerbaijani scholars if you can master that. Meanwhile, Tigran, everything I've written IS RELATED to this page and is very relevant -- even if only because I've been replying to you and others. If you can't answer to any of that and have realized your mistakes in misreading and misunderstanding many authors, you should just admit that instead of claiming, suddenly, that it's "irrelevant". Then, did I ever say that Armenian doesn't have the word "tsakh"? No, this is another example if misreading and misunderstanding me -- I've said that "tsakh" is an Armenian word, but means "brush". And that's in modern Armenian -- what about grabar, and any proto-Armenian languages BEFORE grabar, can you prove "tsakh" existed before? Since you claim that Artsakh is an ancient term from centuries before BCs (with which I do not disagree by the way), then it is peculiar that this Armenian word for "brush" didn't even exist then. Same with "Ar", which is a common suffix that is not Armenian, suddenly become Armenianized for "Aramanyak". This false fairy tale should be of course changed -- "tsakh" does't meen forests or woods in Armenian, but word "brush". Thus, we have Land of Brush. Meanwhile, in Azerbaijani it's etymology is very simple - "Ar" is a common suffix, for example, for Ardabil -- unless this too is an "ancient Armenian city" -- or Aral Sea, Ural mountains, for example. Meanwhile, nowhere does Strabo name Orchistene as part of Armenia -- not that it would have been reliable anyway, but he does not do that, you guys are again and again misreading him and this is amuzing now. --AdilBaguirov 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Tsakh" does mean woods--for example, an Armenian who chops woods would commonly say "tsakh kotrem"--"I chop woods." There is noone seriously disputing that.

The "Ar" suffix exists in Armenian, and it apparently exists in Azeri, as you say. We explain the "Artsakh" using our suffix, you guys explain "Arsak" using your suffix. Noone here disputed "Arsak" saying "can you prove that it really had to do with saks? Or that 'Ar' is the Azeri suffix as opposed to Armenian suffix?" Each of use calls it certain way, and explain it certain way.

You still didn't answer me-do you admit that Strabo places Artsakh in Armenia?--TigranTheGreat 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking yourself with me, I am not the one writting to Britannica to 'arrogantly' correct them, or throw words like 'Azeri propaganda.' Using Azeri sources? What Azeri sources; are you actually claiming that there was any written Azeri records? 'Ur', 'Ar' isen't a big deal at all, Artsakh was most probably a derived word of what the Urartians have been calling the place, 'Urtekhini' (ini, as in elements in the Armenian language for in instance lini, which in Eastern Armenian is indeed used) much like what meant 'Ur' in Urartu, to it to be an Caucasian Albanian name, such an identity should have existed beyond the influence of the Armenian Kingdom in the first place. It is accepted among linguists that 'ar' had become what 'ur' suffix was and was a Hurro-Urartian element, of course I'm not dismissing Babilonyan influence there. Will you be claiming that a word comming from the Urartians had been incoproated among those Easternward rather than the Armenians? We have here another clear example, afteral, some here have witnessed how Grandmaster has attenpted to make us believe that Nakhichevan was not recognized by most to have originated from the Armenians. But do ammuse me Adil with your theories. Fad (ix) 00:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Naxcivan, just like Artsakh, is a later attempt to "explain" it using modern languages. None of you answered a direct question - what does tsakh mean in grabar, the ancient Armenian, which is obviously more applicable than the 17th century modern Armenian language, which is very different? "Tsakh" means "brush" in English, where brush chiefly means dried twigs of trees and other plants, and that is exactly what it means in Armenian as well, that is where "tsakh avel" comes from, i.e. brush/broom. And good that you bring up Urartu and Hurro-Urartian languages -- Armenian has little to do with both. Having some borrowings doesn't make it an Urartean language -- Armenian has about 4,000 Turkic words in it, but that doesn't make it Turkic. Of course "Ar" does not and cannot stand for "Aramanyak" - as already said, it is completely false. It seems like all Armenian sources interpret the etymology of the word any way they want, which of course shows disagreement even within Armenians about the history of this term. Meanwhile, the term "Naxcivan" has nothing to do with Armenians -- I can easily retrace its history from the Urartean times, and show you how many years was it under Turkic, Armenian, Iranian, etc., dominions. Naxcivan's true etymology can be either Iranian or Caucasian. Unless Armenians want to claim various Caucasian toponyms, ethnonyms such as "nokhchu", or Nakh languages of North Central Caucasian family, despite coming to the region only about 6th century BC. Finally, how many more times do I need to ask to show me where do you take your "Strabo" info from? I've already shows several instances false, and will certainly show some more. --AdilBaguirov 09:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You aren't reading me at all. You are insinuating what I may have said 'as an Armenian.' I did not say that Armenian is a Hurro-Urartian language, what I said is that Artsakh was probably an Armenian deformation of the Urartian term, much like what the Greeks were calling it was a deformation. We here in Wikipedia rely on published material, and from published materials, it was first definitly been used by Armenians this way and with word associations. Words association with foreign barrowing has nothing new at all. It is the Azerbaijani Academia of science attempt to dump any Armenian names for places as foreign that is laughable. As for Nakhichevan, it is widely recognized as an Armenian word, this cases is even less problematic, Josephus does refer to it as what it was called by Armenians, Khorenatsi write its Grabar form for 'Nakhichevan' the closest to that Grandmaster came, in which anything similar to the word 'Nakhichevan' was a Persian source of about a thousand year after Khorenatsi, while the word with its definition has been used centuries after the other, with the same definition as Josephus discribe it was called in Armenian. This cases was pretty much closed, as Grandmaster stopped I believe pretending that it was not mostly recognized as an Armenian word, but rather requested other stuff. Artsakh in this form, until there is no other published records, has first been written this way by Armenians by incorporating definitions to it.

As for your '3000' Turkish word barrowing, very unlikely next to impossible. Fad (ix) 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying one last time.

Here is a new section.

Here are the rules for the section.

1. No putting words in anyone's mouth.
2. No more repetition. This means that you are only allowed to mention 'international recognition', "16%", "ethnic cleansing", et.al. once per entry.
3. No more discussion about the CIA ethnolinguistic map, which some people have decided to use to ascribe motives and actions to me that did not exist.

Now, let's discuss the Wikipedia article on Nagorno-Karabakh, including the chart of provinces and the map therein. Nothing more. Nothing less. Can we do that? --Golbez 08:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So should I summarize my points about the NK map on the Wiki NK page and the table, or it's all cleared up by now and we reached an agreement? Best, --AdilBaguirov 08:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned things up for you, I hope you do not mind. I just want that nasty fight behind us. Any complaints with the article, map, chart, whatever, discuss here, just please, no repetition or other debating techniques. Also, please no large pastes - we know what the international community has said, we don't need to be reminded. --Golbez 16:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to intro, the ultimate result of the edit wars was the replacement of the words a region of Azerbaijan with the words a region within Azerbaijan. This is wrong, the intro should say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan. That’s the accepted international status of the region, there’s no other. All UN Security Council resolutions refer to NK as a region of Azerbaijan, and so do other international organizations and countries. This is not just a position, this is the internationally accepted status of region, which the intro should reflect as it is a fact. Therefore the current revision is POV and the original version should be restored. Grandmaster 07:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And add "self-styled" or "so-called" or "unrecognized" at least every other time that NK is mentioned, replace the "NKR" with simpler "NK", change the map to reflect the official, recognized toponyms, and of course stress that it is de jure part of Azerbaijan and recognized as such. --AdilBaguirov 07:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We're going to mention that it is unrecognised in the lead. We will not be putting "self-styled", "so-called" or whatever in front of every mention of the name. It isn't encyclopaedic. This is an encyclopaedia article, not a UN, or other political document. - FrancisTyers · 10:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But why was removed the mention that it is a region of Azerbaijan? Grandmaster 10:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, that's why I say "every other time" to mention so-called, etc. But there is an easier way -- you don't have to say it more than once in the article if all instances of "NKR" are replaced with "authorities of NK". This solves the problem fairly. --AdilBaguirov 12:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone says it, it's a position. I don't care if it's UNSC. Unless you can touch it, measure it, feel it, it's not a fact--it's position. Stating it as a fact is POV.

Golbez, about the "within borders." If we say "within Azerbaijan", we have to add de fact without the de jure--that's how it is in s. Oss. article. "Within Azerbaijan" alone is too much like "region of Azerbaijan," which was what I originaly objected to. "within borders of azerbaijan" states your point exactly--the need to provide the geographic context (that it's an enclave)--TigranTheGreat 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a de facto enclave, but de jure part of Azerbaijan. To call it an enclave is Karabakh POV; to call it part of Azerbaijan is Azeri POV. The fact is simply what I stated, it's a de facto enclave but de jure part of Azerbaijan. The best solution is to state the region or territory's (I think region is a better word, but to each their own) location, which is in Azerbaijan, without saying outright it's PART of Azerbaijan. That is a difficult balance to make. --Golbez 23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, that's why we didn't use the "encalve" word but your choice of "within." What's wrong with "within borders of Azerbaijan?" It's your intended point--geographic context.--TigranTheGreat 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I was the one with the problem with "within the borders of". --Golbez 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think your compromise solution actually had "within the borders of" ([2]), then you immediately removed the "borders." It think your first version clearly states the point. This is the best way to avoid the "de facto/de jure/de mojo" mess. And this is the best way to reach a middle point and get over the intro.--TigranTheGreat 23:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, though I still agree with my next edit. --Golbez 00:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we restore the original intro, which was a compromise, achieved after many months of disputes. Check the last 2 archives. The fact is that NK is de-jure part of Azerbaijan, not region within the borders, but a region of Azerbaijan. It has no other status. The current version is Armenian POV and is not neutral. The position of international community is clear: NK is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and it’s not just a position, the status of NK is based on it. Therefore removing that fact that it is a region of Azerbaijan is absolutely unacceptable. It is actually considered a good manner to discuss the changes to controversial articles with other users and don’t make unilateral changes. But the way you guys change the intro based on your own vision without making account of the position of the other side is no good at all. I attach a totally disputed tag, as the current version of intro is not neutral. Grandmaster 07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"it has no other status"? What about 'de facto'? Your own POV is leaking, Grandmaster. --Golbez 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian POV would be "NK is independent." That's not what the current version states--it says the pure facts--declaration of independence, and non-recognition. Therefore, it is a nice neutral middle ground between the Armenian and your POV. Your version goes the other way, and therefore is POV.

As long as there are more than one POV's on the status, any statement regarding the status is by definition a position. Under NPOV standards, it's absolutely unacceptable to assert positions, including "NK is part of" or "not part of" Azerbaijan. If that's what "unrecognized by others" means, let the readers draw the conclusion.

Your refusal to compromise, and your continuous insistence on reverting without even trying to discuss has been the reason behind the edit wars. I suggest you adopt good manners in editting before telling others to do so.--TigranTheGreat 07:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit war started as soon as you returned here and made changes to the intro without discussing it with others. Before that this article was stable for many months. It is a fact that the current legal status of NK is a region of Azerbaijan, which is confirmed by international community. Removing that from the article and introducing POV vision of things will not help to keep this article neutral, stable and balanced. I once again suggest we restore the version of intro that existed before you changed it. Grandmaster 08:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the edit war resumed after you automatically started reverting without even attempting a discussion. My edit had nothing to do with you--it modified a line that was so POV that even you had never offered it. I never introduced a POV version--my POV would be "NK is independent." As long as the status is disputed by principal parties, their positions are just that-positions. I suggest we leave it at the current factual, non-POV version. It's the best deal possible for this kind of article.--TigranTheGreat 09:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here’s your first edit: [3] You introduced a POV edit to the intro, which was stable for many months, and did it without discussing it with other users. And I don’t remember you calling for discussion, you just made that edit and reverted any attempts to restore the status-quo. Current version is absolutely unacceptable and we will have to go through dispute resolution process again. Grandmaster 10:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that dispute resolution is required when the only person voicing a totallydisputed dispute is someone who himself has a clear POV. A more valid suggestion may be a request for comment; get the community in here to see if they consider it neutral or not. --Golbez 16:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Stable doesn't mean neutral. Articles are continuously editted and get improved. Your uncompromising stance prevents any improvement to this article. I saw a blatant POV phrase, I modified it, and I discussed it on the talk page. You started a revert war without discussion, which is your habit. The current version is the best middle ground between the various POV's. If we are to keep improving this article, this is the best deal.--TigranTheGreat 10:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, your version is good. I have two objections though. 1) "Armenian military control" is more neutral than "control by Armenian Military"--the second implies Armenia's military (which is disputed), and the first is more general and doesn't choose between "local Armenian forces" or "Armenia's forces". 2) I think "control" is more neutral than "occupied" whether with respect to NK or the surrounding Azeri lands. Also, we might want to specify that we are talking about "surrounding regions of Azerbaijan," so the reader will know that it's not just the NK being occupied. Thanks.--TigranTheGreat 17:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know if the Armenian military is in actual control of Nagorno-Karabakh, or merely - at least in word - assists the local self-proclaimed NKR military. Can someone clear this up for me? As for #2, I still think we should mention that the non-NK portion of Azerbaijan is occupied, as it has not declared independence, has not been annexed, making it de facto and de jure part of Azerbaijan, but with foreign military in control of it. You will note that I specified that only the area around N-K, not N-K itself, is occupied; N-K was noted as controlled. But a clarification on my question here about the Armenian military in N-K would be very helpful, thanks. --Golbez 20:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Azeris say it's Armenia, Armenians say it's local forces, PACE resolutions say 'local separatists control NK', and for the occupied territories, they use the general "Armenian forces" term. So, it's all over the place. Even if Armenia's soldiers are there, it's unknown how much are they mixed with local soldiers, what's the ratio, who is subordinated to whom. Therefore, I believe "Armenian military control" is the most neutral, non-controversial.

My objection to "occupied" with respect to actual Azeri territories is that "occupied" is more judgmental than "controlled".

By the way, the current revert by El_C puts the intro back to its prior POV version and is unacceptable. The latest version is (with some variations) accepted by most users. Grandmaster, who has been blocked for revert warring, asked El_C to intervene ([4]) clearly because El_C's version has been the most pro-Azeri one (even more so than those previously offered by Grandmaster). I don't think it's appropriate for El_C to make such a sweeping unilateral change without being familiar with the issues and history of discussions here. To bring the intro to a more compromisable point, I think we should restore the prior neutral version.--TigranTheGreat 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oy vey. NPOV is going to be difficult when things are that confused. --Golbez 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't then "Armenian military control" more appropriate? It contains the implication of both the local forces, and Armenia's military. "Control of Armenian Military" sounds too much like Armenia's army.--TigranTheGreat 00:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with NK article is that it still diverges with the NPOV of the international community and real unbiased facts. The so-called "NKR" has to be preceeded by either self-styled, or unrecognized or so-called as is the norm (I've cited a dozen or so varied sources that clearly show it's the norm). Again, this is not a wish or some nice suggestion -- this is the standard terminology and is consistent with other Wiki pages (see Abkhazia, S.Ossetia, etc. pages), and hence must be implemented. Meanwhile, in order not to mention any of these 3 choices preceeding "NKR" then it itself should be replaced with simply "NK", and instead of "government" it should be "authorties", which is again consistent with the language and terminology used by authoritative publications and sources, of which Wiki considers itself as well. The term "NK authorities" is also used by all, including official Armenian, US, UN and OSCE sources, thus no one can object: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].

Then, the sentence "predominantly Armenian population declared independence" leaves one thinking that perhaps some Azerbaijanis have stayed and joined those Armenians in proclamation of "independence". Instead, it should say that only the Armenian population declared independence -- and clarify what happened to the Azerbaijani population, which was ethnically cleansed from NK and are now all refugees/displaced. This is also a must, since NK, as all of Karabakh and all of Azerbaijan belongs to the people who have traditionally lived there -- which includes a very sizeable Azerbaijani population, which was in majority until the begining of 20th century, yet still even in 1989 was sizeable.

A surprisingly reasonable statement, I'll try an edit. --Golbez 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, while it is a nice mythology, where is the proof that "Tsakh" is Armenian for Woods, "Ar" is abbreviation for Aramanyak? It is false -- "tsakh" does not mean woods (or forest, as some also allege) in Armenian! Moreover, since after I've reminded that the area was called Orchistene/Orkhistene, and Armenian users have further improved it by adding the Urartean name of Urtekhini, then Artsakh definitely cannot be from not-yet-existing Armenian language -- whether modern (since 15th century) or ancient, grabar (since early ADs), especially since Armenians are not autohtonous to the Caucasus and have invaded later, in the waning years of Urartu, and took over their culture, some vocabulary, etc. But what is clear is that Artsakh simply cannot be an Armenian name -- it is a modern-day attempt by some Armenians to do what Russians describe as "force smth by its ears". Therefore, this explanation "from Armenian language" unless our Armenian friends can provide a dictionary showing that "tsakh" means woods or forests, and not the word "brush". And of course, it would be nice to see how did ancient "Ar/Er/Ur" suddenly became Aramanyak! Maybe Armanyak (Armagnac), the brandy/cognac producing region in SW France, is also land of Armenians? What about Saskatchewan in Canada? --AdilBaguirov 08:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, as already said many times, saying "under the control of the Armenian military" or otherwise using the word "control" instead of "occupation" is total POV - despite what some might think and others wish, international law, terminology and standards are clear, and clearly specify occupation. Whilst some sources, mostly media, do not see much difference, they do not apply in our case, since 1) everyone here clearly understands the difference and 2) this is an encyclopedia, which means more precision, more research and more neutrality and unbiasness. In addition to all other sources I've cited before, here are some more from international media, NGOs, and some governments that clearly use the factual and precisely defined term "occupation" instead of more vague and attempt to conceal the situation, and thus POV, "control": [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. The word "control" should be replaced with the internationally defined and precise term of "occupied". --AdilBaguirov 09:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is about compromise, and to me, it seems "control" is a perfectly valid compromise word. By trying to force "occupied", you are inserting a particular NPOV, whereas "control" has no POV at all, from how I see it. --Golbez 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the leader of the Azerbaijani community of NK must be mentioned, Mr. Nizami Bakhmanov, and his portrait, like that of Ghoukasyan, should be provided too. He participates in relevant sessions and meetings of the OSCE Minsk Group, and his signature is also on the 1994 cease-fire agreement. He is the head of the executive power of Shusha region. --AdilBaguirov 09:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, mention him. --Golbez 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, not that it makes a world of difference (re: your question: "if the Armenian military is in actual control of Nagorno-Karabakh, or merely - at least in word - assists the local self-proclaimed NKR military") since occupation is occupation and doesn't matter if assistance is 100% or 50%. What matters is that the world community have recognized it as military occupation, and have refused to recognize the so-called "NKR" with Azerbaijan not only refusing even a thought about legitimizing the Armenian occupation, but hinting without any double-speak that it has full right to start the liberation campaign at any time, that patience of Azerbaijan is not indefinite and that the current massive reforms and weapons procurement of the Azerbaijani army are aimed for one purpose -- if the peace talks will fail in the next few years, then military solution will be the only left, unfortunately. Meanwhile, all experts know that the assistance of Armenia to the occupation effort is total and the fact that both Kocharyan and Sarkisyan are President and Defense Minister/Security Council Chief respectively of Armenia, whilst being leaders of NK separatism a decade ago, as well as reported parading of T-80 tanks and S-300s in NK, that were given only to Armenia, make it abundantly clear. If you monitor press, then you will see that each time there is shooting on the Line of Contact, it is generally either Defense Minister of Armenia, Sarkisyan, or the Chief of Staff of Armenia, Harutunyan, who give interviews, explain, claim, make threats, assessments, etc., and not "president" Ghoukasyan. However, just to satisfy your curiosity, here are either neutral or Armenian reports that shed a lot of light on just how well "integrated" the NK units are with the Armenian army:

What matters is what is accurate, not what the "world community" says. --Golbez 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Army of Karabakh is deeply integrated with the Armenian military, and the unrecognised NKR state depends on the Armenian army to ensure its survival as an independent national entity. Armenia considers any act of aggression against Karabagh as an act of aggression against itself." [18]

"Physical abuse and poor conditions plagued the Armenian army, resulting in the deaths of several conscripts. They include the death on April 7 of Vahagan Alaverdyan, an eighteen-year-old resident of Yerevan drafted into the Armenian army in November 1997. Alaverdyan’s family stated that they identified him at the Khojaly Military Hospital in Nagorno Karabakh, covered with extensive bruises on the chest, stomach, and back. They further accused officers and other members of the military unit in which he served in Nagorno Karabakh of beating him to death. The Armenian government routinely denies that it conscripts troops and requires them to serve in Nagorno Karabakh." [19]

"Jehovah's Witness conscientious objector Armen Grigoryan faces a six year jail sentence, after his illegal deportation from his own country, Armenia, and his refusal to do military service in the unrecognised Nagorno-Karabakh republic, Forum 18 News Service has learnt. But Armenia's Human Rights Ombudsperson, Larisa Alaverdyan, denied to Forum 18 that Grigoryan had been deported. "You can't call it illegal deportation – there's no such term. I'm a specialist on this. Perhaps it might have been illegal removal from the country." She defended what she claimed was the right of the Armenian Defence Ministry to send Armenian citizens to Nagorno-Karabakh, which international law regards as part of Azerbaijan." [20]

"Seda Mkrtchyan watches news of the war in Iraq and thinks of conflict closer to her home in the Pokr Vedi village of the Ararat region. ... It has been more than five years (February 1998), since Seda's only son, Armen, disappeared from his regimen while encamped in the Martakert region of Nagorno Karabakh. He had been called to service 10 months earlier, and his letters home were mostly optimistic about his life as a conscripted soldier." [21] --AdilBaguirov 10:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, Wiki policies and policies of international bodies are not the same. Wiki is not UN spokesperson. Under the policy of Wikipedia, we use neutral words--for example, even if someone is terrorist, we say "militant." Similarly, we say "control", not "occupation."

Also, under Wiki naming conventions, we use internal names--if someone or something calls itself this or that, we adopt that. NK calls itself NKR--we use that. These rules are clearly explained in Wiki policies. There should be links from your user page--follow, it's easy to find.--TigranTheGreat 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I note that "NPOV" does not mean "offering all points of view" - it means "offering a neutral point of view", one that I think has been offered here. Statements of fact without judgment. --Golbez 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So why then the fact that NK is a de-jure region of Azerbaijan was removed from the intro? Grandmaster 21:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It already says "noone recognizes NK's independence." If that's what de jure means, it's already there. We shouldn't repeat things more than once in the intro.--TigranTheGreat 22:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't say conclusively the other way, that it's internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. We say it's a region in the borders of Azerbaijan, then say it declared independence from Azerbaijan - neither statement conclusively saying that it was part OF Azerbaijan beforehand, and is recognized as such today. It may seem like a subtle, minor point, but if it helps cool the dispute, then I'll try it. --Golbez 22:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --Golbez 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, thanks for the explanation, but it does not differ from what I say, since the position of internatinal community is NPOV - there is no other way. Wiki cannot be avoiding terms like "terrorist" -- it has pages on Terrorism, on Terrorist organizations, etc. So while there are some disputes about some, there are no disputes about others, and we have to call them by their true names. That's the objective of any encyclopedia - to be precise and objective and neutral, which means the position of the international community. As of "internal names" - NK is in Azerbaijan, and hence the internal name is what's used by Azerbaijan. Moreover, no one is opposing specifying dual names. --AdilBaguirov 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, what the "world community" says is what's objective - or are you trying to say that you or Tigran are more objective than UN, OSCE, PACE, OIC, US President, US State Department? The NK page must be consistent with other similar pages, whilst taking into account its lower legal status in USSR than Abkhazia, for example, and absense of borders with anyone, thus being fully inside Azerbaijan. These are all facts, that make a lot of difference and should be all reflected. So once again, as much as one might try to downplay or otherwise pretend they don't care, the position of international community is the most important, as that's the collective opinion of experts with advanced degrees and far more experience than anyone of us here. And certainly international law exists far longer than anything else you can cite in return. Thus, once more, this is a requirement - NK page must conform international law and norms. --AdilBaguirov 22:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What the world community is certainly not objective. It is the opinion of the world community. For example, is Taiwan independent? The world community, as embodied by the United States, the United Nations, etc., would say no - it's part of the People's Republic of China. But as we all know, it has been de facto independent for decades. They are not being objective, they are pandering to politics. I am saying I'm more objective, certainly, than the United States President and State Department, as I am not beholdent to politics. --Golbez 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, the intro already states NK declared ind. from Azerbaijan, noone recognizes it, and its' within borders of Azerbaijan. I don't think we should repeat the same idea twice in the intro.--TigranTheGreat 22:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but look at it this way - we say what the international community does NOT recognize. We should also say what it DOES recognize. Again, seems like a minor point, but I think it will be useful, and maintains NPOV. It changes things from passive to active. --Golbez 22:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez: "Yes, but it doesn't say conclusively the other way, that it's internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. We say it's a region in the borders of Azerbaijan, then say it declared independence from Azerbaijan - neither statement conclusively saying that it was part OF Azerbaijan beforehand, and is recognized as such today. It may seem like a subtle, minor point, but if it helps cool the dispute, then I'll try it."

I think if we make extra clarification of "part of Azerbaijan," we should make the same about "de facto independence." They both go together. But, I am against both--we mention pure facts speak for themselves, we let readers infer.

The intro makes it clear that it *was* part of Azerbaijan--USSR set it up as part of Azerbaijan, and NK declared independence *from* Azerbaijan.

As for "currently *is* part of Azerbaijan," you don't think "noone recognizes its independence from Azerbaijan" means "they recognize it as part of Azerbaijan?"--TigranTheGreat 22:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

look at it this way - we say what the international community does NOT recognize. We should also say what it DOES recognize. Again, seems like a minor point, but I think it will be useful, and maintains NPOV. It changes things from passive to active. --Golbez 22:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I think it's simply unbalanced to say that "int. comm does recognize nk as part of Azerbaijan" without clarifying that it's "de facto independent." After all we could argue "it says NK declared independence, but doesn't say that now it IS de facto independent."

Second, you don't think saying what the international community does NOT recognize actually tells the reader what it DOES recognize?--TigranTheGreat 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but - for the third time now - if it cools the POV issue, then it's a good thing to add. However, I'm adding de facto to try to offset it, so let's see how that goes. --Golbez 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore the cooling of POV point--got it the first time. My objection was to the imbalance. It looks better now.--TigranTheGreat 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The international community does recognize NK as a region of Azerbaijan. UN SC resolutions refer to NK as a region of Azerbaijan, which means that UN recognizes it as such. So does the Council of Europe. The government of NK is considered illegal by the CoE, who formally objected to staging the elections in the region. According to the US State Department, the United States supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, i.e. it sees NK as part of Azerbaijani territory. As you can see, the international community recognizes NK only as part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

UNSC is narrower and less representative than UN--UN General Assembly never took explicit position. So, UNSC's position is not necessarily UN's position. As an example, Pres. Raegan (executive of US) admitted the Arm. Genocide. The US Congress (legislature) hasn't, so US hasn't.

US is not the "international community." US is pro-Azeri (due to oil, Turkey, etc.)--and as a perm. member of the UNSC--it's influence was clear. In General ASsembly, it had less influence.

Council of Europe's position is your interpretation--never explicitly said "NK is part of Azerbaijan.

In sum, we state pure facts and let readers infer.--TigranTheGreat 08:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, the attempts to revise and misinterpret the position of international community are deplorable - why would you deliberately confuse and provide unreliable info? First off, only UN Security Council resolutions have the status of an international law and are mandatory - General Assembly is, to borrow from you, advisory. However, General Assembly did take position on the issue and has recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan, on several occassions, see for example [22], [23], [24], and especially on the "elections" in "NKR" [25] and [26]. To even try to claim otherwise is funny. Meanwhile, since when did US become "pro-Azeri" - with much more aid given to Armenia, with Sec. 907 against Azerbaijan, with the second largest embassy in the world being in Yerevan, it shows that US, especially the Congress, are very much leaning more towards Armenia due to its money and lobbyists, who can hire lawyers to write up empty reports like the one by New England School. Yet US is international community -- it is a very important member of it. But aside from US, many other countries have explcitly recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan -- both during voting in UN GA and at the level of their MFAs or Presidents, for example here are a few statements from Ukraine [27] and [28]. Same thing of Council of Europe/PACE - there is no interpretation, there is a clear position that NK is part of Azerbaijan, talks about "two communities" of NK, "occupied territores", "separatist forces", etc. --AdilBaguirov 11:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Economy

This article really needs a section on Nagorno-Karabakh's economy, which I'm sure is very stunted due to the war, but who knows, maybe I'll be surprised. --Golbez 16:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I actually have high hopes this could become a GA or even FA. Barring possible POV issues, it's really shaped up quite well, though it still has a ways ahead of it. --Golbez 23:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article is well referenced and very promising. Hopefully if Grandmaster adopts a more flexible stance to new additions and changes, we can all have a real breakthrough in improving the article.

I think the first place to look for economy would be the official NKR page (www.nkrusa.org) itself. If course we could state that it's from NKR page to make it more POV.--TigranTheGreat 07:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Golbez. There’s absolutely no way this article can make it to GA or FA status. The current intro, introduced by you and Tigran without discussing it with other interested parties reflects exclusively an Armenian POV, and articles with POV problems cannot have a featured status. I’m restoring the POV tag, which was repeatedly removed without any explanation. You cannot remove the tag until the dispute is resolved. And its not just me opposing your changes, Adil never supported them either. Also I have a question to Golbez. Would you be so kind as to explain why you reverted the original intro, which was restored by EI C? That intro was made by a consensus of the users, the current one has no consensus, still you repeatedly revert to it. You say that you are impartial, if so, why do you support one of the sides of the dispute and completely ignore what the other side says? Why do you oppose to restoring the status quo and agreeing on changes before making them? Thanks in advance for your answer. Grandmaster 15:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no "exclusive Armenian POV" here. You keep saying that, without explaining why. Is it the controlled vs occupied bit? Or the lack of "self-proclaimed" everywhere in the article? Or what? I hope I'm not repeating a question that's been answered, but I hope you can understand with the volume of talk on this page that I may have missed an answer, but can you cite a specific POV issue you have with the intro? I would say I am far more impartial than you. --Golbez 21:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I’m not saying that I’m impartial. But you removed the fact that NK is a region of Azerbaijan. It’s a fact that was in all the versions of intro. What is your problem with that? Grandmaster 21:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One, it matches the other regional separatists articles. Two, if you accept that the region is de facto independent (which I think most of us do), then how can it also be "a fact" (i.e. "de facto") that it is also part of Azerbaijan? --Golbez 21:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is de-jure part of Azerbaijan. I hope you are not going to argue with that? Grandmaster 04:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. --Golbez 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why then this cannot be reflected in the intro? De-facto and de-jure normally go in conjunction. Grandmaster 07:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The "status exists only in de-facto form" makes it clear that de-jure it's not independent. "Not recognized by Int. comm" hammers it even further. We don't need to keep hammering the point. Keep in mind that de-jure is a legal term and open to interpretation by legal experts. We state pure facts here.--TigranTheGreat 08:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus on the prior intro. Consensus means agreement, and as reactions of current users show, many didn't agree to it. It was blatantly POV. People sometimes move on to other articles, and leave an article alone--doesn't mean they agree to it. Before the prior intro, there was another version opposed by you that existed for a while. You can't just pick one "status-quo" version over another one that was status-quo at another point. The criteria is whether something is neutral.

Well put, there is disagreement, therefore there is no consensus. QED. --Golbez 21:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What does QED mean, Golbez? By the way, here is an official page on the NKR economy, from the NKR site: http://www.nkr.am/eng/facts/economy.htm. We can work from there. --TigranTheGreat 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

QED, quod erat demonstratum. It's a phrase used to show in mathematics that the result required for a proof to be complete has been attained; in other words, it's when you prove a proof. There is no consensus because there is disagreement, the statement proves itself - you can't disagree with consensus, because by the existence of the disagreement, there is no consensus. I probably used QED incorrectly, but I liked it. ;) --Golbez 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenian language

Armenian POV is "NK is independent." That's not what the intro says. The current intro is purely factual, without any loaded objectionable words. There is absolutely nothing POV about it.

Adil claims that no Armenian language existed before 400 AD. He clearly has POV stance, and his dispute cannot be regarded as genuine.--TigranTheGreat 20:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, I don't claim anything - I state facts, and it seems you unable to disprove them. Instead, Tigran, you seem to misinterpret information and puting words in the mouths of some historians, like Strabo. That's a no-no. I've said what I've read from Armenian sources - which is that ancient Armenian language was formed in the early ADs. In fact the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, edited by an Armenian, and written by several Armenians, makes it clear: Grabar (Ancient Armenian) was formed in 5th century AD. Middle Armenian - from 11-17 cc. Modern - since 17 century, which in 19th century becomes even more modern. [29] Same is confirmed by another authoritative book [30] and [31]. Thus, please stop projecting your own image onto others and do not make baseless, groundless accusations that are so frivolous that make one wonder the real intentions. --AdilBaguirov 21:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, just because a few ignorant users "disagree", doesn't mean there is no concesus. Neither NK page nor Wikipedia can be held hostage by a few motivated users who base their incalcitrant and meritless positions not on internationally recognized, approved and voted documents (smth known as "international law", which is mandatory for everyone) but on frivolous claims. Armenian POV is not just "NK is independent", but also "NK is part of Armenia", and derivatives from it. Meanwhile, the international law -- that is NPOV -- is clear that: NK is militarily occupied, NK is de jure part of Azerbaijan, NK is ethnically cleansed of Azerbaijani population, NK is self-styled/unrecognized/so-called. There are NPOV and I've given dozens of citations as proof. --AdilBaguirov 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, please refrain from using insults. International law (unlike domestic law) is not mandatory for states (except when it's in a treaty) much less for private organizations like Wiki. It's a nebulous concept.

There is nothing in your sources saying that Armenian language didnt' exist before 5 c AD. They say "Literary Armenian language" didn't exist before, which is right--Armenian alphabed was invented in 405--before, Armenians spoke Armenian, but wrote in Greek. There is noone seriously claiming that Armenian didn't exist in BC centuries.--TigranTheGreat 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, you don't know many things, and among them that UN Security Council resolutions automatically become international law once passed, and are mandatory. UN SC resolutions clearly recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan, and that it is, along with other regions, being militarily occupied and its Azerbaijani population expelled. They are of course currently taken into account in the NK page, which is good, but the page must be brought in conformity with the NPOV wording used by international organizations.

As of Armenian language -- instead of trying to argue and each time having to change your position after realizing that I am correct, I suggest you give us a source where it contradicts the one's I've provided -- when was Grabar invented? Meanwhile, you are wrong again and misreading once more - the Great Soviet Encyclopedia says: "История литературного Армянский язык делится на 3 периода: древний, средний и новый. Древний — с 5 по 11 вв. Язык этого периода называется древнеармянским, а язык письменных памятников — грабар." Which means: "History of literary Armenian language divides into 3 periods: ancient, middle and new/modern. Ancient - from 5th till 11 century. The language of this period is called ancient Armenian, whilst the language of written monuments/works -- Grabar." So there you go. One more proof of that is what Movses of Khorene said (Book I, Chapter 3), where he in more details describes how Armenians before his age were not interested in literature and sciences, and were primitive, even "stupid and barbarian/wild" (his words). --AdilBaguirov 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually know quite alot. UNSC resolutions are mandatory only when passed under chapter 7 (this is explained even on the Wiki page on UNSC). An example is the resolution demanding Iraq to leave Kuwait. Other resolutions, including the NK ones, are merely advisory.

There is nothing in the source saying that before 5th c there was no Armenian. It says the language using in 5-11th c was ancient Armenian. Doesn't say that ancient Armenian didn't exist before. You are suggesting that Armenians started speaking Armenian only after creating an alphabet, which obviously is not true.--TigranTheGreat 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, the peculiar understanding of everything and seeing white as black and vice versa is noted. Per UN SC on NK, they are not "merely advisory". Then, once again, the sources on Armenian language are clear and I am 100% correct. Meanwhile, you have been unable to bring any credible source showing diverging view point or factual statement, which is not surprizing in light of the above. Yes, grabar started to exist only in ADs -- otherwise such ancient people as Armenians -- what was it, 4,000, or 5,000 years old? -- would have left smth in Pahlavi or Aramaic or smth other script, in which (proto-)Armenians obviously were able to write, but they didn't leave anything in other scripts in either grabar or some other mysterious ancient-ancient Armenian. Nothing. Which makes sense -- Armenians did not rule themselves, they were ruled by Parthians, Persians, Atropatena, Georgians, Jews, and others since BCs. And majority of population in cities for example in Tigranes II era were not even ethnic Armenians. Likewise, the whole story about Artsakh the way is written on the NK page is false, as is the understanding and reading of Strabo by yourself. --AdilBaguirov 23:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your insistence on violating civility rules is noted as well. UNSC resolutions on NK are indeed advisory, otherwise we would see armies marching to NK--as in the case of Kuwait. I don't need to provide a source that Armenian existed before 400 AD, since you havn't given any source stating otherwise. Armenians didn't write in Armenian before that because they had no Armenian alphabet--Aramaic script is not suited for Armenian. They tried it in 400 ad, didn't work, so they created a new alphabet.

So are you saying that Strabo does not place Arsakh in Armenia?--TigranTheGreat 00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Occupation by Armenia

In fact, “NKR” is nothing but a puppet regime, run from Yerevan. Since Armenia cannot admit that it occupies a territory of the neighboring country for obvious reasons, it uses “NKR” to cover up its involvement. This fact is very well known and admitted internationally. Dov Lynch of Institute for Security Studies of WEU explained situation pretty well:

The separatist areas depend on other sources of external support for their existence. In the case of Karabakh, independence is really a sleight of hand which barely covers the reality that it is a region of Armenia. In February 1988, the Supreme Soviet of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region in Azerbaijan voted to unite with the Armenian Republic. Subsequently, the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was declared on 2 September 1991. Karabakh’s independence allows the new Armenian state to avoid the international stigma of aggression, despite the fact that Armenian troops fought in the war between 1991-94 and continue to man the Line of Contact between Karabakh and Azerbaijan. The strength of the Armenian armed forces, and Armenia’s strategic alliance with Russia, are seen as key shields protecting the Karabakh state by the authorities in Stepanakert. [32]

Some more about involvement of Armenia from authoritative sources:

PACE Rapporteur David Atkinson:

According to the information given to me, Armenians from Armenia had participated in the armed fighting over the Nagorno-Karabakh region besides local Armenians from within Azerbaijan. Today, Armenia has soldiers stationed in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the surrounding districts, people in the region have passports of Armenia, and the Armenian government transfers large budgetary resources to this area. [33]

Human Rights Watch:

From the beginning of the Karabakh conflict, Armenia provided aid, weapons, and volunteers. According to Karabakh authorities, Armenia was providing upwards of 90 percent of the enclave's yearly budget in the form of interest-free credits. Some analysts believed that payments to Karabakh constituted 7 to 9 percent of Armenia's yearly budget.

Armenian involvement in Karabakh escalated after a December 1993 Azerbaijani offensive. The Republic of Armenia began sending conscripts and regular Army and Interior Ministry troops to fight in Karabakh. In January 1994, several active-duty Armenian Army soldiers were captured near the village of Chaply, Azerbaijan. While Armenia denied involvement in the conflict, in London in February 1994 President Levon Ter-Petrosyan stated that Armenia would intervene militarily if the Karabakh Armenians were faced with "genocide" or "forced deportation." The fighting during this Azerbaijani offensive, which lasted until February 1994, was exceptionally brutal. International aid agencies and foreign governments were concerned at the low number of prisoners of war registered given the scale of fighting.

To bolster the ranks of its army, the Armenia government resorted to press-gang raids to enlist recruits. Draft raids intensified in early spring, after Decree no. 129 was issued, instituting a three-month call-up for men up to age forty-five. Military police would seal off public areas, such as squares, and round up anyone who looked to be draft age. All male Armenian citizens between the ages of twenty-five and forty-five were forbidden to leave the country without special permission. According to a report in the influential German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued an order by which Armenian draft resisters should be given refugee status. [34]

Information from the US State department about involvement of Armenia was provided by Adil and can be found here. [35]

Unfortunately, the role of Armenia in the conflict has not been adequately reflected in the article, but Im going to correct this. Grandmaster 16:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is indeed a puppet state run from Yerevan, then explain to me why Armenia presently does not recognize it. The statements that you have provided only prove that Armenia has aided Karabakh Armenians and not the government of Nagorno-Karabakh itself. I do not wish to argue on this matter, but I just found your statement that "'NKR' is nothing but a puppet regime, run from Yerevan" to be a bit extreme. -- Clevelander 16:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It’s not just my opinion. Many observers think the same. See Dov Lynch of Institute for Security Studies of WEU:

Karabakh’s independence allows the new Armenian state to avoid the international stigma of aggression, despite the fact that Armenian troops fought in the war between 1991-94 and continue to man the Line of Contact between Karabakh and Azerbaijan. [36] Grandmaster 17:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you never explained to me why Armenia presently does not recognize the NKR if it is indeed a puppet state run from Yerevan. -- Clevelander 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason is obvious. Armenia will have to face serious consequences if it does so. It will be accused of disrupting the peace process and interfering in other country’s affairs.

Btw, I did not delete anything from the article. The paragraph that you added is now repeated twice. Grandmaster 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Grandmaster on this one, I think the only reason Armenia does not officially recognize Azerbaijan is simple politics. --Golbez 21:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but that alone doesn't mean that NK is a puppet state. They have their government with its own structure, they have disagreed with Armenia in the past. --TigranTheGreat 22:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

But if it's a puppet state, doesn't it have to be recognized by its agent government first? Oh well. I guess it doesn't matter. I won't pursue an argument over this.

Re: deletion - Ah, I see. My mistake. I apologize. -- Clevelander 18:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right. When a state sets up a puppet state--it first officially recognizes it as independent, then says "I got nothing to do with it." Armenia has not officially recognized the independence of NK.--TigranTheGreat 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Puppets don't need to be recognized to be puppets. It can be a de facto puppet. --Golbez 21:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lynch's opinion is opinion nonetheless, not fact. We have presented many neutral sources stating that NK is de-facto independent. Obviously, they don't consider it just a puppet state.

In 1997 Armenia accepted a solution in Lisbon. NK rejected. If NK was a puppet state, that would never happen.

Generally, political analysts often reflect positions and POV's of their countries. US and its close ally Britain, for political reasons, have traditionally be pro-Turkish, anti-Russian, which by default makes them pro-Azeri. Their POV is reflected in the US position, and British Atkinson's report. PACE resolution itself did not include Atkinson's "Armenia's soldiers are in NK" statement--it was more careful.--TigranTheGreat 20:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if it's an opinion, is it really necessary to include it in the article? -- Clevelander 20:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. If we include an opnion of some law school about NK, why should we not include this? The rules allow. Grandmaster 20:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, you make a good point. I'll compromise, let's keep it in. -- Clevelander 20:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Shahumyan

Golbez, I think the Shahumyan paragraph should state, in one form or another that "the Shahumyan district, in a joint decision with NKAO, declared its independence from Azerbaijan and the establishment of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic on September 2, 1991, joining the NKR." Otherwise, it sounds like NKAO first declared its independence, then claimed an outside territory.

See, for example http://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf (the analysis by New England law school, mentioned in the Int. Status section): "the joint decision of the NKAO and Shahumian district to declare the establishment of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic on September 2, 1991"--TigranTheGreat 00:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the joint declaration: Joint session of the Nagorno Karabakh Oblast and Shahoumian regional councils of people’s deputies with the participation of deputies of councils of all levels

I also think the NK map should have the borders of the NKR, including Shahumyan--it's information and useful in the article. Golbez, you are good with photo programs, if you could add it, it would be great. Here is the map of the NKR--shahumyan is the top one: http://www.nkr.am/eng/map.jpeg.--TigranTheGreat 01:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact the whole mentioning of former Shahumyan should be removed as advised before -- it was neither part of former NKAO, nor were there any legitimate basis for that claim (or for "NKR" declaration of independence for that matter), nor is it occupied by Armenia, nor did that region have a Parliament or even council. There are many declarations of independence in absentia - for example, the Republic of Goycha and Zangezur [37]. --AdilBaguirov 03:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, we should have an article on that! --Golbez 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The source is dubious--I mean we don't even know whether they declared it while in Armenia, or outside--the page says "it is claimed that it was declared." It's not an official site of this "entity."--TigranTheGreat 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, based on the links helpfully proviced by Tigran, we really should mention it, though I'm not yet sure how. However, Tigran, I would really love links other than that singular declaration. I have no proof, for example, that anyone from Shahumian was actually involved in that (according to the ethnolinguistic map (uh oh), that region should be majority Azeri, so I don't know who is joining NKR here), and I would like ... not a verification, since that does appear to be an official document, but ... an independent telling of events? I guess what I'm saying here is, the only source I have for the Shahumian thing is the NKR declaration of independence - I'd like a separate report/document/story about it. --Golbez 07:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we include information, not exclude it. Someone interested in the issue would want to know what are the borders declared by the NK declaration. Especially an Azeri reader. Wouldn't you guys want to know "what is the exact land claimed by those freakin Armenians?" :) Be honest--TigranTheGreat 05:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is it Golbez. Two PDF files.

The Background Paper on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict prepared by Directorate General of Political Affairs of the Council of Europe

On 2 September 1991 the Regional Councils of NKAO and of the Shahumian district (on the Northern tip of N-K) proclaimed a new state - the N-K Republic. http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10364APPENDIX.pdf

The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution A Memorandum Prepared by the Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy

The actions of the USSR Constitutional Oversight Committee did not, however, annul 'the joint decision of the NKAO and Shahumian district to declare the establishment of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic on September 2, 1991, since that declaration was deemed in compliance with the then existing law. ( The April 3, 1990 "Law of the USSR Concerning the Procedure of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR," http://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf

I read the second one, it seems rather tilted towards the Armenian side. Perhaps with cause, perhaps not, I'm just saying. As for the first one, that's useful, thanks. --Golbez 08:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the borders of the NKR as declared by the NKR government, I think the official NKR page should suffice, since the caption says that it's the borders as declared by the NKR government.

We should also specify on the map which part is NKAO.

I think that's established by the text; I'm also considering adding the official Line of Control to the map. Sigh. --Golbez 08:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, to explain why you see no Armenians there--in June 1992, Shahumyan region, along with 40% of NKR, was taken during an Azeri offensive. All Armenians were expelled. In a few months, Armenians took all of the land back except Shahumyan. It was after that that they went on taking 20% of the surrounding Azeri lands.

Also, as the 1st paper correctly states, the region of Nagorno-Karabagh, or mountainous Karabagh, includes the areas of Shahumyan (which is mountainous) and NKAO. Karabakh includes Mountainous Karabakh and the lowlands to the east. --TigranTheGreat 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, but it wasn't part of the NKAO, hence part of the current confusion. --Golbez 08:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That first link is very interesting, actually, and supplies what appears to be a very neutral and comprehensive take on the issue. Good stuff. I particularly liked this line: "Comment: Depending on the viewpoint taken on ancient history, N-K can probably be seen as traditionally either Armenian of Azerbaijani land – or both." --Golbez 08:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, you still have not answered, why the intro does not mention NK being de-jure part of Azerbaijan? And also, the dispute has not been resolved, why did you remove the tag without even asking our opinion? Grandmaster 09:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"De jure" goes with saying "independence is not recognized". Now, the difference is, when we say "independence is not recognized," that means it's de jure part of Azerbaijan, but it says nothing about its de facto status - it could be both de facto and de jure part of Azerbaijan. Which is why we then need an additional comment on the de facto status. Making a further comment about the de jure status seems to be doubling up - "It's unrecognized, AND it's part of Azerbaijan!" Put the notice back if you like, I removed it only in good faith, but I must insist specific complaints be made. I thought the de facto/de jure issue had been resolved, I apologize if it had not, you can understand that this talk page is long and convoluted. --Golbez 09:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, that’s why I asked you. I have no doubts you did it in good faith. Please see the way BBC describes the status of the region: Status: de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, unilaterally declared itself an independent republic in 1991. [38] Now I think the first line should reflect the current status, de-jure part of Azerbaijan, de-facto under the control of separatists and Armenia. Grandmaster 09:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, here are some interesting news related to de jure recognition of NK as Azerbaijan's: Amnesty International: PUBLIC STATEMENT AZERBAIJAN: Journalist detained in self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic -- a blow to freedom of expression[39]. Thus, anything negative that happens in the occupied territories, also gets placed in Azerbaijan folder, which however unfortunate, shows responsible approach taken by such a well-known NGO consistent with international law and obligations. --AdilBaguirov 11:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro 2

Golbez, the intro has become way too confusing and complicated. It also overstates the "part of Azerbaijan" point while completely downplaying the de facto independence (buried in the end, and reduced to "de facto status" only). I still think the best way to avoid it is to remove loaded words both de facto and de jure, and stick to pure, undisputed facts.

De jure is a legal term--anything to do with law can be interpreted. There are legal experts who agree that NK is not part of Azerbaijan under international law (as the "International Status" section mentions). That's what the Int. Status section was originally created for--to present the points on this issue. "NK is de-jure part of Azerbaijan" is therefore one position (whether majority or minority, it's irrelevant--we don't adopt positions here).--TigranTheGreat 12:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved de jure down, though I disagree that it belongs at all. I think that, at this point, including either the de facto or de jure status in the first sentence is non-negotiable, as it simply creates strife. Furthermore, I don't think we should say that it is recognized de jure as part of Azerbaijan - I would not be surprised if there were many nations around the world who did not care one way or another, and had no specific recognition of it as part of Azerbaijan. However, we DO know that no one recognizes the independence. OK, that epiphany is going in the article. --Golbez 19:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The biased "legal experts" who write paid-for analysis cannot and will not be put on the same level as UN, PACE, OIC, OSCE, State Department, and other authoritative international organizations and institutions. The latter's position is unequivocal, clear and not subject to interpretation -- NK is part of Azerbaijan and is occupied. So the current intro is the best compromise between hiting all the points about both de jure/de facto, independence yet unrecognized due to being part of Azerbaijan, etc. There are many more essential undisputed facts that could be included, such as ehtnically cleansed entire Azerbaijani population from NK; preceeding each mention of "NKR" with the necessary "self-styled/so-called/unrecognized" disclaimer; military occupation instead of control; that aside for most of NKAO's proper also 7 regions are occupied; but as a compromise, it is not being included in the intro. --AdilBaguirov 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Adil. There’s not a single country or international organization that disputes NK being de-jure part of Azerbaijan. The opinion of private persons is different from the opinion of international community and cannot be considered equal to it. If some law school came to a conclusion that NK is not a de-jure part of Azerbaijan, this opinion cannot be given weight equal to the position of the entities, recognition by which is required to become an independent state. It is a fact that NK is internationally recognized as a de-jure part of Azerbaijan, and this fact should be reflected. Grandmaster 13:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is wrong, many if not most do rather refer to it as a disputed territory 'officialy' recognized as part of Azerbaijan. This was the problem if you remember correctly. Claiming it is part of Azerbaijan is also claiming somehow that it has no de facto independence, both are contradictions. Because I can claim it is independent, it depend what point I am taking more into consideration, while the term officialy tell us that officially indeed it is recognized as such, but it is de facto independent. And we already discussed about de Jure part, it is far from being encyclopedic, since there are various publications that dismiss the legality. They even dismiss the changing of vote which resulted to its transfer, calling it illegal. Fad (ix) 14:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back GM. First of all that's not disputed and nobody has said that it should not be reflected. The dispute surrounds the fact that the 100% de facto independence is not stressed enough and that it should be the primary sentence in the intro. Cyprus exercises more control over TRNC than Azerbaijan does over NKR yet the articles looks very different.--Eupator 14:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TRNC is a de jure recognized entity, and its leader Mehmet Ali Talat met with both UN Sec. General Kofi Annan and US Sec. Condoleeza Rice. Who met with Arkady Ghoukasyan aside from President Kocharyan? So this rests the case of international legitimacy. Moreover, what "NKR" are we talking about -- Cyprus, especially the Greek one, has a vibrant economy, tourism, banking -- whilst "NKR" is being depopulated (even according to its own "census"), constant shooting on the Line of Contact and every year increased threat of resumption of mass-scale warfare, all making sure that neither any type of legitimate economy, nor civil population could sustain? Let's be real here. Meanwhile, what is de facto "independence" for some, is also a military occupation for all others, which keeps being reaffirmed by the international community from day one until now -- just days ago OIC Sec. General reaffirmed once again that NK is part of Azerbaijan and is occupied. And of course there cannot be "de facto" without "de jure" usage -- encyclopedia's are an academic and scientific publication, that require precision and spelling out of important terms, conditions, etc., where "important" means whatever is important for the international community and authoritative organizations, is certainly important enough for Wiki. --AdilBaguirov 16:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Recognized entity doesn't mean a thing, because according to the same logic so is Karabakh, it recieves monatory funds independently from both Azerbaijan and Armenia, including the US has a different package for Karabakh.So recognizing some entity is a very vague concept. What matters is if TRNC is officially recognized as a state by the international community, the answer is no. So it is not much different than Karabakh. Fad (ix) 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, GM and Adil, but we don't dismiss one position and adopt another. Armenia says it's not legally part of Az. NK says the same. There are legal experts saying the same. If there is a dispute that it's de jure part of Az, we can't assert it.--TigranTheGreat 15:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, we are not asserting anything - we state real and legitimate facts, not twisted opinions. Indeed, it is those who try to equate Armenia's POV position to the NPOV of the international community, which includes both sovereign countries and institutions, are trying to assert things, dismiss legitimate and only correct position. Meanwhile, per continuation of the claim about UN General Assembly never taking a position on NK, Armenia itself accepted and recognized the fact that the Nagorny Karabakh region is a part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, having unconditionally joined the consensus in adopting, for instance, General Assembly resolution 49/13 (1994) entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe”, paragraph 8 of which reads as follows:

"Fully supports the activities of the Conference aimed at achieving a peaceful solution to the conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic and to alleviate the tension between the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijani Republic" [40]

In addition to this explicit recognition of NK as part of Azerbaijan by Armenia, the Armenian Prime Minister Armen Darpinian also signed the Baku Declaration in 1998, which also clearly specified NK as a region of the Republic of Azerbaijan. He did get a lot of heat for that back in Armenia, though. --AdilBaguirov 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about positions, we are talking about facts. NK is a de-jure part of Azerbaijan, it is a fact, acknowledged by the whole world. Armenian separatists and folks in some legal school may think otherwise, but it does not change the fact that NK is recognized only as a region of Azerbaijan. So this fact should be stated in the intro, and opinions are reflected in the text. Grandmaster 17:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Can any veteran explain to Grandmaster that words such as 'facts' 'proven' are alien to Wikipedia? I have attempted to explain him this for months and he still refuse to listen. I already referred to Universalis the French encyclopedia which refers to it as a disputed territory. As long as it is recognized as disputed by various groups, words like 'it is a region of' is POV. On the other hand, it is officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but there is a clear contradiction between 'being' with its de facto statut. De Jure is a very strong word, and I disagree with it, it has used a relevant Soviet law to declare its decision after a referundum, a law also referred here in Quebec by some when requesting a recognition based on such a referundum. Also, words like the Jure are problematic in international law, because the decision to allocate Karabakh to Azerbaijan was the result of a changing of vote of one man after he took the decision. We are not jurists here, even if we were, it would not change a thing since there are many that do question the legal legitimity of Karabakh by Azerbaijan, we already discussed here. Also, I thought the exclusion of the word de jure was settled. Fad (ix) 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, we are not jurists, we are not experts in determining whether under the law a region is independent or not. For example, NK seceded in accordance with Soviet law--Azerbaijan SSR seceded, and NKAO had the right to secede from SSR, before SSR was recognized as indep. Azerbaijan. Hence, by law, it's not part of Az. That is the position of NKR, Armenia, and reputable legal experts. Maybe others have other positions. We don't take positions.--TigranTheGreat 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So what if someone refers to it as a disputed territory? We report facts only, the fact is that NK is legally recognized only as part of Azerbaijan. Opinions of some people or entities are just opinions, but the position of the international community is a fact. To become an independent state a certain territory needs to be recognized by independent states and accepted to international organizations. Since this has not happened and the region is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, NK is not a state and is de-jure nothing but a part of Azerbaijani territory. If we include de-facto, we should include de-jure as well, because every entity has two aspects, de-facto existence and legal existence. Sometimes these two don’t match, as in the case with most self-proclaimed entities with no recognition. So this is what the lead should reflect, that NK is legally part of the country it tries to break away from and that that country has no effective control over that territory. I think both sides should accept these facts, which is hard to do, but we have to if we want to put an end to this dispute. I actually thought that this dispute was over long ago, but it looks like it’s gonna go for many more months. Grandmaster 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, Fadix, who told you that “words such as 'facts' 'proven' are alien to Wikipedia”? I just want to know the source of your information. See Wikipedia:Verifiability:

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. Grandmaster 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevancy of even discussing with you, when after months and thousands of words of answers have gone to be simply waste. 'FACTS' are 'de facto' entities in Wikipedia, and only terms recognized as facts are names, things which no one could reject(like the sky is blue) and perhaps mathematical equalities. The de facto independence of Karabakh is recognized by everyone. De Jure is rejected by many, Karabakh consider to be de jure independent, Armenia does not recognize it as part of Azerbaijan. I have already told you that in the French press the term 'disputed' was used, and Universalis encyclopedia prefer this word. You can not decide which position is the truth, Wikipedia does not take position. I already told you that I have no problem with 'officially recognized as a region of Azerbaijan.' But bogus terms like De Jure are simply misleading and POV. You aren't disputing its de facto independence, while I dispute its de Jure statu as being part of Azerbaijan. It used legal means under Soviet Laws, it can answer back and claim De Jure independence. Also, you are misunderstanding 'facts' as 'truth' and facts as relevant materials. If I write a paper with the results of a study, I publish the results I have obtained, the facts are that I have obtained those results. Or facts as in, if someone say A, I report that indeed he/she said A and not B. This is a representation on the accuracy of presenting each positions. But what you are requesting rather is facts as in truth. And this is in contradiction with the NPOV policy. Fad (ix) 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

NK being de-jure part of Azerbaijan is a fact such as the sky is blue. One can dispute that the sky is not blue and this opinion can be reported, but it does not change the fact. If NK is not recognized as an independent country, and is recognized only as a part of Azerbaijan, it is still legally part of Azerbaijan. No one can deny that it is not recognized internationally in any capacity other than a region of Azerbaijan. Not a single international organization disputes this. Opinions of some mass media cannot change it. And the term de-jure is used in other similar articles in Wikipedia. You can dispute the de-jure status of NK as part of Azerbaijan as much as you want and so can do all the law schools in the world, but as long as NK is not recognized internationally as an independent country it is irrelevant and does not change the its legal status. And what is your problem with stating that NK is a region of Azerbaijan? You seemed to agree with that before. Grandmaster 18:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't complicate things Grandmaster, many have in the past tried to reasonate you on why de jure is not applicable, if you are seriously comparing this with the sky being blue, I don't give much worth to your comprehention of the NPOV policy. The blueness of the sky is associated with a wave in the spectral range and established as such. Karabakh on the other hand is a disputed territory, its statue is disputed while officially recognized as within Azerbaijan, 'de jure' is a taking of position, facts can not apply when applying a legal concept, and no one that I know of acting as an outsider from the past to now as I have witnessed has accepted that term to be OK as an encyclopedic article. Karabakh recognize itself as de jure independent and this de jure independence it recognize is not recognized, this has as much worth as claiming that Azerbaijan recognize it as de jure a part of itself. Also, it does have a partial recignition, it has its own network, registered in the World bank and its government is given the ligeitimity to manage the international fund. One can not equal an official recognition with a de jure exclusion, it is its de jure independence that is not recognized and not only a position, it being de jure part of Azerbaijan on the other hand is simply an opinion. Like I said hundreds of times, I don't make the rules. Fad (ix) 23:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, NK is not really a disputed territory, but an occupied territory. Disputed is Kashmir - and officially denoted as such. NK is militarily occupied and separatist -- and also denoted as such. Also, Karabakh does not "recognize itself as de jure independent" - this is complete abomination of the terminology, facts and logic, and an insult on the intelligence of the people here. I do not have to go too far to disprove this play of words, just look at the website of the "Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic" in US: "The presence of the office in the US capital enabled us to significantly raise awareness of the legal aspects of Nagorno Karabakh conflict and to work on de jure recognition of our independence from Azerbaijan" [41] --AdilBaguirov 00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, you hit it right on the nail--that's PRECISELY what I have been saying all this time. We know that noone has recognized NK's indepence. We we don't know if every single one, or even the majority of 200+ countries have taken an explicit position of "NK is part of Azerbaijan." As you said, maybe they don't care. I will give you another reason. Maybe they refrain from taking a explicit position for fear of affecting the negotiation process. Here is an example of what I mean.

There was this British parlamentarian named Atkinson. He prepared a report for PACE on NK. The report was widely regarded as a very pro-Azeri document. It talked about "NK being part of Azerbaijan" etc. Russian ambassador Kazimirov criticized Atkinson for deviating from neutrality, and jeopardizing the negotiation process. There was a heavy lobbying by both Azeris and Armenians regarding the adoption of Atkinson's report by PACE. Guess what--when PACE adopted a resolution based on the report--there was no explicit mention of "NK is region of Azerbaijan." They talk about general principles of "territorial integrity" and "self determination," they call NK's forces "separatist forces" etc--in other words they are dancing around the issue, carefully avoiding a mention of "NK is a region OF Azerbaijan."

In sum, saying "International Community recognizes it as part of Azerbaijan" is unsupported statement based on insufficient evidence. Most countries could be avoiding taking a direct position.

Oh by the way, links to most of the documents mentioned above are in the article. Kazimirov's objection was in British journalist De Waal's article which I linked in the Archives. GM should remember it, otherwise I will dig into the archives to find it.--TigranTheGreat 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So what? Kazimirov is a private person, whose opinion has not much weight, plus his bias is obvious, everybody knows who supports separatism at the territory of former USSR. PACE resolution still calls “NKR” separatist forces (i.e. forces who try to separate the region from Azerbaijan), which means that they support territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, otherwise they would call them something else, like legitimate government. And Council of Europe considers the elections in the region illegal, i.e. “NKR” is illegal to CoE. And the reference to 200+ countries is not really relevant. Each country can express its their disagreement at the UNO General Assembly or otherwise, even by recognizing “NKR” as an independent state. Since that is not happening, NK is still legally part of Azerbainjan. Grandmaster 05:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So is Atkinson's bias (obvious). I can reverse your argument and say "If PACE really wanted to take a position and say that NK is part of Azerbaijan, it would say so, just like UNSC resolutions did. Since it didn't, it does not take such position." In sum, you are making your interpretation of words used by PACE.

Kazimirov has been a Russian ambassador and Russia's rep in the OESC peace negotiations. I am not saying his opinion is fact, I am just saying the very existence of that opinion shows that there may be motivations behind not saying "NK is part of Azerbaijan"--TigranTheGreat 06:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It’s just your interpretation that the PACE resolution does not say certain things. Calling “NKR” separatists is equal to supporting the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. If it was not so, they would have chosen more subtle wording. And also, there’s a difference between Atkinson and Kazimirov. The former is an official Rapporteur, the latter is just a private person. You try to give equal weight to official positions and positions of nobodies, while they don’t have it. The position of states and organizations is one thing, and position of private law schools is another. The same is with the position of an official Rapporteur, who was entrusted to make a report, on basis of which the official resolution was passed, and the position of a retired Russian diplomat. Grandmaster 06:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me, Tigran, which country or international organization officially disputes that NK is part of Azerbaijan and recognizes its independence? Position of private persons is irrelevant to the status of NK. Grandmaster 06:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second - Amb. Kazimirov accused British PM Atkinson of bias?! Wow! Look who is talking - the most notorious and biased of all Minsk Group negotiators, who constantly visits, speaks and publishes in Armenia, attacking an MP who doesn't have a horse in the race and is clearly unbiased and neutral (why would PACE be biased in favor of Azerbaijan, really puzzles me). PACE bases its position on UN - simple. --AdilBaguirov 08:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil

I seriously get the impression from your chats that you would prefer if all mention of the NKR were removed from this article, including its self-declared independence. Am I correct? --Golbez 19:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I do not mind any mentioning as long as it's balanced. Why do you think it is fair to mention "NKR" 10 times, but precede it with "so-called/unrecognized/self-styled" only once? While I am not asking tit-for-tat, but if there was at least some symmetry, i.e, 3:1. The article is about Nagorno-Karabakh, and that's a land, which belongs to all people who have been born or lived on it, and which is historically part of any one country. Thus, why should it ignore all that and please only Armenian POV? Why can't it say de jure, occupation, ethnic cleansing, if that's accepted and correct terminology? Nothing of what I am asking -- I emphasize, nothing -- is based on wild unsusbstantiated claims. Everything is based on precedents, consistency, and international law and acceptance. That's how I approach all the other conflicts too -- such as Abkhazia, S.Ossetia, Transdniestr. --AdilBaguirov 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Why do you think it is fair to mention "NKR" 10 times, but precede it with "so-called/unrecognized/self-styled" only once?" Because once we've defined it as such, we can trust the reader to remember what he read earlier in the article. --Golbez 00:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, it's a lengthy article and some people would read only certain parts of it. Also, what if we reverse the argument, and say, OK, let's define "NKR" only once, and use NK authorities, since we can trust the reader will remember and make the right judgement? --AdilBaguirov 00:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean about reversing it. As for people who only read part of it, that's not our problem, we cannot constantly repeat definitions because we're worried people will skip parts of the article. --Golbez 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, under Wiki policies, we use self-names instead of outside names when it comes to organizations or entities. There is a whole example of "skinheads" in Wiki policies. People call them skinheads, but we use "white supremacists." Same goes for your "separatists" objection--TigranTheGreat 05:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, what is the "self-name"? A self-name is what people of the land can call it, and did it occur to you that those people are not only ethnic Armenians, but Azerbaijanis. Per your white supremacists/skinheads example -- the official designation used in official government reports is generally "white supremacist groups". Since I advocate using the official language, your example is in agreement with the right way of approaching NK page, that is the official, internationally-recognized and applied terminology. --AdilBaguirov 08:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Current version

The current wording “region within the borders of Azerbaijan” makes no sense, as I said before. If it is just a region within Azerbaijan without any connection to Azerbaijan, then why Armenian population was declaring independence? There are two aspects of such self-declaring entities, de-facto and de-jure, and they normally go in conjunction. You state one, you should state the other. And no matter what Armenian side thinks NK is still considered a territory of Azerbaijan, which is the fact that should be mentioned. Basically, the problem is how to say that it is legally part of Azerbaijan and effectively under the Armenian control without hurting anybody's feelings. Grandmaster 19:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, maybe we should revive our old RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nagorno-Karabakh We are going in circles anyway, so why not asking the communities opinion? Grandmaster 20:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the problem is that whether "legally" (i.e. under law) NK is part of Az or not is matter of dispute among legal experts. If you can't touch it, feel it, measure or observe it, it's not a fact. To tell you the truth, the only real fact is that Azerb. has no control over NK--i.e. that it is de-facto independent.

AS to your "no connection to Azerbaijan"--come on, when we say "declared independence *from* Azerbaijan"--you think the reader is gonna say 'could it have been part of Mosambique?" It's clear that it was (de facto and de jure) part of Azerbaijan, then declared independence. Even more so, Golbez' latest reordering makes it even clear--the "NKAO PART OF AZerbaijan" is mentioned first, so the reader will never think of Mosambique.--TigranTheGreat 05:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as prior experience with RFC's showed, there is virtually no interest in this article among the community. The voters were mainly either Azeri or Armenian. The number of outside voters was marginal. The reason I think is that the article needs much improvement--and we should really get over this intro and work on overall, constructive improvement of the article, so people will start showing interest in it--TigranTheGreat 05:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, it sounds strange that it is a region within the boundaries of Azerbaijan, that declared independence. If it is just a region within borders, why it was declaring independence? It is not clear from the first line, while it should be. Later explanations just make things more complicated. I will not support the current intro, unless it states the fact that NK is a region of Azerbaijan. It is a fact that the region was recognized as a region of Azerbaijan only, therefore it’s legally part of Azerbaijan. The opinions of legal experts have no value, they are just opinions and not facts. The fact that no one can deny is that the status of NK as part of Azerbaijan is not disputed by international organizations, who actually decide whether the region should be independent or not. Therefore it is part of Azerbaijan, until its independence is recognized by anyone at all. The first line should be restored to say that NK is a region of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Noone says "it's JUST a region within borders." We explain that it was part of ASSR, declared independence from Azerbaijan, noone recognized. No confusion that it belonged to Mosambique. By the way, a statement like "until it's recognized as independent, it's part of Azerbaijan" is precisely a matter debated by international experts. Maybe it's true if Azerbaijan was always independent. In case of ASSR and NKAO jointly seceding from Soviet Union--it's less certain. You may think it's not--but again, it's your opinion, and by definition not a fact.--TigranTheGreat 05:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, opinion of experts is irrelevant, it’s just an opinion, the only thing that matters is position of states and international organizations. Only states and international organizations decide whether a certain territory would be an independent country or not, and not “experts”, who you can hire to say that the globe is square and not round. And the opinion of international community is very well known, Azerbaijan was recognized independent within the boundaries of former Azerbaijan SSR, and it is a fact that law schools cannot change. Since NK is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, it remains such until (if ever) it is recognized independent. Grandmaster 05:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Globe can be felt, measured, observed. Its roundness is factual. Legal issues are never factual. States have no monopoly over what legal terms mean. I agree, only states can recognize independence. But the issue whether such non-recognition automatically means recognition of a region within another country is a matter of legal discourse. So, the FACT is a state's recognition or non recognition of another state. An OPINION is about what such fact (in this case non-recognition) means.--TigranTheGreat 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See Atkinson: The borders of Azerbaijan were internationally recognised at the time of the country being recognised as independent state in 1991. The territory of Azerbaijan included the Nagorno-Karabakh region. [42] It is a fact that NK was recognized as part of Azerbiajan and remains such until is recognized otherwise. Grandmaster 06:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and atkinson was heavily criticized for taking a pro-Azeri position and affecting the negotiation process. Statements such as these were excluded from official PACE resolution.--TigranTheGreat 06:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact reported by Atkinson that Azerbaijan was recognized within the borders of former Azerbaijan SSR. He was not proposing to include it to the resolution, he was just presenting the background to the conflict. His bias is nothing but an opinion, he was entrusted with preparation of this report by PACE, and not Kazimirov, and for a good reason. Atkinson was criticized only by the Armenian side and Kazimirov, who had an obvious bias themselves. Grandmaster 06:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Map

Oops, I did it again. Updated map, lemme know your thoughts. --Golbez 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good map, Golbez, nice job. Color names might be abit gay (just kidding :) What is fushia anyway?).

The only objection is the "disputed region of Shahumyan."--I think it's misleading, creates impression as if NK already is an independent state, and Azerbaijan and NK are fighting only over Shahumyan. There is nothing disputed about it--Azeris never dispute that it declared independence from Azerbaijan jointly with NKAO, Armenians never dispute that it's ethnically cleansed from Armenians and under Azeri control. I think it should say "the shahumyan region, claimed by NKR, is in pink"

I also think the "NK is green" should be replaced with "former NKAO is in green,"--I think it gives useful clarification to the reader as to what former NKAO looked like.--TigranTheGreat 05:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, unlike the bulk of the former NKAO, Shahumian has never been de facto part of the NKR, only de jure (de jure part of an entity which does not de jure exist, heh). As for fuschia, I realized it was more maroon. :P --Golbez 05:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not part of NK, neither de-facto, nor de-jure. If something does not exist de-jure, how can another region be a de-jure part of it? Grandmaster 05:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Funky, isn't it? Yet the proclamation of the NK Republic mentions it, so IMO the map should reflect this. As for "de jure", yes, from everyone's point of view except the NKR, it's not de jure part of the NKR, but from the NKR's perspective - they can have de jure stuff within their own sphere of influence - it is. I think, also, that we are heavily overusing the terms "de jure" and "de facto". --Golbez 06:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, it was de-facto part of NKR between December 1991 and June 1992. I mean "disputed" is itself inaccurate, since the whole region is disputed. What's wrong with "the shahumyan region, claimed by NKR while currently under Azeri control, is in pink" It's purely factual.--TigranTheGreat 06:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out my current caption. --Golbez 06:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

De-facto under Azerbaijani control sounds very bad, it is not only de-facto, but also de-jure under Azerbaijani control. I think it should be made as brief as possible. Grandmaster 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster here. "Azerbaijani control" is better.

Good, cuz I removed it around the time y'all made that statement. :) --Golbez 07:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I have a suggestion about reducing the length of caption. Instead of saying saying "The whole NKR is Shaumyan plus NKAO", why not draw the overall border claimed by NKR and just state it in the caption? It's standard practice in maps.--TigranTheGreat 06:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I could, but how would I delineate it? Just have a thicker line? Though I would still have to explain it, due to all the different colors involved. --Golbez 07:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran - Azerbaijanis very much dispute that Shaumyan region "declared independence from Azerbaijan jointly with NKAO". First, because it was impossible under the laws of the time or now -- how can a region declare independence? Do you imagine the City of Glendale in Los Angeles, or City of Watertown in Massachussets declare "independence"? Second, even if we assume for a second that there was such a legal right -- then there is no protocols left, no minutes, nothing! Armenians are unable to produce any documents about either Shaumyan region or that of NKAO voting and declaring smth. Third, the Azerbaijani population was not consulted, was ignored -- and that's a violation of people's, citizens, rights. Fourth - it is not "ethnically cleansed from Armenians" - if you refer to Ring, then it expelled several Azerbaijani villages too, and secondly, Armenians still live there as citizens of Azerbaijan (and they still live in Sumgait too, and in Baku). Thus once more, if Shaumyan declared some independence, then definitely so did Zangezur and Geycha in Armenia. --AdilBaguirov 08:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)