Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Lernayin Gharabaghi or Lernayin-Gharabaghi

Shouldn't there be a hyphen as well? Steelmate (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Armenian, you tell me. Nagorno-Karabakh is how it is handled in English. --Golbez (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure myself, some armenian speaking people pls... Steelmate (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no hyphen in the Armenian version of the name see wikt:Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ, of course thats not reliable. But the Foreign ministry of RoA agrees[1]. You might have to teach your browser to read Armenian. VartanM (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok Thanks VartanM for confirming that, just wanted to make sure. Steelmate (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

History section

Isn't it way too big? We have a separate article for that, so can we possibly shrink it to include only main events? Steelmate (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Area and Geographic boundaries of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

As I've mentioned in Talk:Lachin. This article is no longer about Nagorno-Karabakh the region. So when we talk about the de-facto bondaries of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, we need to state the bondaries described in the NKR and Armenia's negotiating position. This is the entire Nagorno-Karbakh Region plus Shaumian, Lachin Rayon (Kashatagh) and Kelbajar Rayon (Karvajar). In terms of are by square miles/km we should do what they do in the Israel article for area and but the area of just the region, put a slash then beside that put the area of the NKR/Armenia's negotiating position above. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your sources saying the NKR has claimed Lachin and Kalbajar? The map you showed me also included areas like Agdam, Jabrayil, Zangilan, etc. Either all of this is claimed or none of it is claimed. --Golbez (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than trying to prove that they have annexed it, shouldn't we be trying to prove that they have not annexed it? What we know is the following:

1) They hold census data for the Lachin Rayon which they call Kashatagh.

2) They maintain the infrastructure for much (but not all) of the occupied territories.

3) They assert that a Nagorno-Karabakh as an enclave inside Azerbaijan is out of the question.

4) Members of the Government in Armeniand Nagorno-Karabakh seem to acknowledge that they will need to give something back for peace.

I will gather some references and post them here and we can discuss.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you propose I prove a negative? I have a source saying the NKAO+Shahumian=NKR. You do not have a source that says the surrounding rayons have been claimed or annexed. Of course they maintain the infrastructure and maintain census data, the USA performs similar services in Iraq, but that's not a part of the country. #3 and #4 have no bearing on this discussion, as that's their wish for the end-result, not the current situation. --Golbez (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask this, if a country conquors a peace of land renames that land and holds elections and census data and upgrades the infrastructure in that land, isn't it automatically implied that it has been annexed? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Annexation or claiming is an active thing, that is to say, it doesn't happen passively. Just like diplomatic recognition - there's no such thing as 'de facto' diplomatic recognition, just as there's no such thing as 'de facto' annexation. Until such time as it is actually claimed by the NKR or Armenian government, it's part of Azerbaijan, an occupied part. Anything beyond that, like what you're trying to do, is purely original research. --Golbez (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Again if we compare this article to the article on Israel, the article on Israel provides two numbers for it's area. One excludes East Jerusalem and Golan Heights and the other includes it. In terms of annexation vs occupation, the Golan Heights are considered annexed but not everybody recognizes this annexation. The West Bank is considered an occupation. When we compare the occupied/liberated territories surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh region, would you say they are more similar (visavis occupation vs annexation) to the Golan Heights or the West Bank? Remember also that Israel has never declared that it has annexed the Golan Heights and it has never even used the word annexation with regard to the Golan Heights. It has merely extended its "laws, jurisdiction and administration" to the Golan Heights. Therefore, for the purpose of this article, we should treat the territory surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh region the same way the Israel article treats the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Golan Heights Law is the Israeli Knesset's law, ratified on December 14, 1981, which applies Israel's laws to the Golan Heights." "The Law, jurisdiction and administration of the State will take effect in the Golan Heights, as described in the Appendix." Give me a source that says anything similar exists for the occupied rayons, or Lachin in specific. The Golan law is pretty much as close to annexation as you can get without actually using the word, and I very much doubt anything similar to it exists in the Caucasus. But if you can show it does, then we can move on. Anything less is original research. --Golbez (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Some support of Lachin under NKR

From panorama.am I have taken the liberty of bolding certain passages

AZERBAIJANI POLITICAL SCIENTIST SAYS COMPENSATING FORMER LACHIN RESIDENTS AN ATTEMPT TO SOLVE ARMENIAN-AZERBAIJANI CONFLICT

Six Azerbaijani citizens, formerly living in Lachin, have submitted a claim to the European Court of Human Rights demanding compensation for damage. The claim was accepted against Armenia and the court decided to discuss the case. Azerbaijani political scientist, Ilgar Mamedov, believes that Lachin is the one of the cornerstones of Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement. He said OSCE co-chairs report serious progress. Particularly Mamedov refers to Matthew Bryza saying “the sides have agreed on hand over of territories under the Armenian control.”

This statement was followed by the Armenian ministry of foreign affairs saying “until the status of Nagorno Karabakh is decided, the right for self-determination of Karabakh people guaranteed and smooth geographical contacts with Armenia assured, Armenian side is not going to talk about tertiary issues.”

Further, the political scientist deliberates that “if the Azerbaijanies get compensated for their property according to law, they practically lose their right and interest to return to their places of resident. Isn’t this a best solution to settle numerous issues on the table of talks?” Mamedov raises the question. The political scientist also believes the compensations will be funded by international donors under “investment for peace regulation.” “It will be easier to force Azerbaijani to go for concessions on Lachin if there is no claimant for property,” Mamedov says.

More to come... Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing here that says or implies that Lachin is part of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is all talking about what they want or demand the final settlement to be - but at present, it is Azeri territory, acknowledged I believe by everyone, even the occupying parties. --Golbez (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

NKR is not part of Azerbaijan, the NK region is

Grandmaster, wake up, we have two articles now, nothing to be confused about. Steelmate (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Still the territory of NK is part of Azerbaijan, and NKR does not exist de-jure. Grandmaster (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, NK de-facto is not part of Azerbaijan... so what? We all know about it. In verbiage that you put it was like NKR is part of Azerbaijan, which is not correct statement. These are the only ways of correctly stating facts:

• NK region is de facto part of NKR.
• NK region is de jure part of Azerbaijan.

or reversely,

• NK region is not de jure part of NKR.
• NK region is not de facto part of Azerbaijan.

Steelmate (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Folks, stop changing the intro that was a result of compromise after many months of discussions. We will have to start it all over again. Grandmaster (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The before split negotiations did not take the fact of split into account so they are outdated a bit. Steelmate (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in the article that the region is de facto independent republic, and de jure part of Azerbaijan. Anyone reading this article is aware that the entity the article is about is officially internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan. I see no point of previous revert. --Ehud (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"officially internationally" Does it really help that much to repeat these terms over and over and over again, thinking that maybe this time it will be hammered into the heads of everyone else reading? --Golbez (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"the article is about officially internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan." - no, it is not, it is about NKR - the republic, info about region should go to Nagorno-Karabakh.I wonder how much longer this question will be popping up again? Now just stating this fact about NK being de jure part of Azerbaijan, should involve another edit in article about Azerbaijan, saying that thos regions are de facto part of NKR. Steelmate (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, what other option do I have other than repeating it over and over. This is a neutral stance: NKR is indicated as de-facto independent, and de-jure Azerbaijani territory. Just mentioning that it is is a de facto independent republic located in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the South Caucasus, entirely surrounded by Azerbaijan implies otherwise. I think it is fair enough.

Steelmate, it doesn't matter whether it is about self-proclaimed NKR or formerly NKAO or NK region of Azerbaijan. The bottom line is that it is recognized as Azerbaijani territory. What is not clear here? (Ehud (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

What option do you have? Not insulting your fellow editors by repeating the same crap over and over again, treating them like they are incapable of reading. --Golbez (talk)

Dear Ehud Lesar, it matters! It mattered so much that article was split. So please consider those two articles for two different reasons. One about region, another about republic. What is not clear about it? Also I can see your position that when talking about location of NKR we mean NK region then I agree with you. Steelmate (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As we know, there are de-jure states and de-facto ones. There are 2 aspects of "NKR". 1. It exists de-facto (even though many question even that and see it as a sleight of hand used to cover up the fact of annexation of that territory by Armenia). 2. It does not exist de-jure, as it is not recognized as a state by any other country. If we mention 1 aspect, neutrality requires that we mention the second aspect too. Mentioning de-facto implies that we should mention de-jure too. Grandmaster (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact tag on De Jure part of Azerbaijan

If you look at the definition of De jure in wikipedia it means "by law" meaning by international law. If this is to remain in the article, it needs to be sourced. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, de jure is used as opposed to de facto, so we can say - if we use de facto for "A" then we can use de jure to "not A". Steelmate (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Steelmate, the use of de jure vs. "officially" was discussed for months in a very lengthy mediation in 2006. The consensus version, which lasted for a very long time, settled on "df independent, officially part of Az." The reason de jure was problematic is that it has legal meaning, and anything having to do with law is up to interpretation by lawyers (in this case international ones). Whether de-jure unrecognized also means de-jure part of the original state is one such question open to legal dispute. If we are to avoid lengthy edit wars, we need to stick to the consensus wording.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Republic of Mountainous Karabakh" instead "Nagorno Karabakh Republic"

Nagorno means mountainous and the official name therefore should be the "Mountainous" Karabakh.

MosMusy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Official name should be whatever the republic chose it to be, not you or me, and it chose Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Look here :

http://www.nkr.am/eng/ , and here http://www.nkrusa.org/ Steelmate (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The constitution of the Republic Nagorno-Karabakh states: The Nagorno Karabakh Republic and Artsakh Republic designations are the same. (1.2) [2].

That means, they're equal. I think Atsakh Republic schould be added in the article (perhaps like this: "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or Artsakh Republic ... is a de facto independent republic ..."). - Vacio (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Problematic photograph

The image with the caption "Internally displaced Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjacent regions" is, according to the image's page, in the public domain. However, it clearly has been photographed or scanned from a printed book. The reflective glare at the bottom right of the image, and change in tone at the top right indicate the curve of the printed surface. For this reason I doubt if it really is a PD photo: if the photographer really had placed the photograph into the public domain then he/she would have released the original image and not just a scan of a copy in a book. If someone agrees with my reasoning, could they place an appropriate copyright violation tag in the image's page (I don't want to do it myself since I've not done it before and I'm not sure which tag to use). Meowy 17:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would ask Parishan for clarification, he's the one who uploaded. VartanM (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

Wow, I've never seen another article so densely populated by [citation needed]s. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

85.132.47.9, I have reverted your additions to the demographics section as they are unsourced and baseless. - Fedayee (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Territory and admin. divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

4.400 km2 is the territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is however 11.458km2 [3]. Please see also Artcle 142 of the Constitution. This should be added in the infobox. Maybe like this:

Territory: 11.458 km2, 4.400 km2

Moreover, NKR has 7, not 6, administrative divisions (provinces):

1. Shahumian (older name: Gulistan/Gyulistan)
2. Mardakert (Jraberd)
3. Askeran (Khachen)
4. Martuni (Varanda)
5. Hadrut (Dizak)
6. Shushi
7. Kashatagh

-Vacio (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Armenians have renamed Lachin to Kashatagh but I see no evidence at all that either Armenia or the NKR has claimed or annexed it. You'll need to find a source for that. Also, we need a source for western Kalbajar being part of Shahumian. Or, for that matter, the occupied areas of Agdam being part of those areas. It looks like you've taken a map of the occupied areas and just extended lines, when in reality the NKR and Armenia have not claimed or annexed these, have they? --Golbez (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think those territories are indeed claimed by NKR, first of all because they call them liberated areas. Evidences can be found at the official web-site of the National Statistical Service of NKR. In fact there are 8 administrative divisions, since Stepanakert itself is also a region [4]. The map of NKR with its administrative divisions: [5]. Please see also article 142 of the Constitution [6], wich states: "Till the restoration of the state territorial integrity of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and the adjustment of its borders public authority is exercised on the territory under factual jurisdiction of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh." -- Vacio (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All the doccuments and maps I have seen from "NKR" claims to the former territory of NKAO, plus former (original) Shaumyan territory, which does not have a visible border with Iran, not even with Armenia. For the latter, a corridor is demanded, but no one really knows what and where that corridor will be. For example, one of the proposals on the table (in negotiation process) back in late 1990's was a territory in the North of Kalbajar, not even Lachin. So therefore, at least "official" statements, maps from "NKR" do not show these other territories of Azerbaijan, as described here. --Aynabend (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Posibly you haven't seen all the documents and maps from NKR. The maps and publications of the National Statistical Service of the NKR are the recent ones and they are official as well. Furthermore, we don't have to forget that the borders of the NKR have been changed since its proclamation in 1991. I think its is very clear: NKR is a de facto independent republic, wich borders with Armenia, and the territory under factual jurisdiction of this de facto republic is divided into 8 provinces. While you are speaking about a possible solution of the confict, supposed that the status and borders of NK should be defined and internationally recognised. --Vacio (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Vacio, the republic itself is unrecognised, how can we recognise its statistical service? :-) Ok, if talking seriously - here are the maps from the "official" representation of "NKR" in U.S.A. and some other "official" websites here [7] and here[8]. Also look at what it says about its neigbouring states [9]. Please see the maps and borders. If one day we see the territories you were trying to include here reflected in these kind of maps and websites, then may be we can have them mentioned here at the Wiki as well. You are not a representative of that "state" and you cannot claim on behalf of that "state" more than what its "government" wants publicly. Regarding the "changes" of 1991 and inclusion of Shaumyan, I have mentioned it above. I hope my points are clear. --Aynabend (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The map used on this page is not appropriate, not recognized and is not used by any entity, even by Armenian warlords of Nagorno-Karabakh. It's an original research by VartanM, pushing his own POV in the article and shall be replaced with more appropriate one based on international definitions. Also added CIA World Factbook source, which clearly says that occupied territories including NK are under control of Armenia, no other entity is defined. Atabek (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Atabek, what you pushed without discussion, its the real POV. The map by you is that of Soviet times, unfortunately (and you know it) the some of northern rayons are under Azeri occupation, while Armenians already liberated some surrounding parts of NKAO. So the map by Vartan is discussed and factual, your's is a memory from Stalin's times. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Adranik, WP:AGF discussing memories. Also, explain how CIA World Factbook source is supposed to be "memory from Stalin's times". What you call "liberated" are actually occupied territories per UN SC resolutions and opposite point is Armenian POV, thus the neutral source to rely in this case is CIA World Factbook as well as UN SC resolutions. Unless you can prove otherwise with reference, the source and the wording will be restored, even if mediation involvement is necessary. Atabek (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Atabek, the pages you refer to:

1. [10] — this map shows the location of the former NKAO.
2. [11] — says the NKR was proclaimed in the borders of the former NKAO and the Shahumian region.
3. [12] — the verbatim text: Soviet-era borders placed NKR four kilometers east of Armenia, but today Lachin corridor makes the two contiguous.

Thus, they are not contradict to what I've sayed above. The above map is really appropriate, since it is made by virtue of the map of NKR as it's presented on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of NKR [13] ! (A smilair map is also used on a.o. the Russian wikiarticle of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.)

I would also ask you to be more polite next; and don't move the issue of discussion: we are talking about adminstrative divisions of the NKR and it's contiguity with Armenia. The fact that CIA or UN SC resolutions call this areas occupied, the fact that they don't recognize the NKR and see it as part of Azerbaijan, doesn't hold back the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to consider their land not to be part of Azerbaijan, and to call this areas liberated.

It's moreover remarkeble that even the NKAO itself had conjugtion with Armenia until 1936[14].

Anyhow, this article is about the de facto republic, thus we can start from the official websites of this republic to decribe it, weither it is recognised or not. --Vacio (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The references you brought above are from websites of unrecognized entity, so called "NKR", its "representations" in U.S. and Armenia, and obviously cannot be deemed as neither neutral nor legitimate. If you think otherwise, we can invite mediators and decide how that invented map from the page of Armenian separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh is at all supposed to be legitimate, neutral or encyclopedic. Atabek (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

revert

I've reverted the revert by Golbez, because the information that was re-inserted by Golbez was already there in the second paragraph (the fact that NKR is unrecognised and is still officially part of Azerbaijan) and it reads better with this duplicated material removed. Meowy 23:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence at the end of the introductory section appears wrong and seems to need rewriting. "The parties have since been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group". However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it is not all the parties - Nagorno Karabagh has not actually been allowed to attend these talks, it has only been between Armenian and Azerbaijan. Meowy 00:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I, er... I did that? Huh. Can't imagine why I'd revert that; my only guess is that I viewed the diffs backwards, and thought the IP was inserting that statement. I'd never want to put in a repeat issue like that, y'all know that. Thanks for reverting it. --Golbez (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made some small changes, putting back some previous grammar to avoid repeating phrases ("... as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic remains...").

Changes are fine with me, except, if you say "The predominantly Armenian-populated region", to be gramatically correct don't you have to also say what the "the" is? That's why I had changed it to "This predominantly Armenian-populated region", to make it clear that the region is Nagorno Karabakh without actually having to write it. Meowy 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we can assume the reader knows it means the subject of the article. However, since this is about the republic and not the region, I agree there could be some confusion. --Golbez (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I rolled back edit by anon. NKAO was not part of Soviet Federation, it was part of Azerbaijan SSR. Grandmaster (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think had a discussion on this some time ago, whether it declared independence from the USSR or Azeri SSR or Azerbaijan, and I guess we came to the conclusion of the Azeri SSR. Does anyone else remember? However, I disgree with your reasoning that it wasn't part of the Soviet Union. If San Diego decided to declare independence, it would be declaring from both the state of California AND the United States. Then again, if the Soviet Union weren't on its last legs, or had died sooner, the declaration of independence might have elaborated better on whom it was actually seceding from, since the existence of the USSR was rapidly becoming irrelevant in December 1991. It's a topic worthy of occasional discussion, but definitely not worthy of an edit war, your revert was perfectly sound. --Golbez (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked this earlier. The sentence at the end of the introductory section appears wrong and seems to need rewriting. "The parties have since been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group". However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it is not all the parties - Nagorno Karabagh has not actually been allowed to attend these talks, it has only been between Armenian and Azerbaijan. If nobody is going to correct me, I'll rewrite the sentence to reflect that official representation by NK has not been permitted at these talks. Meowy 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. "NKR" is just a puppet regime, and the territory of NK is de-facto merged to Armenia. Armenian troops are stationed there, Armenian currency is used, the region is financed from the Armenian budget, etc. It is just de-facto recognition of this fact. Also, from what I remember, the leaders of the Armenian separatists declared many times that they agree to be represented by Armenia, though it would be really surprising if they did not, considering that their leaders (Kocharyan and Sarkisyan) now rule Armenia. But the best wording to avoid any personal interpretation would be "Armenia and Azerbaijan have since been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group", this is the accurate statement of fact without making any interpretations as to who the parties to the conflict are, what do you think? Grandmaster (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was a frequent complaint among former president Arkadi Ghukasyan, that the leaders and people of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic received no representation in talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I remember reading it in an online publication, it might have been Armenia Liberty. I will try to find it. Hakob (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "representatives of the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan" - for now it is easier to say who is represented than who isn't. However, the fact that representatives of NK (it appears) have not directly taken part in these talks is an important point, and the new wording does not make that clear to an uninformed reader. Especially since there are media indications that this lack of representation will become an important issue in the coming months. Meowy 18:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As you say, if we explain who is involved in talks, anyone can make out who is not. Grandmaster (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted some new pro-Azeri addings by an IP as non-discussed and rather propagandist than informational. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to change something in the article , look at the map , official territory "NK" doesnt include Lachin district . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaur heydarov (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Map in infobox

The map in the infobox contains the area controlled by the NKR. The map in the administrative division contains the NKAO. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If I am not misreading the name of the article is NKR not NKAO (NAKO is the abbreviation of what?), and therefore, the map in the infobox must contain what is claimed to be NKR as this one, which existed in the article until it was removed without notice of anyone (in the edit summary changes are not explained!) which is pure POV. Gülməmməd ^Talk 04:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

NKAO is the abbreviation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. --Golbez (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Golbez (NAKO was typo). So it is clear that NKR and NKAO are not the same and old map should be returned, which indicates what is called NKR correctly. Gülməmməd ^Talk 04:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The old map shows the NKAO though, without regard to the NKR's declared or controlled borders. It leaves out a portion of the declared NKR. (But, it also includes portions of Azerbaijan that I'm not fully confident have been claimed by the NKR, but some sources seem to back that up) --Golbez (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored the old map, that was removed by Gulmamad. The current map shows all the territory under NKR control, whether its claimed or not its under they're control and as any encyclopedia should it provides information. I don't see what the big deal about it is anyway, I mean Azeris don't waste a minute to claim that Armenia occupies 75% of their historic land, why are they now trying to delete and remove something that actually shows what the said 75% looks like. VartanM (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, please note that the article is about so called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and on the map it is clearly indicated NKR! But above you are claiming it is the map of the territory under NKR. Can you differentiated these two things? Why are you trying to push your map which doesn't show what is written on it, NKR, into the article about NKR as a main map? That map may be fine in another article, say, occupied Azerbaijani territories or at the bottom of the article to show the separatist Armenians control that territory. And also, I'd like to ask something that I didn't understand: Which "Azeris" have been trying to remove your map and what is the number 75%? . Thank you. Gülməmməd ^Talk 14:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Gulmammad besides controlling all that area, NKR claims all those liberated lands and administers all of them. The former "rayon" of Kelbajar has been merged with occpuied Shahumyan region, Lachin, Zangilan and Qubadli are now part of the Qashatagh region and Jabrayil and Fizuli are part of the now-extended Hadrut region. Here is an official 2005 country-wide census that confirms all this. So using Vartan's map is quite relevant in this article as according to NKR, all of the lands under their control = NKR. - Fedayee (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What we have in the map is a de facto NKR. Gulmammad, at first made a consensus then revert to your POV propagandist version, pls. : Andranikpasha (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee: your source is not reliable (is obviously propaganda source) and in that source there is nothing to do with the matter. And also, the word "liberated", that you used above when you mentioned occupied Azerbaijani lands by Armenian occupying forces, is not acceptable here, personally I'd recommend you not to use that word anymore -- the fact that Azerbaijani lands occupied by Armenian occupying forces is very clear to everyone; Andranikpasha: Read the article carefully and see what is called NKR. Overall I recommend to all of you to read the article carefully. It contradicts that map by itself!
P.S. VartanM needs to take some mathematics course regarding that number which he mentioned above, 75%. Meanwhile, I can explain something useful for VartanM even here: You take your POV map and divide it into 4 equal pieces, then three of them is 75%. But your map that you are claiming shows 75% of Azerbaijani territories (on the map it is indicated NKR!) that have been controlled by Armenian occupying forces is about 1 piece of those four pieces! If you need any other help with mathematics feel free to drop me a line on my talk. Gülməmməd ^Talk 17:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What no Irevan is occupied by Armenians for you? I'm surprised you didn't correct me by saying that Armenia occupies 100% of your land. Please see WP:NPA. Suggesting that I need a math course is rude to say the least, and you will be reported next time you feel like attacking me. VartanM (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

the words like occupying is not correct for discussing about NKR (see Self-determination or "occupied Kosovo"). Pls read at first the discussions we had here during the years and you will see why the NKR-controlled territories are included. It wasnt a one-person decision but a de facto reality we need to show. If you call something occupied (by its inhabitants??), even it means that it is factually not in Azerbaijan. Nothing more. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gulmammad, the source is from the official government of NKR which shows that all the territories controlled by NKR are now part of the Republic. Check the map in the source and check the given size of the areas in the census. This confirms clearly that all the liberated territories are claimed by NKR and are administered by it and not only what was formerly known as the NKAO. - Fedayee (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What you call liberated territories is the following:

“ 1. Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan; over 800,000 mostly ethnic Azerbaijanis were driven from the occupied lands and Armenia. www.cia.gov

2. The biggest wave of IDPs came in 1993 as Armenian forces from Nagorno-Karabakh, with support from the Republic of Armenia, forced out the Azeri civilian population successively from seven provinces (Lachin, Kelbajar, Agdam, Fizuli, Jibrail, Qubatli and Zangelan) adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh. Roberta Cohen, Francis Mading Deng. The Forsaken People: Case Studies of the Internally Displaced. 1998. ISBN:0815715145

”

How possible can one expect that you will do constructive edits since you are trying to hide the reality by calling this tragedy liberating process? Gülməmməd ^Talk 15:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, please use neutral and reliable sources and don't change the article in order to ignore my comment above "the article contradicts that map by itself". You are writing your wishes in the article; the better place for them would be your diary not wikipedia. Gülməmməd ^Talk 04:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I seriously think that you need to stop attacking people before you go bye-bye, No Personal Attacks is an official policy of wikipedia. You are the one trying to change something that was already in the article. So naturally you need to explain why you think it should be changed. And please stop edit warring, because its not gonna take you anywhere, the only way to achieve something in wiki is thru consensus, and obviously you don't have consensus to change the article. Now would be good time to convince all of us why you believe your changes are better then the old version. VartanM (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack -- in that situation anyone could have offered you a help as the number (75%) was very far apart from what you were intending to say. Regarding the rest of your comment, please read this and here beginning of the discussion you will see why I think your map is not okay. Please don't waste time by repeatedly asking the same, answered question. Gülməmməd ^Talk 16:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Map.

I really don't want to protect this article because if that happens, it's not getting unprotected for a long time. I'm also going to start throwing people at Arb Enforcement as fast as they qualify.

Now, the maps. The top map should be a map of the claimed area of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. If anyone disagrees, please file your grievances here. I see no neutral way to include a map of the NKAO alone, as Nagorno-Karabakh has claimed land beyond that (specifically, Shahumian). The options are, NKAO+Shahumian, or NKR+all claimed lands.

So the next question is, what about the other occupied rayons? Has the NKR officially (to themselves, of course, autoresponding to the obvious question) annexed them, or does it continue to claim only the NKAO plus Shahumian? If the former, then the top map should include them but perhaps shaded differently. If the latter, the top map shouldn't include them at all.

Discuss here please; the previous section is too steeped in madness for me to parse it. --Golbez (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, with all due respect, I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. Gulmammad has a history of edit warring on this and other articles, he has tried to push the harshest POV on Nagorno-Karabakh related articles and does not listen to reason. He has been recently been blocked for edit warring on Nagorno-Karabakh related articles. Secondly, to answer your question, if an entity refers to a piece of territory as an administrative subdivision, then it is clear that it claims that area. The NKR is clearly doing that here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole issue irks me, so I apologize if I am treating good editors equal with annoying ones. At this early stage of my re-engagement with the article, I am trying not to figure out who is being reasonable; I'm trying to come in with a clean slate and figure it out through my new interactions. As for that PDF, it's curious - how can the NKR conduct a census in Shahumian, where they have no control? --Golbez (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the map in the census again. Shahumian is no longer only the northern occupied part of NKR but includes what was formerly known as Kelbajar. So the info comes from the part which NKR controls. - Fedayee (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a new map if anyone is interested. I have asked the user who created it, to try to make a another version that includes both Armenia and Azerbaijan. And as I mentioned above I'm surprised to see an Azeri try to deny it, when they don't lose a chance to claim that Armenia occupies their land. So can someone tell me whats wrong with this map? It shows the land claimed and land controlled. Why should we listen to someone who's obviously in denial. VartanM (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not bad, though it's not really a locator map since it doesn't really give a wider context. --Golbez (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Text wikified, box unaltered as per remark

I just wikified the term Azerbaijani as [[Azerbaijan]]i in the intro section. When I went to edit the introduction, I read a remark that the pre-intro header box should not be altered; no matter how minor; without going to the talk page first. I followed WP:BB to alter it but thought it prudent to explain here straightaway. I now think I should have written here first. I just feel that if Azerbaijan has such importance in the article, it should be wikified (hyperlinked) in its first mention in article text. In general, I feel that should apply to any nation mentioned in any introduction. I do not wish to espouse/promote any political view with this and certainly do not want to upset the people of Nagorno-Karabakh or its neighbours. I do however feel that this minor alteration is important in keeping with our high encylopædic standards. :)--Thecurran (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Demographics question

Do any Azerbaijani people live in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic? This isn't mentioned in the "Demographics" section but seems quite notable. If not even one lives there, why is that, if this republic is adjacent to a primarily Azerbaijani nation? Badagnani (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Depopulation by various means and reasons. It's probably mentioned in the history section but might (might) warrant further mention in demographics. --Golbez (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

January 2008 Statement

Aliyev did not say anything about "Armenians being guests in Yerevan." Here is what he said:

"Nagorno-Karabakh is a historically Azerbaijani land. Armenians who had come on this land as guests claimed it to themselves by taking advantage of the irresponsible attitude of the contemporary Azerbaijani government."[15] Parishan (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Parishan, your own source says "Президент упомянул, что по той же причине в 1918 году армянам была передана другая исконно азербайджанская земля - Эривань, что, мягко говоря, было большой ошибкой" which translates to "in 1918, Yerevan was granted to the Armenians. It was a great mistake." In the future please refrain from removing sourced material, and more importantly from making misleading statements. VartanM (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but where does it say "Armenians are guests in Yerevan"? Parishan (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The regnum article says exactly that, and its much more credible than day.az. VartanM (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How can it be more credible? Regnum reporters were not even present when Aliyev made the speech, unlike Day.az reporters. They use an Azerbaijani source as a reference, but no Azerbaijani source states that Aliyev ever said those words. Parishan (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And if Azerbaijani ones were there, doesn't mean they weren't scared for their life. Or didn't receive a phone call to remove a certain part of a speech. Just an FYI, day.az is one of my favorite azerbaijani news services. It just brightens your day. Here is their latest gem "В Загатальском районе Азербайджана найден медальон, принадлежащий британской королеве"[16]. Now when did Elizabeth II visited Zaqatala Rayon of Azerbaijan? And how clumsy of her, she lost her medallion. You visit that site and the first thing you think of is credibility. And did you just called regnum unreliable? You do know that its being used as a source in hundreds if not thousands articles. VartanM (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing dreadful for an Azerbaijani journalist to report on somebody saying that "Armenians are guests in Yerevan", so please do not make things up. I do not think I have asked for a lot: provide me the exact wording from the Azerbaijani source that, according to Regnum, states Aliyev said that. After all, the information must have come from somewhere. If not, the quote comes off. Parishan (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a reliable source confirming what he said, it is you who needs to prove that he didn't say what he said. And no, day.az is not a reliable source. VartanM (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't. You have a source that cites a source that never published such a thing. Parishan (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Regnum is a credible neutral source, while day.az is... well its day.az. Remove it again and you will be reported for vandalism. VartanM (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Regnum cites an Azerbaijani source in providing that statement, which means it does consider Azerbaijani sources credible. Why don't you? The problem is, there are no Azerbaijani source that contains such a statement. All I want you to do is to present me with them, if you disagree with me. I am not even talking about neutrality. But it looks like you want to make neutrality an issue in this discussion. Very well, how neutral is it to quote a news agency whose editor-in-chief is an Armenian-born former Arminfo reporter? An agency that in October 2006 published a disgusting false report (named "Милли стриптиз по-азербайджански", later taken off the website) on Azerbaijani female Members of Parliament taking off their French-manufactured underwear in public, as a response to France recognising the 1915 events as genocide? An agency that was widely critised for its anti-Azerbaijani attitude? Parishan (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote should come from the original source. I see that Day.az was the one that reported that speech. Regnum, on the other hand, along with Rosbalt, are 2 agencies, known for their anti-Azerbaijani bias. Grandmaster (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Parishan, I did not know you were caring about the credibility of the sources, when you are the one who's known to use the worst quality. Azeri in Turkey is one such example, in which you use Alireza Asgharzadeh who's baseless and distorted notion of Aryanism would classify him as a racist under any standard. Or better yet Eric Feigl, who was close to the Turkish embassy and who found himself in Turkey, after his close friend, a Turkish diplomat was killed, to prepare a record on 'Armenian terror', the book which you use. Or better yet your distortions of what Andrew Anderson had to write (not to say how he was thrown in garbage by both Atabek and Grandmaster), or your use of Rahibe Sukurova. Your standard of credibility, in which you place it above anything else when it is critical of Azerbaijan and then use any material you could find to criticize Armenia or Armenians is very much intriguing. Besides, not to forget that you are removing the entire sentence under the pretext that he never said such a thing about Yerevan, when even your Azeri source supports the rest, including Yervan having been granted to Armenians. The official position of the republic of Azerbaijan is that Armenians immigrated to 'Erivan' replacing the 'Azeri' population. Armenians being immigrants is the official position of Azerbaijan, you yourself have been pushing this thesis for years in articles with Grandmaster. Using the Armenian ethnicity of an employee that corresponds with a position that Azerbaijan supports isn't a very honest answer. Don't you think so? Given that from the Azeri source Armenians being guests was the main thing Aliev wanted to say when he said Yerevan was granted to Armenians. You very well know that dozens of sources can be brought to specifically show what Aliev was intending to say. VartanM (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not care for those 'dozens of sources' that 'specifically show' that. All I expect from you is to cite one, just one original Azerbaijani source upon which Regnum based its report, which it does according to itself. Otherwise it is no better than hearsay. Am I asking for too much? I am not interested in your analyses of Aliyev's previous statements, nor in any kind of fruit of your personal creative thinking. Oh, and that former Arminfo reporter is not just 'an employee.' He is editor-in-chief of Regnum, that is, he is responsible for everything that is being published there. We are tackling an issue here that requires special attention and high degree of clarity and neutrality. So far I have seen neither. Parishan (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, when did day.az became a serious source? Here is their latest news, a lie about a monument to Armenian Dram[17], I guess we should have opened the millionth Geydar Aliyev monument[18]. Now that's something to be proud of, immortalized KGB mafia boss that handed power to his son, who now speaks of handing it down to his son. --Neophyteinc (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insult the autocratic democratically elected president of Azerbeijan. Armenians of NK should feel lucky that they're invited to be part of such a wonderful country. VartanM (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How is that a lie if even Armenian news agencies report that? :) Parishan (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Has the NKR annexed Lachin, and is it in writing?

I'm resurrecting this, since sadly it got zero responses before.

The NKR has claimed the former NKAO and the Shahumian district. This is not in dispute. The question is, have they also made an official claim to, or officially annexed, the other lands on the western side of the line of control? That meaning the whole of the rayons of Lachin, Qubadli, Zangilan, and Jabrayil; the remainder of Kalbajar; and portions of Agdam and Fizuli.

A census file, containing population figures and a map, has been supplied showing provinces extending to these western rayons. But that's it. That's the only official document we have with any indication that the NKR considers these rayons part of their territory. I think we need more than a single census document, I think we need actual statements from the leadership or government. One reason this concerns me is the convenient omission of certain data. The census obviously can only record people in the part of the region that the NKR controls, which means it cannot count people in Shahumian, or the eastern parts of the Askeran and Hadrut provinces.

Is there any official confirmation in writing that Lachin, et.al., has been annexed by the NKR, and if not, should we go along with the evidence from this single government agency and change the flags, names, etc. of locations in Lachin, et.al., to local, NKR designations?

Here is another map, [19], which includes the rayons as provinces (and shows which areas are outside of NKR control). I guess my main issue here is, we're going solely on maps supplied by a single part of the NKR government; I really, really want it in words saying that they have annexed Lachin, et.al... does this exist? If not, now that I see this second map, and how the maps seem to all match up... I'm willing to concede this point, but I would be able to concede it much easier if I could see it in writing. --Golbez (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In 1991 when NKR was proclaimed, it indeed claimed only the NKAO and Shahumian, but after the Karabakh war the virtual territory of NKR was changed radically. However it seems only after 2005 official maps of NKR show Lachin, Kelbajar etc. part of the NKR. This is apparently the result of the new constitution, where article 142 states:

Till the restoration of the state territorial integrity of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and the adjustment of its borders public authority is exercised on the territory under factual jurisdiction of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh.[20]

There is also the official site of NKR President, which states that the NKR borders with Armenia and Iran [21]. I have no sources which directly say NKR annexed this areas, but I have a US-based sources, Robert Hewsen, which says they have liberated Kelbajar and reoccupied Lachin. Anyhow the current decription of NKR's location in the intro is a clear POV, it identiefies NKR with the former NKAO, which was abolished by the Azerbaijani Parlament in 1991. --Vacio (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The authority of Azerbaijan/the AzSSR to dissolve the NKAO being a separate issue entirely, I see no problem mentioning the NKAO; it was clearly that, plus Shahumian, which held the referendum, and I see this as the simplest method of explaining that geographical fact. Or is your complaint that it states the NKAO as being still present-tense when the referendum was conducted? And thank you for the sources and, most importantly, the new constitution. So what they're basically saying is, we don't control our de jure (as we see them) borders, so our de facto borders will simply be that area which we control, until such time as we regain our de jure borders. Fair enough; I suppose that does mean they consider Lachin et.al. their territory, at least for the time being, and it's not a mere occupation situation like the U.S. in Iraq. --Golbez (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting debate. And yes, it is a relatively "recent" development, partly caused by Azeri refusal to talk to NKR. It has a lot to do with the way that both Azerbaijan and Armenia have diplomatically excluded and politically isolated the NKR from the peace talks and process, as an immediate party to the conflict. (Azerbaijan did that because it thought that, unlike in Israel-Palestinian case, sitting around the same table with the NKR/Artsakh implies "recognition". Also, it was politically convenient to tell to its own public that the war was "Azerbaijan vs Armenia", rather than "Azerbaijan vs Artsakh". This also led to a new illusion that NKR borders are the same as NKAO borders. Kocharian played along with this Azeri game and decided that he "represents" and speaks for the NKR, but for his own internal political gains. (By contrast, 1st President Ter-Petrosyan always resisted speaking on behalf of NKR)). Meanwhile, below the surface, because of all this and because of Armenia's own refusal to officially recognise Artsakh, the rift between Armenia and Artsakh has been growing. If before Artsakh would want to join Armenia, now they seem to be more pro-independence. The rift grew even further when Armenia wanted to pursue policies to quietly de-populate Kelbadjar, Lachin, Qubatli and other regions before handover, while NKR opposed. At the same time NKR has been strengthening its own army (which in many ways is more powerful, better organised, more battle-ready and motivated than that of Armenia) and political structures to become even more independent from Armenia. Some even claim that Artsakh is now confident enough that that they can re-take Shahumyan and remaining territories occupied by Azerbaijan even without Armenia's help. Artsakh has repeatedly stated that there will be no deal until their own voice is represented. Why? Because Armenia does not represent NKR and there is a lot of disagreement between the two. So, while Armenia's president talks of the return of "surrounding regions", that doesn't immediately mean that NKR will play along with whatever Armenia tells it to. (Of course this is merely my reading of the current situation and anyone can disagree) You will not find anything in direct official writing, but if you read the news regularly and follow what has been happening in Armenian politics in recent years you will see that Armenia is loosing its grip on NKR, and the NKR has began developing its own agenda and its own foreign policy. --Matrixfighter (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Independence from whom?

The info-box at right claims Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence "from Azerbaijan". The following quote from the section, Current situation, is obvious evidence that the issue is disputed:

" Armenia does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as being legally part of Azerbaijan, arguing that because the region declared independence at the same time that Azerbaijan became an independent state, both of them are equally successor states of the Soviet Union. "

I suggest that from whom independence was declared should be omitted. If desirable, maybe one of those footnotes within the info-box could be used to explain why this information was omitted. (In any case, its absence shouldn't be noticeable because it would create no gap.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.160.172 (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree: I agree with this proposal. The issue is obviously disputable and hence the information should be removed. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 08:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The entity claimed independence from Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani Supreme Soviet voted on independence on August 30, 1991. Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians voted for independence on December 2.Tuscumbia (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"overcoverage"

Being unrecognized means we have to stiff the reader? I took a very brief glance through the article but I see no superfluous sections; what should we remove? Keep in mind that "unrecognized" means nothing, since it exists regardless. --Golbez (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way the user who puts non-self-evident templates in the article should explain what's wrong with the article at the talk. Please write what sections suffer from overcoverage and what you proposes to do about it here. Alæxis_¿question? 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturally any improvement is appreciated, but I think WP:NOTDIR is applicable here as Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight. It seems important particularly in terms of de-politicizing and keeping WP more neutral and balanced towards AA matter. Brandt 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What in particular do you think needs pruning? Perhaps if you had shared this with us in the first place we could have started with a civilized discussion rather than hours of editwarring. --Golbez (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I noticed this some time ago. It's a bold, revert, discuss, but anyway I appreciate your concern, Golbez. The stuff can be cleaned up (I've already tagged the Foreign Relations) to give more information in the further reading section or so. Also, NKR is not a dependent territory and is not listed in the relevant bottom template. Generally, it seems odd to me that NKR with 18 years of history is more detailed, than the mentioned Bahamas of much older history and culture or some other country. This is likely because the article in its current form is an advertisement, serving as rallying banner of separatism and secession. Brandt 08:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Placing a template on an article doesn't fall under BRD. You cannot add a template without reason and wait for it to be reverted before saying why you added it. That said, the government section is a mess, and I've cleaned it up a bit. Comparing to another nation is really faulty; perhaps that means the article on the Bahamas is deficient. --Golbez (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean "is not listed in the relevant bottom template"? The template at the bottom does mention it... --Golbez (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, I have not clicked 'show', thinking there are two separate templates. Anyway, I added the tag reasonably, this is a plain WP:BOLD and WP:IAR unless I misunderstand something. Also, I do not think the comparison is faulty: in my humble opinion in such disputed issues the meritocracy should work as we are making Wikipedia better. It does not mean that the Bahamas are perfect since we are almost in perpetual progress. Brandt 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Islamic heritage

I was wondering ... this article does talk of Christian heritage, makes reference to a Jewish one ... but no mention of its Islamic one.

Presumably, before ethnic Azeris fled the region in the early nineties, there must have been an Islamic cultural heritage in the region too ... I don't think it should be missing because of recent history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallmanl (talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates

There was a template for Azerbaijan near the top of this page. The result was that the introductory text was displayed under the template, which was itself listed under the infobox, leaving a very large blank space on the screen. I've moved the template to a location where most templates of that form appear on most pages, mostly just to fix the beginning of the page. TelecomNut ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

The template in question is inappropriate in this article as the NKR is not an administrative division of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan does not even recognize the NK region as an administrative/political entity. --Vacio (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Status of the local banknotes

I've fact tagged the infobox statement that the local banknotes are only souvenirs. I'd like a source for this. Their denominations are very low, you can't buy much for 10 dram, and if they were just souvenirs you would expect there to be higher denominations printed to make more money from their sale. I wonder if they are perhaps actually local paper replacements for Armenian coins that might be in short supply? Anyway, I'm curious to get a source giving their actual status. Meowy 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mention of borders

Golbez, I don't fully understand the revert. 'Close to the border with Armenia' may be dropped, but the mention of bordering countries implies that the NKR also has legitimate, widely recognized borders. Otherwise it should be removed, the only accompanying reference is naturally NKR's official website. Brand[t] 15:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. NK has no internationally established borders with any country. How can the article claim something that does not exist? You can say that NK borders a certain country when such a border is internationally recognized, but until then such claim cannot be made. Iran for instance does not recognize any borders with NK. It only acknowledges borders with Azerbaijan. Also, it would be good if Golbez discussed any changes to intro before making them. Intro was a consensus version that existed for years. Grandmaster 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was based on a faulty understanding of the extent of the claim of the NKR. It made sense when we portrayed the NKR as consisting just of the NKAO+Shahumian; now it's clear the NKR claims and controls more. I felt removing a factually incorrect statement, a removal I hope is uncontroversial, was more important than gathering consensus to do so. However, you do have a point; it is a delicate article. I'll put back claims; that seems to be the most neutral at the moment, but I'm of course open to discussion. --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you lot understand the difference between a verb and a noun? A "BORDER" is not the same as "BORDERS"! "Border" is a noun, "borders" is an intransitive verb - it means to be adjacent to. Meowy 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And when you have a plural noun, you commonly add an 's' to it. Thus, you claim a border with one country, or three borders with three countries. Really, you should check up with your English yourself, if you don't comprehend plurals. --Golbez (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh ... we are not talking about borders as an object, but as an action. The former is a noun, the latter a verb. Do you comprehend the difference? Meowy 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You might not be. I am. Just because your version uses it as a verb doesn't mean mine can't use it as a noun. Your confusion on this front is distressing. --Golbez (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what your point is. Are you wanting to use it as a noun, complete with all the POV baggage, and are you objecting to me using it as a verb in a neutral and purely descriptive way? Meowy 01:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A POV argument is far, far superior than the grammatical one you were attempting. Good. Now perhaps we can get somewhere with this. --Golbez (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence. But I was wondering if I should make it "the territory it controls kicks Azerbaijan painfully in the groin to the north and east, seems to mostly ignore Iran to the south, and is very happy to have Armenia to the west". Meowy 23:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell us how you really feel about people you're unlikely to have ever met. --Golbez (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Take your "feelings" elsewhere. Meowy 00:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no feelings on this subject, except contempt. --Golbez (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are crossing the assume good faith BORDER into personal insults territory. My "kicks Azerbaijan painfully in the groin" post is obviously humorous (but with a truthful core), not directed at individuals, and written in a thread with a silly argument about a word - silly because it is solvable just by using the same word in a different way and accompanied by the word "controlled".

So are there any objections to the wording "the territory it controls is bordered by Azerbaijan to the north and east, Iran to the south, and Armenia to the west"? Meowy 01:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What personal insult? I hold no specific contempt for you. It's for the whole moronic nationalist fight. --Golbez (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had assumed the word "contempt" was aimed at me and not at the discussion. Meowy 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As for that one, no, I have no specific complaint. Though I still think it's wise to point out they [I believe?] have made an active claim to actual borders with Armenia and Iran. --Golbez (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they have - but even if there was such a claim, or (more likely) persons within NK advocating that such a claim should be formally made, wouldn't it be best mentioned in the body of the article? Meowy 03:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijan cannot border with its own territory, even if it is occupied. Such claim sounds very strange, to say the least. By borders we mean international borders, and NK does not have any. International borders have a specific status, established by international agreements. In this case, we cannot talk about any borders that NK may have with other countries, because those countries do not recognize having any borders with NK. Grandmaster 09:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So how do you suggest we explain the physical location of the NKR? --Golbez (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the point. NKR doesn't have a physical location according to Azerbaijan, since that (in their eyes) means "recognition". NKR doesn't have territory that can be shown on maps, it doesn't have an army, it doesn't have a population, it doesn't have a history, it doesn't have monuments, it doesn't have foreign visitors and tourists, it doesn't have industry, it doesn't have weather, it doesn't have banks and money transfer services, it doesn't have mail services, it doesn't have minefields to be cleared, etc., etc, since admitting to the existence of any of those things equates to a "recognition". There is also the fragile health of the population of Azerbaijan to consider: [22] Meowy 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Francis proposed a good solution. The NK does not have any international borders, so we cannot say that it borders any country. Border is a legal notion. But the region which is under the control of irredentist forces is adjacent to the borders of Azerbaijan with Armenia and Iran. Saying that NK borders with Azerbaijan makes no sense, as the region is still internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. I believe we can only say that the territories that Armenians of NK control are adjacent to Armenia and Iran. Otherwise we will be making POV statements, which is something we should avoid in such a sensitive topic. Grandmaster 11:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Borders" means "to be adjacent to" - it is not a "legal notion", it is an English verb! I have changed "borders" to "contiguous with". Will that settle this discussion? Meowy 17:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is better, but how Azerbaijan can be contiguous with its own territory? It makes no sense, I changed that bit. Grandmaster 08:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand Golbez's "contempt for the subject" comment. This article does not exist to play to the neurosis of Azerbaijan. The sentence in the lead section is there to describe the physical location of the territory controlled by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. That territory is physically not Azerbaijan's - if it were there would be no article titled "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic"! Meowy 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The territory is a part of Azerbaijan, like it or not. Azerbaijan cannot be contiguous with its own territory. It makes no sense. The version that I introduced is quite logical. No one can deny that the territory is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and that it is contiguous with Azerbaijan's neighbors Armenia and Iran. Grandmaster 09:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Grandmaster, the title of this article is "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", and so we are no longer discussing here a territory called Nagorno-Karabakh but a state entity. The entity does not belong to Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan does not even acknowledge its existence. No one is denying that the NKR remains, politically, unrecognized – that's the first thing it says in the lead, as a matter of fact. However, the NKR is an independent republic and the borders it controls means that it bounded by Azerbaijan to its north and east, Iran to the south, and Armenia to the west. We are describing the physical location of the republic, and yet you are still viewing this section through the prism of legality and confusing it with the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is obviously what it's not intended for. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Religion, Tourism, and Culture sections

Seems to be much duplication and overlap here. Religion should mention the main sites that are in active use, but there is no need to list every important historic monument in NK (a shopping-list for the expansionist Armenian Church, and probably a death-list for their value as historical monuments if the Church gets hold of them). Maybe tourism should be merged with economy, and the list of sites moved to Culture. Meowy 03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Borders

The NKR is an enclave/exclave -- the Armenian-controlled Azerbaijani districts are iirc not on the negotiating table, neither side in the negotiations thinks those should stay as part of NKR. Therefore if it has borders, then it has them with Azerbaijan. So, I think this compromise wording covers it quite well:

It controls the territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and several Azerbaijani districts adjacent to the borders of Azerbaijan with Armenia to the west and Iran to the south.

Considerations:

• It controls the territory of the former NKAO (This is undisputed I hope)
• The NKAO was an exclave within the borders of the AzSSR, therefore only borders Azerbaijan
• It also controls some Azerbaijani districts (which the parties to the negotiations recognise as Azerbaijani)
• These districts border Iran and Armenia, but they do not border Azerbaijan because they are part of Azerbaijan (according to the negotiating parties)

- Francis Tyers · 15:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is something I've brought up occasionally, and it appears that the NKR does indeed claim the southern and western rayons as well as the NKAO. (Also, a clarification: It controls most of the former NKAO. The eastern bits of the kidney bean remain in Azeri control) The parties from Armenia and Azerbaijan may recognize those rayons as Azeri, but I don't think the NKR has gotten that memo. However, if we can find a source that conclusively states one way or another if the NKR claims the southern rayons or is merely exercising sovereignty over them (i.e. an occupation, rather than an annexation), that would help this immensely. --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The suggested wording by Francis Tyers needs to be removed asap since it is both POV and inaccurate. Not all of the former oblast is controlled by the NKR. The phrase "several Azerbaijani districts" is POV - the majority of territory controlled by the NK republic but lying outside the area of the former oblast are not considered to be "Azerbaijani districts" by the population of Nagorno Karabakh - they are seen as Armenian territories that have controlled by Azerbaiajan since the 1920s. (Whether NK actually has formal claims on them is a different matter). And of course Azerbaijan still considers all of the former oblast to be within its territory and thus also an "Azerbaijani district", so it is also pov to use that phrase to distinguish one sort of "Azerbaijani territory" (areas outside the former oblast) from the other sort (the area inside it). NKR also controls a small section of territory that is to the east of the former oblast - Tyers wording suggests that is not the case. My version is still by far the most neutral and accurate option: "The territory it controls is contiguous with Azerbaijan to the north and east, Iran to the south, and Armenia to the west." It doesn't mention borders, or claims, or what is or isn't a district of one party or another. One minor alteration might be to make it "The territory it controls is contiguous with Azerbaijani-controlled territory to the north and east, Iran to the south, and Armenia to the west." That avoids mentioning Azerbaijan as a country and so solves Grandmaster's "Azerbaijan cannot be contiguous with its own territory" objection. Meowy 17:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Last I heard, that actually was Azerbaijan. You don't get to say that and then not say "Armenian-controlled territory" and "Iranian-controlled territory." --Golbez (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Whe did you last hear it - in 1988 perhaps? After that it is all pov, and the de-jure / de-facto rubbish that fills Wikipedia. Who says what is Azerbaijan? What is Armenia (what territory is part of the republic of Aremenia) is not in dispute, what is Iran (what territory is part of Iran) is not in dispute. Iran is not "Iranian controlled territory, it is Iran! I think you are loosing sight of the purpose of the sentence - it is to indicate the position of the territories controlled by the Nagorno-Karabakh republic in relation to adjoining territories. Meowy 19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, today. Last I checked, all of the rayons surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to the north and east were controlled by Azerbaijan, recognized by everyone as part of Azerbaijan, etc. You said, "is contiguous with Azerbaijani-controlled territory to the north and east" - I don't even think YOU are implying that the area of Azerbaijan outside the line of control is not actually Azerbaijan. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, NK cannot border or be contiguous with Azerbaijan, NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. It is like saying that USA is contiguous with the state of Texas. We do not write this article from the point of view of Karabakh Armenians only. The international status of NK should be mentioned too, and Council of Europe considers the present authorities of NK to be illegitimate. I think this should reflected in the intro too. And "Azerbaijani-controlled territory" makes no sense at all. Grandmaster 08:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Image is misleading

The image [23]] is extremely misleading. It appears to show the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as being located immediately north of India! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.56.63 (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Recognition

The Russian version of this page states that NKR has been recognised by Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. Sources given for the first two (1, 2, 3, 4) don't really state that recognition has been extended. But the sources given for Transnistria's recognition (1, 2) are quite definitive and supposedly quote from a statement by the Transnistrian foreign affairs ministry. I know it's not a big deal, as Transnistria is an unrecognised state also, but it probably should be mentioned somewhere. I just thought I'd deliver those sources here so that editors can make their minds up about the inconsistencies between this version and the Russian one. Night w (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming this article to "Artsakh (Republic)"

According to the Chapter 1, Article 2, clause 2 of the NKR Constitution, "The Nagorno Karabakh Republic and Artsakh Republic designations are the same." In wikipedia there is already an article called "Artsakh" which talks about the kingdom. I suggest that the name of this article be changed to "Artsakh (Republic)" , or that "Artsakh (Republic)" be added as an alias to this article. Does anyone know how to do that in wikipedia?

This article isn't being renamed, Nagorno-Karabakh (thanks to the Soviets) is by far the more well-known English name of the country. And Artsakh Republic already redirects here, so really, nothing needs to be done. --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Transnistria

So having looked at the source myself (translation here), it does appear that Transnistria has recognized the NKR. Now, of course, Transnistria is not a UN member, so what they say isn't, on its face, international recognition. However, they are recognized by two countries, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, these too are not UN members, and thus can't really confer a fully legitimate recognition. However again, these two are recognized by six countries: All three recognize each other, of course, but Abkhazia and South Ossetia are also recognized by Nauru, Nicaragua, Russia, and Venezuela. And these ARE UN members, and one of whom is a permanent member of the security council, which certainly gives them some clout.

So... with parentheses to help break down the sentence structure:

• Multiple UN members recognizing a non-UN member: Russia, Nauru, Nicaragua, and Venezuela recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is equivalent in status to Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestine, and the SADR, and at least equivalent in status to Northern Cyprus.
• (Non-UN members recognized by multiple UN members) recognizing a non-UN member: Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognize Transnistria.
• A (non-UN member recognized by [multiple non-UN members which are recognized by UN members]) recognizes a non-UN member: Transnistria recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh.

Now, obviously, what we have here is a pretty long chain. The 'legitimacy' of recognition fades a bit each time. And certainly, recognition by a non-UN member is certainly not sufficient enough to label the NKR a partially-recognized country. However, Transnistria's recognition is certainly important enough to note in the article, especially since it's no longer simply a case of the unrecognized republics recognizing one another in solidarity, as four actual nations have gotten involved. Russia may not have wanted to confer legitimacy upon Nagorno-Karabakh, but indirectly they have, to a small measure.

So I guess my question is: How much detail do we put into this, and are there any better, English-language sources? --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal

There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tuscumbia's assertion that NKR is still unrecognised

NKR is recognised by Transnistria. Do you dispute this? If so, could you explain your thoughts. Edits that were undone here and hereOutback the koala (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Outback the koala, I reverted the addition because "NKR" is not a recognized country. It would have been a partially recognized country only if it were recognized by a legitimate government (such as UK, France, Germany, Japan, etc). Transnistria is not an established state. It is just another unrecognized separatist regime controlling breakaway part of Moldova. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely. I've been over this before but it is a complex subject.

• Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Nauru are fully recognized UN-member states. This is not in dispute.
• Abkhazia and South Ossetia are non-UN member states recognized by the above four. This makes them partially recognized states on the level of Kosovo and Taiwan. This is not in dispute.
• Transnistria is recognized by Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is where things get dicey. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not universally recognized states, but they are partially recognized, which does confer some - but not much - legitimacy to their recognition of Transnistria. We would confer some legitimacy to a nation recognized by Taiwan, for example.
• Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized by Transnistria. However much legitimacy is conferred to Transnistria, is lessened even more so this far down the chain.

The question is, how much legitimacy is 'inherited'. Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Nauru are all 100% legitimate. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are countries recognized only by four 100% legitimate states. Transnistria is recognized only by two partially recognized states. And thus, Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized only by a country recognized only by countries recognized by four UN members. It's a deep chain, and I'm not sure it necessarily confers 'legitimate recognition' to the NKR. It is, however, inaccurate to say it's simply unrecognized countries recognizing unrecognized countries (like if it were, say, Nagorno-Karabakh and Somaliland trading recognition, or Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia and Abkhazia all recognizing each other prior to the last Georgia war), because we do end up with Russia and three other nations at the end of the chain.

If it were South Ossetia recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh, I think we would include that, because they are a legitimate partially-recognized country, just as we would include it if Kosovo or Taiwan recognized them. The problem is, we're adding one more link to the chain - Transnistria. And that complicates things. At the very least, Transnistrian recognition needs to be mentioned in the text, but I don't think it quite qualifies for an intro or infobox mention. --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Golbez, your favorite subject indeed. We shouldn't follow the chain as described above. The partial recognition is when a separatist state is recognized by an already established states, or to put it in your terms, a UN member. In cases of Abkhazia, S. Ossetia, the information about their partial recognition can be added in Abkhazia and S. Ossetia articles, but to assume that "NKR" should be described as a partially recognized state just because some unrecognized states were recognized by one or two UN states is simply wrong. When Russia recognized Abkhazia and S. Ossetia, it did not make any reference to any chain reactions which would lead to "recognition" of some other separatist entity, did it? Tuscumbia (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I said we shouldn't state it's partially recognized. :) We should certainly say that Transnistria recognizes it, but not in the intro or in the infobox, because it's a complicated subject (and such things should never be dealt with in an infobox) and also because it's minor as far as recognition goes. So, a mention in foreign relations. But you're right, Venezuela isn't responsible for what South Ossetia does with its diplomatic corps, so it's not like it's legitimate turtles all the way down. --Golbez (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly :) Tuscumbia (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Really Golbez, where do you draw the line? Its not yours to draw that line. The fact is that there is recognition at play here. But even the recognition string aside, The NKR is a de facto state already, so even if Transnistria were unrecognised, it would still be a the case of a de facto state recognising another de facto state. We could go with the "legitimate" chain of recognition, but we should not pick between the declarative theory and the constitutive theory; on wikipedia they are both equally valid. To not mention it, prominently in fact, would be to exclude this important piece of information. And that its defiantly POV. Outback the koala (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If the PMR were unrecognized then I'd be arguing even stronger against mentioning the NKR was recognized. Purely reciprocal recognition does not confer international legitimacy upon a subject, which is precisely what recognition is for. I don't think the declarative vs. constitutive argument has relevance here, because we are dealing with recognition, not existence. The NKR exists as a state; this, apart from some Azeri partisans, is undisputed. Whether or not is has legitimate international recognition is another matter entirely. --Golbez (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So given my comment, is there any more dispute as to changing 'unrecognised' to 'partially recognised' or 'limited recognition'? Outback the koala (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's two editors here (myself and Tuscumbia) who dispute it. Its recognition is only by one country recognized only by two countries recognized only by four UN members. It's almost to the level of if the unrecognized countries recognized each other; that wouldn't make them partially recognized. It shuold remain unrecognized in the infobox, and the text should mention Transnistria. But the position should remain that it's unrecognized. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, but it is recognition of some kind, however small it is. Why not compromise with a limited recognition, rather than partially recognised. The text can explain what is meant by that. If the PMR is partially recognised, than why NKR? Outback the koala (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Practically unrecognized"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the PMR is recognized by countries recognized by UN members. I think the PMR's recognition of the NKR is one turtle too far. If the PMR were not recognized by South Ossetia and Abkhazia, there would be no mention of recognition on here because it would simply be a reciprocal recognition at best. The NKR is not recognized by the UN, by any UN-member nation, or by any country recognized by a UN member nation. I think that's as far as we should consider recognition descending. (And I'm not sure if we should say the PMR is partially recognized, but that's an argument for their article) --Golbez (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Outback the koala, that's a weak argument. One unrecognized entity recognizing another unrecognized entity does not make the latter recognized. Yeah, they can recognize each other as much as they like but that doesn't mean they get the international recognition or status. That's why there is an international system of order to keep things in place. Otherwise, every one of thousands of ethnicities would "create" a state of their own and start recognizing each other one after another. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, weak, I guess. But the way it sits now, the page isnt accurate and this way it is not neutral. Something isnt nothing. And this recognition is something, however little you are relegating it to, this is selectively not including the info. Outback the koala (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no selections. Selection is on your part. This is purely about international law. An entity has to go through certain steps to gain recognition among the international community. This hasn't happened. When and if that happens, it can be put into that category. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Noone, least of all me, if arguing that NKR is a fully recognised state. However, These are two non-UN member states, and one recognises the other. That is not insignificant and this has nothing to do with any established international law. It's your opinion that this is not important, but that is not a consensus viewpoint. Outback the koala (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Outback the koala, I don't mind mentioning it with sources provided as long as it says one unrecognized entity have been recognized by another unrecognized entity. I think Golbez said the same thing. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Map

The main map must be changed. NKR is a very small territory and the map is way to zoomed out. As someone said earlier it seems like it's located north of India.MosMusy (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Slightly revised version of the orthographic projection.

Since the zoomed out part of the map is in green box, it seems to be ok. Alternatively File:Republic of Artsakh (orthographic projection) v1.png may be used. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 18:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the same map. I propose a more zoomed in map to be put, we don't have to show the whole world in order to show Nagorno-Karabakh's location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosMusy (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture caption

Since it's got to the point where an editor has basically done a revert instead of rewording the caption, and I'm quite sure an observer can call this edit warring, I'm kicking off the discussion here. We've had numerous captions, but I'll make a point here to begin with that the caption shouldn't say "Territories of Azerbaijan" or something similar. It's a regional map, showing territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. The reader will know that it is claimed by Azerbaijan, indeed, the map is in a section explaining the situation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To respond to St.Albany's latest edit summaries:

"Is there need to cite Shahumian"? Yes, because it's [erroneously] included in the borders of the NKAO. If the image were adjusted so as to remedy this, we wouldn't need to mention it.

"It should be clear for reader which state..." Agreed, it could be changed to say 'Map of Azerbaijan and environs, ', though I see no ambiguity whatsoever with simply saying 'Map of Azerbaijan'. Just because surrounding countries are there doesn't make it any less a map of Azerbaijan.

"Remove abb. of NKR" uh, you put it back in. Neither of us are suggesting it be included, so you're making no sense.

That said, your latest edit was inaccurate; not all of the orange area is Shahumian. --Golbez (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think St. Albany was referring to the fact NKR was abbreviated on the map? Anyway, it looks to me like it's meant to show NKR in relation to both Azerbaijan and Armenia, which makes sense. As for my inaccuracies, you're right. The caption is getting too long anyway, it shouldn't need to explain things, that's what the text is for. Surely we can just explain NKR controlled = Yellow, NKR claimed but not controlled = Orange, NKAO = Black line? The rest can be left to the text next to the picture. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Except the black line includes Shahumian as well (The black line appears to illustrate the areas that voted for independence, NKAO + Shahumian). Maybe what we need is simply a new map. --Golbez (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I see, thank you for teaching me something. I thought that was originally part of the NKAO, so my caption is quite incorrect. Sorry to temporarily use this talkpage to go slightly off topic, but how did the vote extend outside of the NKAO to Shahumian?

As for the map, I think you're right. Could we just remove the internal black lines in the NKR? This would leave a clear distinction of controlled, claimed, and the rest of Azerbaijan (pardom my semantics). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how the vote did, I presume it was all part of the chaos surrounding the region in those days. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How about "The current territory controlled by the Nagorno-Karabakh in white, superimposed over a black line showing the areas that voted for independence. Areas in orange remain controlled by Azerbaijan."? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well the last revert said the caption was too complex. How about a simplified map, just showing the current situation? Scrap the black line showing the vote basically. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The situation in the regions is complicated, the status of the region is complicated... so how does one expect that a map or it's caption would be that simple? --vacio 17:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ask the user who reverted me. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a question to that user. I hope they will engage in discussion, rather continuing edit warring. --vacio 17:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 2 in infobox

"Virtual administrative territory of the NKR". What does that mean? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No clue, removed. --Golbez (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)