Wikipedia

Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 20

< Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Eggishorn in topic 2020 WAR
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21

Intro

Latest comment: 12 years ago56 comments8 people in discussion

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

NKR's change of status as a state with limited recognition has never been part of any consensus by WP discussants. Nagorno-Karabakh changed its status from an unrecognized state to a state with limited recognition as a result of Aug 2008 Russian-Georgian war, and Russia's subsequent recognition of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia as independent states. Note, that Russia is a permanent member of UN Security Council. Its recognition of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia counts heavily. Also, NKR's independence is supported by 2 US states, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Sprutt (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I also noticed Grandmaster'r revert comment "recognition by unrecogized states does not count as reognition." This is a reckless disregard of logic of someone else's argument. Abkhazia and S. Ossetia are not unrecognized states. Sprutt (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Sprutt. Recognition by any state recognized or with limited recognition stops the state from having status of unrecognized. 517design (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
And who will stop Sprutt from spreading his Armenian nationalist POV in WP? --E4024 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
NK has no recognition from any internationally recognized state, a UN member. Recognition by unrecognized or partially recognized state is not recognition. South Ossetia could be called a partially recognized state, because it is recognized by Russia, a real state, but which real state recognizes NK? None. US states are not independent states, they are practically provinces of USA. Their recognition means no international status. Therefore, NK is unrecognized. This was discussed a few times in the past. Grandmaster 20:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Criteria for being recognized as a state with limited recognition are the following -
1. have de facto control over a territory, a population, a government, a capacity to enter into relations with other states.
All of the terms are present in case of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. For international relations of NKR see Foreign relations of Nagorno-Karabakh and List of representative offices of Nagorno-Karabakh articles. Representing office in the US is registered in the US Department of Justice as Representative Office of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.
2. be recognized as a state by at least one other state
This term is ok about NKR for South Osetia and Abkhazia are both "states". There is no obligatory precondition for any state to be UN member to be called a state. Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not a UN member, is not an internationally recognized state, but it is a state with limited recognition, anyone want it or not. 517design (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
This is personal interpretation, and the issue has never been discussed in the context of Abkhazia/S.Ossetia's recognition of NKR. Recognition does not produce any "international status." There are states which are recognized such as NKR, Japan or Kosovo and there are states which are not recognized. Please read carefully the passage in List of states with limited recognition:
NKR meets both declarative and constitutive criteria of sovereignty. Please don't misrepresent your personal opinion as some sort of established view. Sprutt (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
According to that definition, NK is a self-declared state (declarative definition). We can mention it. But since NK has no recognition by any member of the international community, including Armenia, it is not a state de-jure (constitutive definition). So NK does not fit the second definition. What we are talking about here is that NK has no recognition from any de-jure state, a member of UNO. Therefore it is unrecognized. That makes it different from S.Ossetia or say TRNC, which have a recognition from a de-jure state, but not by the international community. Grandmaster 07:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The international community appointed the Minsk Group, chaired by Russia, USA and France, to resolve the conflict, and they clearly stated: "the three Minsk Group Co-Chair countries ... reaffirm their support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and thus do not recognize the independence of NK". [1] That means that NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and not recognized as an independent state. This is the position of the international community, i.e. real, not quasi states. Grandmaster 07:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Grandmaster's comments are irrelevant. N.-Karabakh can be regarded as a recognized state. But we want to have a balanced view as required by WP:NPOV, and the best option is to call N.-Karabakh a state with limited recognition. That's fair. Almost forgot, Grandmaster - stop ordering around here, mind WP:OWN. Zimmarod (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
NKR is recognized by three entities that are separatist themselves and are not shown on maps as separate countries, just like NK. It's quite controversial to regard them as "states". UN has the upper hand here. Also, the Nagorno-Karabakh War ended in 1994, so Azerbaijan doesn't exercise power in NK since at least that year, not earlier. Brandmeistertalk 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Abkhazia and S.Ossetia are recognized by Russia, perm UNSC member, and several other UN states. NKR is one step below that. "Unrecognized" is simply against the fact. Sprutt (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Recognition means recognition by the member of the international community, i.e. a country that has wide recognition and is a member of international organizations such as UN. That follows from your own definition. Abkhazia and S.Ossetia cannot be regarded as members of the international community. They are only recognized by Russia and Nicaragua. That makes them countries with limited recognition, but since they are not members of the international community, recognition by Abkhazia and S.Ossetia does not mean recognition by a de-jure state. The difference of the NK is that it has not been recognized by a single de-jure state. Therefore it still remains unrecognized, as Minsk Group Co-Chair countries stated. If Armenia recognizes NK as an independent state, then NK could be called a state with limited recognition, because it was recognized by a de-jure state, member of the international community. But unless that happens (very unlikely), NK will remain an unrecognized state. Grandmaster 06:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

If all those three are played by the same "puppet master" the recognition among them does not count... --E4024 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not for me or you to decide, there is partial recognition and we should state the facts and move on. George Spurlin (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Grandmaster continues inventing terms like "de-jure state" etc. There are states that are not recognized, like Abkhazia or NKR before 2008, there are states with limited recognition (Abkhazia, NKR or Transnistria after 2008), and there are recognized states like Uruguay. "Unrecognized" no longer applies. Sprutt (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
De-jure state is not my invention, it is a term widely used in literature. Again, recognition by a quasi state, non-member of the international community cannot be regarded as international recognition. See how many scholarly sources from 2008-present mention that NK is unrecognized. It is not my opinion, it is sourced info. [2] Grandmaster 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
But there is recognition, right. We should find a neutral way of stating that fact, instead of arguing about for days. George Spurlin (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The NK is internationally unrecognized, that is sourced info. So by saying that it is unrecognized we only follow the sources. Unrecognized means that it is not recognized by any de-jure state, member of the international community. At the same time, NK is recognized by 3 quasi-states, that have very limited recognition (S.Ossetia, Abkhazia) or none at all (Transnistria). The recognition by those 3 entities cannot be regarded as international recognition, as they do not have a status of a de-jure state. We can mention that while the international community does not recognize NK as a state, it is recognized by similar unrecognized or largely unrecognized entities. If you have any ideas on how to formulate it the best way, please propose at talk. But why recognition by those 3 is important for this particular article anyway? This one is just about the region. Grandmaster 19:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm in no way proposing a language that would state that NK is internationally recognized, but the fact that it's recognized by those 3 quasi-states must be included. I also agree with your point that this should be discussed at the NKR page and not here, unless of course if its already included in the NKR page. George Spurlin (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Finding a neutral way? Why? Are we in love with that unrecognised entity? We should just follow the academic views, and, if necessary eliminating ethnically Armenian or Azerbaijani writers... E4024 (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to be flexible, and I propose to omit the question of status altogether (recognized, unrecognized, semi-recognized, etc.), mentioning that NK is a disputed territory, hence negotiations about its status. Sprutt (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Are they? I thought the negotiations were on how to end the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territories, including N. Karabakh, but not limited to it. (On the other hand, yes, you are more flexible then the Armenian govt, I wish you represented Armenia in those talks. :-) Any idea where the problem of the occupation, by Armenia of course, of Karki is being negotiated; could it be within the same process? So I believe the negotiations are not on the status of N. Karabakh. They are on how to return Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani territories to their lawful sovereign, Azerbaijan, in a peaceful way. (In those talks Azerbaijan has promised to give the highest level of autonomy to N. Karabakh, that is common knowledge; but is not negotiating anything on that autonomy.) In short, as you also know very well, N. Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan and this article should handle it within this context. --E4024 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
User:E4024, note that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum. Keep your personal opinion about world politics to yourself. Thanks. Sprutt (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The fact that NK is internationally unrecognized as an independent state is a sourced info. I can cite hundreds of sources to support this statement. It is a fact that NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. See the statement of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group above. So why omitting verifiable facts? Here's a very recent book on the subject, it refers to all 4 quasi-states in the post-Soviet area as unrecognized states: [3] If the info about recognition by 3 quasi-states needs to be included, we can reach an agreement on the best way of doing it. Something like "The independence of NK is recognized only by unrecognized or largely unrecognized Abkhazia, S.Ossetia and Transnistria, none of which are members of the international community". Grandmaster 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Just because you can source it doesn't make it true. I can cite hundreds of sourced to support that the world is ending in 2 months. Again you all need to stop fighting about un/recognition and figure out way to properly and neutrally state the facts. George Spurlin (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. WP:VERIFY. If you can cite hundreds of reliable sources about the end of the world, you can include that info. Whether it is true or not is a different issue. In this case NK being unrecognized is verifiable info. Therefore it needs to be included. Grandmaster 18:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

@G. Spurlin: How many of those sources are RS, Mr Spurlin? I really would like to know. (You know we have articles on the end of times etc; we might use those sources...) --E4024 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

This is Grandmaster's proposed wording. "The independence of NK is recognized only by unrecognized or largely unrecognized Abkhazia, S.Ossetia and Transnistria, none of which are members of the international community". I generally like most of it, but it seems too long and POVish. I propose removing the unrecognized, since all three mutually recognized each other and the last part seems POV. Wikipedia defines International community as a phrase used in international relations to refer to all peoples, cultures and governments of the world. My proposition is "The independence of NK is recognized only by largely unrecognized Abkhazia, S.Ossetia and Transnistria", or "The independence of NK is recognized only by largely unrecognized Abkhazia, S.Ossetia and Transnistria, none of which are UN member states". George Spurlin (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement that NK is unrecognized needs to remain, as it is sourced info. It is my not my personal idea or belief, but something that is supported by tons of reliable sources. We can add a clarification that NK is unrecognized by any de-jure state. Also, Transnistria is not largely unrecognized, it is totally unrecognized. Not a single UN member recognizes it. There must be a distinction between recognition by de-jure and de-facto states, it is not the same, as recognition by de-facto state means no change of status. But in any case, what is the point in adding the info about recognition by quasi-states in the intro? It does not change anything in the status of NK, and means nothing at all. But if it is really necessary to add this info, then we should make clear that NK has no international recognition, and is only recognized by states that are unrecognized themselves. I propose to leave everything as it is, and just add the line that "The independence of NK is recognized only by Abkhazia, S.Ossetia and Transnistria, none of which are UN member states". Grandmaster 18:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's a good explanation of concepts of de-jure and de-facto states: [4] Grandmaster 19:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The statement that NK is unrecognized should be removed because it is a contradiction to facts. Yes, some international actors still refer to NK as "unrecognized" but this is the result of two factors: inertia and Azerbaijan's corrupt lobbying - see this [5]. Sprutt (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Inertia? Now are we going to go even before the deeds? Interesting... --E4024 (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
A. The European official deputies has already started visits to NK (France, Switzerland, Slovakia). B. NK delegations have visited Paris, Moscow, the US Congress, UN headquarters in NY, OSCE mediators visited NK and met with elected authorities of NK, C. Every year the US Congress allocates funds to Nagorno-Karabakh, its an official document signed and sealed by the US Congress, D. NK was recognized as a party in the conflict in 1994, when the peace treaty between Armenia, NKR and Azerbaijan was signed. Hablabar (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Visits by individuals mean nothing, they do not represent their governments. NK delegations were never received officially by any head of state. Financial aid by US Congress does not mean that USA recognize NK, the USA officially stated that they recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan, see statement of the Minsk Group co-chairs above. And there was no peace treaty "between Armenia, NKR and Azerbaijan", there was a cease fire agreement, but that is not a treaty or anything that could imply recognition of any status, Azerbaijan officially stated many times that it regards NK as part of its territory. So all the above arguments invalid, and above all are OR. --Grandmaster 20:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Hablabar for mentioning the extra reasons of why the term "unrecognized" cannot be used anymore. Sprutt (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
You guys are just engaging in original research. That is not allowed. According to the rules, we must stick to what the majority of third party reliable sources say. --Grandmaster 20:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Really? I am afraid the concept of recognition as we know it does not help much with your nationalist editing Sprutt. BTW have you ever edited anything in WP that did not have absolutely any "Armenian connection"? Are you an SPA? --E4024 (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Tones of reliable sources refer to the period before 2008 recognition of NKR by Abkhazia and S. Osetia. See my note above about obligatory terms for being considered as State with Limited Recognition. There is no precondition to be a member of UN to be considered a state. NKR is recognized by a State - two states Abkhazia and Osetia. It's not up to us to interpret precise definitions the way we are interested in. The situation changed today and it needs to be shown in WP too. 517design (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, I see that there are loads of recent third party reliable sources considering NK unrecognized. The recognition by 2 other quasi states does not change this fact. According to the rules, we follow the prevailing scholarly opinion, and it is clear in this case. Here's the source that explains what unrecognized state is, check page 3 and further: [6] --Grandmaster 08:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
NKR has not become a recognized state but it has graduated from the "unrecognized state" status, and the article should reflect that. Sprutt (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
How? Most of sources still refer to it as an unrecognized state. By simple logic, if it is not recognized, as you admit, then it is unrecognized. Grandmaster 19:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
No. It is tempting to call it recognized but as a concession I suggest to throw the unsustainable "unrecognized" label into the trash bin and leave "de-facto independent state." References that it is part of Azerbaijan should also be removed. NKR's status is work-in-progress. Sprutt (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
And what to do with WP:Verify? Ignore and engage in original research? I think I have already demonstrated that most scholarly sources refer to NK as unrecognized even after 2008: [7] Grandmaster 19:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
All these books you mentioned in the link are of limited relevance since none of them bothered to acknowledge recognition of NKR by Abkh. and S.Oss. Additionally, support for NKR's recognition by Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Australia's South Wales took place not so long ago and this is not reflected in Google Books. Sprutt (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
A new WP principle? "Books that do not respond to Sprutt's POV have limited relevance." Interesting... --E4024 (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a very old WP principle. Blindly supporting lazy and outdated cherry-picks is wrong. For instance, a ton of books suggests that supposedly NKR population includes Assyrians. Well, this is nonsense - there have been no Assyrians in NKR, before or after the conflict, or ever. This can be verified by the USSR censuses. But lazy academics continue parroting one another and including this nonsense in their writings. Sprutt (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Then you should write your own book or books and get them published by a prestigious institution, a renowned university perhaps, then I would use those sources in WP. Maybe you can begin with some articles in the NYT or IHT... --E4024 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Not really. One should just sort down sources on contemporary developments by their relevancy, expose incongruities and suggest a way to reconcile. Sprutt (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, you cannot discard the most recent sources. In particular, the one that I mentioned above, which is specifically dedicated to the topic of the unrecognized state, and is published in 2012. Before arguing that some statelet is recognized, it would be better to identify what is meant by unrecognized state. The source says, inter alia, that unrecognized state is defined on the basis of 3 criteria, and the criterion No 2 is:

They have not gained international recognition, or even if they have been recognized by some states, they are still not full members of the international system of sovereign states. We consequently include what we could term "partially recognized states", such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which have been recognized by their patron state and three other states, and even Kosovo, which has been recognized by 70+ states.

So even Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo are unrecognized, or alternatively they could be called "partially recognized", but that does not apply to NK, which was not recognized by a single de jure state. Recognition by another unrecognized state means nothing in terms of status. Grandmaster 07:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The status of NKR / Nagorno Karabakh is in dispute, and making definitive statements such as "recognized" or "unrecognized" runs counter to reality and to academic sources. Recognition by "partially recognized" states and local influential states in key countries does not mean that NKR is recognized but it means departure from the "unrecognized" status. That's why limited recognition is a more proper term. Another option is to avoid the difficult recognition/"unrecognition" altogether. Being stubborn and filibustering development of articles is not a way forward. Sprutt (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I have already quoted academic sources, they say that NK is unrecognized. I see no reason for removing a fact that could be verified from multiple reliable third party sources. And departure from the "unrecognized" status is just your personal opinion. Grandmaster 20:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Another point: the present text says that NKR is a "de facto independent but unrecognized" state. This is redundancy and nonsense. Are there de facto independent states that are recognized? No. So, it should either be "de facto independent" alone or "independent but unrecognized." As you see I am suggesting a number of different way to built a consensus while Grandmaster and E4024 are just stubbornly filibustering every good faith talk and WP: OWN the article. Sprutt (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The combination of words "de facto independent" and "unrecognized" is quite common in the scholarly literature: [8]. And even exactly the same phrasing as in the article is also used often: [9] All your suggestions are aimed to removal of the fact that NK is unrecognized, but that is not possible, as it would contradict WP:VERIFY. We do not include personal beliefs, only verifiable information. But you can ask third opinion, if you wish. Grandmaster 20:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Unrecognized state" (sic)

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Please make this discussion at the TP of the article about that unrecognized entity, not here. --E4024 (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this article is about the geographic and historical region, not the political entity. --Grandmaster 19:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what that means. This is a composite article that mostly discusses political history of the region. Sprutt (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


Nagorny Karabakh IS NOT an "internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan" as your article pretend backed by notorious Azerbaijani commentors. The references made under that allegation do not actually contain appropriate provisions.

For instance, the Statement of the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group [10] declares that the Group members "do not recognize the independence of NK" only, which can't be interpreted as recognition of NK being a part of its neighbouring Azerbaijan. I.e., if one doesn't recognize the Antartics independent, it can't be interpreted as a recognition of Antarctics being a part of Australia, Argentina or whatever neighbouring country else.

212.34.225.50 (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Any reliable sources to support your claims? Brandmeistertalk 18:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of tons of sourced statements

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some editors are here on a deleting spree of sourced ledes, alinea's and statements fueled by WP:JDL, brining arguments such as "dubious sources" and "removed because IP editor". This is unacceptable. Bring it to the talk page, or put citation needed templates at the parts you think that are not correct. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What is unacceptable is rv base on "This is insane" attitude. The sources used are unreliable, as explained. Web sources such as http://www.sras.org/nagorno-karabakh are unreliable and are just replete controversial statements, such as "In ancient times Karabakh was populated by Caucasian tribesmen who spoke a Lezgic language." Zimmarod (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary Issues

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

FIRST AND FOREMOST: The issue of Berg-Karabach cannot be discussed as a simple border and economics issue. The circumstances of the Armenian genocide are the basis of the current situation. Turkey and Asebaijan had killed millions of Armenians in the early 20th century. Both states deny constantly that this genocide has happened, while ignoring the fact that both states took large areas from the former Armenian state and drove out and killed up to 2 or 3 million ethnic Armenians. Also, Aserbeijan has never admitted that a pogrom was tolerated in 1990, when about 100 Armenians where killed, many more raped and tortured.---This is the voice of truth against the Aserbeijan and Turkish lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.173.21 (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Bias?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Speaking as one who knows the square-root of nothing about the Nagorno-Karabakh situation, I just get a gut feeling of some anti-Armenian bias in the "Contemporary situation (since 1994)" section. I've no reason to doubt that the facts quoted regarding "bad behaviour" by Armenia/Armenians are all true, but from what I know of conflicts in general it strikes me as highly unlikely that it's all "Armenia bad, Azerbaijan good," which is the impression you could get from reading this section. The problem is not with what is said, but perhaps with what is omitted. It would improve the usefulness and credibility of the section if someone with more time and knowledge than me could try and redress the balance a little. UrsusMaximus (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What is Nakchivan separated from by Zangezur?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the article, Zangezur is described as "the strip of land separating Nakhchivan from Armenia proper". Looking at maps, to me it seems Nakhchivan is not saparated from Armenia, but rather from Azerbaijan by Zangezur. Any objections?Redav (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under Soviet Era article states: In April 1920, while the Azerbaijani army was locked in Karabakh fighting local Armenian forces, Azerbaijan was taken over by Bolsheviks.[40] On 10 August 1920, Armenia signed a preliminary agreement with the Bolsheviks, agreeing to a temporary Bolshevik occupation of these areas until final settlement would be reached.[54] In 1921, Armenia and Georgia were also taken over by the Bolsheviks who, in order to attract public support, promised they would allot Karabakh to Armenia, along with Nakhchivan and Zangezur (the strip of land separating Nakhchivan from Armenia proper)."

Suggestion: Replace "the strip of land separating Nakhchivan from Armenia proper" with "the strip of land separating Nakhchivan from Karabakh"

Explanation: The words "(the strip of land separating Nakhchivan from Armenia proper)" appear to be geographically inaccurate. Since Zangezur lies between Nakhchivan and Karabakh, the statement would be accurate if Karabakh was already part of Armenia, which according to the article at this point is under temporary occupation by Bolsheviks and is being promised to Armenia.


Amamedli (talk) 21:50, 18 May 201L6 (UTC)

Agreed; edit made. (And even if Karabakh were undisputedly part of Armenia at the time, Nakhchivan [presumably] already bordered Armenia to the north) --Golbez (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for renaming

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nagorno-Karabakh recently renamed itself to the Artsakh Republic. Maybe we should rename this article and redirect people searching for Nagorno-Karabakh to Artsakh?~Skylar (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably not until the name becomes common in newspapers and elsewhere. Artsakh is already a redirerect.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Nagorno-Karabakh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Collapse bot notice. Click 'show' to view details. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted edits in January 5 and 6, 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

MarshallBagramyan. My edits done on 5 January 2017 were deleted. Other editor think the sources are not scientific and reliable. However, I only used books written by neutral authors. Another claim is that the edits are not well-balanced, but I think that the edits tried to balance the article because the current composition of the article does not present all approaches, but mostly present the approach of one side. I think the editors should discuss before deleting the edits. I respect the rights of other editors and the rules of Wikipedia and assume that all other editors do also. Human7777 (talk)

MarshallBagramyan, Please, specify that which one of these sources I used is not scientific and reliable as you claimed:

1. Altstadt, Audrey L. (1992). The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity under Russian Rule. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press Publication. ISBN 0-8179-9182-4;

2. Rau, Johannes (2007). Der Berg-Karabach-Konflikt zwischen Armenien und Aserbaidschan: Ein kurzer Blick in die Geschichte. Berlin: KÖSTER. ISBN 3895746290;

3.Krüger, Heiko (2010). The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. A legal Analysis. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-11787-9;

4. Croissant, Michael P. (1998). The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications. London: Greenwood Publishing Group, Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-96241-5;

5. Cornell, Svante E. (2001). Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. New York: Taylor and Francis group, RoutledgeCurzon. ISBN 0-7007-1162-7;

6. Potier, Tim (2001). Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. A legal appraisal. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. ISBN 90-411-1477-7.

If these sources you consider not scientific and unreliable than I believe many of the sources used in this article could be questioned and discussed in a similar manner. Do you think that all sources used in the article are neutral and proper? For example, in the book “Small Nations and Great Powers” (N5 in the list above) Christopher Walker who is cited several times is characterized as a pro-Armenian author (see page 55). I think that my sources are and should be considered more reliable than others if we delve into these discussions.

If you thought that I did not cite the sources truly and properly I am ready to discuss. But deleting comparatively huge amount added text with numerous strong sources without any reasonable argumentation is a sign of disrespectful and irresponsible attitude toward other editors. This type of sensitive pages demands to be more attentive of us. Additionally, please, note that you should discuss before removing all especially this kind of edits. If you found that the edits were not well balanced, you had an opportunity to discuss or try to edit the text for creating a balance. Unfortunately, I saw that all edits are deleted without any discussion and notice. I didn’t revert your deletions subject to our discussions. I believe to your constructive approach in line with wiki rules and community ethics and principle of objectivity. EdJohnston Human7777 (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed Svante E. Cornell (an Armenian Genocide denier[11]), Krüger (an attorney on law), and Potier (a specialist in law). None of these guys are WP:RS for history-related matters. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

LouisAragon, Again, you too did not discuss to improve the edits, but just deleted some citations and edits. You did not only remove the books of Cornell, Potier, and Krüger, but also deleted the sources written by Johannes Rau and Mark Elliot without any argumentation. You claim that the works of Svante Cornell, Tim Potier, and Heiko Krüger are not reliable sources. The same book of Tim Potier which I used has already been cited two times in the article (see citation number 47 and 55). However, you did not delete those citations used by other editor(s). Svante Cornell is a prominent scholar in the field of Eurasia studies, in particular, the South Caucasus, Turkey, and Central Asia. You can find the books of him nearly in all libraries in the world. I did not know his attitude towards the issue you mentioned, but I think it is not ethical to challenge his academical reputation based on his attitude (which’s not sourced too and if he has the similar stand on the matter that he still can be used as a source for respective article on genocide) toward some very disputed historical event and we should respect the approach of academicians. Additionally, I was not the first editor used the work of Cornell (the single source of the sentence of “the Armenian meliks maintained full control over the region until the mid-18th century” was the book of Cornell, but you only remove it when I used it for the second time). Another author is Dr. Heiko Krüger who is not only just practicing lawyer, but at the same time, he is a researcher. His book I referred was on Nagorno Karabakh but not any on other matter where he just touches the issue. You claim that authors who are specialized at law cannot issue valid sources in this context. In that case, we should examine all sources used in this article whether they are more reliable and objective than the book of Dr. Heiko Krüger or not, for example, PanArmenian.net (news webpage) (citation number 11) and others. Again I call you to be more constructive and to discuss the possibility of improving edits before deleting them. Otherwise, I’ll revert my edits and if you still disagree with it I’ll ask for the third opinion EdJohnston. Human7777 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not just the sources used. It was the tendentious wording that betrayed bias in the text. The way you had it written was not neutral. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, I understood that you gave up your first argument - claiming that the sources are not reliable and scientific. Now you only think that the method of using the sources is not neutral, but is “betrayed bias.” Again, I would like to repeat that the current composition of the article is mostly based on the approach of one side, to which the same arguments you use could be applied. I did not delete the edits but added some in line with rules. You may compare the versions of the article before and after my edits, which of them seem more neutral and objective? My edits bring neutrality to the article too and enrich and improve it as an article. And even though if you disagreed with the way it was written you could do/propose respective edits not just delete it. Again I call you to be more constructive and to discuss the possibility of improving edits before deleting them. Otherwise, I’ll revert my edits and if you still disagree with it I’ll ask for the third opinion EdJohnston. Human7777 (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we agree that my edits are done in line with the rules. If you (MarshallBagramyan) do not have any objection, I will revert my edits. Human7777 (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Johannes Rau is a professor of the Scientific Forum on international security. Mark Elliott is a travel writer. That makes 5 sources, all of which were/are non-RS for history-related topics. Many of them even textbook.
    Please read a bit more about WP policies. I know you were not the first person to add Cornell to the article, but its not an excuse to add more non-RS sources to the article "just because others did so as well". Make a WP:BOLD move, and remove them if you manage to spot them. There's really no need to get defensive.
  • I only tackled some of the RS issues in a part of the history-section (most of whom you had added). Pan.Armenian.net is also non-RS in this regard, so I'll remove it as well. Thanks for raising that up.
  • Look, Cornell is a genocide denier. Its simply unacceptable to use him as a source on matters pertaining to Armenians. And especially history-related topics. He doesn't even have the necessary credentials, NB. Your claim that his books are shelved in "nearly all libraries in the world" is completely irrelevant to that verifiable fact. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

LouisAragon,

  • There is no clear prerequisite to write about history-related matters that the source author must only be a historian. See WP:HISTRS: “Books, book chapters and articles by social scientists and scholars in the humanities, working within their area of expertise.” You do not argue the fact that the books are written by researchers in the area of social sciences (exempt Mark Elliot), and I only cited sources dealing with exclusively Nagorno-Karabakh, and I still think that the sources I used are much more reliable than some sources which are not deleted (for example, citation number 27, 30, 38, and some others). I did not tend to delete sources without any discussion, considering the sensitivity of the article but I still thank you to remove one of this citation I mentioned before. However, I would expect you to delete other clear unreliable sources before deleting the sources based on academic research.
  • I disagree with your argumentation about Cornell. I would be pleased to apply for a third opinion. The book of Cornell which I addressed has been written in a balanced way, not in favor of one side. Even though Wikipedia also does not require that reliable sources must be neutral, unbiased, or objective (see WP:RS). And generally taking author's stand on some particular issue shouldn’t be a barrier for him to be sourced on an article of a different subject. Human7777 (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

May I understand we made a compromise that the books of Johannes Rau, Heiko Krüger, Svante Cornell, Tim Potier may be used? If so, I will revert the deleted edits. I will take your concerns into account, and also I ask you (LouisAragon) to discuss before deleting or reverting the edits in the future. Human7777 (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

>Tells him numerous times that he can't use the sources.
>Still asks whether he can use them.
lol.
There are two users disagreeing with the edits you made and the sources you used per several core WP policies. WP:HISTRS is not a guideline/policy. So no, there is no compromise "that the books of Johannes Rau, Heiko Krüger, Svante Cornell, Tim Potier may be used". None of these guys are reliable sources for history-related matters on Nagorno-Karabakh. Cornell even openly doubts the Armenian Genocide. That on itself makes it completely unacceptable to use him on any Armenian-related topic. Simply because he's not a neutral/objective author. Notwithstanding that he doesn't even have the appropriate credentials. Its very simple to be honest. I find it pretty odd that you're trying to add non-RS sources that favor your POV at all costs, rather than spending time finding proper RS sources. I'd say this stick needs to be dropped.
This topic area (Nagorno-Karabakh) is extremely contentious, so it requires careful sourcing. This pov-insertion is really unhelpful and becoming borderline WP:TENDENTIOUS.
- LouisAragon (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems from your manner that you (LouisAragon) have lost your constructive and neutral approach. This leads me to be much more concrete. My position is so simple: Let’s assume that you are right: the sources that I referred are nor reliable because of their neutrality due to your approach. If so, I kindly ask you to check and delete these sources based on the same approach of yours: citations number 8 (obvious reasons), 21 (written by pro-Armenian author), 27 (obvious reasons), 30 (pro-Armenian author), 35 (because of the thoughts of author about Azerbaijan), 37 (pro-Armenian author), 38 (obvious), 39 (obvious), 42 (because of the thoughts of author about Azerbaijan), 45 (because of the thoughts of author about Azerbaijan), 46 (obvious), 54 (obvious), 55 (pro-Armenian author), 95 (because of the thoughts of author about Azerbaijan), 97 (because of the thoughts of author about Azerbaijan), 99 (because of the thoughts of author about Azerbaijan), 101 (because of the thoughts of author about Azerbaijan). If you disagree with both options then I’m pleased and obliged to apply for a third opinion. Human7777 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Third Opinion

There are repeated comments about a possible request for a third opinion. There is now a formal request for a Third Opinion at the noticeboard. However, I see four editors who have commented to varying degrees. I will be removing the Third Opinion request. If there still is a content dispute, you may request moderated dispute resolution or formal mediation or file a Request for Comments. I would recommend an RFC, but that is only my advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nagorno-Karabakh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC about Deleted edits in January 5 and 6, 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am closing this RFC after a request was made at WP:ANRFC. I see a consensus that specialists in international law, security and geopolitics are considered to be Reliable sources, and that neutral sources are strongly preferred to non-neutral sources. There has not been much discussion here about the specific sources that this RFC was started about, so I shall not opine on whether there is consensus to use these sources or not. If these sources are still in dispute, a more focussed RFC or WP:RSN may help to resolve it. Iffy★Chat -- 09:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

May the works of the authors specialized in the fields of international law or international security be used as a reference for the history related matters in this article? May the work of the pro (anti) Armenian or Azerbaijani authors be used as a reference in this article or not? Human7777 (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Seraphim System, I have done some edits in January 5 and 6, 2018 in the article of Nagorno-Karabakh, but two other editors deleted some of them. They asserted that some references are not reliable bacause of the views of the authors about certain issues or their specialisation areas, and my edits are not neutral. I disagreed with the argument and offered two options: 1. to revert my edits or 2. to delete some other sources based on the same argument (the views of the authors about certain issues). About the neutrality I think that the current composition of the article is mostly based on the arguments of one side, and my edits bring some neutrality to the article. You can see the content of the dispute in detail on Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Deleted_edits_in_January_5_and_6,_2018. Human7777 (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You can post specific questions about sources to RS/n, but I don't think this RfC is clear about what you are want to add to the article. Most editors are not going to want to dig through the page history to figure it out. Please read this Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief noting the good questions and bad questions examples. Seraphim System (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed the composition of the question(s).Human7777 (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Any RS can be used generally. It's hard to say more without knowing what statement it is used for, and whether it is primary or secondary for that statement. Seraphim System (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes & Tread carefully (Summoned by bot) Yes for the first and I don't think so for the second. I think most information needed should be able to be sourced from neutral RS, if not those particular things need to be inspected and the statements we derive from them doubly need to be neutral, we don't want POV pushers to look at the source and then claim the information is flawed for that reason alone. Ping me, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, with qualifications Hi all, summoned for RfC. That authors specialized in the fields of international law or international security be used is utterly reasonable and within the scope of reliable sources. That they are from a neutral source, ones with a relatively widespread and respected reputation in a scholarly field should be sought in this case. You might be prepared to explain and defend the choice of author qualifications. Thanks for your work, and happy editing.Horst59 (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Vague yes. The summary on this RfC is still a little difficult to follow, as a disinterested observer summoned by robot, but I would agree with what Horst59 has said — scholars in international law, security and geopolitics are all likely to have useful contributions. But I can't give any further useful feedback without a more-detailed RfC question. I'd suggest if there are specific edits you want people to consider, then using {{diff}} to link to them from the question might be useful. Feel free to {{ping}} me back if there is a more-detailed, clearer question to which my feedback might be helpful. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC) (summoned by robot)
  • Yes But this RfC would not magically convert non-RS sources into RS. I am a lot familiar with this topic so I have a general advise: any source can be biased towards one view. We are humans. It is suggested that we use our logic to keep the article in neutral/unbiased shape. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I think any of them individually is subject to exclusion if the community agrees to it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to thank to all users who engaged in the RfC until now. I believe that your comments will help me to improve the quality of the article. Human7777 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renaming this article to Mountainous Karabakh

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I believe there is a case to be made to rename this article to Mountainous Karabakh:

  • Nagorno-Karabakh is a Russian name with a direct English equivalent, and this is English Wikipedia.
  • Nagorno-Karabakh is not and never was a geopolitical entity, that was the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. Why have this article and that article at the same time?
  • Many non-English Wikipedia use their language version:
  • Arabic: Murtafaeat Qurat Bagh (not sure if this is a perfect transliteration)
  • Armenian: Lernayin Gharabagh
  • Azerbaijani: Dağlıq Qarabağ
  • French: Haut-Karabakh
  • Georgian: Mtiani Qarabaghi
  • Turkish: Dağlık Karabağ

In short, my argument is that Nagorno-Karabakh is fine to use when referring to the Autonomous Oblast since that was the official name of the geopolitical entity, but this article is about a geographic designation. We don't say "Armenian Lernashkharh" for Armenian Highlands in English, so why would we use a Russian adjective to describe the mountainous region of Karabakh? Kentronhayastan (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Nagorno-Karabakh" is a term used in official documents of international organizations. Wikipedia must match the facts and documents, not personal views of users. Also, while you added the Armenian name for Nagorno-Karabakh, for objectivity the region's Azerbaijani name "Daghliq Qarabagh" also must be mentioned. --89MsHm (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Nagorno-Karabakh is the most recognizable name. Seraphim System (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously Wikipedia is not a place for personal views, which is why I am having a preliminary discussion here to get some other views before I make a formal request to discuss renaming the article.

International organizations use Mountainous Karabakh and Nagorno-Karabakh interchangeably. Some organizations use one, while others use the other. From my, admittedly personal, experience, most of the media I've seen use "Mountainous Karabakh" (or a form of it) when referring to the geographic area, and "Nagorno-Karabakh" when referring to the Republic of Artsakh. Considering this is the article about the geographic area, I think there's a case to be made here.

I do agree that NK is used more often, and, to people who know about the subject, is more recognizable, but again, NK is generally used to refer to the NKR/Republic of Artsakh. Regardless, what's more important for the general Wikipedia reader? More recognizable or more comprehensive? "Nagorno" means nothing to English readers, and we can't make the argument that it's a foreign name because there is no current official name for the region. This article is simply about the geographic "mountainous areas of Karabakh," so wouldn't it be more accurate and comprehensive to use a descriptive name?

I did not include the Azerbaijani name because Dagliq Karabag is simply a translation of "Nagorno-Karabakh" in the Azerbaijani language, whereas "Artsakh" is an alternate name (notice how I did not put "Lernayin Gharabagh," the Armenian translation of NK), so it is objective. "Artsakh" on its own is just a name, not Armenian per se (some Azerbaijanis have argued that it's not even an Armenian name). Besides, the Azerbaijani name is already in the infobox. If you insist, we can include the Armenian and Azerbaijani equivalents of "Nagorno-Karabakh" with a transliteration in parentheses beside the initial "Nagorno-Karabakh" like they do on other articles, but it'd be repeating information and cluttering the introduction paragraph. Kentronhayastan (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

When I searched for mountainous Karabakh, all but one source used the term "Nagorno-Karabakh" Seraphim System (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not addressing my points, but I'll take your response as a vote to keep the status quo. By the way, do a quick Google Search for "Mountainous Karabakh" and I assure you, you'll find more. Also, take note that most of them are referring to the republic (and in fact, many even use "Republic of Mountainous Karabakh"). Kentronhayastan (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Questionable claim about demographics of Karabakh in 1823

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the "Modern Era" history section, "In 1823, 8.4% (9%) of the population in total of Karabakh was Armenian.[51]"

Source is "Yazdani, Ahmed Omid (1993). Geteiltes Aserbaidschan: Blick auf ein bedrohtes Volk (German Edition). Das Arabische Buch. p. 88. ISBN 3860930230."

This needs to be clarified or removed because as it stands the source is questionable (Google shows no credentials for the author) and also the territory referred to as "Karabakh" is not defined. Karabakh traditionally refers to a much larger stretching from the Zangezur crest, now forming the border of Armenia and Nakhichevan, and the Kura river, far exceeding the borders of the smaller highland region called Nagorno-Karabakh. Thus, without further clarification of the area being referred to as "Karabakh", this statistic is meaningless with regards to an article about Nagorno-Karabakh only. Moreover, its provenance is questionable as I don't know of any Russian imperial census carried out in 1823, and the text does not state which source these demographics come from. Tigernose (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree; it's misleading because the population of Nagorno-Karabakh, which this article is about, was in fact almost 91% Armenian in that same census. We don't need to talk about the demographics of the whole of Karabakh; that should be on the Karabakh article. I've updated it. Kentronhayastan (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ehsan2030 (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change Nagorno-Karabakh Republic into Nagorno-Karabakh because it is not Republic. The political status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region remains unresolved. Some maps give this province the name of Republic based on this article. Aysel1111 (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, this article isn't about the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, so perhaps you have this on the wrong page. And the Artsakh Republic is, in fact, a republic, because recognition is not required to be a republic. So, poorly-requested request denied. --Golbez (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Dağlık Karabağ"

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

(continued from the previous Renaming this article to Mountainous Karabakh

"Nagorno-Karabakh" is the Russian translation of the Azerbaijani name of the region Daghliq Qarabagh. I support the idea that the Azerbaijani and Armenian equivalents of "Nagorno-Karabakh" to be included with a transliteration in parentheses beside the initial "Nagorno-Karabakh". It will give the Azerbaijani and Armenian names equal status. However in current version of the article only Russian and Armenian alternatives are highlighted. 89MsHm (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Where is the Armenian alternative highlighted? Here are non-Armenian maps from using the name "Artsakh":

If it was about the past then all Wikipedia articles about geographical areas must have been filled with endless variations of the names of the territories which would cause confusion. Today Nagorno-Karabakh is an international term, Dağlıq Qarabağ is Azerbaijani and Artsakh is Armenian (it's not accidental that the illegal regime in Nagorno-Karabakh has recently started to call itself "Artsakh"). That means it is also politically a very sensitive issue, and considering the current dispute over the region Azerbaijani name must be included as well. 89MsHm (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani name is already in the article (look at the infobox in the right).
The region goes by two names, and these are the two most commonly used variants used by at least one group of people today:

  • Nagorno-Karabakh
  • Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ (Latin: Lernayin Gharabagh)
  • Azerbaijani: Dağlıq Qarabağ / Yuxarı Qarabağ (Latin: Daghlik Karabagh / Yukhari Karabagh)
  • English: Nagorno-Karabakh / Mountainous Karabakh
  • Persian: نگورنو کاراباخ (Latin: Nagorno Carabakh)
  • Russian: Наго́рный Караба́х (Latin: Nagornyy Karabakh)
  • Turkish: Dağlık Karabağ (Latin: Daghlik Karabagh)
  • Artsakh
  • Armenian: Արցախ (Latin: Artsakh)
  • Azerbaijani: Arsak or Arsax (Latin: Arsakh)
  • English: Artsakh
  • Persian: آرتساخ (Latin: Artsakh)
  • Russian: Арцах (Latin: Artsakh)
  • Turkish: Artsah

Now, we can either include the commonly used names with local variants in parentheses and clutter the article to no end, or leave the local names in the infobox to the right and keep the article clean by using only the most commonly used variants in the introduction text. Kentronhayastan (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The region does not go by two names. Internationally there is only one name, which is Nagorno-Karabakh. "Artsakh" is currently promoted by Armenia and Armenian diaspora, which is not accepted by Azerbaijan. Including "Artsakh" as an alternative name to Nagorno-Karabakh into the article is a pro-Armenian position (considering your username, you are an Armenian patriot which already puts your objectivity under question). Artsakh also already exists in the infobox. What I say is that either the name Artsakh must be removed from the article, or both "Daghliq Qarabagh" and "Artsakh" must be mentioned in the article for impartiality. 89MsHm (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

First, the expressions "also known as" or "goes by" don't mean "internationally recognized as." If a name is used by a sizable amount of people, then it "goes by" that name. The region does go by two names, just as Istanbul still goes by "Constantinople," and Ho Chi Minh City still goes by "Saigon."

Secondly, "Nagorno-Karabakh" hasn't been the official name since the NKAO was abolished, so even NK is just a "name that the region goes by."

Thirdly, Artsakh is in the upper row of the infobox where the two alternative names are (and I didn't add that). Below that row are the "native name" rows, which lists the translations of the two alternative names in their native languages, which is where the native transliterations of the names belong.

Fourth, even if Artsakh is the variant that Armenians use, it's still just a name. It's not an Armenian word, nor is it an Armenian transliteration.

I understand you probably think that my edit is not in good faith, but this is entirely about keeping it less cluttered, and your arguments haven't convinced me that the Azerbaijani name is not being represented equally. Your arguments would be valid if I put the Armenian transliteration of either name without the Azerbaijani transliteration, which I have not done. If you think I made the edit in bad faith, then how do you explain my removal of "Artsakh" from the Karabakh article (which was done before you accused me of bad faith because of my ethnic origin)? So please, WP:AGF and WP:REHASH. Kentronhayastan (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I call on you to stop replacing the name Nagorno-Karabakh (which is more common and internationally accepted) with Artsakh in the English Wikipedia, and undo your latest changes. The article History of Artsakh actually must be renamed to history of Nagorno-Karabakh. If you are really that objective then you can add Nagorno-Karabakh as an alternative name to Artsakh, as you did the reverse with the Nagorno-Karabakh. 89MsHm (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm only changing it when it refers to the Republic of Artsakh, since they've officially adopted the new name, and its article already says, "commonly known by its former name of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic". If you have a problem with that, then discuss it on its own talk page. Kentronhayastan (talk)

In article we should keep all names which referred to this territory in historical aspect. Especially, in a case when turkish name is not indigenious, so we can trace the history of this region only using greek or armenian names. Asatrian (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Please fix spelling of Russian name

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Russian name is given as "Нагорно-Карабах" which is grammatically incorrect. The proper name of the region is "Нагорный Карабах" ("Mountainous Karabakh," which is also the title of the Russian language article). The spelling which begins with "Нагорно-" is only correct when the region name gets adjectivized, e.g. "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" would be "Нагорно-Карабахская Республика", but this flexion occurs regardless of the political load of the word (same for N-K girl, path, etc.). Glimz (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Correct, as attested by the title of the corresponding article on Russian Wikipedia. I've changed it. Thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh#History Soviet era section, it says that "Had Turkey not been an issue, Stalin would likely have left Karabakh under Armenian control.". This implies that Karabakh was under Armenian control, but was given to the Azerbaijanis by the USSR, which makes me believe that the user who wrote this believed a common myth that Stalin gave away Karabakh to Azerbaijan with a document. (You're free to correct me if my assumptions were wrong) If that is the case, then I'd suggest looking at the original document of 1921, specifically saying that "Nagorno-Karabakh shall REMAIN part of Azerbaijan", clearly implying that Nagorno-Karabakh was already part of Azerbaijan and wasn't "trasnferred" "gifted" "given" to Azerbaijan as some myths claim. Even if my assumptions were wrong and the user did not mean it the way I understood, that sentence sounds like a complete assumption/opinion and guess of the future, which I find unsuitable for an article of this much importance. CuriousGolden (talk)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  Note: It would be helpful if you would actually cite the source in Wikipedia format (see WP:CITE). HeartGlow30797 (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  Note: The source you found in your second request seems to be research done by yourself. Could you offer a more recent source or a digitalized version of the source? (see WP:No original research) HeartGlow30797 (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey! Can I ask which source you mean as both of the sources I have cited are from Thomas, De Waal (2003). Black Garden (PDF). — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 09:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@CuriousGolden:
  Not done for now - Please more clearly and concisely state your edit request and cite your source in Wiki format with the page number(s), as you have provided a large document. You may then reopen the edit request. Thanks. — Tartan357 (Talk) 02:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
My edit request is the sentence "Had Turkey not been an issue, Stalin would likely have left Karabakh under Armenian control." to be removed, as the author likely referred to the common myth of Russia giving Karabakh to Azerbaijan in 1921 by using the word "left". Source I gave is the proof of the such claim being debunked on famous book by Thomas De Waal. I had already linked the pages in the Word Mistake #2, so I didn't think it'd be necessary, I'm sorry. So, the page would be page 130, directly quoting the 1921 document: "proceeding from the necessity for national peace between Muslims and Armenians and the economic ties between upper and lower Karabakh, its constant links with Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh remains within the Azerbaijani SSR, having been awarded wide regional autonomy, with its administrative center in the town of Shusha" from Thomas, De Waal (2003). Black Garden (PDF).. My 2nd edit request was, on War and Secession section of the article, there is a citation needed tag for "By the end of 1993, the conflict had caused thousands of casualties and created hundreds of thousands of refugees on both sides.[citation needed]". This can be replaced with Thomas, De Waal (2003). Black Garden (PDF). page 18 "They had expelled hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis from these lands. ". — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 09:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@CuriousGolden:
1)   Not done: Your source does not support this change. Please read paragraphs 2 and 3 on pages 129-130, which state: "The Bolsheviks initially decided to award all the disputed territories to Armenia," "the three disputed provinces, Karabakh, Nakhichevan, and Zangezur would from now on be part of Soviet Armenia," and "on 4 July 1921, the bureau voted to attach Karabakh to Soviet Armenia."
The text further states that "[on 5 July 1921], [the bureau] decided that 'proceeding from the necessity for national peace between Muslims and Armenians and the economic ties between upper and lower Karabakh, its constant links with Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh remains within the Azerbaijani SSR, having been awarded wide regional autonomy, with its administrative center in the town of Shusha.'" So, your source seems to support the idea that the region was initially part of Soviet Armenia and was transferred to Azerbaijan in 1921.
2)   Partly done: I added your reference, which also supported the claim in the following sentence about 14% of Azeri land being controlled by the Armenians. However, I did not remove the {{citation needed}} tag because your source only mentions Azeri displacement, not casualties or Armenian displacement as the sentence in the article mentions. I added a comment in the article markup explaining both the usefulness of your source and the need for another. — Tartan357 (Talk) 11:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tartan357: The text you quoted from, also says that, Narimanov opposed the decision, meaning the decision was never enforced or officially accepted, therefore the region never became part of Armenia. And to add to my claim, even in your quote, the author clearly quotes the document, stating that the region remains within the Azerbaijani SSR.
There are multiple other sources I can link, even the copy of the original 1921 document in russian saying that Nagorno-Karabakh remains part of Azerbaijan and not "transferred", "given", "awarded" and etc. Sources:
1) An Armenian-born historian, and author of book "From conflict to autonomy in the Caucasus: the Soviet Union and the making of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh", gave an interview to an armenian research center website, clearly saying that there is no evidence of Karabakh being given to Azerbaijan
2) Image of the original 1921 document in russian stating that Karabakh remains part of Azerbaijan "The 1921 Document". — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  Not done: The simple presence of the word “remains” does not mean it was part of the Azerbaijani SSR for all time. At any rate, this is no longer an edit request issue. Edit requests are for making changes that are not controversial, or for which a consensus has already been reached. I would say that based upon our differing interpretations of the same source, there is controversy here. You should reach a consensus with other editors on this talk page by creating a new section and opening an RfC (Request for Comments) so that you can engage in debate with other editors knowledgeable about the subject. I suggest using the {{rfc|hist}} template in doing so. Don’t respond further to this edit request. Instead, once you have attained a consensus through an RfC in a new section on this talk page, open a new edit request stating that you would like a consensus-supported change to be made. Thanks. — Tartan357 (Talk) 00:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

89 years missing

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is no history mentioned between 1828 and 1917. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please add 2020 war https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQJm8ePKBFQ Kroger4 (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Source url fix

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Source #54 leads to 404 page ("The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution" (PDF)., New England Center for International Law & Policy). We should replace it with archived copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20060217230140/https://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf QueenToF7 (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add the abbreviation "NKR" after "formerly named Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" in the second paragraph of the lead. The abbreviation is used twice without explanation in the article, as well as in the refs. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:F079:9A84:A5E9:D0EA (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Done A sensible addition. Largoplazo (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 WAR

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Due to major war going on, this needs to have a larger section dedicated to it. Please make new section: "2.8 - 2020 War" Add last paragraph of 2.7 under and new content can be added as follows:

Turkey sent thousands of jihadist fighters and Syrian mercenaries to the region to fight on behalf of the Azeris, as revelated by French president Macaron, Russian intelligence and the Pentagon. [1][2]Turkey president Erdogan has spoken in support of Azerbaijan. Turkey has also provided weapons and drones to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has acknowledged the use of both Turkish and Israeli drones. [4] Armenia has claimed that a Turkish provided F-16 fighter was downed, but both Azerbaijan and Turkey have denied this.[1][3]

As of October 10, 2020 thousands have died on both sides and with Russian involvement a cease fire was announced for 72 hours.[3] The Azerbaijan and Turkish governments have stated that they would not agree to peace unless the disputed lands are returned to them.[1][2]

Ref: [1]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/armenia-and-azerbaijan-agree-to-cease-fire-after-weeks-of-deadly-conflict/ [2]http://asbarez.com/197395/fragile-talks-end-with-agreement-on-ceasefire-on-oct-10/ [3]https://www.foxnews.com/world/death-toll-soars-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-escalates [4]https://eurasiantimes.com/clash-of-drones-how-israeli-turkish-drones-have-created-havoc-in-azerbaijan-armenia-war/ Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done, See WP:NOTNEWS and the entire 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article. Also, in the future, please remember to place new sections at the bottom of talk pages. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Thomas D. Grant, The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1999), chapter 1.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive_20&oldid=987920229"