Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 9

Shahumian, split?

The existence of Shahumian creates problems. According to the NKR and its maps, it's an integral part of the NKR, even if it's completely under Azeri control. This means the borders of the NKR do not perfectly match the borders of the NKAO, which means some maps need changing. It makes me think again that, maybe the NKR info should be split off into another article? --Golbez 22:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Golbez, about your earlier question as to how to delinieate NKR's border--we can just use, say, a red line. It's visually useful and standard practice in maps. Another standard practice is to include a legend instead of spelling out color names (which most, like me, probably don't know about anyway). We could have little rectagles of particular colors, and next to them say "territory of former NKAO" "self proclaimed border of NKR" "Shahumyan etc etc". It will make the caption shorter and be more visually appealing. No rush, but thought could be an interesting project for you :)--TigranTheGreat 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a thought. I haven't toyed with colored borders yet, but I have included legends. (see Image:Cyprus districts named.png and Image:Israel districts named.png), but since there was no whitespace in this map, and to keep it small, I had thought it best not to. I can add whitespace to the bottom though and put the legend there. --Golbez 01:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I just introduced a legend to the NKR map. Didn't change the contents, just rearranged the caption sentences in front of colored rectangles. Used HTML tables and color bacgrounds, so should be easy to change colors if there is a need. Do you think you could add a red (or any color you like) border around NKR? Let me know what you think. Thanks.--TigranTheGreat 05:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks good, I wonder if I should integrate it into the map image or just leave it in caption. I'll put some color border around it. --Golbez 06:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So uh.. any further thoughts on splitting an NKR article out of the NK one? --Golbez 20:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No one? No thoughts? --Golbez 05:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. NKR would focus more on the current economy, government structure etc. We could certainly try and see if it's viable.--TigranTheGreat 05:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What’s the point in having two articles on the same topic? Grandmaster 18:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they aren't the same topic. The former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic claim two different (though mostly overlapping) land masses; an example would be how the nation of Ireland and the island of Ireland have two separate articles, while the nation and island of Iceland share their articles; the first two, though they have the same name, are not coterminous, whereas the second two are. The former NKAO and the NKR are not coterminous; therefore, perhaps the articles should be split. --Golbez 21:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I relisted the old RfC on this dispute, as it still was in the list of active ones. Just moved it up the top and added that the dispute still has not been resolved. We can also discard an old one and start a new one, it's just time consuming to fill in those forms. Check it here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nagorno-Karabakh Grandmaster 06:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Seceded from USSR or Azerbaijan?

Who did the NKR declare independence from? The infobox presently says Azerbaijan, but the NKAO folks say they were seceding from the Soviet Union. Which should we put? --Golbez 08:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It could not secede from either Azerbaijan or USSR. According to the USSR law, only 15 Soviet republics could secede, but not their autonomies. And far as I know, Armenians of NK declared independence from Azerbaijan, but they refer to a Soviet law, which they think allowed them to do so, but aside from some law schools in the US no serious international organization thinks so, the opinion of CoE is included in the international status section. Grandmaster 09:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not an answer. That means you suggest we remove the mention of "independent from" the infobox altogether. If not, then what should we put there? Azerbaijan or the USSR? --Golbez 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually answered, Golbez. As far as I know Armenians of NK declared independence from Azerbaijan. Also, that infobox is not clear. It should say Declared - December 10, 1991. And the following line says it’s approved. Approved by who? Grandmaster 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I missed that sentence. But how could they declare independence from Azerbaijan if they declared themselves a Soviet republic, and therefore not a part of Azerbaijan? This needs deeper analysis. As for approved, I think it was, the referendum was held, then approved by the self-proclaimed government. However, this is a valid argument, and we should adjust the infobox accordingly. --Golbez 21:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the 1994 Human Rights Watch book on NK has the reference to a letter from "NKR" leader to President Yeltsin begging to make "NKR" as a province of Russia in 1992 I think. NKAO had no legal right to succeed from Azerbaijan -- this was confirmed by USSR Supreme Soviet decision, and the UN Security Council's resolutions and of course any non-biased neutral legal experts (which exludes anyone hosted, featured, or quoted by the Armenian Foreign Ministry (or the "MFA" of "NKR", as well as ANCA and AAA lobbyists for that matter). --AdilBaguirov 11:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's subtle, Golbez. The declaration itself declares NKR as a republic, equal to other Soviet Republics, so clearly it's independent from Azerbaijan. Yet, it states that Soviet laws still apply, until further action/referendum. So, technically, it seceded from Az, remained in USSR for a few months, and then got out of USSR. Which by the way answers the objections of European experts who said that "NK would have to remain with USSR to make its independence legal." The New England analysis, which is done by the way by noted int. law experts, explains this perfectly. They completely followed the USSR law of secetion--if Azerbaijan SSR seceded, they had the right to invoke their own independence via referendum. They first staid with USSR, then got out. Also, which is important, USSR condemned the Azeri decision to abolish NKAO, which was illegal, but not NKAO's decision to secede. Here is the relevant quote again:

On August 30, 1991, Soviet Azerbaijan's Supreme Soviet adopted its "Declaration on reestablishment of the national independence of the Azerbaijani Republic." Four days later Nagorno Karabagh initiated the same process through the joint adoption of the "Declaration of the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh" by the local legislative councils of Nagorno Karabagh and the bordering Armenian-populated Shahumian district. The only difference was that, for Karabagh, independence was declared not from the Soviet Union but from Azerbaijan. This act fully complied with existing law. Indeed, the 1990 Soviet law titled "Law of the USSR Concerning the Procedure of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR," provides that the secession of a Soviet republic from the body of the USSR allows an autonomous region and compactly settled minority regions in the same republic's territory also to trigger its own process of independence.

On November 27, 1991, the USSR Constitutional Oversight Committee's resolution deemed unconstitutional the Orgkom created by the Supreme Soviet decision of January 15, 1990, as well as the November 23, 1991 Azerbaijani decision abolishing Karabagh's autonomy. It also revoked the December 1, 1989, Armenian resolution on reunification. The actions of the USSR Constitutional Oversight Committee did not, however, annul the joint decision of the NKAO and Shahumian district to declare the establishment of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic on September 2, 1991, since that declaration was deemed in compliance with the then existing law. ( The April 3, 1990 "Law of the USSR Concerning the Procedure of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR," provides autonomous entities and compactly settled ethnic minorities living in a seceding republic's territory with the right of self determination, to be confirmed with a referendum. The Nagorno Karabagh Republic was proclaimed on the basis of the referendum provided under this law by the NKAO and Shahumian district after the announcement of Azerbaijan's independence on August 30, 1991.)

On December 10, 1991, the Nagorno Karabagh Republic held its own referendum on independence in the presence of international observers. The vote overwhelmingly approved Karabagh's sovereignty. This action of Nagorno Karabagh, which at that time was part of a still existent and internationally recognized Soviet Union, corresponded fully with the relevant Soviet law pertaining to leaving the USSR.--TigranTheGreat 23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Article 3.

In case the Soviet Republic has autonomous republics, autonomous regions or autonomous territories within its borders, referendums are to be conducted separately in each of the autonomies. The people residing in the autonomies are given a right to independently decide whether to remain in the Soviet Union or in the seceding Republic as well as to decide on their state legal status.

Referendum results are to be considered separately for the territory of a Soviet Republic with a compactly settled ethnic minority population, which constitutes majority on that particular territory of the Republic."

Grandmaster, Adil, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. --Golbez 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn, that does complicate one other thing though - Shahumian was not part of the NKAO, and therefore lacked these rights under the Soviet constitution. Therefore, we should still consider its status as slightly different from the NKR's. Even if you consider the NKAO's secession as legal, I have not seen anything that says Shahumian's is. --Golbez 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It was a "compactly settled minority region."

Law of the USSR Concerning the Procedure of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR," provides that the secession of a Soviet republic from the body of the USSR allows an autonomous region and compactly settled minority regions in the same republic's territory also to trigger its own process of independence.

Golbez, the very fact that we are trying to decide what this law means indicates that we are engaging in legal interpretation. These things are for legal experts, and therefore any conclusion made by us could be a) mistaken and b) would be a position nonetheless. That itself demonstrates that we can't state as a matter of absolute fact that NK is legally, i.e. de jure, part of Azerbaijan. We can state the pure fact--it's independence is not recognized.--TigranTheGreat 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, "inside Azerbaijan" again may have the double meaning of "inside borders of Az." or "being part of territory of Az." I think we should say "inside the borders of Azerbaijan" to clarify the intended meaning (i.e. #1, not #2).--TigranTheGreat 00:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha, but that's the beauty - each side will interpret it as supporting them! ;) Or maybe they won't. Heh. --Golbez 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But how will the unbiased interpret? It's a toss of a coin. We don't want that. The more precise, the better.

Golbez, if you don't mind, if you found my arguments compelling, why did you readd "de jure" earlier?--TigranTheGreat 00:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Primarily because it was 4am. And I was also compelled by Grandmaster, and the argument about a general consideration of ownership, though I have been recompelled. Yes, I'm getting a little batty after working on this article like this for a while. :P --Golbez 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The law of the USSR that Armenian side refers to did not provide autonomies a right to conduct a referendum. According to that law only a Soviet republic itself should have conducted a referendum in each of its autonomies, if it wished to secede. But autonomies themselves had no right to do so. This law made secession from the USSR impossible, so the republics found the way around. They got together in Belovezh and abolished the USSR, as it was a union formed by 15 republics. So such referendums were not conducted in any of 15 Soviet republics, including Russia, but their autonomies are still part of them. The position of international community is also clear, that law did not allow autonomies to secede from the republics of former USSR. The experts of the Directorate General of Political Affairs of the Council of Europe are of the same opinion:

The Armenian side maintains that the N-K independence referendum was conducted in accordance with the USSR law on the "Procedure for Solving Issues of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR" of 3 April 1990. Article 3 of this law provided autonomous regions within the Soviet republics with the right to determine independently, by referendum, whether they wished to remain within the USSR or join the republic seceding from the USSR. It would however seem that according to this law N-K would have the choice of two options – to remain within the USSR or to join independent Azerbaijan; N-K independence does not seem possible.

Note that this is not some private law school, but an authoritative European organization. I have yet to see any international organization to support the Armenian POV on this. On the contrary, they state that Azerbaijan was recognized as an independent country within the borders of Azerbaijan SSR, so de-jure applies. Grandmaster 04:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tigran is saying that it was part of the USSR after it declared independence from Azerbaijan. - FrancisTyers · 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But did USSR know about it? It is known that USSR Supreme Soviet passed a resolution, rejecting the claims of NKAO and Armenian USSR about transfer of the region from Azerbaijan to Armenia. But it never ever acknowledged secession of NK from Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 09:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Was such an acknowledgement required? In my reading of the law I didn't see it. --Golbez 09:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. How could you be a part of a state or organization without its knowledge? Grandmaster 09:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I wrote many times on this, and I don't see why I should go into legal details -- unlike everyone else, I've read and analyzed both the USSR and Azerbaijan SSR Constitutions, the 1990 Law, other relevant 1990 laws, the declaration of sovereignty and later independence of Azerbaijan BEFORE the Constitutional Oversight committee, the USSR and later Russian Constitutional Court precedent-setting decisions, etc. Instead, I've already shown that UN clearly recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan in 1993 on several occassions -- there is no debate here. Furthermore, there are relevant quotes from US government, and Grandmaster brough the PACE resolution. Hence, all this disproves the insinuations of the Armenian propaganda and its paid-for analysis by some law school. Once again, NKAO could not succeed from Azerbaijan -- this was clear from the USSR Constitution and Azerbaijan Constitution -- and they took precedence even over the hastily-adopted April 1990 law on succession, which in itself was unconstitutional (which is very wasy to prove -- look at which article of USSR Constitution does it base its power on, something the Armenian scholars either failed to note or deliberately do not note). Anyway, NK was and is part of Azerbaijan, and this legal fact is not questioned by anyone legitimate. Only propagandists and lobbyists can question this fact, taking advantage of the fact that knowledge of Russian language is a REQUIREMENT to be profecient in this matter (and I wonder who translated all those laws for the New England school -- the same folks who quote it). --AdilBaguirov 10:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Flag and coat of arms

Also, since NK is part of Azerbaijan de jure and still some 15% of it are under the de facto sovereign control of Azerbaijan, the page must have Azerbaijani flag and coat of arms, as unlike the "NKR"s one, Azerbaijan's flag and coat of arms are internationally recognized. Also, that's the flag and coat of arms that the other, constantly neglected, population of Karabakh fully accepts as its own -- that of the ethnic Azerbajani population. This is NPOV - let readers decide which flag and coat of arms they accept. --AdilBaguirov 11:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

These symbols have not been disputed by anybody (Azeri, Armenian, or outsider) since they first appeared on this page. If we do this, then should we place the Georgian flag on the Abkhazia article or the Cyprus flag on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus piece? -- Clevelander 11:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me, in fact I support Georgian flag on all those pages -- meanwhile TRNC is a de jure recognized country, and is on a different level than the post-Soviet conflicts. Anyways, my suggestion is natural derivations from the logic and arguments used by some here about de jure/de facto/etc. --AdilBaguirov 09:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is just getting tiring. My question some days ago was correct, Adil would prefer the article remove all mention of the facts of the matter, and just be a propaganda piece for Azerbaijan. He's pretty much removing himself from any discussion of NPOV. --Golbez 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so surprised? Do you know who he is? Just Google the name Adil Baguirov !--Eupator 18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Never thought of that. Nice Adil, very impressive body of work. I'll read some of your articles. Young and idealistic. Then again, aren't we all? After reading some of his work, I now see Adil in a more favorable light, he writes well, and comes across as more genuine, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a solid bias over this conflict. --Golbez 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil looks cute by the way :) (first in the row from left). http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/91_folder/91_articles/91_news_movers.html --TigranTheGreat 00:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[1] this one's better :) Seriously though, he gets paid to do this, where is the migthy Armenian lobby with my paycheck damnit? --Eupator 00:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aww, so cute:) By the way, the whole concept of "Armenian" lobby (which Adil likes to mention) has been way overstated by Turko-Azeri propaganda. Turkey and Azerbaijan have way more resources (if nothing else, look at population difference and oil revenues), and geopolitically more aligned with Wests' interests than Armenia (due to the Russian, oil, and Turkish-NATO factors). The only reason the Armenian Genocide has reached the current awareness has been the relentlessness of the Diaspora, which has paid off fortunately--TigranTheGreat 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This writigns are pure harrassment and violation of Wiki rules by the users Tigran and Eupator, who have already been warned once by Khoikhoi for such an activity, but seems like tougher actions are more merited. Also, Golbez, this is not about who views whom in a "favorable light" or not - please let's leave our biases aside, this is an encyclopedic article and only facts should make it. Unfortunately, clear facts are being ignored in preferrance of flimsy writings by multitude of academically challenged and ideologically motivated users, who have been conducting this kind of unfortunate activity for quite some time now. Golbez, it seems to me you have some clear preferences and POVs, and have been taking part in this harassment instead of stopping it, which is unacceptable for an admit, and you should remove yourself from any further discussions, having other neutral admins take a look at this -- meanwhile Azerbaijani and Armenian users will find a solutions. --AdilBaguirov 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on dude, we are complimenting you. Now this: AdilBaguirov: when boyish youths infatuates itself by looking at photos of men - perhaps a doctor might help to these young people is harrassment. But I am cool, so I am not gonna take an issue with it.--TigranTheGreat 23:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I also thought this was about discussion of the article and not the contributor. Am I wrong here? Grandmaster 09:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Having clear preferences over a conflict does not mean one cannot write neutrally on it. As for harassment, I don't see it. And as for saying "unacceptable for an admin", I have not once threatened to use my admin powers here, nor have I at all, I am just an editor like you. Mediators and editors are not required to be admins. And if you want to discard my compliment of you, that is entirely your right. --Golbez 09:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, if you have a clear preference to one side, which I maintain you do and you not only haven't denied it, but essentially affirmed it (and that's actually quite respectable that you do not want to lie), then why would you write think like "Adil should remove himself from discussions"?! Furthermore, what those users have been writing on several occassions in different pages -- despite being already warned by an admin -- is pure harassment. If anything, it shows that some are ready to engage in any kind of activities to silence their opponents -- whether intimidate Edik Baghdasaryan for publishing his HETQ piece, or try to find smth compromising (to no avail, of course) against a person, who, unlike them, is not afraid of putting his name behind each and every word he writes, and not hiding behind a computer (or anything else for that matter, reminding, for example, an ASALA terrorist, not a researcher). Moreover, it is very disturbing when boyish youths infatuates itself by looking at photos of men - perhaps a doctor might help to these young people to help them understand themselves. In any case, what have all their harrassment to do with and at Wikipedia puzzles me.

The map on NK page now looks better - thank to you, and our mutual discussion here. We've also put the leader of the Azerbaijani community on the page, further enriching and clarifying this complex history of a complex region. Now I think we should add the flag and coat of arms of Azerbaijan to the page -- and do same in regards to Georgian flag and coat of arms to Abkhazia and South Ossetia for consistency purposes, and of course finalize our de jure/de facto, self-proclaimed/unrecognized/self-styled, occupied/control, etc., terminology. --AdilBaguirov 10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just curious

Am I the only one involved in this article at the moment who has neither been anywhere near the region (the nearest I've gotten is London), nor has any Armenian/Azeri/Turkic/Persian/Russian blood in him? :) I notice some of you speaking with great familiarity of the region and the people, something I lack. --Golbez 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There's also Francis, but he's here only when called upon.--Eupator 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that, I've been accused of having an Armenian mother certainly! :) Regarding the world cup below, I was really disappointed when Serbia and Montenegro screwed up so badly... How often do you get to support a country which does not exist :) - FrancisTyers · 08:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually the perfect profile for a moderator--precludes bias, ensures objectivity.

By the way, I am sorry for the US team not scoring enough for the 2nd soccer phase. They played great nonetheless.--TigranTheGreat 23:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I am mostly Armenian and part Hungarian, I live in the United States as a resident of Cleveland (hence my username). I was rooting for the United States, but I kind of wish Armenia would have at least made it in the FIFA World Cup, oh well, I can always hope. BTW, wasn't one of the players on Iran's team an Armenian? I couldn't help but notice that distinct "ian" at the end of his name on the back of his uniform. -- Clevelander 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes:) Actually there were two Armenians in Irans' team (at least that's what I noticed). I will check the names of the members when I got time.--TigranTheGreat 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like there were three: Andranik Teymourian, Vahid Hashemian, and Hassan Roudbarian. -- Clevelander 23:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Only Andranik is Armenian, the others are muslim hence by default not Armenian, in addition some Iranians also have -ian last name.--Eupator 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I never knew that, actually. -- Clevelander 23:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenians always perform well individually than in groups -- that's why we always lose the soccer games and win the chess tournaments ;)--MarshallBagramyan 06:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

New map with legend

File:Nagorno-Karabakh Legend export.png

This is just a temp one, just to see what people think. I also have a version with the line of control, but it's garish and works much better as a regional map, rather than focused only on Nagorno-Karabakh, but I can put that one up and see what people think if you like. Also, does anyone know if they are districts, divisions, provinces, marz, whatever? And, finally, is anyone else annoyed that I'm removing the dot for the city of Shusha mainly because it's redundant in a zoomed-in map like this? Also, my reasoning for which rayons to name was those which border or are part of NKR. --Golbez 01:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I think a better line for the NKR border is "Self-proclaimed border of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic"--we are specifying that the border is self-proclaimed. I think we decided that it's redundant and bad practice to put behind every mention of NKR the "self-proclaimed" qualifier.

I too think that the line of contact is not appropriate here.

To my best knowledge, the divisions in NKR are "districts." They say "shrjan," which is best translated to "district." "Marz" is in Armenia. --TigranTheGreat 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The map in its current form is better than all previous versions. And self-proclaimed on a map, that can be saved or otherwise attracts more attention than the article is a must - it's also standard practice on all such maps and doesn't take much space. --AdilBaguirov 09:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)