Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 5

message: Hi, I've added the verify tag as this article is in sore need of references. I think good solid references and removing unsourced material could help in resolving the dispute here. If no-one objects I will add  tags to parts that I think are most in need of sourcing. - FrancisTyers 19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I wonder what the hell happened with the entry, which was more encyclopedic than it is now. The history of the region and the conflict are taking the entire space, and now this is simply growing on. The next step was to talk about other stuff, but still, nothing is said, about the people living there, the institutions etc., beside enclave, protectorate etc., are all different terms compared to just 'region.' A region of Azerbaijan is simply misleading, given that it was called an authomous oblask and protectorate of Azerbaijan, an enclave. That was made clear, and accepted including by Tabib during the discussions in the archive that were something like a hundred page. It is disrespectable to ignore the history of the talk page and going on editing whatever one wants without previous discussions on the talk page. And by this, I am talking for both sides. Even if I disagreed with Tabib very strongly, at least the guy was writting and making his mind on the talk page. If that thing still grow and grow, I will be creating an entry called Nagorni-Karabakh conflict and dump the entire thing there, something which should have been done from the beggining. Fad (ix) 03:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, there would be no problem in splitting the conflict details out to another article. Be Bold! :) - FrancisTyers 04:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry dude, I'm not touching another politically heated subject for the time being. Fad (ix) 20:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  region vs enclave 

message: "After the 8th century, Albania diminished in size, and came to exist only as the Khachin principality in Artsakh."
It is absolutely absurd. I don't see the source of this sentence. Albania transerred itself to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis who are their predecessors. They owe the same right to what Albanians owned including Karabakh. Almost 90 percent of Albanians became Azerbaijanis. Small number gradually Armenianized under the pressure and assimiliation of the Armenian church as the Albanian church was cancelled by the Arab khilaphate. The reason for that was that Arabs were suspicious that the Albanian church cooperates with Byzantine against Arabs. This false information was taken to the Arab khilaphate by the Armenian church, as historians claim, in order to regain the control of all Albanian churches and ease the Armenianization of Albanians. 
Hundred of sentences, historical and current facts about the region and events are wrong. I would suggest that we complete change the Nagorno-Karabakh page based on the Council of Europe report to the extent we can and then limit any change untill the conflict is resolved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.175.186 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 January 2006.
: OK, maybe you should be able to explain this then. http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Y-paper.pdf regards. Fad (ix) 18:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  serious questions on history of Karabakh

message: The population of the Nagorno Karabakh appears to be 95 percent ethnic Armenian and the course is given as the nkrusa.org (the section with puppet anthem, puppet funny flag). This is the web site of the armenian puppet regime's puppet office in USA. 
The true information should refer to the pre-occupation and ethnic cleansing period. As WIkipedia puts it, "The population at that time (before the ethnic cleansing) was mainly Armenian (76%) and Azeri (23%), with Russian and Kurdish minorities." This is at least close to truth, yet questionable as the source is again armenian. Therefore I propose that Francis chnages that information as well. If nobody is against, I will go and change that. Thanks. I can't find a single accurate thing on this web page. It is as though the armenian prepared the enitre web page. I don't know somebody please tell me that Wikipedia is not owned by the fundamentalist, ultra-nationalist armenian diaspora in US or Europe. --Eagle of the Caucasus 03:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures reflect the actual demographics currently in place, and Wikipedia should and does reflect the current state of affairs. The article already lists that there were population transfers, including ethnic cleansing against hundreds of thousands of Armenians living in Azerbaijan in late 80's. Of course if we were to choose an artibrary point in past for demographics, we could choose the 95% Armenian population before the ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan in 1920's-70's. Or the massacre of Armenians in Shusi in 1918 or 1905. Or the massacres of Armenians by Turkic invadors in 14th-18th centuries.--TigranTheGreat 04:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, those statistics exist, and are wiedly accepted... and this is what matters for Wikipedia. Fad (ix) 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Eagle, once again, the Talk page is not the place to make insults against Armenians, vent your anger against them, or make political statements. I believe that the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia should be the historical border along the river Kur, which I am confident will be the case in the future. But if I choose to express that belief, I will go to political forums. Here we discuss the article and necessary edits.--TigranTheGreat 04:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population of Nagorno Karabakh

message: I would just like to compliment for what seems an integer and solid attempt to cover the conflict in an objective and factual manner. I have come across much emotionally strained and therefore unreasonable debate as well as outright propaganda from both sides since I became engaged with Azerbaijan, and am happy to have found this source. I strongly consider to add your page as the definite source on the conflict on my otherwise 'happy' Dutch link page on Azerbaijan, azerbeidzjan.startkabel.nl. What I would like to know, however, is who the moderators of this page are, and what their background and reasons for doing all this are. Frank van Schagen, Amsterdam, jasnostj@yahoo.com --84.246.5.82 11:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  compliments 

message: This site is unviewable for people who don't have Macromedia Flash installed (that includes me). As a result of that this link should not be included. See Wikipedia:External links. I would certainly not be opposed to including information with regard to human rights. e.g.   etc. - FrancisTyers 02:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human.az

message: Ok, I was in the kitchen making soup and I had an idea that I hope will satisfy both parties. If you feel that it doesn't, feel free to revert me. - FrancisTyers 15:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds very accurate to me, Francis, and this is precisely the kind of division that Wiki policies on External links encourage. I think there are no neutral views on this issue--by default you are either for inclusion of Karabakh in Azerbaijan or for self-determination. I think it is indisputable which sites are non-partisan or partisan, and that's what matters.--TigranTheGreat 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redux

message: Francis, the map added by Eagle of Caucasia is copyrighted with "All Rights Reserved," which is printed in the lower left hand corner of the image (check out the large version at http://www.mfa.gov.az/img/map_eng.gif). The image description page on Wikipedia has a free use tag added by Eagle of Caucasia, but there is nothing on the official site indicating that permission is granted to use it. As such, the picture is a copyright violation and needs to be deleted.--TigranTheGreat 04:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, this is a probable Copyright violation, I have put it up for the commons deletion process here. - FrancisTyers 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the image keep being potrayed on the article page while the deletion request is being processed?--TigranTheGreat 08:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. - FrancisTyers 02:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map