Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 12

message: Hey guys, has anyone seen the Signpost recently, specifically the "in the news" section?
In anticipation of Wikimania, GQ put out "Who Edited My Cheese?", a list of five "topics likely to start a Wiki-brawl", including MySpace, 2006 World Cup, Scientology, Cheese, and Nagorno-Karabakh.
(from the website) Nagorno-Karabakh: "It's a portion of the South Caucasus which should be part of Azerbaijan but is effectively unruled or de facto independent. The arguments are about stuff like whether the Azerbaijani coat of arms should be included on the page or not. They're trying to work towards a compromise."
Congratulations guys... :p —Khoikhoi 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, we are making headlines. Or at least get mentioned somewhere. First step to the international fame! Grandmaster 04:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL 

message: --Eupator 11:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, now that you all got your 15 minutes of fame, can we get back to the task at hand!?!HyeProfile 23:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, I agree, the pages on their Wikipedias really suck. - FrancisTyers · 09:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly does not suck. Those are new and improving wikis and it is not appropriate to compare it with the English version. Furthermore, where de hell one would think that they get the right to tell others what to edit, where to work and where not? Be careful before attacking others. --72.60.179.223 00:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, calm down. —Khoikhoi 00:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 72.60.179.223- Dude, the Armenian page has about three times more text in German than in Armenian, and the Azeri page is shorter than the English page's INTERNATIONAL STATUS section. Start in your own backyard (unless there aren't any keyboards in your alphabet).Wareq
Wareq dude, first of all what is the relevance of wikipedias in other languages to this discussion? Second, you have not answered the question that where the hell do you get the right to tell people what to do? If they choose to edit English instead of their language, who the hell are you to object? --72.60.179.223 09:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article really does get attention 

message: I think the term Mountainous Karabakh is preferable. Nagorno-Karabakh is neither Armenian, nor Azeri, it is incorrect Russian (instead of Nagorny Karabakh/Нагорный Карабах). Further more, Mountainous Karabakh is more self-explanatory due to the English word than Nagorno-Karabakh. At least Mountainous Karabakh should be mentioned and there should be established a redirect. --Ulf-S. 09:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, Mountainous Karabakh is more accurate name, but for some reason Nagorno-Karabakh is the name, adopted in English language, and it gets more hits on google. Grandmaster 09:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Mountainous Karabakh should be a redirect, but the prevailing term in English for the region, and especially the country, is Nagorno. English speakers have a habit of trying to keep the orignial name as they first heard it, rather than properly deconstructing it. (Since in French, it's Haut-Karabakh. And in English, 'Montenegro' would properly be 'Black Mountain', and this is recognized in most other languages, but we first heard it through the Italians or Latin or some sort, so...) Remember, folks - "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." --Golbez 10:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the new redirect.  Hopefully this should work: Mountainous Karabakh. -- Clevelander 10:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline 

message: Golbez, could you please replace current Azeri explanation of the origin with the following, at least until we verify by dictionary what each component means?
The word "Karabakh" has Turkic and Persian roots and literally means "black garden.
That much is sourced (). The current version is original research (i.e. that of Brad, based on Azeri journalists (!) ). Thanks.--TigranTheGreat 22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I removed the ref, I can put it back. Brad should know better than to use original research ;) --Golbez 01:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name origin. 

message: Not sure whether it was already mentioned, but should the article contain a remark why its Russian name is the most common? --Brand спойт 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. We could blame the Soviets, but then again, the NKR chose that name for itself as well. --Golbez 17:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the question already exists above :P --Brand спойт 15:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: The claim that Shaumyan is part of NK is not valid, NK as a geographic notion appeared in 1923, and this region was not included in it. The link that Tigran provided in support of his claims is dead. Grandmaster 09:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The geographic term of Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be found earlier than 1918, Karabakh has always been a single geographic region. Anyway, it is irrelevant now. Grandmaster 10:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaumyan as part of NK 

message: So is everyone happy with the introduction paragraphs? --Golbez 08:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two remarks. "...very close to the border with Armenia". I think actually not so close (it's very close only in one point), so "very" may be removed. "The predominantly Armenian region..." Since when? Would be better to define. --Brand спойт 10:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I figure 4 kilometers is very close, I wanted to portray that it's almost touching Armenia but not quite. And since always, I think. No one ever challenged that it was predominantly Armenian. --Golbez 12:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but mean it would be better to define since when it's actually Armenian. --Brand спойт 12:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That runs in to the pre-1918 problem, in which on one knows what the hell was going on in Nagorno-Karabakh before the Soviets came in. The Armenians say x, the Azeris say !x. Twas ever thus. That should only be dealt with in a more detailed section, rather than in the lede. --Golbez 13:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Golbez, in your intro, you've completely modified the sentence we've all agreed upon!!! The "predominantly Armenian region" part is missing (it should still be there even if it's mentioned above), and the overall structure/wording of the sentence is not what we agreed upon above. The whole point of the argument was that we don't want it to have any connotations of ownership, so the integrity of the structure and wording is very delicate. It took us a lot of time to come up with a consensus, and it must be integrated verbatim!!! I have corrected the intro to say "[...] it established the predominantly Armenian region as the NKAO within the borders of the Azerbaijan SSR", as agreed above...65.94.148.141 20:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on intro 

message: So is the picture an accurate depiction of the flag? I thought at first it was just pixelated because it was enlarged from a tiny source but then I read it has a white pattern so now I guess it's really supposed to be like that? Nil Einne 21:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. See: www.nkr.am/eng--Eupator 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Nagorno-Karabakh has its own currency.  I assume it's pegged to the Armenian dram, but should it really be called the Armenian dram in the infobox? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it appears that the NK dram is not the legal and circulating currency?  Interesting. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currency 

message: I recently created a stub to organize the growing number of articles relating to the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.  It has since been nominated for deletion.  Please voice your opinion on the matter here.  Thanks. Serouj 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub for Nagorno-Karabakh 

message: The article lists both Azerbaijani and NK subdivisions, why we have an NK template and no Azerbaijani? Grandmaster 08:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article lists NK subdivisions, then points out where they correspond with Azerbaijani subdivisions. I agree that the NK template is not quite useful, but to say that NK is an administrative subdivision of Azerbaijan is simply incorrect. Furthermore, it's not on the template you're adding. --Golbez 09:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just mean that the region of NK includes rayons of Azerbaijan, while the whole region is not a subdivision. But I agree that it is better to remove both templates. Grandmaster 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative subdivisions 

message: Adil you just violated the 3RR. Stop reverting back until there is a compromise on the topic which you keep reverting. ROOB323 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROOB323, you probably don't know, but I didn't violate anything. You in the meantime are considered a vandal, since you never participate in any discussions and just revert. --AdilBaguirov 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What??? who says reverting to an older version and not adding any new stuff just reverting to a version that was there before is a vandalism. Your doing vandalism by reverting to you own views, which your the only one that support that views. There is still no compormise and there is still discussion in the talk page, also nobody agreed to any change but you keep reverting and adding your own version and breaking the 3RR. You call something vandalism if it is not the same with your views? ROOB323 23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What "what"? Your version -- is new version, my version - is old version, and hence by reverting it, you are vandalizing it, as you are spreading your POV and never participate in any discussions. --AdilBaguirov 05:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says your version was the old version? Your the one that keeps putting your own views in Nagorno-Karabakh, Qazakh, Stepanakert, Shushi ... in all those articles and calling people vandalizers just because they don't have the same view as you do. ROOB323 05:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are new, since had you been around longer, you would have known that this table was part of the article last year until it was quetly removed. I restored it and will keep an eye on it from now on. Thus yes, you are a vandal, as you remove fully sourced information that must be part of the article. --AdilBaguirov 05:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Fadix, the expanded table shows PERCENTAGES (RELATIVE), not absolute numbers, for those years, and taking into account that the numbers of Armenians and other Christians INCREASED throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, whilst Muslims DECREASED, and Armenians were mostly concentrated in MOUNTANEOUS regions (as Armenian sources themselves emphasize), thus these RELATIVE NUMBERS are very much applicable, as they show the DYNAMICS in the mountaneous regions as well. Secondly, NKAO existed from 1921 or actually 1923 until 1991. And first Soviet census was done in 1926, last in 1989. Hence, only numbers from AFTER 1926 and BY 1989 are applicable to the "best" definition of the concept of NK. All numbers AFTER 1989, and BEFORE 1926, are much less defined, yet since you and other Armenian users consistently bring about post-1989 "census" and pre-1926 "census", then you can't complain that others do too. Then, we saw how Prof. Richard Hovanissian defined NK in the above-cited article. Other scholars, to simplify the structure, defined it as Shusha, Jevanshir, and Jebrail uezds of the Elizavetpol Guberniya of the Russian Empire, which corresponded to the Dizak, Varanda, Khachen, and Jraberd Caucasian Albanian melikdoms (as we see, Gulistan melikdom was excluded sometimes, since it was inconvenient -- Azerbaijanis were a majority there). In fact, this definition of NK was the one used and accepted by Armenians of NK in 1919, when they recognized sovereignty and rule of law of ADR over them -- see the English-language Armenian archives from Armenian Foreign Ministry  Interestingly, but early Russian military historian V.Potto, who is also so liked by Armenian sources, considers all 5 melikdoms as LOWER Karabakh (also identifies it as Artsakh), whilst MOUNTANEOUS Karabakh is Syunik-Zangezur, Lachin. Thus, as we can see, the expanded table is absolutely valid and features essential information for this article, allows everyone to learn more facts and better know the history of the region. --AdilBaguirov 02:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADIL 3RR 

message: The fuller democgraphics, census, and official counts table, known to Western research, has been added back -- each and every figure is fully referenced, discussed, and verifiable. There is simply no arguing with the fact that ethnic Armenian population gradually rose over the 19th century in mountaneous Karabakh, whilst Azerbaijani population decreased. --AdilBaguirov 04:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This table should not be removed -- it should be expanded. The percentage increase/decreases are representative of the NK as much as the historic Karabakh, since Armenians, as Armenian writers remind us, concentrated in the mountaneous parts. Thus, most Armenian settlers from Ottoman and Iranian empires that were resettled in 19th century to Karabakh, went on to live in the mountaneous sections -- such as the village Maragha, which even put an obelisk to commemorate the 150th anniversary of resettlement from Iran in 1978 (later the obelisk was destroyed, but photos remain). --AdilBaguirov 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fuller census should not be removed, since this is a total violation of all applicable Wikipedia rules of NPOV and verifiability. And the excuse that users such as Vartanm and Fadix try to use do not apply, since first of all, none of the censuses from before 1926 and after 1989 apply to NKAO -- the classic definition of Mountaneous Karabakh. Secondly, all official censuses (unlike the 1921 so-called "census"), especially when using relative numbers (percentages), still give us a correct and true picture of the demographic situation, since Armenians lived mostly in Mountaneous parts, and thus all censuses that showed Armenian population by default applied mostly to NK. As Prof. Cornell remarked on this occassion, "it is nevertheless certain that the overall increase in Armenian population was due to an increasing migration of Armenians to Mountainous Karabakh or an exodus of Muslims from the region." Prof. Svante E. Cornell, "Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus", Curzon Press/Routledge, 2001, p. 68 So stop removing the table. --AdilBaguirov 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Atabek are we back to revert warring? Vartanm 04:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fadix didn't "debunk" anything - he only showed his bad faith when he selectively quoted Cornell, by quoting only the first half of the sentence (I later provided the second half, to complete the quote). History doesn't begin at any given period, I am the one who always reminds that. However, we are bound by the Wikipedia's Verifiability clause, and thus should provide only those historic facts which are authoritative, academic and verifiable -- which applies to each and every single portion of my fuller table. That is the fuller demographics table is based on all the verifiable academic and official sources -- and if you have more, please add them. Removing he fuller table is against the rules. Meanwhile, none of you, Vartanm and MarshallBagramyan, objected to using non-NKAO "censuses" from after 1989 and before 1926 (the only official Soviet census period). Indeed, some have selectively started their HIStory from 1921 AGRICULTURAL census, that was further selectively interpreted by an Armenian researcher R.Kocharyan and published in mid-1920s, to show the "94%" mythical figure. Of course, no NKAO existed at the time of the 1921 agricultural census, and what Kocharyan did was to simply include only Armenian populated villages and exclude Azerbaijani one's. At the same time, whilst the definition of NK varries from scholar to scholar (e.g., Hovanissian's is different from Potto), everyone agrees that overwhelming majority of Armenians of Karabakh lived in Mountaneous part of Karabakh. As such, the whole demagoguery about "Karabakh and NK are not the same" is just a weak excuse that doesn't stand up to a scholarly test, because any increase of Armenians with a simultaneous decrease of Muslims applies to NK as much as it does to all of Karabakh. That's why prof. Cornell continued his sentence, which Fadix preferred to not quote: "[i]t is nevertheless certain that the overall increase in Armenian population was due to an increasing migration of Armenians to Mountainous Karabakh or an exodus of Muslims from the region." So the table should stay and should not be disrupted by you. --AdilBaguirov 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, return and read carefully what I have said, I did quote Cornell and I did say what he say next, I have never hidded any informations at all I also added that Cornell provided not footnote for his assertion. As for the rest of the things you say about 1921, original research, not long ago you did even not know the figures represented 1921. Fad (ix) 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fuller Demographics and Census table added back 

message: I think the map of Nagorno Karabakh should include the liberated territorries as well (like Qazakh, Kalbajar, Fizuli and Lachin).
:No. --Golbez 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of Qazakh, Golbez: can you please check out the discussion at User talk:Atabek#Qazakh and User talk:Khoikhoi#Regarding Qazakh over the word "occupied"? Please let me know what your opinion is on the matter. Thanks, Khoikhoi 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a glance but last track quickly; can you give me a cliff's notes on what the argument is, please? --Golbez 23:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute is over the sentence "During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenia gained control of Yukhari Askipara and Barkhudarli, the two exclaves of Qazakh." Atabek wants to changed "gained control" to "occupied". I think that the former is more NPOV, but Atabek's argument is "If UN, US State Deparment, Council of Europe say it's occupied, why should Wikipedia say it's controlled." In my opinion, since Armenians will use the word "liberation", control seems to be somewhat of a compromise. Khoikhoi 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd say occupied, and I've never wavered from this front. Nagorno-Karabakh is not occupied (you cannot occupy yourself); Lachin, Barkhudarli, et.al., are. However, I would say that 'control' can be an NPOV compromise, but I can also understand why some would say it's "too" neutral. --Golbez 23:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, thanks. I think the best way to go now is to say "gained control/occupied". Khoikhoi 23:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Anandks007|Axxn]] 14:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 

message: The redundant use of the word "located" is one of the most common errors in English Wikipedia.  It adds no meaning and therefore should be deleted from the first sentence. Korky Day 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant word "located" 

message: The word "officially" in the first sentence implies some office or official has taken a position.  That's true, in this case, of the officials of Azerbaijan.  The officials of Artsakh take the opposite position.  So this unmodified use of the word "officially" is biased.  We could add "according to Azerbaijan" or delete "officially" and re-phrase as "still claimed by Azerbaijan", etc.  --Korky Tashjian Day Korky Day 21:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Officially means that all the international bodies officially recognize Azerbaijans borders, which include Nagorno-Karabakh. Thats very NPOV sentence. If we change that, it will create a spiral of revert wars.  Vartanm 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct, the only authorities that we know of that disagree are the authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh. The UN, EU, OSCE Minsk, even Armenia, say that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan, and they also all agree that it is part of Azerbaijan in a de jure status only. I'm not too happy with official but it was accepted by consensus and as hard as consensus is to find on this topic, I'll live with it. --Golbez 23:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word "officially" 

message: Might I suggest that due to the fact the "current situation" and "international status" sections are becoming increasingly cumbersome, and should be moved and perhaps integrated in to a new article such as Current Status of Nagorno-Karabakh or Current Situation of Nagorno-Karabakh (similar to Kosovo Status Process) so as to keep the section concise, around just to provide a brief summary than 2-3 paragraphs. 
Might also be helpful to desist the article's reliance on online sources.--MarshallBagramyan 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might not be a bad idea. --Golbez 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Create new article for Current Situation/International Status 

message: I have bronze medal devoted to 60th anniversary of NKAO (1983) describing in a very nice artistic way the nature and meaning of NKAO.  I will take the photo of it and place it on NKAO page.  I am looking for active members' support in this. --Ulvi I. 11:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not? Grandmaster 11:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see this too. --Golbez 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols of NKAO