Talk:Karki, Azerbaijan

message: Adil you need to stop reverting to your own version. You keep on saying there was a compromise in the discussion page, but I don't see any compromise. Until then it should be left this way until we can come to an agreement in the discussion page. ROOB323 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nice to see that you decided to use a Talk page for a change, as you are generally very busy reverting pages. Anyhow, compromise was reached, since the only "problem" was about the claim about destruction of an Azerbaijani cemetery in Karki by Armenians -- the link is to an Azerbaijani source. As Armenian user Eupator offered, "You can't have any Azeri or Turkish sources used in this article unless you want to add "According to Azeris and Turks..." before every sentence" -- to which I agreed, and inserted that clarification. Meanwhile, all other links are to third-party NPOV, and should not be removed. Thus, reverting the version I've edited is contrary to Wikipedia's rules on NPOV and verifiability. If you have some specific problem with any wording, discuss it here, otherwise, they stand. Likewise with links/URLs, as they have been all presented and discussed. --AdilBaguirov 06:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording of the article is NPOV, it correctly identifies the sources of the information, as requested above by one of the reverting editors, Eupator. My comment left above gives more details. --adil 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aivazovsky, why are you reverting fully sourced info? The links are all third-party, English-language, from US sources, and the language has been made as NPOV as it gets. Unless you have a factual dispute and/or the sources are not verifiable and otherwise very biased, you cannot revert. --adil 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adil, I never agreed to any of your additions and I furthermore explained why they don't work.  Again, all one needs to do is see the URLs of your sources to find their bias: azeri.ws, azerbaijanfoundation.org, echo-az.info, azembassy.gr, etc. -- Aivazovsky 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pause from reverting for now 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Karki, Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081119141040/http://www.cag.edu.az/Azerbaycan-Respublikasi.pdf to http://www.cag.edu.az/Azerbaycan-Respublikasi.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @Mastersun25 the correct terminology is captured, since not a single country other than perhaps Azerbaijan refers to Karki or the other exclaves/enclaves as occupied. Nagorno Karabakh may be de jure considered part of Azerbaijan but it is not considered "occupied by Armenia", is it?
:I am puzzled by your argumentation. What do you mean by "not a single country other than perhaps Azerbaijan refers to Karki or the other exclaves/enclaves as occupied"? Are you sure about that? Do you have a prove of this notion? Karki was a terrotory of Azerbaijani SSR whose legal descendant is modern-day Azerbaijan, and is a de-jure Azerbaijan's exclave within Armenia, same as Artsvashen is a de-jure Armenian exclave within Azerbaijan. Both were captured during the first Karabakh war in the early 90s, both occupied. Also unlike these exclaves, NKAO had a status of autonomy within Azerbaijani SSR, so these examples are not to be compared. --Mastersun25 (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mate, Kelbajar has the word "occupied" attributed to it because, well UN called it occupied in a Security Council resolution. Now if you can cite some important countries or organisations that attribute the word "occupied" to this exclaves, then you are free to keep it as occupied, instead of captured. East Jerusalem is considered occupied because the UN called it occupied. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understood your agrumentation in this case, but unfortunately we do not have and can not expect a UN resolution for a 19 km piece of land that was occupied 30 years ago. But it does not change the fact that it is technically an occupation --Mastersun25 (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia isn't up for interpretation, if you can provide a reliable source like UN stating that it is occupied, then as I said I'll let the word "occupied" be attributed to it, if not then this discussion is over. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I got your point. Would you mind changing the word "occupied" in the Artsvashen article as well then? Just to keep it objective. --Mastersun25 (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can do that, I wouldn't mind. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree there should have been a discussion on the Artsvashen page as well. But I think it is fair to compare the two exclaves since they have similar political status but from the different sides of the conflict, so I think that if we do not mention the fact of occupation here, we shouldn't do in the Artsvashen article as well. I am glad we have reached some kind of consensus at least regarding this issue. --Mastersun25 (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captured or occupied 

message: @Historianarm Please cease edit-warring, repeatedly replacing "Karki" with "Tigranashen" against consensus and Wikipedia norms is not appropriate. I suggest you read the Wikipiedia policy WP:ONUS before making further edits, also see the message I left on your talk page. – Olympian loquere 04:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive edits