Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast

message: Of course it did -- first off, let's remember that the UN SC has 15 member states, which definitely qualifies for "international community". Secondly, exhaustive quotes were provided to show, for example, that US and EU specifically recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan . However, the UN General Assembly, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)  have also all recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan, as did countries on individual level (you can see some of the links at the bottom of this ref ). Hence, it is correct to say that UN SC and the international community have recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan -- although we could, of course, spell out, and reference, who this international community are. --AdilBaguirov 07:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "The people of the lands all over the world". recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan. Vartanm 07:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: since UN is the largest international organization, with "people of the lands all over the world", and is the true definition of international community, and it recognized it on several occassions, both in UN SC and UN GA, then, once more, it is correct to make the statement I did. Likewise, PACE and OIC are also international community,and they too recognized NK as part of independent Azerbaijan. --AdilBaguirov 07:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article already says that United Nations Security Council reaffirmed NK as part of Azerbaijan. Why would you want to say the same thing over and over again? Vartanm 08:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you change your original position? Good. Well, again, my wording was "light" -- we can either say "UN and the international community", or to spell everything out, say "UN, PACE, OIC, US State Department, and US President", and include references to all those. Indeed, I think the second option might be better to stop this petty debate. --AdilBaguirov 10:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I didn't change my position. by saying international community you imply that everybody in the world see NK as part of Azerbaijan. secondly US State Department and the US President are not international community. US is a single Nation. UN PACE and OIC are international. Vartanm 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't imply anything -- the whole world says: "the international community is concerned by the actions of North Korea", for example (naturally, N.Korea is not). The UN, as well as any large and authoritative international inter-governmental organization that deals with international relations and political processes, can be legitimately labeled "international communnity". Anyhow, I've spelled out the organizations and nations. --AdilBaguirov 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your comperasion makes no sense "People of the lands all over the world" are concerned by actions of North Korea, because North Korea's actions could start a nuclear war. While most "People of the lands all over the world" wouldn't care about Nagorno-Karabakh or Azerbaijan. International community is different then International organizations such as UN PACE OIC etc.... I don't see a reason including all the other organizations. UN being the most popular and influential International organization should be sufficient. Vartanm 00:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have probably not read attentively your own choice of reference, : "The term "international community" is a political phrase that can refer to either:
All the lands represented in United Nations. 
The people of the lands all over the world. 
Shared values and principles among the primary actors within an international system. 
Usage of the expression
It has been claimed that the superpower nations (now mainly the United States, although China and Russia are both capable of intercontinental force projection) use the term to describe organizations in which they play a predominant role, regardless of the opinion of other nations. For example, the Kosovo War was described as an action of the "international community" even though it was undertaken by NATO, which represented under ten percent of the world's population during the Kosovo War, this including Italy and Greece who were in opposition to the involvements.
Notes
Similarly, "international community" is being used by some Western leaders when criticizing Iran for its nuclear ambitions by saying that "Iran is defying the will of the international community by continuing uranium enrichment". The league of non-aligned nations (122 countries out of 193 recognised governments by both the USA and the UK, well over 50%) has in fact backed Iran's right to uranium enrichment. In this case, those countries do not form a part of the "international community"." 
There is also a definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "f : a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests <the international community>"  
Thus, just like you admit with N.Korea example of mine, "international community" does not have to include 100% of nations around the world -- indeed, not even 50% of nations. 
Meanwhile, define "care" about any specific country. I would argue that the nations in Africa and South Pacific do not care about N.Korea much. Moreover, N.Korea is far from having enough nuclear bombs and ICBMs to be a real and present danger to the (entire) international community. In addition, your perception is magnified by the we are contemporaries of these events, whilst the war over NK temporarily stopped 13 years ago, which is a while. But at that time, the international community certainly did "care" more -- exemplified not only by UN SC resolutions and OSCE/CSCE mediation, but many articles and even covers of Western and other media. 
Anyhow, the fact remains that aside from UN SC, other important international actors, all part of, and speaking for, the international community, have also adopted decisions on NK war, recognizing NK as part of Republic of Azerbaijan, and recognizing Armenia's military occupation of NK and other regions. This verifiable fact should certainly be reflected in the article. --AdilBaguirov 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the international community recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan after the break-up of USSR? 

message: I added some information on the population of Armenians on the article any thoughts. Artaxiad 03:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted back to golbez's last version, which in itself was a compromise version. If you want Armenian population in the article, then I will add about Azerbaijani being ethnically cleansed from former NKAO, about its majority before Russia, and about Khojaly massacre, among other things. --AdilBaguirov 06:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you threaten to add these things? when I update pages so your basically telling me if I revert back you will black mail me. Artaxiad 07:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not threatening, but reminding about NPOV. Your version was a complete POV, starting from selective census start, to insertion of Naxcivan, which, as Russians would say, "is from a different opera". Hence, I would welcome a population study, as long as it includes both sides. Otherwise, the easiest is to leave it as it is. --AdilBaguirov 07:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine, Artaxiad 07:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info 

message: Nothing about the circumstances behind its founding, nothing about its settlements or its internal administrative divisions, nothing about its industry or economy during the Soviet period, nothing about official Soviet policies towards it and its inhabitants, nothing about its population makeup and changes over the Soviet period, etc., etc. Meowy 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag I'm referring to is the predecessor state flag (that of the Azerbaijan SSR). There was aslo a flag in the infobox purporting to be the flag of the NKAO, it was actually the flag of the Azerbaijan SSR, so I have removed it. There is meant to be a flag in the infobox if there was a flag used only by the oblast. None of the other oblast articles have flags. Meowy 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A dire article 

message: The article only cites sources which are in favor of the Azerbaijani version of how the region was made in favor of the Armenians and to exclude the Azerbaijanis. It is also ignoring how Stalin redrew the area to include Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan around 1921 as stated by Service, Robert. Stalin: A Biography. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006 p. 204  Ninetoyadome (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert, but wasn't that the point? The Soviet Union drew lines around ethnic groups specifically to include some and exclude others. Anyway, the best thing to do in this case is make edits to fix what you see as wrong. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact it's encouraged. What people shouldn't do is edit war, but if we have a healthy discussion over it then we should be able to get somewhere. --Golbez (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV article 

message: These resolutions are used as examples of resolutions affirming the oblast as part of Azerbaijan. Yet in their texts they rather refer to surrounding territory. Is there an interpretation or detail I am missing? Maidyouneed (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN resolutions 822, 853, 874, and 884