Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 7

message: *Azerbaijani position: Nagorno-Karabakh is a non-autonomous part of Azerbaijan 
*Armenian position: Nagorno-Karabakh seceded legally, according to the laws of the day. The territory in question has never been within the jurisdiction of independent Azerbaijan. , 
*Position of Security Council of United Nations: Security Council recognizes NK as a region of Azerbaijan, and supports territorial integrity of the Azerbaijan Republic and inviolability of international borders.  
*Position of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE): NK is a region with disputed political status, currently under control of separatist forces. PACE Resolution 1416, PACE Recommendation 1690
*Council of Europe position: NK is a region under control of de facto authorities, whose status is subject to ongoing negotiations. COE Press Release
* Rapporteur D. Atkinson's position: NK is a region of Azerbaijan, under control of separatists who have established a "government," which are NK's de facto authorities Draft Resolution, Draft Recommendations, and Expanatory Memorandum by Rapporteur, presented by Atkinson to PACE's Political Affairs Committee, Background paper prepared by Directorate General of Political Affairs, attached as an Appendix to Expanatory Memorandum by Rapporteur
*Nagorno-Karabakh Republic position: Nagorno-Karabakh is an independant state. Office of the NKR
*European Union position: According to D. Atkinson EP does not recognize the independence of NK. 
: I disagree with Tigran’s interpretation of PACE position. We may refer this issue to dispute resolution. Grandmaster 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: After the Soviet Union

message: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Lisbon Summit 1996.
ANNEX 1 STATEMENT OF THE OSCE CHAIRMAN-IN-OFFICE  (see page 15)
You all know that no progress has been achieved in the last two years to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the issue of the territorial integrity of the Republic of  Azerbaijan. I regret that the efforts of the Co-Chairmen of the Minsk Conference to reconcile the views of the parties on the principles for a settlement have been unsuccessful. 
Three principles which should form part of the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict were recommended by the Co-Chairmen of the Minsk Group. These principles are supported by all member States of the Minsk Group. They are: 
- territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijan Republic; 
- legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh defined in an agreement based on self-determination which confers on Nagorno-Karabakh the highest degree of self-rule within Azerbaijan; 
- guaranteed security for Nagorno-Karabakh and its whole population, including mutual obligations to ensure compliance by all the Parties with the provisions of the settlement. 
I regret that one participating State could not accept this. These principles have the support of all other participating States. 
This statement will be included in the Lisbon Summit documents.
Grandmaster 10:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are principles suggested by OSCE for the final determination of NKR's status. They are not recognition of NK's current status as part of Azerbaijan--OSCE cannot make such determination, as it would undermine the very negotiation process which it itself monitors.--TigranTheGreat 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, Armenia and NKR respect Azerbaijan's right of territorial integrity too. They just hold the position that Azerbaijan's territory does not and has not contained NK ever since its independence. So, the principles of territorial integrity and NK's self-determination are not contradictory.--TigranTheGreat 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OSCE 

message: The Republic of Azerbaijan is a country of great physical variety and complicated boundaries. Its territory of 33,774 square miles (about the size of Maine or Portugal), includes one autonomous region, Nagorno Karabakh (currently occupied by Armenian forces); one autonomous republic, Nakhchivan
Azerbaijan’s history since independence has been dominated by the conflict with Armenians over Nagorno Karabakh. Violence began as ethnic strife in 1988, but escalated into full blown war after the collapse of Soviet power. Armenian forces made sweeping gains, and the May 1994 ceasefire left Armenians in control of the southwestern fifth of Azerbaijan. Fighting resulted in some 800,000 internally displaced persons, most of whom have yet to be resettled. As many as 120,000 ethnic Armenians live in Nagorno Karabakh and other Armenian occupied territories of Azerbaijan. 
Grandmaster 12:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Department of State position: 

message: According to the paper, "Where Secretariat views are given, the are clearly marked as Comment" (pg. 12), . Plus, the segment on NK's legal status says "seems impossible" instead of making firm statement that it's de jure independence is impossible--it's making a remark based on the text of the law. By the way, as the footnote to that very sentence states, "References to legal texts are taken from various sources without independent check against the original legal texts - except where explicitly presented as quotations." so whether this is the view adopted by the authors or not is suspect. At any rate, in Wikipedia, we let the readers conclude if it disagrees or not, we don't impose our interpretations.
The PACE resolution never directly states "NK region of Azerbaijan," this is a basic fact that needs to be mentioned.--TigranTheGreat 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You attribute your views to them, it against the rules, I think that they confirmed NK being part of Azerbaijan. We should just cite the source and let the readers judge. Grandmaster 06:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do no such thing. I am not saying "Res. doesn't consider it." I am saying "it doesn't state it" which is a fact, and it's not apparent from your quotes of the text. Whether it implies/means/considers, the readers will decide from the text that you added. --TigranTheGreat 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is your POV you try to push into the article. Just cite the source and let the readers decide. Resolution claims that the region is under control of separatist forces. Separatist forces are those who try to separate a region from a country, which means that the region in question is part of the country. Don’t give your own interpretations, nobody needs them, let the reader decide. Grandmaster 13:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do no such thing. We don't just cite the source, we provide facts and then let the readers decide. One fact is the ommission of a statement "NK, part of Azerbaijan." Readers don't need to search the entire document to find out that it's not there, we provide this basic fact, and let them decide. Now, this: "Separatist forces are those who try to separate a region from a country, which means that the region in question is part of the country" is your POV. Mine is "control under separatists" means "the region *used* to be part of the country, but now they have already separated the region from it" As you see, you are trying to push your POV, while I am not. The ommission is a fact, and that fact shall be stated.--TigranTheGreat 00:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your “provision of facts” is simply an attempt to present your POV as a fact. I’m telling you again, just give the citation and let the readers judge, nobody needs your interpretation. Grandmaster 06:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, and nobody needs your POV pushing either. I agree that we give facts and let users interpret them as well. Omission of a statement stating "NK is part of Azerbaijan" is a fact. It's important fact, since Atkinson says "NK is part of Azerbaijan," and the PACE resolution does not. I added both Atkinson's and PACE statements. We will give these facts (including the omission), and let readres decide whether to agree with your interpretation or not. I am not saying your interpretation is wrong (though I think it is), I am just saying let readers decide whether PACE is confiriming that NK is part of Az. or not.--TigranTheGreat 00:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don’t give my interpretation, you don’t need to either. Just cite the course, let the readers judge. Grandmaster 06:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see you don't know the meaning of "cite." "Cite" means giving the name of the author. Quote means actually copying the text. We never just cite or quote. Saying that PACE doesn't refer to NK as part of Azerbaijan is a fact. Wiki rules state that facts should be included. So that info should stay.--TigranTheGreat 12:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is another point for dispute resolution. I don’t think you should include your personal comments into the text. Grandmaster 16:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Int. Status Section 

message: While we don't call people terrorists ourselves in Wikipedia, we should include that Basayev is considered a terrorist. He is listed in Terrorist Knowledge base (), and his terrorist career began in 1991 with Russian plane hijacking (actually his Wiki article (Shamil Basayev) states that after this late 1991 event, he participated in ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia, before moving to NK). Here is his info from TKB.
The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) is a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing terrorism on U.S. soil or mitigating its effects. MIPT was established after the April 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, and it is funded through the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Grants and Training (G&T). 
By the way, TKB is perhaps the most comprehensive terrorist database, "the one-stop resource for comprehensive research and analysis on global terrorist incidents, terrorism-related court cases, and terrorist groups and leaders."(http://www.tkb.org/AboutTKB.jsp) It's funded by US Homeland Security and directed by US Congress "to conduct research into the social and political causes and effects of terrorism through our automated information systems and to serve as a national point of contact for antiterrorism information sharing among Federal, State and local agencies."
: Basayev was not a terrorist when he fought in Karabakh, don’t forget to mention that. He became a terrorist after the war in Chechnya and his raid to Budennovsk, but that was later. Grandmaster 06:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the source clearly mentions, his terrorist career began with the Russian plane hijacking (which was late 1991). This is even on the Shamil Basayev article. He also ethnically cleansed Georgians in Abhkazia before NK, which is terrorism too (use of violance against civilians for political gain).--TigranTheGreat 22:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basayev 

message: I have added notes at History and geography and Politics for people to come and weigh in on this dispute. 
I have also started an RfC here. - FrancisTyers 18:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I got it right, I need to explain my position there by filling in for one of the position lines? Grandmaster 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, please try and be as succinct as possible :) - FrancisTyers 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Francis. I’m glad you’re back. Can we comment on comments? Grandmaster 18:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, yeah, you should outline your position under one of the "Position" subheadings. One per user. - FrancisTyers 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would not mind if we could archive some of the discussions here, the page takes too long to load. We can keep the most relevant parts and archive the rest. For example, positions of international community need to stay. Grandmaster 18:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I was waiting, hoping for a lull, but there we are... :) - FrancisTyers 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Francis. It’s a lot better now. Grandmaster 19:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I voted on both in case people didn't realise what was supposed to happen. No-one had voted so I wanted to point out in the easiest way possible. I will now remove my votes. To be honest I don't agree with either side, I think that arguing about this particular dispute is a huge waste of time. - FrancisTyers 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: I suggest for the RFC the following issues, which caused a dispute between me and TigranTheGreat  
1. He regularly deletes the following info: 
Russian Minister of Defense Igor Rodionov in his letter to Aman Tuleyev, Minister of cooperation with CIS countries, said a Defense Ministry commission had determined that a large quantity of Russian weapons, including 84 T-72 tanks and 50 armored personnel carriers, were illegally transferred to Armenia in 1994 – 96, after the ceasefire, for free and without authorization by the Russian government.
This information is well sourced and has direct relevance to the conflict. It should remain in the article. 
2. He adds his personal interpretation of the PACE resolution to the International status section. He adds a line that “resolution # 1416 adopted by PACE, does not refer to Nagorno-Karabakh as "part of Azerbaijan”, while it clearly does by stating “separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region”. If the region is under the control of separatists, it belongs to the country they try to separate from. It is enough just to provide a quotation and let the readers judge what it says. He also constantly removes the following line from the same quotation: “and reaffirms the right of displaced persons from the area of conflict to return to their homes safely and with dignity”. This needs to be stopped. 
3. He added to the article very dubious facts, such as: 
1. According to EurasiaNet, unidentified sources have stated that Arab guerrilla Ibn al-Khattab joined Basayev in Azerbaijan between 1992-1993, although this is dismissed by the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense. The article, to which the reference is made, states: Some say he joined the Chechen guerrillas fighting on Azerbaijan’s side during the 1992-93 Nagorno-Karabakh war, though Ashurov and the Ministry of Defense’s spokesman dismiss this idea. 
2. According to Armenian news agency Noyan Tapan, Rokhlin openly lobbied for the interests of Azerbaijan. The article, to which the reference is made, states: Rokhlin, as is known, openly lobbied for the interests of Azerbaijan.  (In Russian)
These statements are not supported by any reliable evidences and compromise the quality of the article. Grandmaster 11:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another proposal for RFC 

message: Below is the summary of the facts, some of which have been already posted by GM, which give enough evidence to end this useless discussion about Nagorno-Karabakh being de jure part of Azerbaijan and de facto under Armenian control. 
I ask all (Armenian) users not to alter the integrity of this posting and avoid inserting comments in between this post. If somebody wants to comment on these facts, let him(her) post a separate message. I will consider any attempt to alter the integrity of this message as a lack of good faith and a deliberate attempt to confuse the public and I reserve right to delete any comments/posts inserted inside of this message.
Formulations by the United Nations:
(explicit references to Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan)
UN SC Res 874 
“Expressing its serious concern that a continuation of the conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic…”
...
“Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic and of all other States in the region...“
UN SC Res 884
 
“Expressing its serious concern that a continuation of the conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic, and of the tensions between the Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijani Republic, would endanger peace and security in the region…”
...
“Calls upon the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve
compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993) and 874 (1993)…”''
Formulations by the US State Department
(Refer to NK as part of Azerbaijan; state the fact that the area is occupied by Armenians)
"The United States does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country, and its leadership is not recognized internationally or by the United States. The United States supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and holds that the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of negotiation between the parties.” 
(Source: "The United States and the Conflict Over Nagorno-Karabakh", Fact Sheet, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Washington, DC, February 7, 2005, ).
"We continue to work together to support the aspirations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to further integrate into the Euro-Atlantic family...The U.S. and EU recognize the challenge to security and stability of the South Caucasus and Black Sea regions posed by the unresolved conflicts in the area of Eurasia. We support the territorial integrity of Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan and cooperate to facilitate international efforts to achieve peaceful political settlements to the conflicts over Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh;" 
(Source: "U.S.-EU Cooperation on Reform in Eurasia", Fact Sheet, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Washington, DC, February 17, 2005,
).
“The Republic of Azerbaijan is a country of great physical variety and complicated boundaries. Its territory of 33,774 square miles (about the size of Maine or Portugal), includes one autonomous region, Nagorno Karabakh (currently occupied by Armenian forces); one autonomous republic, Nakhchivan, which is separated from Azerbaijan proper by the Zangezur Region of Armenia; and several clusters of small islands in the Caspian Sea.”
…
“As many as 120,000 ethnic Armenians live in Nagorno Karabakh and other Armenian occupied territories of Azerbaijan” US State Dept – Post Reports
Formulations by the Council of Europe
(Refer to NK as part of Azerbaijan; state the fact that the area is occupied by Armenians)
“Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region.” 
(PACE Resolution 1416, 2005 )
“Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces. The military action, and the widespread ethnic hostilities which preceded it, led to large-scale ethnic expulsion and the creation of mono-ethnic areas which resemble the terrible concept of ethnic cleansing. Separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region…”
...
Armenians had established a “government” in the Nagorno-Karabkah region with its “capital” in Stepanakert (or Khankendi in Azerbaijani). This “government” is not recognised by any of the Council of Europe member states, nor by the OSCE, European Union and the United Nations. Armenia maintains close political, economic and military relations with them, but does not recognise the area as an independent state and hence has not established diplomatic relations with this “government”.
(Source: PACE Report “The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference”, Doc. 10364, 29 November 2004 / “Atkinson report”/  )
(Council of Europe does not recognize legitimacy of “elections” in Nagorno-Karabakh)
“The 43-nation Council of Europe today called on the Nagorno-Karabakh de facto authorities to refrain from staging the one-sided "local self-government elections" in the province…These so-called 'elections' cannot be legitimate," stressed Council of Europe Committee of Ministers' Chairman and Liechtenstein Foreign Minister Ernst Walch, Parliamentary Assembly President Lord Russell-Johnston and Secretary General Walter Schwimmer.” 
CoE Press Release
As GM mentioned, even an Armenian author refers to 
"The status of Nagorno-Karabakh as "de facto independent state-de jure part of Azerbaijan" 
International Crisis Group formulation:
“Nagorno-Karabakh is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan yet it functions largely as an independent entity whose military and economic security is guaranteed by Armenia.”
ICG, "Nagorno-Karabakh: Viewing the Conflict from the Ground", Europe Report N°166, 14 September 2005 
BBC Profiles: Regions and Territories: Nagorno-Karabakh
(Subsection: FACTS)'''
Status: de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan, unilaterally declared itself an independent republic in 1991 
“Nagorno-Karabakh is legally part of Azerbaijan but has been controlled by Armenians since a war of 1988 to 1994.”
No agreement on Nagorno-Karabakh, 11 February, 2006
:::Tabib after all those months you have been a Wikipedian, you still have no clue about Wikipedia policies, maybe you should first read and try to comprehend those links in your userspace that refers to them. Let me repeat this for the hundreths time. The de facto republic of Karabakh DENIES it being de Jure part of Azerbaijan, IT DENIES IT, is this hard for you to understand? Also, just the title of your copypast job again is a clear evidence that you still fail to understand that there is no such thing as 'facts' on positions in Wikipedia. The only time facts apply, is for instance when I claim that Baku is Baku and when I apply a name for a country, a person, a city etc., or when there is an article on a mathematical identity, or a direct word(example, a car is a car, a plane is a plane etc.). I trust that you are intelligent enought to understand this, and since I have been trying to make you understand that for a long time and that you are intelligent enought to understand it, either you refuse to leave your preconcieved beliefs out of Wikipedia and read what others have to say, or either you are doing it on purpouses.
:::So, now, let me try this again. De Jure IS AN OBSERVATION, Karabakh elect its government, does it elect it or not? It recieves loans and manage them, its independence as de facto is an observation and it is an application of a definition... it is a de facto republic and no one denies that, because it does have its president, it does have its minister of finance and the de facto republic is managed by this government. While Karabakh government denies that it is de Jure part of Azerbaijan, they still do aknowledge that IT IS officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan by the international community, and here even this is problematic, since the French world has a more balanced and tend to consider it more a disputed land. If you read French newspapers you will see what I mean. Even Swissinfo or such newspapers cover it such. Example, in an article of Feb 24, this newspaper writes: La république autoproclamée du Nagorny-Karabakh a fait sécession de l´Azerbaïdjan à l'issue d'un conflit qui a fait près de 25'000 morts et des centaines de milliers de déplacés entre 1988 et 1994. This is what is says, it doesn't even say more..., the first information you will find is either it is a self-prolcamed republic that separated itself from Azerbaijan and that is not recognized, or either it is a de facto state that is still officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan. You can NOT use interpretations from articles and present them as established facts, this is not how an encyclopedia works. Also, every other such articles present FIRST the locality and THEN what is officially recognized, WHY SHOULD KARABAKH ANY DIFFERENT, IS THERE BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME POV PUSHER that are here to push their POV. Also, I have seen that you have not changed the slightest, adding a totallydisputed tag and reffering to the talk page for the Armenian genocide entry, when even those opposing to the removal of the POV tage refused the uses of the totallydisputed tag. Fad (ix) 17:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarizing Nagorno-Karabakh: de jure part of Azerbaijan, de facto under Armenian control. Dry Facts w/o comments 

message: User:Slaciner just added the following external links to the article. They don't seem to have a lot of substance, they're all to the user's own site, and the site has ads. I'm reverting them as linkspam for now - if any of them are worthwhile, presumably someone else will add them back to the article. Someone might want to check his edit for other issues, too. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: We need someone with neutral information about the conflict on the Nagorno-Karabakh war page. It is currently under heavy Armenian POV, only neutral user I see there is El_C.--Kagan the Barbarian 21:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armenian POV is obvious since the lead section states that the NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world. I suspect that Khankendi was renamed to Stepanakert because Shaumyan only helped the USSR. 195.150.224.238 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course obvious: while the article writes that the region was conquered by Tigranes II only in 95 BC, even the armenianreality.com states that from 4th century BC to 8th century AD the territory was one of the provinces of Caucasian Albania, the most ancient state of Northern Azerbaijan. Brand a.k.a. Alitus, 11:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nagorno-Karabakh war page 

message: Where did this article get its figures of 528,000 displaced Azerbaijanis? CIA factbook states 800,000, while globalsecurity cites 900,000. --A.Garnet 15:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azeri displaced figures 

message: Any variation of "NKR" acronym usage should be both taken in quotes, and added so-called or self-styled, like is norm in any reputable news article. Moreover, the political and legal definition of the "military control" is occupation and it is illegal and condemned by 4 UN SC resolutions, PACE resolution, OIC resolutions, etc. Likewise, whenever one says that "independence" was proclaimed (by whom? on what basis? in consistence with which law?) the term "illegally" should be used. The page absolutely doesn't mention that all attempts by Armenia and Armenians to have NK succeed from Azerbaijan SSR since 1988 were rejected and overrulled by USSR Supreme Soviet (Parliament), and the whole 1991 "independence" was of course illegal as there was no way for succession of an autonomous region from a union republic -- this was prohibited under the USSR Constitution, highest law in the nation. 
Then, the Azerbaijani ethymology of the word Artsakh should be provided (Ar/Land Sak/of Saks/Scythians) and it should be mentioned that "Artsakh" was definitely not the oldest name of the province -- e.g., before that was the name of Orkhistene for Artsakh. Moreover, Karabakh consists of two ancient provinces -- Artsakh and Uti. Just as Artsakh had a more ancient name, so did Uti, which was Otene, and it was right next to Sakasena (left bank of Terter river) -- where we see the "Sak(a)" term again.  --AdilBaguirov 08:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs certain improvement from the standpoint of legal, political and historical aspects 

message: The history section, was getting very comprehensive, so I split it out into History of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is normal. I'd encourage people to copyedit what I left in, I'd prefer you take a reductionist rather than expansionist approach, but whatever works. Do we have any information on the Economy, Education, Demographics, Politics, etc. normal country stuff ? - FrancisTyers · 10:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one problem -- NK is not a "country". If we start dwelling into conuntry-stuff, then we need to create similar pages for all other regions of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, etc. Whilst Armenia has only a dozen regions, Azerbaijan has about 59 plus separate regions in large cities. It would create a nightmare. Plus, there are only few reliable and concrete notes about occupied territories, including Karabakh, from OSCE, State Dept., and Western journalists.  --AdilBaguirov 20:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is de-facto independent. Now, I have no feelings on the matter personally (independence or whatever), but this is an encyclopaedia and we shouldn't get bogged down in ethnic disputes. - FrancisTyers · 20:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still, Armenia occupies 16% of Azerbaijan, of which former NKAO is only half. The other half are another 7 administrative regions of Azerbaijan Republic. As OSCE and US State Dept and foreign journalists attest, all the resources from those 7 regions were and are stripped away, they are being settled, etc. Thus, does it mean that the "NK" page's Economy, Demography, etc., would include that too, or somehow limit itself only to the NK proper, in the pre-1991 boundaries of the NKAO? --AdilBaguirov 22:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Education would deal with education within the borders of the self-declared republic, not within territories which are outside its self-declared borders which it is occupying. Same goes for the others. - FrancisTyers · 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: This has gotten a bit out of control, with repeated statements thrown everywhere. I've made some changes to the province section to attempt to NPOVify it a little more and explain things better. What do you think, Adil? And I don't deny in the least that I had a major part in riling things up, at least I think they're riled up. If not, they're getting there. --Golbez 22:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Golbez, why did you revert the page? The "self-styled" was agreed to by FrancisTyers on 00:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider this my objection. --Golbez 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Warning? You need to stop representing it as dangerous please. As for Shahumian, that is mentioned in a footnote - again, these are the SELF-DECLARED divisions of N-K. They can claim they own Moscow and we'll mention it, with a nice footnote pointing out how idiotic such a claim is. --Golbez 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I am not misrepresenting anyone -- you clearly said what you said, which is "let's leave the "self-styled"". Once again, I've cited it extensively, and shown that every respectable publication and organization mentions so-called "NKR" only like that. Secondly, both of my quotes are valid and must be present in the article - they are crucial to anyone's understanding and status of the region. Obviously, with regards to such uncontrolled territories in war-torn zones, the most important issue is that of its military-political status -- it eclipses everything else. And all readers have the right to know what happened. CIA has such a wording twice, including in their lead/intro paragraph -- why is Wiki any different? As of US Presidential Determination -- I think it speaks for itself, if a US President put his name on such a document. I can bring a few more State Department quotes, if necessary. Thus, I do not understand why are you reverting and otherwise removing these quotes? The current page is Armenian POV, not neutral. I hope no one here will accuse US president and CIA of being "Azerbaijan POV" or otherwise having a horse in the race, and not being neutral. Let's put both of them back in and then agree on the map. --AdilBaguirov 23:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went through the page and I find it to be rather neutral. Just my opinion, of course. And the Azerbaijan POV is well-represented - we point out that they claim it, that all nations say it's part of Azerbaijan. What's the problem? All we then do is point out that while they claim it, and everyone says they own it, they lack military control over the bulk of the territory, meaning it is de facto independent. The line of control is rather static. There are negotiations ongoing as to the future of N-K and the NKR. Please, Adil, dispense with the platitudes and just tell us, straight out: What is POV about this article? Point out a section or paragraph or sentence, and then say what POV is leans towards. That will help us, rather than these broad statements about the US State Department and Shahumian. --Golbez 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to calm down 

message: 10) “Annex A: Assessments of Progress in Meeting the Standards of Section 498A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
Section 498A(a)(4): "respect international law and obligations and adhere to the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Charter of Paris, including the obligations to refrain from the threat or use of force and to settle disputes peacefully." 
In November 1999, Armenia joined the other OSCE states in signing the Charter for European Security, which reaffirms full adherence to all OSCE documents already in force. However, Armenia does not recognize the borders of Azerbaijan as defined in OSCE documents at the time of accession. Armenia facilitated the opening of an OSCE office in Yerevan in 2000. As a result of the continuing conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenian military forces occupy a portion of the territory of Azerbaijan. <…..>
Section 498A(a)(6): "implement responsible security policies, including-- 
(A) adhering to arms control obligations derived from agreements signed by the former Soviet Union; (B) reducing military forces and expenditures to a level consistent with legitimate defense requirements; (C) not proliferating nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, their delivery systems, or related technologies; and (D) restraining conventional weapons transfers." 
<……> Armenian compliance with CFE has been uneven. In addition to Armenia's longstanding failure to properly notify or carry out reductions required by the Treaty, there are serious concerns about the completeness of Armenia's data on equipment holdings. Also of concern are: evidence that Armenia may have failed to notify increases in unit holdings involving CFE Treaty limited equipment transferred from Russia, the fact that Armenia continues to station troops and CFE limited equipment on the territory of Azerbaijan without Azerbaijani permission, and evidence that Armenia made a late notification of the entry into service of multiple rocket launchers purchased from China. Another area of concern is Armenia’s failure to report the apparent transfer of TLE from Russia in the mid-1990s. There has been no change in this issue by the Armenians.
Armenia is not a significant exporter of conventional weapons, but has provided substantial support, including materiel, to separatists in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan.”
Source: CRITERIA FOR U.S. ASSISTANCE UNDER SECTION 498A(a) OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT. ARMENIA. U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Eurasia   -FY 2003, Released by the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, January 2004, http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rpt/c13148.htm
11) “The U.S. and EU recognize the challenge to security and stability of the South Caucasus and
Black Sea regions posed by the unresolved conflicts in the area of Eurasia. We support the
territorial integrity of Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan and cooperate to facilitate
international efforts to achieve peaceful political settlements to the conflicts over Transnistria,
South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh;”
Source: “U.S.-EU Cooperation on Reform in Eurasia”, Fact Sheet, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Washington, DC, February 17, 2005, http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/42562.htm
--AdilBaguirov 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional quotes