Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 16

Extent of NK
Y'all are gonna kill me for this. But the NKAO is the kidney bean, we know this. But in the description in the intro, it says NK lies between Lower Karabakh and Zangezur. Yet there's obviously a sizable chunk of Azerbaijan between the NKAO and Zangezur. So ... What is that? Is that part of Azerbaijan also part of NK (but not the NKAO, obviously), or is there a gap between Karabakh and Zangezur? --Golbez (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure I'm writing in the correct place to reply Golbez question about area between former NKAO and Zangezur. Anyway, let's try: first it need to be determined what we are talking about Nagorno-Karabakh or NKAO? The Karabakh or Artsakh as a whole occupies quite large area, and includes Upper and Mountainous Karabakh. Nagorno or Mountainous Karabakh lays to east of Zangezur or Syunik, while Nagorno-Karabakh, after being attached to Azerbaijani SSR occupied almost the whole area of Nagorno-Karabakh geographic region. Later Azerbaijani Soviet government decided to form Red Kurdistan autonomy for all Kurds to have a place to go, and took the part right beside Zangezur for it. In the result NKAO and Zangezur lost any common border. After 6 years, in 1929 Red Kurdistan was annuled, and the territory was not given back to NKAO. That brought to the map we had in end of Soviet collapse - NKAO and Zangezur.

Actually the article Nagorno-Karabakh needs to determine whether it is about the geographic region Nagorno-Karabakh or what? If the first, then certain changes need to be undertaken, first the map need to be changed, because it shows NKAO, which is different from Nagorno-Karabakh geographical region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 517design (talk • contribs) 10:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That was what I was getting at; does the NKAO match the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh, because it seemed from the text that the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh (incl. Zangezur on one side) didn't match the NKAO. Grandmaster probably has a point with that one, I know Karabakh existed for a long time as a political entity but NK perhaps did not until the Soviets made it one. As for whether it's about the region, yes, I think that's the goal here. The NKAO, NKR, and NK all get separate articles. --Golbez (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They all need to be separated. The current version is incorrect, because the viewer entering Nagorno-Karabakh sees NKAO, which doesn't exist any longer, was formed during Soviet years, certain lands removed and only a tiny bean remained. Let NKAO map and description is put in NKAO article. We need to find a precise map of Nagorno-Karabakh geographical region. Moreover they all need to link to Karabakh article, which includes Mountainous and Lower Karabakh to separate all the terms from each other. 517design (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no such geographic region as Nagorno-Karabakh. The region is called Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh is a political entity, and was a Soviet invention. Soviets selected the areas in Karabakh where the Armenian population prevailed, and made it an autonomy within Azerbaijan. Mountainous part of Karabakh in fact covers a larger territory, but it never was a geographic region on its own. So NK as a region corresponds to the territory of former NKAO. Grand  master  13:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nagorno-Karabakh term goes under mountainous part of Karabakh leaving Lower Karabakh apart, so mentioning Nagorno-Karabakh we mean geographic part of Karabakh region. No problem about it.517design (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is kind of strange that the article does not have a single Azerbaijani picture. It would be good to maintain balance and present not just the Armenian view. It is not directed at anyone personally, but it is quite obvious that photos need to be selected to represent both Azerbaijani and Armenian community. Grand master  13:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently NKR is sovereign and it is not strange that Azeris do not make any photos there.517design (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should elaborate on exactly what I mean, simply enough: The text says Nagorno-Karabakh lies between Zangezur and Lower Karabakh. Yet the map depicts specifically the NKAO, which means there is a gap between Nagorno-Karabakh and Zangezur. Now, the argument that Nagorno-Karabakh is not a classical region, fine, I buy that, so therefore NK = the NKAO. I guess I'm being too literal; just because a region is said to be between two others doesn't mean it has to border both exactly. Or, the mountainous area of Karabakh, while never having been termed Nagornyy-Karabakh, extends to the Armenian border. Or something. --Golbez (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this thorny but essential question, Golbez. It's indeed very important to enunciate what we understand by saying "Nagorno-Karabakh". In regard to that, I would like to remark the following:


 * First, unlike Grandmaster contends, I believe NK is surely not only a political and historical, but also a geographical region. Indeed there has always been a distinction between Lower Karabakh and Upper Karabakh (a name which Azerbaijanis used and use as well). Nagorno-, Mountainous, Highland or Upper Karabakh, as well as Artsakh, Khachen and Khamsa, all are names of the same geo-historical region, the political status of which varied through decades. Even the name "Karabakh" has been more commonly used (and even today is often used) for the Upper Karabakh region, than the Karabakh region proper. Here a quote to substantiate that:


 * Second. I believe it is of vital importance to make clear that the conception of the regions political status one takes as a point of departure, determines also the imagination about the regions geographical extension. Lets illustrate this point with a quote of Charles King:


 * Thus, I think it is necessary to specify in the article (in the intro or a special section) that Nagorno-Karabakh as a part of Azerbijan, as an independent state or as a (former) Autonomous Oblast, are totally different beings. --Vacio (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC) (P.S. The stating that the region lies between Lower Karabakh and Syunik/Zangezur, refers to its geo-historical borders and is drawn from Robert Hewsens mentioned study.)


 * Again, NK never existed as a region before 1920s. While Nagorno translates as mountainous, it was never a separate region. And NK as a region is separated from Armenia by Kelbajar, Lachin and other districts of Azerbaijan. The sources above do not say that NK existed as a stand alone region historically. Even Russian imperial administrative divisions such as Jevanshir and Shusha uyezds included both mountainous and lowland parts of the region. So we need to clarify that NK as a region did not border Armenia. If we are talking about geographic region of Karabakh, then its mountainous part extends right to the border with Armenia, however upper and lower Karabakh historically formed a single region, and geographic concept of Karabakh includes both highlands and lowlands. The history of NK as a historical and political notion starts in 1920s, when it was artificially carved out of Karabakh to become an autonomy for Armenians. It was purely a Soviet invention. Grand  master  07:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not true. The historical territorial Armenian autonomy of Mountainous Karabakh is contigous with the borders of NKR and that reality goes back to the melikdoms at least. The five melikdoms recognized by the Shah were precursors to modern NK. Armenians always maintained their territorial autonomy in NK in the last 2000 years. Szentida (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't Shahumian also considered part of Nagorno-Karabakh, but not part of the NKAO? --Golbez (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of Karabakh - yes, of NK - no. Grand  master  15:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster, I think you are confusing an administrative unit with a geo-historical region, and the latter again with a political one in your argument. The Karabakh region includes Zangezur-Syunik, Nagorno-Karabakh and Lower Karabakh, but these three are different. The first two existed as separate entities before and after the geographic concept of Karabakh appeared. Your claim that NK was an artificial Soviet invention is noting more but an OR, indeed historians state that:


 * Your contention that NK is not bordering Armenia, is also debatable and based on equalizing NK with NKAO, the borders of which were designed by a commission consisting purely of Azerbaijanis. NKAO is not equal to NK. Nagorno-Karabakh is not an enclave and it has an area of approximately 8,223 km2, while the first covered only 4.400 km2. So once again, let's not confuse the different entities with one other. And also, I ask this to everyone of us, let's first use this talkpage to reach a consensus about how we are going to formulate the leading of the article then change it, otherwise we will endless revise it without conformity.--Vacio (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That claim by Hewsen is a very strange one. How the region created by the Soviets could be a "direct lineal descendant" of a medieval kingdom, especially considering that Russia acquired the region as Karabakh khanate? The fact remains that the geographic region is called Karabakh. It has lowland and mountainous parts, but they form a single region. NKAO was an artificial creation of Soviets which left out if it those parts of mountainous Karabakh that had Azerbaijani majority (except Shusha, which at the time of creation was the center of NKAO). So NKAO did not include the whole mountainous part of Karabakh. However, there was never a separate geographic region called Mountainous Karabakh. It has never been recorded in history. The term Mountainous/Nagorno Karabakh has been in use only since 1920s. Grand  master  07:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, your quote from Goltz is not complete. He further writes:


 * Grand master  08:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By "direct lineal descendant" I assume he means that the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, the population of the territory, and the culture and sense of self-awareness of that population, are all directly descended from the Artsakh kingdom and its later statelets. I think it is probably the "unified Karabakh" that is the recent creation - the growing nomadic population, Kurds and Turks, needed the highlands for summer pasture and the lowlands for winter pasture. It was that need that unified the previously distinct mountainous and lowland regions into one. Meowy 19:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Historical region of Artsakh included both highlands and lowlands. Karabakh covers not just former Artsakh, but also large parts of another historical region, Utik. I don't think that it possible to equate Artsakh with NK. They had different areas. Grand  master  15:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased intro slandering Christian land
NK is a disputed land whose both interim and final political status has yet to be determined. Biased expressions like "de-jure part of Azerbaijan" are inappropriate as an independent Az never exercised jurisdiction over the region (in contrast to Abkhazia, S. Osetia or N.Cyprus). Please understand that Nagorno Karabakh is a Christian land and publicly identifying it with the Muslim country of Azerbaijan is an insult and slur which is against Wiki policies. And yet Azerbaijan is mentioned clearly enough in the present edition of intro to make Azerbaijani editors happy. Szentida (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This account looked pretty sockish - reverts in early edits etc - so blocked indef. Moreschi (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Slander? Slur? Really? If you really want to have an honest discussion, you'll have to stop assuming bad faith. --Golbez (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of anything in the NK constitution that says it is a "Christian land" and requires that its citizens be Christian. On a similar vein, I've removed the "Armenian state" phrase from the article. I'm not aware that NK requires that its inhabitants be ethnic Armenian, nor is there an equivalent phrase like "Turkish state" used to describe Azerbaijan in the Azerbaijan article, or "Armenian state" used to describe Armenia in the Armenia article. Meowy 16:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point, although "largely ethnically Armenian" would I think have been fine. As it is, though, Golbez has cut this bit, which is fair enough. Moreschi (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the reversal by Golbez was unwarrented. First, the NK republic is recognised by plenty of people and international organisations and governments - so to say it is "unrecognised" is nonsense. For example, Azerbaijan has been having another one of its regular hissy fits over NK because America has just given the republic a number of million dollars in foreign aid (I think it was 16 million or something like that). Now Golbez may say that "unrecognised" is meant to be that the territory is recognised as still being officially part of Azerbaijan. But as I said in my edit summary, that bit of information is already there in a later sentence in the same section. And "even though" is inadvertantly POV: it seems to be implying that the territory should not be recognized as part of Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan no longer controls it. I think my version was more neutral. Meowy 03:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is unrecognized is explained below. I never said that means that it's recognized as part of Azerbaijan; keep the issues separate, please. The NKR is unrecognized: fact. Everyone recognizes it as part of Azerbaijan: Unverified. It is generally recognized as part of Azerbaijan but I wager most countries don't care. (although, that brings up this question: do all states that recognize Azerbaijan implicitly recognize its claim over the NKR? Just how states that recognize the ROC cannot recognize the PRC, and vice versa... though obviously no country that recognizes the ROC recognizes its claims on the PRC. Hrm.) "Even though" is awkward phrasing, however. Attempting an alteration. --Golbez (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All the leading countries of the world, including the USA, recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan. So do international organizations. The NK as a country is not recognized by anyone. The fact that US congress provided aid to NK does not meant that it recognized NK. Congress provides aid to many different places, and it does not have a power to recognize states. The body which is in charge of foreign relations is the State Department, which made perfectly clear many times that it recognizes NK only as part of Azerbaijan. Grand  master  15:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Foreign aid = recognition. That is why Azerbaijan is having one of its hissy-fits about it. Same for its hissy-fits whenever Nagorno-Karabakh is mentioned in foreign weather reports, or shown on maps in foreign news reports, and its hissy-fits whenever foreign reporters or diplomats visit Nagorno-Karabakh, it even has hissy-fits about the Halo Trust's de-mining work in Nagorno Karabakh. Meowy 16:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On behalf of what Golbez has wrote above about recognition as part of Azerbaijan. Following the declaration of sovereignty on September 23 1989, Azerbaijan was recognized by the UN as existing within previous borders, including Nagorno-Karabakh and Lachin. Brand[t] 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent intro changes
I wanted to elaborate a little bit. Diplomatic recognition has a specific meaning; yes, it is unrecognized. Taiwan is only recognized by, what, 20 countries? Even the United States doesn't officially recognize it. That it has missions there and meets with them and sells them arms? Irrelevant. Diplomatically, the US only recognizes the People's Republic of China as the rightful owners of that land. Is this divorced from fact? Somewhat. But it's still how things are. Nagorno-Karabakh is unrecognized, period. However, it seems way off to call it "self-proclaimed"; apart from puppet states, I think all governments are self-proclaimed. Secondly, it was obviously proclaimed on the basis of the NKAO, the notion that some believe the NKAO had the right to secede from the USSR. However, it was not based on the borders of the NKAO, as it also included Shahumian in its declaration of independence. Thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Many consider NKR to be a puppet state. Even CIA factbook says that 16% of territory of Azerbaijan is occupied by Armenia. NK is now pretty much a province of Armenia. Armenia stations its regular troops there. Azerbaijani army recently captured a few Armenian soldiers in NK. All were conscripts from Armenia. Also of note that initially Armenian leaders of NK claimed not independence, but attachment of the region to Armenia. The initial declaration of NK Soviet was about joining Armenia. They switched to independence claim because joining Armenia is impossible at the moment and would create serious problems for that country. "Self-proclaimed" is often used to refer to NKR. Unrecognized is another suitable word. I think both are Ok. Grand  master  15:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're going to say they're a puppet state then you can't say they're self-proclaimed. So, no matter what, that term is out. It's a useless term. --Golbez (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Golbez, you were not specific about what that "unrecognised" meant. My point is that there are shades between "recognition" and "non-recognition". I've wikilinked the word to "diplomatic recognition" in order to clarify what you meant by "unrecognised" - but I still think it is duplicate material given that it is also mentioned that Azerbaijan is, internationally, recognised as the de-jure authority. Meowy 17:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Unrecognized. Did anyone "unrecongnized" NKR? The intro should state clearly that the region status is disputed, and if it is disputed it cannot be "recognized as part of Azerbaijan." Azerbaijan aspires to affirm NK as part of its territory and receives some support from some states and some organizations. That can be stated. Please avoid frivolous rv. Vidnanebo (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ... That makes no sense. No one has recognized the NKR; therefore it is unrecognized. "did anyone unrecognized NKR?" is a travesty of English. My revert, I assure you, is not frivolous. Furthermore, you simply swapped back to the old version with 'de facto independent', despite that making no sense in this situation. If the region is GOVERENED by the NKR, then it is of course de facto independent. If it weren't de facto independent, it would not be governing the area. And I don't think anyone who looks at that intro would think it wasn't explaining the dispute. Finally, what's this obsession with saying "Azerbaijani Republic"? As a separate link from Azerbaijan, even? Were you planning on expanding Armenia to say Armenian Republic? --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, when undoing, take a look at other changes too. Negotiation were held not between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but NKR and Azerbaijan, the ceasefire was signed between NKR and Azerbaijan, not Republic of Armenia, which joined negotiations since 1999.

Other issue: I see no problem about USSR and AzSSR, but term NKR is recognized as part of Azerbaijan is something Azerbaijan would like to be, but it is clear all about it because there are a number of legal documents and facts claiming the opposite starting from Soviet constitution 72st point about independence of Soviet Republic and formations and up to UN Code. There are results of a referendum, which some may accept, and some may claim it doesn't matter. There are international codes terms about self-determination starting from UN Regulations up to Helsinki Final Act. And these are are issues to be discussed and concluded. And concluded by high-class lawyers, rights-defenders, political scientists and historians, and even then I doubt they will come to some final conclusion. So today here writing "NKR is recognized as part of Azerbaijan" sounds rather silly. And here "The territory is considered by several states and organizations as part of Azerbaijan, which has not exercised power over the region since 1991." is ok giving neutral point until the final solution of status of NKR.517design (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, NKR does not have a representative at the negotiations with OSCE Minsk; therefore they should not be mentioned, right? As for whether or not the NKR declared independence from the AzSSR or the USSR is another matter entirely. You don't say which states and organizations, and I don't believe it's elaborated on in the article. It sounds kind of wimpy to say that, when it's demonstrably true that Nagorno-Karabakh is not recognized by anyone, and therefore the default situation, unless stated otherwise (like how the US recognizes no power over Western Sahara, neither the SADR nor Morocco), is that Azerbaijan is recognized as the owner of the area. Or Russia, I guess, if you want to bring in the fact that it's the successor state to the Soviet Union and if the NKR delcared independence from the USSR and not the AzSSR, then its territory could be considered part of Russia? --Golbez (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, NKR does not have a representative at the negotiations with OSCE Minsk; therefore they should not be mentioned, right?
 * Wrong. NKR was a party in negotiations till Robert Kocharyan presidency when Republic of Armenia started representing NKR in negotiations. Today Armenia wants NKR back to the negotiations, but the latest statements claim after adoption of final document of final solution of NK Conflict NKR will join the negotiations. Moreover since the start of NK war all talks of Azeri government were held with NKR head, with Artur Mkrtchyan and Samvel Babayan, all periodic ceasefire were achieved with NKR and final stop of military actions was signed between the confronting parties, which were NKR and AZ, right? And later negotiation must be held between the confronting parties, which were NKR and AZ, and not RA and AZ. That is why I mentioned negotiations held between NKR, AZ and later RA.
 * You again go deep into legal part of belonging or not of NKR to AZ. If go so much deep AZ is the legal successor of Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan and not Soviet Azerbaijan, while NK was not a part of AZ in 1918-20. And was annexed to it by Soviets. So after independence of AzSSR from Soviets does it include Karabakh or not? I'd say no, but I'd leave it to AZ and RA higher authorities and would claim Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan according to some states and organizations. Right?517design (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From : "October 1997, in Strasbourg the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia made a joint statement on readiness to resume negotiations on the basis of Co-Chairmen's proposals. " It sounds as if Armenia was involved in OSCE Minsk in 1997. Unless you can supply a source that states that Armenia was not involved in negotiations until 1999, I will have to revert it, or find better wording, since obviously the NKR is not a party now, therefore it's erroneous to say so. And to get into the specifics of OSCE Minsk is way too much for the intro to this article. --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * About grammar... I'll keep in touch with you as soon as it is needed to put correct commas somewhere.
 * We need a separate article on Karabakh negotiations to prevent such talks in future. Cheers!517design (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It exists; OSCE Minsk Group. --Golbez (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good! The thing is the following: Co-chairmen when visiting region visit RA, NKR and AZ, meet government in each, while NKR is not a member of Minsk Group, but can it be considered part in negotiations? Let us not go deeper and let RA and AZ as you reverted, no prob. Although I'll try to find in what format was participation of NKR in negotiations after ceasefire signed.517design (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NK is not a party to negotiations. They want to be, but they are not. The talks are being held between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan only. Please do not add incorrect info. Also, NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Not by some, but it is recognized by the international community. European Council represent the whole Europe, and UNO the entire world. When you claim that only some recognize it it implies that there are countries which do not recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan, but it is not true. Even Armenia does not recognize independence of NK. Abkhazia is different, there are one or two countries which recognize its independence, still it is generally or widely recognized as part of Georgia. NK is not the same, there's not a single country on this planet which does not recognize that NK is a part of Azerbaijan. Please refrain from making changes to intro without consensus on talk. It is based on consensus which was formed after years of discussion. This article is a subject to arbitration restrictions, and excessive reverting may result in editing limitations. Discuss and reach consensus first. Grand  master  08:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NK is an unrecognized state but its recognition as part of Azerbaijan is stated with overt or implied reservations. Otherwise no one would bother to consider an option for NK's eventual independence or its recognized intermediate status outside of Azerbaijan. But this is what the Minsk Group implies. Grandmaster, please do not mess up the emerging consensus among 517, Golbez and others with ludicrous POV threats. Oceolcspsms (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is about the region, not NKR, which is unofficially vulgarized as Nagorno-Karabakh. Brand[t] 19:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Name at least one de-jury country that recognizes NK as independent state. Until then there's no point in making POV edits. I also note that there are too many single purpose accounts messing with this article, and this whole thing appears to be coordinated off wiki. Grand  master  07:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can bring a number of legal aspects which claim about NKR not being part of Azerbaijan, as well as you can bring a number of legal aspects against this I hope. Moreover I can bring a number of countries which recognize not NK as part of Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijan as a state and not its borders. So claiming NKR is part of Azerbaijan is an issue apart from recognition of Azerbaijan as a state by countries of the world. So the general statement "NKR is recognized as part of Azerbaijan" as mentioned above sounds rather silly, you must have read the discussion of how we came to the statement "The territory is considered by several states and organizations as part of Azerbaijan, which has not exercised power over the region since 1991." before reverting it. the "off the wiki" I think must just be formed in different article about legal status of NKR. 517design (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So which legal aspects? Which countries? The United Nations recognizes Azerbaijan within borders that embrace Nagorno-Karabakh and as you probably know the United Nations Security Council resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh War demanded the occupying forces to withdraw from NK. Brand[t] 12:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly! That is why we mention "states and organizations". 517design (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But not "several" - all. That means NK is a legal part of Azerbaijan. There is no state which considers the region as a separate entity. Brand[t] 13:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Golbez, your "also grammar" is killing while correcting commas where there is no need of commas. Correct your "not one organization" please. Guys, what you revert is what you'd like to be perhaps, but actually is not. Minsk Group is working over final completion of the conflict together with RA, AZ and NKR regardless you want it or not, but NKR is accepted as a part of the process starting from relations of AZ directly with NKR and not RA during the war, regardless how Azeri party now want to present the conflict as Armenian-Azeri, it was and is NK-Azeri. Anyway, it's another issue, but now if you all are aware of what points are discussed during the negotiations, then you must know besides return of refugees from RA to AZ and from AZ to NKR and RA ... here goes... STATUS OF NK REGION, which will be concluded in the result of the negotiations. You want to show as if the status is clear?! So what on the earth are they discussing now? You'd better contact co-chairmen and tell that it appears the status of NK is clear and there's nothing to discuss any longer. I'll tell them next time we meet. Look, I do not claim NKR is part of Azerbaijan, and I do not claim NKR is not part of Azerbaijan neither, although I can bring a number of especially legal proofs of NKR not being part of Azerbaijan, but I don't, because this article introduction doesn't have to include all this: the status is being determined! That's the truth, regardless the fact you want it or not. You want us to accept "NKR is part of Azerbaijan"? That's an idiotism very far from real life. Brandmaster, by the way how did "Soviet collapse in 1991" trouble you? :) The date 1991 may be unclear for some reader, that is why I added Soviet collapse to clear what that date is related to. Look, I'll try to conclude what was mentioned above into some conclusion, some compromise, which can put an end to this long discussion over two sentences here:

Most of the region is governed by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, an unrecognized, de facto independent state established on the basis of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast within the Azerbaijan SSR of the Soviet Union. I see no problem about this: NKAO was attached to AzSSR within USSR.  The territory is considered by several states and organizations as part of Azerbaijan ... or The territory is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan ... You know what... which organization consider it so or not, doesn't have anything to do with this article. There is NKR page, where such legal aspects can be included. We want some slight data on NKR, let us write the part about negotiations within OSCE and nothing about opposite views on the status. There is a NK region, there was NKAO within AzSSR, there is a NKR inside, which is unrecognized and the status is being determined. For more details see the following article, is it ok about this? So it's gonna look like this I guess:  Most of the region is governed by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, an unrecognized, de facto independent state established on the basis of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast within the Azerbaijan SSR of the Soviet Union. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic status is being determined within the frames of OSCE Minsk Group with the representatives of the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

So we leave NK referendum, UN resolution, NK war, Democratic AZ legal succession and so on and so on and other legal aspects apart, presenting the current way of things laconically. I do not revert the page yet until the final way of these sentences are completed in discussion, otherwise it's getting annoying revert every time after every message. Peace? 517design (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not acceptable. NK is legally (de-jure) part of Azerbaijan. There's not a single state or organization on this planet which does not recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan. We should not add inaccurate info. Plus, NK is not a party to negotiations, and no one is discussing the status of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Such combination of words is not used in any official document. Grand  master  15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I revert the page so that I get reply for the talk? My proposal was to decide, come to conclusion and later revert, but it seems nobody is interested in what he doesn't prefer to see in the article till the opposite version is published already.
 * Look, 1. the article is about Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or Nagorno-Karabakh geographical region? The second. 2. The article mentions NKR as unrecognized republic and mentions negotiation about it. You have problems about this? What else do you want to add? What international organizations consider, or what UN finds, or what Aliev supposes or whatever let it all be included in NKR page. Is it ok about it? 3. Unlike you, I can accept what the other editors claim, and pay attention I do not write anything about NKR as part of negotiations for already several days. While every time you bring it as argument. Forget it man. Till I do not have data on the way NKR participate in the negotiations nothing is told about it, you understand? I hope next time you won't reply to my points about leaving apart the legal issues for NKR page, with "NKR is not part of negotiations". I have no problem about it, and I come to consensus.
 * Now what do you think of leaving legal aspects apart from geographical region article? Just general overview of the republic existing here. If someone claims geographical view of the reader will enlarge after reading about which organizations considers what, let he cast the first stone at me. And pay attention, please, I do not revert until we have completed second paragraph. 517design (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Golbez, sorry for the map. I made it myself using the design published already on the Wiki and traced the mountainous part which is clearly seen on physical maps of the region. The parts outside the mountains is lower Karabakh and other regions. The map is precise, but I thought the map after creating it myself can be put under Public Domain. What is needed to have the map of NK region here? Where can one be found may be already traced? Or who generally does such things. I haven't been to Wiki for long time, many details are still unknown. 517design (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is obviously about the REGION, seeing as how there's a separate article on the republic. Yes, the NKR is unrecognized and there is negotiation over the future of the region; what the options are, we don't know. As for leaving the aspects out, I disagree, as they are fundamental to understanding the subject: we kind of have to explain the political situation of the region, at least in a basic form, and I think we accomplish that. --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the map: Tracing it yourself is definitely original research, as we don't know if the borders of highland Karabakh ever corresponded exactly to the mountains. However, I'd like other opinions on that. The borders of the NKAO are solid and objectively true, so that's been safer, but if we could find a map of the actual borders of highland Karabakh that would be nice as well. As for the license, you can release it CC-BY-SA or GFDL, but making it yourself does not alter that it was derived from a CC-BY-SA/GFDL image. I could write a copy of Harry Potter myself, that doesn't mean I can release it public domain. :) --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 517design, we must briefly explain the political and legal aspects of NK problem. I see no reason why we should leave it out. And when Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents meet, they do not invite any person from NK to be their partner in negotiations. To claim that NK is a party to negotiations you must prove that NK Armenians participate in the talks held between the sides of the conflict. But it is not so. Grand  master  06:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Brandmaster, what do you think of the comment to you a bit above this one about my position on NKR as part of negotiations? Your this comment prove my opinion, you prefer not to read just push your position not going deeper to what is said to you. And that means more you want not objective view presented in the article, but some certain YOUR nationalistic position presented in the article regarless any facts against. I guess the other editors must have worked hard in past so that now these articles are not occupied by such nationalists. But they didn't, and I still do not clearly understand how to interfere mediators and administrators to the case in Wiki to arange such cases. Good luck! 517design (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a long-standing consensus to keep minimum politics in the lead, mentioning just de-jure and de-facto possession. The lead has been stable until some obscure Armenian or pro-Armenian accounts like Oceolcspsms became active. Unlike some Armenian editors, I lucidly know how to involve mediators, including the recent request for comment at Shusha's talk page and administrators' noticeboard for geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. WP:OWNership does not pass here. Brand[t] 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed already you know how to write abuses here. 517design (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a yellow warning. For trying to talk and not to revert every time as well as trying to change something in the absurd text. I like Turkish approach. It works! 517design (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "I lucidly know how to involve mediators" :) - Steady, Mr Brandmeister, you are lucid enough to have spend many months preparing the groundwork, but you aren't an administrator yet! Minimum politics in the lead ... since this article is about Nagorno-Karabakh as a geographical region I agree with that, and there seems to be too much even in its "minimal" state. All that is needed is to say where the territory is now located and who controls it, with a link to the NKR article for those who want to know more. BTW, what is the map that 517design was talking about? Meowy 03:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here: File:Nagorno karabakh region.jpg --Golbez (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is not an acceptable map - the western edge of Nagorno-Karabakh as a geographical region would not follow the exact route of the modern border of Armenia! Because it is a geographical region it will probably ignore political borders and parts of it will have ill-defined edges. Maybe it is just not possible to show it in an acceptable way on a map. Meowy 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nagorno-Karabakh is not the same thing as Mountainous Karabakh, even though the word Nagorno translates as Mountainous. The thing is that Mountainous Karabakh never had defined borders, and never was a region on its own. It was a part of Karabakh. Soviets carved out of Karabakh a portion that had an Armenian majority, and called it NK, even though it did not include all the mountainous areas of Karabakh. Therefore NK is a geo-political region, which has the same borders as NKAO. Grand  master  07:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Model
I think you should take this model from the french wikipedia : fr:Modèle:NKR divisions administratives Jaloyan (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that fits better to NKR, the region should not be politicized. Brand[t] 04:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

links
I added Azer and Arm links deleted recently. These are important for understanding the positions of parties of the dispute. Please do not delete anything without discussing it here. Thanks. Mcnabs (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As noted on my talk page, the external links section of an article is not intended to be a dumping ground for external websites which lean to one side or the other of a given dispute. I'll be removing these again in due course. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree about "dumping ground." But a few sites illustrating the existing viewpoints will do no harm. Mcnabs (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Except most of the links weren't about the region - they were about the country. It would be like including usa.gov on an article about North America. --Golbez (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, the links should be focused primarily on the region. Brand[t] 10:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the remaining questionable links, per this discussion. Newspapers are not unique resources as defined by WP:EL, nor are expatriate websites. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I may have been haste and/or incorrect. Pretty much all of the external links already there have to do with the war, the disputed status, etc - which is more specific to the country than the region. So my earlier comment may have been offbase. --Golbez (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The links are better restored. The Armenian newspaper can be left out as well as the karabakh.org propaganda site from Azerbaijan. Some of NKR government links, especially those having sections about the region as a whole are appropriate. Mcnabs (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Transnistria
Recognition by Transnistria does not count, as it is not a recognized state. Grand master  05:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a chain. Russia, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Venezuela recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia (making them on par with Kosovo and Taiwan as partially-recognized non-UN states), which recognize Transnistria (recognized only by partially-recognized non-UN states), which recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh (recognized only by a generally non-recognized state). Either way, if not in the intro, this recognition needs mentioning. --Golbez (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that all states which recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia are sovereign, while Transnistria is itself a separatist state, that's probably the reason why it has recognized NKR. Brandmeister[t] 14:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is likely that all unrecognized entities try to recognize each other to gain some legal credibility or status, unless some of them don't want to spoil relations with de-jure sovereign states to which those entities belong. For instance, Transnistria may not recognize Kosovo not to irritate Serbia or Russia while rush to recognize other unrecognized entities which parallel to itself in status. So, recognition by one separatist entity by another does not count. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 14:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In itself, no. But Transnistria is recognized by a partially recognized country, and that confers upon it more legitimacy than if it was recognized only by other non-recognized (or circle-recognized) countries. --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Says who? Only a recognition by a de-jure state counts as recognition. A country that does not exist de jure cannot legally recognize anything. I mean, if no one recognizes Transnistria as a state, who cares about their recognition or non-recognition of anything? Only a country recognized by the international community can become a member of international organizations, join international conventions, etc. That is because it exists de jure, and its existence is generally admitted by the international community. If you still insist that NK is partially recognized, we can ask the wiki community for their opinion. Grand  master  18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * South Ossetia and Abkhazia are recognized by four fully-recognized UN members. Does that make them, in turn, de jure states? That gives them a status identical to that of Kosovo and Taiwan - they are non-UN members recognized by more than one UN-member country. If that makes them de jure states, then does that make Transnistria, recognized by them, a de jure state? And does that further filter down to Nagorno-Karabakh? That is the question being asked here.
 * Please calm down a bit, trust me when I say the world will not end if we continue discussion here a little longer before rusing to the 'wiki community'. Though I suspect the Azeri press, if they picked up on this, would have a conniption fit. They hate us already. --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Golbez, I think what Grandmaster meant was that the "chain" pattern you're trying to present here can't possibly work. De-jure status is an internationally recognized norm. Recognition by self-proclaimed entities like Transnistria are similar to those done by individual politicians, political parties, social or nationalist groups which are in hundreds throughout the volatile regions, etc. In other words, if an entity has no legitimate status, it can't grant one, so to speak, to another entity. If we use the same "chain" pattern you speak of here, then we should go on and recognize 3,000 ethnicities including hundreds of tribal communities in Africa and Asia as well, because whichever way we turn, one chain will lead to recognition by another. The question is should they be considered "recognized" as independent states. That's my take. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 19:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But Transnistria is now recognized by a partially-recognized country. Doesn't that give them any legitimacy to then recognize others? No one's talking about these tribes; not one single one of them is recognized by anything, be it a UN member or a country recognized by a UN member. So that analogy seems completely wrong. Here's the chain:
 * Russia, Nauru, Nicaragua, and Venezuela are 100% recognized UN members.
 * They have recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This confers a similar status to them that Kosovo and Taiwan enjoy: non-UN members recognized by multiple UN members. This gives them a certain diplomatic legitimacy; they are de jure partially recognized, non-UN member states.
 * South Ossetia and Abkhazia recognize Transnistria. As partially recognized states, does this now mean Transnistria is de jure recognized as an independent nation? Note that Israel (a partially-recognized UN member) has been rumored to want to recognize Somaliland, which I think we would all agree would confer legitimate partial recognition upon that de facto independent state. If Taiwan and Kosovo were to do the same, would that recognition be less legitimate?
 * Transnistria recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh. Now, we're three links removed from the UN here, and things get fuzzy. However, if South Ossetia and Abkhazia are de jure independent, then does that mean Transnistria is such due to their recognition? And, if it is, what of Nagorno-Karabakh?
 * I don't see at all how your tribe analogy comes into play whatsoever. To compare Transnistria with independent politicians? Perhaps. But not South Ossetia and Abkhazia, not anymore, and they have chosen to recognize Transnistria's independence. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, let me explain how tribal analogy fits into your logic. Let's consider a hypothetical chain. If we follow your logic, then: 1) Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetia; 2) South Ossetia recognizes Transnistria; 3) Transnistria recognizes Northern Cyprus; 4) Northern Cyprus recognizes Cabinda; 5) Cabinda recognizes one of Yoruba tribes; 6) That Yoruba tribe recognizes Ijaw, etc. Does that mean Ijaw is or should be an independent entity if and when it decides to, just because some country at the beginning of the chain recognized another self-proclaimed entity? I am not saying any or some of the tribes are claiming autonomies and independence. Most of the cases might not even reach the media, but the fact that thousands of ethnicities differ in culture, language, life style and want to be independent does not give anyone a pretext to accept these entities as legitimate or rather, partially de-jure. There are formal ways of state recognitions under constitutions of states and international laws and everyone follows them. The argument of "partial-recognition" in case of Nagorno-Karabakh is not valid and should not be incorporated into the article. By the same token, Pakistan does not recognize Armenia as a state and Armenia does not recognize Turkey and Azerbaijan. Should we then also add partially recognized to Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan articles? hope this clarifies the tribal argument. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 20:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, don't know why you need the first three steps of that; Northern Cyprus is already recognized by Turkey. And let me paint this another way: 1) Turkey recognizes Cabinda, 2) Cabinda recognizes one of Yoruba tribes. Or, perhaps simply, 1) Turkey recognizes one of Yoruba tribes. Is Yoruba a de jure independent nation at that point? (assuming, hypothetically, that they have declared independence, etc) It certainly would qualify by Wikipedia definitions. Does Yoruba's recognition of Ijaw then confer legitimacy?
 * As for 'partially recognized', that is far more relevant when dealing with a previously-unrecognized country than an otherwise-full recognized, UN-member country, so that's getting a little pedantic. It merits mentioning in a 'foreign affairs' section, but nowhere else. And FYI, Armenia recognizes Turkey and Azerbaijan just fine. They have diplomatic relations and recognition of both countries. So I don't know where you got that from.
 * Let's get away from the tribal thing and ask: If South Ossetia and Abkhazia themselves recognized Nagorno-Karabakh, would that count it as partially-recognized? If not, what if it was Taiwan and Kosovo? The only problem here is that Transnistria is one step removed from that, being only partially-recognized by partially-recognized countries. It could be validly said that legitimacy moves down the chain; it could also be validly said that it stops after the UN members stop being involved, in which legitimacy is only conferred upon South Ossetia and Abkhazia but not upon Transnistria. This is an unusual situation (which would be vastly simplified if Armenia or Cyprus finally sacked up and recognized the NKR). --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're getting the point. That was a hypothetical example. None of those tribal entities should be independent or in de-facto control of a physical territory to be candidates for recognition. The mere fact that this whole logic of "chain" you promote does not work in international arena says it all. Wikipedia is encyclopedia. It relies on commonly accepted norms. Who came up with this "chain" thing in the first place? What makes it a base for making "NKR" partially recognized? Nothing. Whether you remove any entities from your chains or not, the result won't change. Illegitimate entity is illegitimate until the sovereign state it is in and the international community recognize it as legitimate or come up with any official solution like in case of Aland Islands. Otherwise it will remain unrecognized and unaccepted by the international community and lack diplomatic relations. For your information, Armenia does not recognize Azerbaijan and Turkey and does not have any diplomatic relations. Where did you get that? Hand-shaking during negotiation meetings does not mean diplomatic relations. Armenia denounces the internationally recognized borders of both Turkey and Azerbaijan. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 21:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The "sovereign state it is in" doesn't necessarily have a say in the matter. Taiwan has been "legitimate" for decades. And as for the "international community", that's called the UN, and there are currently seven non-UN members recognized by UN members: Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Each of these has varying amounts of legitimacy (and I listed them from most to least, as far as I see it), but the fact remains, they do have some. Some countries are not simply "legitimate" or "illegitimate"; in these cases, it definitely depends on who you ask. To Greece, Northern Cyprus is illegitimate, an occupied territory; to Turkey, it is an independent nation. Both points of view are valid. As for Armenia not recognizing Turkey and Azerbaijan, if you could supply sources for your assertion we'd love for you to be able to add that to List of states with limited recognition; being a featured list, we like to keep it up to date, and so far no one has thought to add that. However, Armenia–Turkey relations seems to disagree with you, the borders having been accepted and reopened back in 2009. And if Armenia does indeed not recognize Azerbaijan, I again call upon them to sack up and recognize the NKR and put us all out of our misery. --Golbez (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should be making political statements calling any country to recognize an illegitimate regime which caused one of the biggest refugee crisis in late 20th century. One can't recognize a guest if he comes in and claims one of the rooms of your house by forcing your folks out. The states you mention do have a certain legitimacy, but only for states they are recognized by. They are not recognized by the rest of the world. Nagorno-Karabakh is not recognized by any other state. Transnistria is not a state. If any of the UN states do recognize Nagorno-Karabakh, we can come back and start discussing it over. At this point it is meaningless. If you'd like to mention it had been recognized by another self-proclaimed entity in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic page in the appropriate subsection, I won't be opposing the motion.
 * For your information, Armenia does not recognize Azerbaijan and Turkey's territorial integrity. You may find relevant information online. Armenia sees the Eastern Turkey as "Western Armenia" and Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia. The Armenian army is deployed in Karabakh, Armenian currency is used there and to start with, at the beginning of the conflict, Armenia included Nagorno-Karabakh in its annual budget. In addition to that, obviosuly you don't follow the news. There are no open borders between Armenia and Turkey. There were protocols signed to open them but since Armenia refuses to withdraw from occupied territories of Azerbaijan, the borders were not opened. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 13:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We know Russia, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Venezuela are states. Are South Ossetia and Abkhazia states? And don't tell me to do the research, my information says Armenia recognizes Turkey, you have yet to offer any evidence to the contrary. --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not in a Political Science class determining whether some unrecognized (by international community) are considered states or not. As far as your question is concerned, S.Ossetia and Abkhazia are self-proclaimed entities recognized only by Russia after S. Ossetian War of 2008 and by certain countries with political and economic motives. But that's far from this discussion. On the other end of the spectrum you should see states of Eritrea or East Timor for comparison. Now, as far as Armenian recognition of Turkey goes, you must have missed the noisy discussions before Turkish-Armenian protocols were signed. One of the points of discussion was Armenia's need to accept Kars Treaty and officially recognize the territorial borders of Turkey, which it refused to when it declared independence in late 1990. Here are few links to articles on the issue you can read:, , , , , , , , ,  Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 15:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A good number of those predate the 2009 accords, and again, if you can properly cite a deliberate lack of recognition, please add an entry to the list of unrecognized countries, or at least bring it up on the talk page. --Golbez (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm not necessarily saying I like the NKR; I'm saying, if Armenia grew a pair and actually recognized or annexed them, rather than dancing around the bush while still occupying the southeastern quarter of Azerbaijan, then this whole argument would be completely moot. But because they, for some reason, have done neither of those, we still have this situation. --Golbez (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any reliable third party source calling NK a partially recognized state? And preferably more than just one, because we cannot engage in OR and present our own opinions or minority views as facts. Grand  master  10:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And I agree but it's not up to us to decide if Armenia should recognize it or not. If it ever does, we can discuss. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 15:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Transnistria's recognition fits to NKR, one can not de jure recognize the region, but NKR proper. So I have nothing against mentioning that fact there. Brandmeister[t] 21:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hocalı Massacre
This article should mention Azeris who are massacred by Armenians during the war in Hocali. People should know what really happened in there. Here is a reference for Hocalı massacre:[]--Lonewolf94 (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is about the region. If you want to know more about actions in the war, we have an article on that. --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Hocalı was spelled very different than it is in Turkish. so I couldn't find the link and thought that we should add it to this part.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I found no evidence that the Askeran fortress was built by Panakh Ali "Khan." Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi does not mention it was built by Panakh. He says Shusha fortress was built by him but not Askeran. This is most likely a misconception and unsourced POV. Xebulon (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Xebulon (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was indeed built by him, see another source. Twilight chill  t   08:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very sure this happened. Gingermint (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Recognized by Whom?
I changed "internationally recognized" to "presently recognized" as, 1. if everyone recognized it then it wouldn't be a disputed region, 2. there is no source for nor indication of specifically what "internationally" mens. The UN? What? 3. The statement was too vague and, devoid of source or any solid meaning, seemed to have a slant as to a supposed legitimacy of claim. Gingermint (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel like I brought this up years ago, with similar arguments, but really, since no UN-member nation recognizes the independence of the NKR, and no one regards the area as terra nullius (the only ones really existing are Bir Tawil, Western Sahara, and Antarctica), it is a safe and unbiased assumption that the region is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. I don't see how it's more vague than 'presently'; 'presently' makes no attempt to say who recognizes it as such. There are many disputed regions where one party is internationally recognized as the legitimate owner, except by the party that disputes it. The NKR makes that slightly more complicated by having reciprocal recognitions with other otherwise unrecognized countries, but that doesn't change the fact that, of the countries that matter (the members of the United Nations, plus those which have UN-member recognition), the NKR is entirely unrecognized - even by Armenia. Since it is unrecognized, and no one has explicitly regarded the area as terra nullius as Bar Tawil and, according to some nations, Western Sahara, then it is not a leap to say it's internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. --Golbez (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)