Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Independence from whom?

This was discussed some time ago here. But I think it needs another look.

The rationale presented in that archive is that, since the Azerbaijan SSR declared independence four months earlier than the NKAO, that the NKAO could only be declaring independence from Azerbaijan. However, that implies the NKAO recognized or cared about the AzSSR's status. It would seem that, as far as the NKAO was concerned, they were seceding based on Soviet law and thus were doing it from the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Union did still exist at the time.

This really should be dealt with in the article somewhere, as we say right in the lead, without wiggle room, that the NKR seceded from Azerbaijan, without a mention that, as far as the NKR is concerned, they seceded from the Soviet Union. The only reason I reverted the latest edit was, if we say USSR in the infobox but Azerbaijan in the text without any reasoning, that will confuse readers. --Golbez (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Golbez, the consensus from various think tanks and scholars that are cited further down in the article is that the secession occurred under Soviet law from the USSR. It is simply POV to state otherwise. Furthermore is supports Azeri revanchist arguments, which is a danger to peace. We should discuss changing the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.165.152 (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the cycle is "Bold, Revert, Discuss". You were bold; I reverted with a legitimate reason; now we discuss. You don't get to revert again. Secondly, you may notice the primary reason I reverted you was because it did not match the text of the article, which states in the lead that the NKR declared independence from Azerbaijan; above all else, our articles should be internally consistent. I've modified your version to fit this, just so we have a valid version to choose from other than yours. Finally, I very much doubt this Wikipedia article could possibly be a "danger to peace." I've modified the lead, I would not be surprised if someone else bounced it back to the original version, but the point is we should have discussion on this either way. --Golbez (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating the malign influence of Wikipedia to casually dismiss the "danger to peace" comment. I think Wikipedia poses extreme danger to truth, accuracy, academic integrity, and free speech. This article is just one small example of it. Jimmy Wales may not yet be a particularly well-known figure of world influence. However, if Wikipedia continues onward in the way he designed it to be, the evil his creation will do in future decades should make him an international figure of hate. Meowy 12:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If one looks in the article, it says inter alia:

A background paper prepared by the Directorate General of Political Affairs of the Council of Europe for the seminar "Youth and Conflict Resolution" (Strasbourg, 31 March – 2 April 2003), on the other hand, states, "The Armenian side maintains that the N-K independence referendum was conducted in accordance with the USSR law on the 'Procedure for Solving Issues of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR' of 3 April 1990. Article 3 of this law provided autonomous regions within the Soviet republics with the right to determine independently, by referendum, whether they wished to remain within the USSR or join the republic seceding from the USSR. It would however seem that according to this law N-K would have the choice of two options – to remain within the USSR or to join independent Azerbaijan; N-K independence does not seem possible". According to the article in "The Journal of Conflict Resolution", the Armenian side "justified its claim by Article 70 of the Soviet Constitution, which affirms the right to self-determination of the peoples of the USSR. In fact, this recognition of the principle of self-determination is only part of a general declaratory statement about the nature of the Soviet federation: “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is an integral, federal, multi-national state formed on the principle of socialist federalism as a result of the free self-determination of nations and the voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR embodies the state unity of the Soviet people and draws all its nations and nationalities together for the purpose of jointly building communism.” There is no mechanism, other than the right of the union republics to secede (Article 72 of the constitution), through which to express the right of self-determination".

Even Directorate General of Political Affairs of the Council of Europe doubts the claim that NK could secede from the USSR. How can an article claim as a fact something that is not accepted as a fact by the international community? This is why I restored the original version. Grandmaster 22:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And slaves have no right to desire freedom because they are the property of their owners and property can have no desire or rights beyond that which the owner gives it. Meowy 12:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know what exact wording was used in the referendum of 10 December 1991, i.e what entity did those who voted believe they were voting to gain independence from? Meowy 12:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Do you accept that the proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic be an independent state independently determining the forms of cooperation with other states and communities? Sardur (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So it appears the referendum did not specify, but the actual declaration does appear to specify the Soviet Union. --Golbez (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that their declaration mentions the USSR. And also, as the DG of the Council of Europe mentioned, the law to which they refer applied only to the Soviet republics, but not their autonomies. The Soviet law would allow NK to choose either to remain within the USSR or to join independent Azerbaijan, but not to create an independent state. Soviet leaders were not idiots. This law was created to prevent the Soviet republics from seceding from the USSR. If the USSR did not want the republics to break away, why would it want their autonomies to do so? Grandmaster 16:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The declaration appears to state that they are separating in accordance with Soviet law, and has no mention of corresponding Azeri law. I'm not necessarily saying their reading of Soviet law is accurate; but in their own words, they seem to be saying they are seceding from the USSR rather than Azerbaijan. If they were seceding from Azerbaijan then there'd be no reason to cite Soviet law. And as for the USSR not wanting certain rights given, they did have a habit of saying people and republics had rights but then not actually allowing their exercise. The Soviet constitution specifically gave people the right to free speech [Art. 50] and republics the right to secede [Art. 72], but I very much doubt the Soviet government actually expected anyone to think they could exercise these. Finally, I'm not necessarily saying we should take the declaration on face value - if it can be demonstrated and/or cited that the Karabakhi analysis of the legal situation was wrong and that they couldn't have seceded from the USSR, then by all means say so. But the fact that the declaration appears (to me) to say they are seceding from the USSR rather than Azerbaijan needs to be portrayed in some substantial way. I wouldn't mind an entire section or subsection on the legality and direction of secession, as I feel that might be the only way to go into sufficient detail on the matter. --Golbez (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

On top, on the legal issue: the view expressed in the document refered to by Grandmaster is not clearly attributed (most of all when considering that "Where Secretariat views are given, they are clearly marked as “Comment”", quod non), which raises doubt about its reliability. Considerations on the legal issue should be supported by reliable legal sources. Sardur (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The declaration does not make it clear who they are seceding from, it just refers to the USSR law, which applied only to the republics, and not to their autonomies. Responding to Sardur, the document clearly states: This appendix reproduces the background paper prepared by the Directorate General of Political Affairs for the seminar “Youth and Conflict Resolution” (Strasbourg, 31 March - 2 April 2003). Secretariat of the Council of Europe may have added its own comments to the reproduced document, but that does not make the view of DG less notable. Grandmaster 22:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If it does not make it clear who they are seceding from then that doesn't necessarily mean it flips back to being Azerbaijan, either. The NKAO was a political unit of the Soviet Union and the AzSSR, designated by the Soviet Constitution to be within the AzSSR. At the time of its declaration of independence, it was within the borders of two countries claiming the area as independent actors: Azerbaijan and the Soviet Union. ... Or was it? Azerbaijan presumably seceded under the provisions of Article 72, and I have no source at hand that says that Moscow did not recognize their independence. If that's the case, then the Soviet Union no longer claimed the area, which would indicate it impossible for the NKAO to claim they were seceding from the USSR. Basically: If the Soviet Union recognized the independence of Azerbaijan prior to December 10, 1991 (and there is precedent for this, as one of our articles states the USSR recognized the Baltic republics as independent that September), then they had abandoned claim and law over the NKAO, and thus the only remaining option is Azerbaijan. --Golbez (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, the above is entirely original research. My point is that this needs its own section, to be well-sourced from knowledgeable people about Soviet law and Caucasian geopolitics. --Golbez (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed an original research on our part. However while the declaration is ambiguous, yet it makes no sense for the NK Armenians to secede from the USSR without seceding from Azerbaijan, does it? And I also remember how back then the NK separatists wanted to join the USSR. If they seceded from the USSR, why would they want to join it? I need to find those sources. And also, the Soviet Constitution granted the right to secede only to the 15 republics that formed the Soviet Federation. This is the article in question: Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR. [1] NKAO was not a Union Republic, Azerbaijan was. Grandmaster 09:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that by December 10, the NK separatists knew the USSR wouldn't be around long enough to join. I believe the reasoning given by the NKAO was deeper in Soviet law, about self-determination for the nationalities therein, not Art. 72. But, finally, long story short: The fact that this argument continues to come up from time to time just shows the need for it to be treated better in the article itself. If no third-party sources do so, then original research is required. --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are third party sources, they are quoted in the article. I also quoted some of them at talk. The Soviet law contained a declarative statement about the right of nations for self-determination, but the only way for implementing that right was for the Soviet republics to secede. I think the article mentions that the NK separatists referred to the Soviet law when declaring secession, and also provides some legal background to the issue. Maybe this could be improved, as you suggest, but I think original research is against the rules. Btw, I don't think that even Armenian sources claim that NK seceded from the USSR. They claim that NK seceded from Azerbaijan, but it was done in accordance with the Soviet law. There's a very extensive quote in the article from some law school which defends the Armenian position, and it says: The only difference was that, for Karabagh, independence was declared not from the Soviet Union but from Azerbaijan. Speaking of that quote, it needs to be shortened and summarized for brevity, like it was done with other similar quotes, in accordance with WP:Weight. Grandmaster 22:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I've discovered the problem. The matter does seem to be treated in the article; however, it is in the monolithic "current situation" and "international status". So really, maybe what I want isn't a separate section for this - I simply want these huge sections (1.5 and 2.5 whole pages on my large monitor, respectively) split into subsections. --Golbez (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to split some parts of that block, I think. Grandmaster 22:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Grandmaster: who says this is the view of DG (and even if it was the case, the wording is very careful - "It would however seem")? And I'm not talking about notability, but about reliability on the legal point of view. Sardur (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The publication said that the document was created by the DG. The wording is careful, but it does not support what the Armenian side claims. Grandmaster 09:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my "what entity did those who voted believe they were voting to gain independence from?" question was rather stupid. I really can't believe I asked it. If a nation or community believes it has the right to self determination and wishes to attain it in full, then permission is not needed from any outside power, in any shape or form, to progress towards that freedom. So it would have been entirely inappropriate for the referendum question to have actually referred to some outside power. The actual referendum question is admirable in its clarity and I hope the one I answer in two years will be as clear. None of you can understand the meaninglessness of that "Independence from whom?" question. Meowy 00:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If one has to declare independence, it is a safe assumption they are declaring independence from someone else. I know, ultimately, that it doesn't really matter, but in terms of geopolitics and obviously the editors that come through here every once in a while, it does. --Golbez (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The "from" doesn't need to exist. A country, or nation, (or an individual for that matter), does not need to have been dependent on some other entity before declaring its independence. Meowy 17:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The declaration actually says "... being guided by the USSR acting Constitution and laws giving the population of autonomous units and compactly living ethnic groups the right to decide independently the issue of their state-legal status in case of a Soviet Republic’s secession from the USSR... taking into consideration the complexity and contradictoriness of the situation in the state [i.e. USSR], uncertainty of the Union’s future, Union’s structures of authority and governance... proclaims: the Nagorno Karabakh Republic within the borders of the current Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and neighboring Shahoumian region."[2] So technically happened the following: Azerbaijan left USSR while NKR remained the right to determine its status separately (i.e. join new Azerbaijan or stay in the USSR). In essence, it is obvious that joining Azerbaijan was unacceptable by default. Hence, considering uncertainty of the Union’s future, Union’s structures of authority and governance it proclaimed an independent republic. From whom?? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 16:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that the Soviet laws did not allow autonomies to secede. Like you said, they could only chose whether to leave the USSR together with the seceding republic, or to remain within the USSR. Soviet leaders were not stupid to let the autonomies to break away, the purpose of the law on secession was to prevent the break up of the USSR. This is why it was called "the law on non-secession". But from sources quoted in the article, even pro-Armenian ones, it is clear that it is generally understood that the NK separatists declared secession from Azerbaijan, and not the USSR. I quoted above the law school that defends the Armenian position, and they say: The only difference was that, for Karabagh, independence was declared not from the Soviet Union but from Azerbaijan. So despite the declaration not being specific on this issue, there's a general understanding that they claimed secession from Azerbaijan. Also, I don't think that in September 1991 they would have dared to declare secession from the USSR, the consequences of that would have been very dire for them. Even though the USSR was collapsing, it was still able to use force against separatists, like it did in Baltic states. But the dispute here is not so much about who they declared independence from, it is more about whether the Soviet law allowed them to do that. The Armenian position is that it did, the Azerbaijani position is that it did not, the international community is generally skeptical that there were legal grounds for NK to secede under the Soviet law. Grandmaster 22:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that the people decided to leave the existing union they were members of (i.e. the Soviet Union) and form a new entity, the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, out of the territory of an existing region, the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. So they were not proclaiming independence from anyone - they were asserting their right to be independent, a right they had under the USSR's constitution (as well as as a universal human right). Meowy 17:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

NKAO was not a member of Soviet Federation, the members were 15 Union Republics. Only they had the right to secede in accordance with the Soviet constitution. NKAO was not even an autonomous republic, it was an autonomous oblast, which was the lowest autonomy status in the Soviet administrative hierarchy. Grandmaster 23:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The declaration clearly indicates that Karabakh, following the law, doesn't join seceded Azerbaijan. Then it says that since USSR is in complete chaos, it doesn't remain in the USSR either and proclaims full independence. So technically we have (1) not joining seceded Azerbaijan and (2) independence from the USSR. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 05:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If they didn't join seceding Azerbaijan, then they declared independence from it. I think that follows logically. As for relations with the USSR, they are quite ambiguous about that: The Nagorno Karabakh Republic enjoys the authorities given to Republics by the USSR Constitution and legislation and reserves the right to decide independently the issue of its state-legal status based on political consultations and negotiations with the leadership of Union and Republics. They pretty much say here that they would decide on their status after consultations with Soviet leadership, who never bothered to take any notice of this declaration of independence, and soon ceased to exist. Now if we look at the legal part of it, the Soviet law did not allow the autonomies to conduct referendums on their own. According to the law, the seceding Union republic needed to hold referendums in each of its autonomies, but none of the former Soviet republics did that, the law was simply ignored. All the Soviet republics were recognized as independent and admitted to the UNO only after the USSR was officially disbanded by Belavezha Accords. Grandmaster 10:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, when Azerbaijan seceded, Karabakh could decide either to leave together and within Azerbaijan or to stay in the USSR. The declaration first says Karabakh doesn't join Azerbaijan being guided by the USSR acting Constitution and laws... and then says it won't remain within the USSR either taking into consideration the complexity and contradictoriness of the situation in the state, uncertainty of the Union’s future, Union’s structures of authority and governance. So Karabakh never acknowledged itself part of independent Azerbaijan (hence could not claim independence from it). On the other hand though it should, according to the Soviet law, stay within the USSR, it didn't (like the 15 other republics). -- Ashot  ^(talk) 13:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any sources saying they declared independence from the USSR? Official NKR history says it's from Azerbaijan: "On February 20, 1988, the extraordinary session of the (Soviet) Nagorno Karabagh Autonomous Republic's Council, Peoples Deputies made a historic decision. This included an appeal to the Soviet Azerbaijan to secede from the region, an appeal to the Soviet Armenia for unification, and an appeal to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to recognize this shift based upon legal norms and on precedents in resolving similar disputes in the USSR...A joint session of the People's Deputies of the Nagorno Karabagh and Shahumian regional councils, on September 2, 1991, declared the establishment of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic (NKR) in the former borders of the NKAR and the Shahumian region. A declaration of independence was signed for the NKR. Rightful independence was realized drawing on the April 3, 1990 USSR legislation; "The regulation governing questions concerning a union republic seceding from the USSR"...The Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan during the same period (November 1991), contrary to all legal norms, passed a law liquidating the NKAR, that the USSR Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional...Just a few days before the official collapse of the Soviet Union, on December 10, 1991, a referendum was held in Nagorno Karabagh with the overwhelming majority of the population voted in favor of total independence from Azerbaijan. Parliamentary elections of the NKR followed forming the first government. The independent NKR government went to work under conditions of a total blockade, war and aggression unleashed by Azerbaijan." CMD (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, their own official website makes it clear that they claimed independence from Azerbaijan. I don't think it made much sense for them to declare independence from the USSR. Grandmaster 22:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ashot Arz. that the situation was rather complex and difficult in Sept-Dec. 1991, so perhaps it is a good idea to be a bit more creative with the definition from what entity NK declared independence from. Zimmarod (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That piece of text simply seems to be a result of an inaccurate wording. A better piece of info may be found at Armenian Foreign Ministry website: "On December 10, 1991 NK population declared the establishment of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR) by plebiscite, which fully complies with both international law norms and the letter and spirit of the USSR laws of that time. Thus, on the territory of the former Azerbaijani SSR two equal state formations were created - Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and the Republic of Azerbaijan." [3] I'll contact NKR Ministry of Foreign affairs next week and ask them to edit their text. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 11:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

But even if they change their text, it does not change the fact that their own declaration makes no mention of the USSR as the country they were seceding from. And I don't see a single source saying that they seceded from the USSR, including the Armenian Foreign Ministry. Plus, if they claimed secession from the USSR, but not from Azerbaijan, then they recognize themselves as part of Azerbaijan. My understanding of their declaration, which is in line with what they say on their website, is that the separatists declared independence from Azerbaijan, which they believe was in accordance with the Soviet law, however the latter claim is not shared by the international community. Grandmaster 18:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, just a quick glance over the google books shows plenty of sources about who NK Armenians claimed independence from. Just a few examples:

Maria Raquel Freire. Conflict and security in the former Soviet Union: the role of the OSCE:

In 1991, the region declared independence from Azerbaijan, which did not recognize the secessionist act. [4]

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki. Azerbaijan: Seven years of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

On January 6, 1992, the Nagorno-Karabakh "Republic" parliament declared independence from Azerbaijan. [5]

James Minahan. Miniature empires: a historical dictionary of the newly independent states

On 31 December 1991 the Armenian-controlled government of Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence from Azerbaijan, further escalating the war between the two newly independent states. [6]

Tim Potier. Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia: a legal appraisal

On 10 December 1991, Nagorno-Karabakh held its own referendum on independence (following Azerbaijan's, on 18 October 1991). The vote overwhelmingly 'approved' Karabakh's sovereignty, with 82.2% of Karabakh's registered voters participating (although the Azeri population boycotted the plebiscite) and 99.89% supporting its independence from the already seceded Republic of Azerbaijan. [7]

I think it is pretty clear from the vast majority of sources, including the Armenian ones, that NK separatists claimed independence from Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 19:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there may really be many contradictory wordings to this, because juridically Karabakh's independence was from the USSR (as I already explained above), but considering the war, the fact that NKAO was part of AzSSR, as well as Azerbaijani "insistent" claims, de-facto it was from Azerbaijan. Whatever the background, technically Karabakh's people voted for (1) not joining seceded Azerbaijan and (2) independence from the USSR. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 21:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is just your opinion not supported by sources, even the official Armenian ones. All the sources quoted here show a different picture. Grandmaster 23:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Am very busy these days, will come back later with sources. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 14:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A light on the legal situation may be found here:

• The current legal system creates a gap between de facto independent states and de jure independent states. A de facto independent state with certain intrinsic legal rights to autonomy, which has nevertheless gone unrecognized due to sensitive political considerations, is left without recourse to participate in the international community. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic possesses such intrinsic rights. Under Soviet law, autonomous oblasts such as Nagorno-Karabakh were not legally obligated to secede along with the Union Republic whose internal Soviet borders they were located within. In such cases, autonomous oblasts had the right to determine their own fate. Accordingly, Nagorno-Karabakh possessed an intrinsic right to detach itself from the borders of Azerbaijan when Azerbaijan chose to secede from the Soviet Union. Therefore, upon fulfilling the Montevideo requirements, Nagorno-Karabakh possessed more than mere de facto autonomy, despite not being formally recognized by any state, on the premise that it had a legitimate legal claim to the territory, which exceeded Azerbaijan’s own claim. Azerbaijan does not have a legal claim to the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh as a matter of right because Azerbaijan’s secession from the Soviet Union was in violation of the Soviet constitutional procedure for secession, and likewise in violation of international law. Azerbaijan’s legal claim to Nagorno-Karabakh, at the time of Soviet Azerbaijan’s secession, was inferior to the Soviet Union’s own title because Soviet Azerbaijan’s secession took place prior to the Soviet Union’s formal dissolution, and because Nagorno-Karabakh had the status of “autonomous oblast” within the Soviet Union which accordingly conferred rights to Nagorno-Karabakh and diminished Soviet Azerbaijan’s legal control over it.

Ajemian, Michael (2011). "TERRITORIAL STALEMATE: INDEPENDENCE OF NAGORNO-KARABAKH FOLLOWING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE SOVIET UNION, AND ITS LINGERING EFFECTS DECADES LATER" (PDF). SUFFOLK TRANSNATIONAL LAW REVIEW. Book 2. 34. Retrieved 22 March 2012. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Among other sources I could find with a fast look are as follows:

• On December 10, 1991 NK population declared the establishment of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR) by plebiscite, which fully complies with both international law norms and the letter and spirit of the USSR laws of that time. Thus, on the territory of the former Azerbaijani SSR two equal state formations were created - Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and the Republic of Azerbaijan.

"Nagorno-Karabakh issue". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia. p. Current stage of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Retrieved 22 March 2012.

• Thereby, in 1991, sovereign Azerbaijani Republic and sovereign Nagorno-Karabakh Republic were proclaimed on the territory of the former Soviet Azerbaijani republic.

Avetisyan, Aram (22 October 2011). "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic: The First 20 Years of de-facto Independence". Foreign Policy Journal. Retrieved 22 March 2012. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Obviously, there is no one and the only approach to the matter in the sources. So there is no logic in giving preference to a particular point of view. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in the sources that you quoted that NK declared independence from the USSR. And I can quote tons of third party sources that say NK separatists declared independence from Azerbaijan. The fact that they tried to justify it by referring to a Soviet law that gave them no such right does not mean that they declared independence from the USSR. Grandmaster 09:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Since our anonymous friend continues to aggravate me, let me summarize what we have:

• The text of the referendum on independence does not specify whom they are seceding from.
• The text of the declaration specifies it is being done in accordance with Soviet law.
• However, at the time, the Soviet Union had limited jurisdiction. They had no de facto jurisdiction, and the de jure jurisdiction depends on if the Azerbaijan SSR had seceded in accordance with Soviet law. Constitutionally it appears to, but as we all know the Soviet constitution wasn't exactly expected to be followed.
• Unfortunately, I do not know the Soviet government's stance on the secession of the Azerbaijan SSR, except that it happened a month or so before the NKR's referendum.
• The NKR's official webpage [8] states they seceded from Azerbaijan.
• Either way, the IP's attempt at saying they seceded from the "Azerbaijan SSR" makes, I think we will all agree, no sense, as the Azerbaijan SSR was not an actor in itself, it was a division of the Soviet Union. That would be like saying Long Island seceded from New York but not the United States, but clearly, the NKR is not in the USSR anymore. So that argument is right out.
  • The fact that, apparently, the Republic of Azerbaijan continued the Azerbaijan SSR's constitution for four years is irrelevant. The way the IP is doing it, it's stating they seceded from a division of the Soviet Union and not a country. Nonsense.
• Grandmaster has supplied multiple third party sources stating the NKR seceded from Azerbaijan.
• Even if the NKR said they were seceding from the USSR, at that point in time it may not have been what actually happened.
• Conclusion: The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic de facto seceded from Azerbaijan, and whom they de jure seceded from is in dispute. At the time of their secession they may legally have not been in the USSR; I don't know if the Azerbaijan SSR's secession was legal, nor do I know if autonomous oblasts come along for the ride. If these are outlined above, I apologize, please link me to them.
• The infobox and introduction should say Azerbaijan.
• We should have a subsection within ... oh, probably "International Status" that explains this in depth, so the subject never comes up again. I expect it will take 3-4 paragraphs: One to establish what the NKR itself said and did, one to explain the Azerbaijan SSR's secession from the Soviet Union, and one mentioning third party sources.
• I may or may not be lazy enough to do the above, but if I do it it won't be this week.
• Comments? --Golbez (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • One quick point of clarification, but is it really that wrong to say they seceded from the Azerbaijan SSR? (I'm not saying we should, just asking.) The USSR was nominally a union of independent states, who all had their own governments and constitutions, and Nagorno-Karabakh did try to separate itself from the SSR at a few points. CMD (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If we are saying "Azerbaijan SSR", we are referring to the union republic, not the independent country (that wasn't even named Azerbaijan SSR for its last year as a union republic). And in that case... okay, so it secedes from the union republic. But that still makes it part of the USSR. So then we'd say, after the Soviet Union collapsed, that it became independent from the Soviet Union. And if it seceded from the Azerbaijan SSR and didn't become part of the rest of the USSR, then ... it's still becoming independent from the Soviet Union. We're talking about its creation as an independent international actor, not an internal reshuffling. To draw an American parallel, when West Virginia seceded from Virginia, it was to remain part of the United States, rather than to be its own country. If they had split off to be their own country, we would say they seceded from the US (or CS but that's another argument entirely), but we wouldn't say it was from Virginia. --Golbez (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

      We are talking here not so much about actual secession, because legally it never happened, but about claims of secession, i.e. who they claim independence from. According to both Armenian separatist sources, and third party ones, they claimed independence from Azerbaijan, because claiming independence from the USSR was kind of pointless, as the Soviet law to which they refer would only give them the options of staying within the USSR or joining the seceding republic. Also, as Golbez pointed out, Azerbaijan was called Azerbaijan Republic during its last year as the Soviet republic, so the whole argument is pointless, because there was no entity called Azerbaijan SSR at the time of declaration in question. In any case, the article should state Azerbaijan Republic. Grandmaster 00:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Nagorno-Karabakh Banknote - 10 drams.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nagorno-Karabakh Banknote - 10 drams.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Nagorno-Karabakh Banknote - 10 drams.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Intro section - status of Nagorno-Karabakh

The intro section states that Nagorno-Karabakh is a "de-facto independent republic" and that it is a "disputed" region. Although these 2 phrases practically are true but stating just these is very biased toward Armenian position. Mostly importantly it fails to state: 1) de-juri status alongside de-facto status, which is that is it "part of Azerbaijan" - accepted internationally and by many UN resolutions. 2) On the matter of the "disputed" phrase it fails to mention that its official internationally-accepted status (again according to many UN resolutions) is that it is an "occupied region of Azerbaijan" and not a "disputed region". Saying that it is "disputed between Azerbaijan and Armenia" is true from practical point of view it is incorrect not to stay the official status.

Omitting these equally important statements (and arguably more important) in the intro section creates an incorrect and one-sided opinion of the reader.

I suggest this to be corrected.

86.164.202.100 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC) El

The problem is that the intro section currently runs as a historical summary, so summary statements are few and far between. It could definitely be made a bit clearer earlier on that it remains claimed and recognised as Azerbaijani. I will propose a new lead in a bit, although anyone else feel free to! CMD (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Nagorno-Karabakh, officially the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) (Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետություն Lernayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetut’yun), or Artsakh Republic (Armenian: Արցախի Հանրապետություն Arts'akhi Hanrapetut’yun), is a republic in the South Caucasus recognised only by three other non-UN states. Claimed and recognised as part of Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh controls most of the territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and some of the surrounding area giving it a border with Armenia to the west and Iran to the south.

The predominantly Armenian-populated region of Nagorno-Karabakh was disputed by Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries became independent from the Russian Empire in 1918. After the Soviet Union established control over the area, it in 1923 created the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the Azerbaijan SSR. In the final years of the Soviet Union, the region re-emerged as a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In 1991 a referendum held in the NKAO and the neighboring Shahumian region resulted in a declaration of independence. Large-scale ethnic conflict lead to the 1991-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War, which ended with a ceasefire that left the current borders.

Nagorno-Karabakh is a presidential democracy with a unicarmel parliament. The country is very mountainous, averaging 1,097 metres (3,599 ft) above sea level.

The population is predominantly Christian, with most Christians being affiliated with the Armenian Apostolic Church. Several historical monasteries are a target for tourists, mostly from the Armenian diaspora, as most travel can only take place between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Much of the article isn't very comprehensive, so it's hard to make a very comprehensive lead. Still, hopefully this will be an improvement over a lead that is all history, as well as being one that notes the Azerbaijani claim near the beginning. CMD (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've inserted this. Still open for comments. CMD (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Nakhchivan-TRNC (add: NKR, NSW)

TRNC does not have a different (superior) status for being recognised or not by the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic but due to de iure recognition by a UN member country and also due to tacit recognition by many other countries. It is not an example to cite here. --E4024 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, within the context of the ongoing discussion -here and somewhere else, related to this issue- on recognition and international relations, please read my talk on the discussion page of Nakhchivan. It may give some insight to the differences between the international acts of that autonomous republic and those of the self-declared NKR and the Australian state of NSW and help us to understand some cases. Sometimes having a recognized autonomous status gives more liberty to a political entity than a self-declared "independence". --E4024 (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. You compare an unrecognised part of a state (North Cyprus) by this very state (Cyprus) and it's officials with the recognised authorities (NSW) of the state they belong to (Australia). This makes the difference. Anyway, it is off-topic and one other Original Research by editors. Aregakn (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Australia’s New South Wales Recognizes Karabakh Independence

FYI: [9].--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We saw, someone put it up, several people (including me) reverted them. Seeing how New South Wales has no foreign policy authority, I'm not seeing how this is really significant, certainly not more significant than the recognitions from the unrecognized independent countries. It's a tiny mention at best, not a section unto itself. But considering there's zero geopolitical ramifications or consequences of this, I'm not seeing the import. --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't understand how one can say that this recognition is unimportant. (by the way here's the original source from the New South Wales parliament). This is the first motion of its sort which was adopted (unanimously) by a foreign state recognizing the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and the right to self-determination of its people. Considering the history of Karabakh in the last 20 years, since it independence, this motion is absolutely unique and noteworthy. --Markus2685 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Except it's not a foreign state. (well I suppose technically one could say that, it's the state of a foreign country, but it is not an independent state actor) It's a subnational government that has no diplomatic authority. And also, how is this more relevant than recognition from Transnistria, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia? Their foreign policy chops are vastly more important than New South Wales', though still not terribly meaningful. Finally, I actually read your link, and nowhere do they say they "recognize" the NKR. They commemorate the 20th anniversary of independence and they call for recognition and peaceful relations. None of this is controversial, and none of it signifies any recognition by a state. --Golbez (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It is no a matter of you seeing importance Golbez. It is a matter of recognition of a self-determined state. Whether it has international implications or not, it is the first recognition on this level and is to be noted in the article. Deleting this information could be seen as an attempt to cover it, hide it. Once again, it is the first recognition in this level and the reader has a full right to know that the process has started.

The resolution also contains a call to the federal government, FYI. There, read this one: [10]. You are taking the primary source. The primary source tells that the house marks he year as the 20th aniversary of declaration of independence of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh and in 2(f) calls on the federal government to recognise the independence. The secondary sources like Marshal noed as well as [11], where it is clear that the Azeri official is talking of recognition of NKR and territorial integrity. We clearly see from the secondary sources, if you reject the primary, that it is about recognition of independence of NKR.

Resume: It is a true information, supported by primary and secondary sources, worth being in the article due to it's unique level of recognition status. Aregakn (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"It is the first recognition on this level" So it's more important than the recognitions from Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, which we (for some reason) devote little to no space to?

"... could be seen as an attempt to cover it." Not my problem. Including it could be seen as an attempt to give it more importance than it warrants.

"It is the first recognition on this level" Back to this one: It's not recognition. Show me where in this resolution it states that the legislature of New South Wales recognizes the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It calls for peace and says it respects self-determination, but there's no geopolitical statement being made here.

"the house marks the year as the 20th anniversary of declaration of independence" Yes, it does. That the NKR declared independence is a simple fact.

"and in 2(f) calls on the federal government to recognize the independence." Yes, because the government of New South Wales has no authority to recognize independence, so the most it can do is call on the actual authority in the country to do so. This is marginally more impressive than me writing to my congressman to do the same, as the government of New South Wales has no federal authority in Australia.

As for Azerbaijan responding, that does give it a little more import; if this becomes a democratic kerfluffle (though there's no reason for it to become one) then it could warrant inclusion on that basis. Though the Azeri official is just using it as a chance to complain about Armenians and try to make it clear that Australia's on Azerbaijan's side. In other words, if played right, this could be a nasty own-goal for friends of Karabakh. Time will tell.

I suppose I would not complain terribly if it were in place if it were accompanied by notes of the recognition from actual state actors (PMR, RSO, and Abkhazia), and deliberately portrayed as less important. But don't delude yourself that this means anything towards Karabakh independence (that goes for both sides, Azeris too). Basically, it's wrong to have a 'foreign recognition' section that consists solely of a statement from a entity that has no power to recognize anything. Include the actual recognitions before including this one. --Golbez (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand what point you are trying to make. I am not editing on those articles and I do not know what you are talking about and this is irrelevant. Please do not compare other articles because it cannot be a reason to do the same in all articles or I am surely not going to start researching the issue to edit there then only to come back here. 1) So "... it's more important than the recognitions from Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, ..." -- please concentrate on a constructive edit of this one article. 2) "Yes, because the government of New South Wales has no authority to recognize independence..." -- irrelevant to the subject. The parliament has done it in the state and we discuss it. I am not willing to discuss who has which authority (neither do I have enough information). We bring the sources and enrich the article, so please do not make your own research. And here the federal government did not call the recognition against anti-constitutional which means the local parliaments have this authority and that also has their implication. It is in another secondary source I will mention at the end. 3) "In other words, if played right, this could be a nasty own-goal for friends of Karabakh. Time will tell." and " But don't delude yourself that this means anything towards Karabakh independence (that goes for both sides, Azeris too)" -- Well I wonder if this shows any prejudice and that you edit with a point here. I would recommend not to edit with such an attitude. 4) " ...if it were accompanied by notes of the recognition from actual state actors (PMR, RSO, and Abkhazia), and deliberately portrayed as less important." -- Here again you want to bring your research. I'd repeat, what we do here is bringing sources and editing according to them and do not make our own comparisons.

New secondary source: if you know Russian [12]. Here you can see an expert on the region talking about the recognition calling it with exactly that word. In addition he agrees there that the Federal Government did not coin it anti-constitutional and moreover, he tells, quote: ".. it will have, considerable/important political, legal and organisational implications."

With all the above secondary sources I think the word recognition is in place and the fact of it being an important event for the NKR (as well as the article about it) is also clear, isn't it? Aregakn (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Er, I'm not comparing other articles? I'm talking about Transnistrian, etc. recognition of the NKR. I never mentioned any other articles.

"Irrelevant to the subject" Not really, since this is about recognition, and the NSW government did not recognize the NKR, they simply called upon the federal government to recognize it. Before you claim that this is self-contradictory, I point out that Armenia itself does not recognize the NKR, yet you know they would love for others to.

"Well I wonder if this shows any prejudice and that you edit with a point here. I would recommend not to edit with such an attitude." Aww, you came so close to accusing me of having a prejudice. I have an attitude against both Armenians and Azeris because I have been editing these articles for seven years and have come to generally hate everyone involved.

"not make our own comparisons" Which is why we need to at least give the actual foreign recognition rather than solely NSW. Is there a reason you haven't jumped on this opportunity?

Seeing how I cannot read that Russian page I cannot comment. But if secondary sources believe it has ramifications then so be it; just do it along with the countries that have recognized the NKR. To include NSW but for some reason omit the three others is very strange. Or do we not have adequate sources that state the other three recognize the NKR? --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources to do with mutual recognition among the four unrecognised soviet states aren't very common, an affect no doubt of the fact their mutual recognition means very little anyway, and that I'm sure each would seek to distance themselves from the others if it benefitted them. Some sources say NSW recognised NKR. This is true or not depending on what you mean by recognition. In the formal diplomatic sense, NSW has no power to recognise anything, having no independent foreign policy. In the sense that some politician called the NKR a country, then sure, recognition, although it's not very notable and only remotely relevant as NKR is so isolated. It's not unique at any rate. Nakchivan has 'recognised' Northern Cyprus, and I believe Wales did something or other with Somaliland at one point. CMD (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I also read the source, and the original resolution does not say that NSW recognizes independence of NK, as NSW does not have foreign policy authority. The NSW only "calls on the Commonwealth Government to officially recognise the independence of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh", as was noted above by others. Calling for recognition and actually recognizing are two different things. Grandmaster 07:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to one specific source, just to a few I'd seen. Some have said that NSW has recognised, which I think is a fair enough statement, with regards to casual English. I completely agree with you that it's not diplomatic recognition or anything like that. In any subarticle this may get mentioned in, we should use that quote from the resolution. CMD (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, if this gets mentioned anywhere for whatever reason, it is better to use the original quote. And I also agree with Golbez, NSW did not officially recognize NK, I see nothing about that in the declaration of NSW, which could be checked here: [13] The info about "recognition" comes from the Armenian sources, which were overly enthusiastic about the NSW declaration. It was repeated by some Azerbaijani sources too, but no one outside of the region even noticed it. Grandmaster 06:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• @ Golbez - " I have an attitude against both Armenians and Azeris because I have been editing these articles for seven years and have come to generally hate everyone involved." I strongly recommend you to stop editing these articles with such expression of hate. This is 100% prove of you pushing points.
• @ Recognition - Anybody trying to analyse primary sources and put their research I would suggest not to. There are enough secondary sources, all: 3rd party, Azeri or Armenian telling it so it does not depend on our analyses of the primary source.
• @ Grandmaster - please reread the above to see the secondary sources so you don't claim them to be solely Armenian. Aregakn (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have mostly stopped editing these, yes. I burned out on it heavily. Still, adult supervision is required. (also, lol at me saying I hate both sides somehow equating to me pushing points. Which points? Please, Aregakn, tell me which side I hate less.) --Golbez (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Golbez, I left an important message on your talk-page. Please take it serious because this is absolutely appalling! Aregakn (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what points I'm pushing. --Golbez (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Aregakn, I don't see any good secondary sources. The Azerbaijani source does not say that NSW recognized NK, it says:

Australia’s New South Wales state adopted resolution on recognition of the right to self-determination of “Nagorno Karabakh people” on October 25. The MPs called the Australian Government to recognize the separatist regime officially and to strengthen Australia’s relationships with the “Nagorno Karabakh Republic” and its “citizens”.

That certainly does not mean that NSW recognized NK. And there's also a Russian-Armenian politologist who is known for his pro-Armenian bias, but that source is not good enough for us to stop believing our own eyes. The NSW declaration clearly says that NSW Council "calls on the Commonwealth Government to officially recognise the independence" of NK. Calling for recognition and recognizing are two different things. You can ask for more third opinions if you do not like those that were expressed here. Grandmaster 19:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the assessment above. NSW didn't recognize NK, they called on Australia to recognize. That being said, this is probably notable enough to warrant mention on Foreign relations of Nagorno-Karabakh isn't it? TDL (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that shows if NKR has any relations with that part of Australia. It rather shows there is an Armenian lobby with some influence over the state parliament in NSW. (Upto here on the article, now some humour: NSW parliament should also make a similar call to the Armenian parliament in Yerevan, to be consistent with that position... :-) --E4024 (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we're getting quite tangled up in semantics here, but are mostly on the same page. Do we all agree that

• 1) any recognition/call for recognition/whatever you want to call/not call it, from the subnational NSW parliament (or any subnational body really) is not, and is in no way equivalent to diplomatic recognition, which would have to come from a sovereign state
• 2) this information does not deserve a section on this article; a sentence, if anything, and
• 3) it is however notable to be covered on the main article Foreign relations of Nagorno-Karabakh?

If so, we can probably close this conversation with those conclusions, and if anyone wishes to pursue this matter further, they can do it in the subarticle. CMD (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with all of the above. --Golbez (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. TDL (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure if NSW declaration could be considered a "foreign relation", but if it is, it is more appropriate in that article, but with accurate quoting of the original declaration. Grandmaster 16:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The NSW declaration is not a foreign relation, but I feel it falls under that sort of topic scope. CMD (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I refuse engaging in WP:OR. I brought several secondary sources calling it a recognition. Even the Azerbaijani government called it so and sent an official inquiry to Australia:

• [14].
• The Azeri official also calls it recognition [15] and speaks of territorial integrity
• [16] Here you can see an expert on the region talking about the recognition calling it so, and, quote: ".. it will have, considerable/important political, legal and organisational implications."
• [17] and [18] other 3rd party newspapers also terming it recognition of the republic.

I see no reason why any editor should get involved in an Original Research and try to interpret it himself having all these sources. Aregakn (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking only for the second link, but it doesn't say NSW recognized the NKR. It says they recognized "the right of self-determination" of the people of NK, which is not the same as recognizing their government's independence. So that one's disqualified. --Golbez (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Same with the first link. It is almost identical to the second link, and doesn't say NSW recognized the NK. Grandmaster 16:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the analyses of the Azerbaijani media you made only, which I used to solely show the concerns of their state representatives for the territorial integrity where they include NKR. That was the sole purpose of bringing those sources. Now view the others.

The early reports of recognition were deleted there at once. You could even find in google news links to Azeri media sites that were not there anymore. Aregakn (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If they were deleted, it was because those reports were not accurate. And your last two links from Russian media are the same source. One is an article in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, and the other one its announcement in The Moscow Times. But it is still not a good reason to consider declaration of NSW a recognition. The text of NSW declaration is available online for everyone to see. I think this discussion is over. You are the only person insisting that this declaration is something of extreme importance, while the obvious consensus here is that it is not. Grandmaster 22:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Such thing are usually not done by free media by deleting articles. It is done through refutation, addition or correction but deletion is a way to hide something (but leave this). Secondly, I take your answer about the 2 other secondary sources as confirmation of them stating "recognition of NKR by NSW" but you personally think it is "not a good reason", as you called it.

I will add more now:

• [19] -

  The recognition of the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic by the biggest state of Australia ....

Original - "Признание крупнейшим австралийским штатом Южным Уэльсом независимости Карабаха....."

• Now a Ukrainian expert [20] -

  ...this type of a tactic of obtaining international recognition through forwarding of the issue on the level of the local government authorities of different countries can be quite efficient in this situation, when the governments of the USA, the European states are trying to ignore the factual situation in Caucasus

Original - "... подобная тактика, а именно получение международного признания Нагорно-Карабахской Республики путем продвижения этого вопроса на уровне органов местного самоуправления различных государств, может быть достаточно эффективной в той ситуации, когда правительства стран Европы и США пытаются игнорировать фактическое положение дел на Кавказе."

• I did not understand which 2 sources of the 3 I mentioned you called the same. could you please clarify Grand? Thanks Aregakn (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• You are beating a dead horse here. The text is available online, and it clearly says that NSW "calls on the Commonwealth Government to officially recognise the independence of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh". It does not say "NSW recognizes NK as an independent state". You can keep on citing Ukrainian and Russian "experts", not well known even in their own countries, but I see no reason why we should not believe our own eyes and trust non-English sources on interpretation of an English source, especially when no interpretation is needed. And responding to your question, this and this are the same source, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, quoted in two other newspapers. Grandmaster 21:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  Also, already 5 other editors disagreed with you. But you are not listening, which is disruptive, see WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. If you think that people who expressed their opinion here do not understand anything, try asking other people, or start an RFC. But making the same argument over and over despite the consensus is pointless. Grandmaster 22:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

5 other editors did not disagree. You are distorting the facts. It was a mixed dicussion of how notable the fact is and where in the article it can be.

You are telling "we have our eyes". Why are you pushing a WP:OR, your own interpretation of a primary source?

Instead of doing that bring us your sources that contradict to the 5 secondary sources I brought. It is not your perception or mine. These are the sources. You have any?

And I do not see anything showing that those 2 sources are the same. Make a clarification please. Aregakn (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I count at least five editors: Me, Grandmaster, TDL, E4024, and CMD. This discussion is essentially over; you will have to move on to dispute resolution to get your way. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Editors should not interpret primary sources that require special skills and knowledge. For instance, ancient historical chronicles or medical documents require secondary sources for interpretation of their meaning. Modern political declarations do not require any special skills to be understood, they are meant to be understandable by any person. If you disagree with the consensus formed on this page, please ask the wider community. Grandmaster 09:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I missed the discussion. The text here and in the Nagorno-Karabakh article should mention explicitly that Abkhazia and S.Osetia recognized NKR, that two US states called for the recognition of NKR's independence and that the largest Australian state also called for recognition. Sprutt (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia, yes. But NSW and these two states? Calling for recognition is meaningless. (Also, which two states?) --Golbez (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No they are not. And by the way, the text has tons of minutia about Council of Europe's this or that body passing this or that truly meaningless resolutions. All shall be cleaned up or moved to "Foreign policy of NKR" article. Sprutt (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would not call the resolutions of the Council of Europe meaningless, because it is an international organization that unites de-jure states, and not unrecognized entities or subnational divisions. The resolutions of international organizations are notable because they reflect the position of the international community towards the status of NK. What is really not necessary in the article is a large quote from a paper by some law school, that takes almost half of the section about the international status. Why quoting the "New England School of Law" so extensively? It is not an international organization, and its notability is questionable. I don't see any other source being quoted as much as this one. Grandmaster 19:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Council of Europe's position is quite meaningful, but each individual resolution it makes is probably not so. It's probably also less meaningful in that its position is simply an extension that of its members. I agree with the idea of moving a large amount of what is on this page to the foreign relations article. CMD (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

But those are not foreign relations of NK. NK was not involved in development and adoption of those resolutions. If the info is to be moved, it is better to create a separate article called "International Status of Nagorno-Karabakh", in line with the present title of this section. Grandmaster 15:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

They're not foreign relations, but they're related to why there is the lack of foreign relations. I don't see the point of having two articles, one for recognition and one for relations, when they're so tied together and would result in tiny articles. Perhaps it's worth renaming the article, but for now I think the information there belongs in that topic. CMD (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, maybe it would be better to rename the article about foreign relations into that about international status? Foreign relations of Nagorno-Karabakh is quite a weird name, as the article is about something that does not exist. Grandmaster 20:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it exists with Armenia. Somewhat unofficially, of course. I'm happy to discuss renaming foreign relations to international status. International status seems to be the broader topic. However, that's a discussion better held on that talk page. With regards to this one, we just need to decide whether all the text here is due for the article. CMD (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, if we look at a similar topic about Transnistria, it has an article about foreign relations, and another one called International recognition of Transnistria. The name of the latter is also wrong in my opinion, as it again describes nonexistent subject. It would be more appropriate to call it "International Status of Transnistria". But NK would not be unique in having two subarticles. Grandmaster 20:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we can move some of the text, but not all, because it makes sense to explain here in general terms what the position of the main international players about this region is. But more detailed info could be split into a separate article. Grandmaster 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"International recognition of X" is a rather standard name. It seems fine to me to have that as the article title, with the text summing up to "Basically none" or something. The foreign relations of Transnistria article is four lines long, so to me is a clear example of why it shouldn't exist as a separate article. Of course a summary should be kept here, but I don't think the present text is much of a summary. It should all be in a subarticle anyway, no matter how much is left here. I opened a discussion on the Foreign relations page. CMD (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It would not be a proper title. "International Status..." is what can include it all. AppleMacintosh (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Status" is even better. F.E. Status: Azerbaijani territory under occupation. (Short is beautiful.) --E4024 (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Occupation according to whom? Some Armenians in the NKR may object to that - control is the better word.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

dfft, marshall --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Occupation, according to the Government of the "Republic of Armenia", for example, as it participates in rounds of meetings of the Minsk Group that present it from time to time documents about how to end that occupation. Although evasive, conflicting and at times not in good faith, that government also occasionally gives counter-proposals about those international documents... -- E4024 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

lol, yeah, please pass the Kool-Aid on over whenever you're done.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL. But still I see a lot of rubbish in the article about some dude at PACE signing some document passed around by Azerb. delegation etc etc etc. And nothing about Massachusetts, Rhode Island and South Wales passing resolutions on NKR. Sprutt (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Fully agreed. Ts..Aregakn (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and its rapporteur are not "some dude", it is an international organization uniting all parliaments of Europe, including those of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and provincial parliaments in USA and Australia cannot be placed at the same level as the international parliamentary assembly representing the parliaments of the entire continent. Provincial parliaments are not notable, and they have no weight in international politics, as they have no foreign policy authority. Grandmaster 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

PACE is a consultative body and not legislative. It has only representatives from national parliaments. What they say is not practically applicable for all the members at once. On the contrary the regional parliaments. What hey say is applicable for their division. For example, if tomorrow they go out of the federation their decision receives a national character. Before that the regional government is from there on allowed to strengthen ties with the recognised republic of the NK in any spheres their jurisdiction allows (social, cultural, professional etc.). These recognitions can bring more change than constipation of the fact that the national parliaments have not recognised.

Now it is better not to change the subject which is about including these facts of recognition in the article as these are notable according to the sources. We as editors edit according to sources which have been sighted enough. Aregakn (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The NSW discussion is over. If you think that by bringing this issue up over and over you will make others change their mind, you are wrong. As you were told before, you can start an RFC to get more opinions, but people who commented here did not consider NSW declaration notable enough for inclusion. Btw, even analysts in Armenia do not consider it to be anything serious: [21] Grandmaster 21:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think you have a right to close a discussion? Not all agreed to it and the result is the below discussion. If not me and several other editors the much useless information that the article has wouldn't have been discussed. So better see the actual results instead of misleading.

As for the article you brought, the man talking is a member of a semi-nationalist group "Hayazn" and not an independent specialist. He claims the NKR is part of Armenia.

But if you want independent Armenian sources that speak of the importance of the event, I can bring hell-lot of them. But better you don't start this, isn't it?

The fact is, however, that there is no consensus on this issue. Aregakn (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No consensus after weeks generally means sticking with the status quo, not continuing the exact same fight. --Golbez (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Move chapter International status to separate article

Chapter Nagorno-Karabakh Republic#International status is disproportionately long. Content to these chapter is very similar to articles as Political status of Kosovo, Political status of Western Sahara, Political status of the Palestinian territories etc. My proposal: Create from Nagorno-Karabakh Republic#International status a separate article Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh and in the main article, leaving only a brief summary of the issues. Jan CZ (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree, it is long and contains a lot of trivia and minutia. Sprutt (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree too. It has to be worked on, consolidated and structured more properly. Aregakn (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's Done. Jan CZ (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno Karabakh

Shouldn't the Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno Karabakh be excluded from the maps, or at least shaded another colour? According to that article, Nagorno-Karabakh concederes the territories to be part of Azerbaijan, but under Nagorno-Karabakh occupation. Israel claims the Golan Heights and West Bank, and has settlers there, yet they are excluded from the Israel map. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The situation isn't that clear cut. They weren't part of the original oblast yes, but since their conquest they've been effectively absorbed into the country. Note that websites such as this one don't bother with any distinction. It would by crystal balling to determine which territories would be returned in any eventual deal, if there is one. CMD (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I recently noticed that myself, and it seems to go against other information I've seen. Documents from the NKR (like their census) imply that they claim to have fully annexed those areas, rather than merely occupying them, until such time I suppose as a firmer peace is hammered out. I think it's the other article, rather than this one, that is in error. (Note added after edit conflict: CMD has the exact link I was referring to) --Golbez (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Article 142 of NKR's Constitution states that they claim authority over the currently held territories until it's territorial integrity is restored (not sure what that is, maybe they want the former Shahumyan region) and it's borders are adjusted. Article 142 Basically it says that the current territory is theirs until there is a peace deal and it's final borders are determined. --Antelope Hunter (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Subnational recognition

I just removed a graf on Fresno County, California, recognizing Nagorno Karabakh. Now, the individual states don't have diplomatic authority (more on that in a moment); a single county or city certainly doesn't. They can call upon their state legislature to do something, but they have no authority to make diplomatic decisions on their own, regardless of their actual actions.

Now, states. We mention three U.S. states, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine. I'm not entirely sure we should mention these either; we removed an Australian state (New South Wales, I think) because, again, states have no diplomatic authority, so it was a non-action.

I propose we remove anything without international standing from the international relations section. --Golbez (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent addition

The recent addition by Roses&guns reads as:

The independence of NKR was fiercely opposed by Azerbaijan, where the popular demands for secession first resulted in ethnic cleansings and pogroms of Armenians [9][10][11] and then in a large-scale war (1991-1994) in which Azerbaijan tried to conquer the newly independent NKR by subjecting it to blockade and using military force indiscriminately against the civilian population.[12][13][14]

This edit is not appropriate for a number of reasons. First off, it is highly POV. It mentions cleansing of Armenians without any mention of ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis from Armenia and NK. The claims of Azerbaijan trying to conquer "NKR" by "using military force indiscriminately against the civilian population" are also POV, because the Armenian side is guilty of the same on a much larger scale. It is enough to mention Khojaly massacre and other massacres of Azerbaijani civilian population. No matter what sources you use to support these claims, it is quite obvious that they only represent a distorted picture of events, and as such cannot be accepted. But the sources are also very poor. The speeches at the UK parliament and US senate by a well known Armenian proxy Caroline Cox and the likes are hardly reliable sources, let alone certain Tololyan Khachig. Previous version was more balanced, so I rolled the article back. Grandmaster 22:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In the article about Nagorno-Karabakh Republic it has to be mentioned that Azerbaijan opposed its independence, that the process of secession resulted in ethnic cleansings and war: I gave references from BBC and New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/05/world/soviet-reports-deaths-of-31-in-azerbaijan-rioting.html; http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/22/newsid_4099000/4099647.stm) the matter is not at all in Tololyan Khachik.

The fact that Azerbaijan tried to conquer Karabakh by force is too well documented and is referenced by the words of the president of Azerbaijan; what other source is needed? You can't delete sections of it just because you think the other side of the story is missing, add what's missing if you like, however in this very section the Khojaly massacre is completely irrelevant.Roses&guns (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not black and white. There are plenty of sources to demonstrate that the ethnic cleansing took place in both countries. Why should we mention only Azerbaijan committing ethnic cleansing, when Armenia did the same on a much bigger scale? More than 800,000 Azerbaijanis and Kurds were cleansed from the NK and territories surrounding it, yet you want to single out only what Azerbaijani side did. Please mind WP:NPOV. The same goes for the claim that Azerbaijan tried to conquer, etc. And newspaper reports from before 1990 are not good sources to make claims about the entire NK conflict, they only report certain episodes of the conflict, but do not provide the entire picture in the historical perspective. Grandmaster 20:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The census figures count 6 Azeris but no Kurds. Are they in 'other'? Could we expand on what happened to the Kurds? The enmity between the Armenians and the Azeris I understand, but given what I thought were good relations with the Kurds, I wonder why they were attacked as well, and this article is no help in understanding. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Human Rights

"The government required IDPs to register their place of residence in an attempt to better target the limited and largely inadequate national and international assistance due to the Armenian advocated and US imposed restrictions on humanitarian aid to Azerbaijan". This sentence is unreferenced and unsubstantiated. Please provide a reference or amend the article 122.150.178.86 (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Name

It would be interesting to explain why the area is named in English with its Russian and not High Karabakh, Mountain Karabakh or some other translation. Also, the Russian name is only explained very late in the article. I suggest something like the following for the lead:

Nagorno-Karabakh, officially the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR; Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետություն Lernayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetut’yun), Artsakh Republic or Republic of Artsakh (Armenian: Արցախի Հանրապետություն Arts'akhi Hanrapetut’yun;[6] Russian: [Russian transliteration], "Mountainous Karabakh", is a republic...

--Error (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We do so because that's how a lot of sources refer to it in English. Proper names are often used as they are without translation, just as we call Kazakhstan Kazakhstan without straight away saying it means land of the Kazakhs. CMD (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

NSW recognition

I see this was discussed in depth previously and I don't wish to revisit the debate necessarily but could the article at least use the NSW Govt doc as its reference? http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20121025005 Tigerman2005 (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition of word "only" to intro

I've added the word "only" to "recognised by three non-UN states" to make it "recognised only by three non-UN states". I hope this is not too controversial a change. Almost all self-described states are recognised by three states both UN and non-UN, at the very least; only a very few are recognised only by three non-UN states.-- The Anome (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Currency

Can we remove the footnote on the currency section in the infobox, I don't think it matters whether they sell past currencies as souvenirs. We can mention that in another place, perhaps? 92.55.106.58 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071217194514/http://www.nkr.am:80/eng/Constitution.htm to http://www.nkr.am/eng/Constitution.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080107111430/http://www.refugees.org:80/countryreports.aspx?cid=1301 to http://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?cid=1301
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080103020828/http://www.nkr.am:80/eng/deklaraciya209.html to http://www.nkr.am/eng/deklaraciya209.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080911024449/http://www.stat-nkr.am/2000_2006/05.pdf to http://www.stat-nkr.am/2000_2006/05.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721185312/http://www.arminfo.info/news-issue1550.shtml to http://www.arminfo.info/news-issue1550.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent Flareup

The last few days have seen the first significant combat between the rival claimants since the mid-1990s; I would like to mention this in the intro and the 'current status' section.Mikalra (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721183523/http://www.abhazia.info/property/48-2010-12-28-07-06-44/76-abkhazia-istoria.html to http://www.abhazia.info/property/48-2010-12-28-07-06-44/76-abkhazia-istoria.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029213551/http://artsakhtert.com/rus/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1873:2012-07-27-12-14-19 to http://artsakhtert.com/rus/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1873:2012-07-27-12-14-19
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081211204035/http://www.regnum.ru:80/english/733363.html to http://www.regnum.ru/english/733363.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080226134917/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/ap/2006/12/11/europe/EU_GEN_EU_Nagorno_Karabakh.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/11/europe/EU_GEN_EU_Nagorno_Karabakh.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111111021626/http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/pr_10/100216_balayan.html to http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/pr_10/100216_balayan.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121010182533/http://www.regnum.ru/english/polit/661396.html to http://www.regnum.ru/english/polit/661396.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080102141009/http://www.regnum.ru:80/english/polit/927865.html to http://www.regnum.ru/english/polit/927865.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090612043901/http://www.regnum.ru:80/english/943595.html to http://www.regnum.ru/english/943595.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140508223356/http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/05/08/3916420/capitol-alert-california-assembly.html to http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/05/08/3916420/capitol-alert-california-assembly.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140531090353/http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=2284 to http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=2284
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140901191457/http://civilnet.am:80/california-state-recognises-karabakh/ to http://civilnet.am/california-state-recognises-karabakh/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070902091342/http://news.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/hundreds_of_thousands_of_people_displaced/ to http://news.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/hundreds_of_thousands_of_people_displaced/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071128073659/http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004BE3B1/%28httpInfoFiles%29/84086FC6C659F7FAC125710E004D14B8/$file/Azerbaijan%20-May%202003.pdf to http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004BE3B1/%28httpInfoFiles%29/84086FC6C659F7FAC125710E004D14B8/$file/Azerbaijan%20-May%202003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080107111423/http://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?__VIEWSTATE=dDwxMTA1OTA4MTYwOztsPENvdW50cnlERDpHb0J1dHRvbjs%2BPrImhOOqDI29eBMz8b04PTi8xjW2&cid=558&subm=&ssm=&map=&_ctl0%3ASearchInput=+KEYWORD+SEARCH&CountryDD%3ALocationList= to http://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?__VIEWSTATE=dDwxMTA1OTA4MTYwOztsPENvdW50cnlERDpHb0J1dHRvbjs%2BPrImhOOqDI29eBMz8b04PTi8xjW2&cid=558&subm=&ssm=&map=&_ctl0%3ASearchInput=+KEYWORD+SEARCH&CountryDD%3ALocationList=
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080905181618/http://www.regnum.ru/english/793359.html to http://www.regnum.ru/english/793359.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111111023430/http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/fr/nk/nk.pdf to http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/fr/nk/nk.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080226062839/http://www.karabakh-open.com:80/src/index.php?id=0&lang=en to http://www.karabakh-open.com/src/index.php?id=0&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Abkhazia infobox RfC

Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. CMD (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2016

91.135.251.156 (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead section copy editing

I changed De Facto to ''de facto'' since lower case and italics is completely standard for Latin phrases. I normally wouldn't bother posting on the talk page for such a trivial and uncontroversial change, but a hidden comment told me to. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/news/inthenews/20090304_politique_president.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.trendaz.com/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1091985&lang=EN
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306035735/http://census.stat-nkr.am/nkr/1-4.pdf to http://census.stat-nkr.am/nkr/1-4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)