Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh

New cherry picked information

What value does this cherry picked information add to the article? Are we seriously going to mention every killed soldier? Perhaps we should start with the killing of a 9-year-old Azerbaijani kid by Armenian snipers, which was condemned by PACE [1]. Or should we mention the countless of political representaties nations and organisations who have confirmed Karabakh to be within the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan? This new information added by Ali55te also doesnt go along with the other information from the headline. The text talks about resolutions and condemnations not rumours. For this reason I removed the information added. Neftchi (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a notable event. Your explanation does not seem sufficient to me. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Killed soldier ??? How come a drone is a soldier ? Drone is a UAV "unmanned air vehicle" and the importance of that is the possible violation of weapon sales. Apart from that that section is fully biased. Do you think only Azerbaijani soldiers or civillians are dead ? http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=armenian-civilian-shot-dead-in-karabakh-say-separatists-2011-05-13 You can find more examples on the Armenian side. I suggest you start to remove some of them otherwise others can add the Armenian side and I don't know how the article will look like in the end. Ali55te (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"I suggest you start to remove some of them otherwise others can add the Armenian side and I don't know how the article will look like in the end" - Your statement can be viewed as a threat for a new edit war. This kind of demands and threats are grossly against Wikipedia regulations. If you dont know how the article will turn out then you should not continue to work on it. Aside this you havent given asnwer to my real argument. This new added information adds no value to the article. The contemporary situation headline is based on real resolutions, your added information is cherry picked information. Weapons sale violate by Moldova to Armenia was not mentioned. The statement by Almagro was of personal nature not official. No declaration was adopted regarding his statement so this cannot be included in this article. Are we going to seriously add every personal statement by politicians regarding Karabakh? What about the dozens of politicians which have stated the withdrawel of Armenian troops or to respect the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Given your recent edits, this kind of information should also be added. For this reason I would want to ask for an review of your recent edits. Mursel (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Before these edits some authors removed thousands lines of information related to the Armenian heritage in the area. I did not revert that edits to not engage in edit war. The section is so biased that it can not bi biased more then this. There are may 3 declarations from organization of Islamic countries which is not a respected organization in the world and known as anti-semitic statements during the openning sessions etc.. Do not imagine virtual threats etc.. You add a pace declaration like the organization took the decision in fact it is not a official declaration and it is mostly signed by representatives from Azerbaijan and Turkey. Uruguay is the first country in the world which recognized the Armenian Genocide, hence it can be the first country in the future who will recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh as an independen republic. I am not removing anything from the section, the problem was that, there was no information from the other side. 01:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs)

First of all learn the difference between PACE a declaration and resolution. And why do you explicitly mention Azerbaijan and Turkey? Is there any discriminatory chosing factor behind this? If you want to mention who voted for the declaration then ALL members need to be mention not just the two countries you dont like. Second, what Uruguay will and will not do it not open for our personal interpretation. Uruguay is the first country in the world which recognized the Armenian Genocide, hence it can be the first country in the future who will recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh as an independen republic. This shows your original research, for you have no sources at all to confirm this except for your personal opinion. I would find it ironic to see Uruguay recognize NK while Armenia doesnt. Also YouTube is not and cannot be used as a source or reference. The fact that you added YouTube for the second time [2], even after I warned you, is a clear breach of regulations. The information in the Contemporary situation headline is not about what you want or what I want. Its about the international law and its regulations and resolutions. That cannot be changed and that subject should not be turned into gossip, personal interpretation and original research as your text presents. Another important fact is you added all this information without any consensus. That is what we're trying to achieve with this, for this reason I removed your text untill we can get consensus to keep it. Mursel (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In show of good faith I also removed my own added text until a consensus is reached [3]. Mursel (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mursel, you say that Youtube is not and cannot be used as a source (at least that's what I think you said through all the broken English) but I can't seem to find the policy that says so. I found Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources where it says audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived may qualify as source material, which led me to WP:YOUTUBE which says There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page. It seems then that the reason i couldn't find the policy banning Youtube is that there isn't one and you were quite wrong to suggest otherwise. Whether the video in question abide(s) by the guidelines on this page or not is a different question, but not one that is answered by inventing policy, so I have undone your edit.

In looking for material regarding the 9 year old boy I came across several non-Azeri reliable sources commenting on the story - here is one - and I am inclined to believe that the question of weight has not yet been reliable answered on this talkpage. Perhaps a look at WP:CONSENSUS wouldn't go amiss. Weakopedia (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read this, it clearly says that YouTube is not a reliable source unless the video authenticity can be confirmed. For example you can use a BBC video from their official YouTube channel. Anything other than that is a breach of copyright and thus cannot be used:

"YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution. They may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation."

The video in question is not the owner of the video and thus its not in his copyright. We dont wanna breach copyright policy of Wikipedia now do we?

You also failed to answer my argument that this content [4] doesnt add any value to the article in fact it disrupts it. The contemporary situation section is mainly about official resolution, declarations by UN, EU, PACE, etc. I believe it should not be about miniscule events, like he killed him and in return he shot them nor should it be about personal opinions of politicians. It should remain about official resolution and declarations from states and international organisations. If the contemporary situation headline is to include every cease-fire breach then this article will become pointless and add no value. Just one sentence as "the ceasefire agreement is breached by both sides" is enough to sum it up. Mursel (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here, I apologize if it seems like I'm intruding. Reiterating what Mursel stated, we don't usually use YouTube as a source. The only times I've seen YouTube being used is an external link. If memory serves me, we even have a filter that prevents YouTube links from being added by users with certain amount of edits/X days, months, etc. old. It's not an encouraged source to use. I'm not an expert with this current topic. Please bare with me. If it's a notable event as Kurdo777, then it should probably be included. But at glance, coming from an editor with limited information from this topic, it seems significant enough to be included. I have a question for you guys. How often are events like this occurring? Are there more significant events?

Also, for the sake of NPOV, we should include information such as quote, Weapons sale violate by Moldova to Armenia, end quote if it's available. If there's multiple situations, then the most important ones such be listed here or perhaps create a separate article to further show violations (this article is starting to become too big). I hope that helps.

As a side note, the date formats should probably be consistent. Just in that section Month/Date/Year and Date/Month/Year were being used. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sniper fire from either side is a daily occurrence. But this was the first time a UAV was shot down or fell down, depending who you want to believe. Either way it doesn't look good for Azeris. --George Spurlin (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The cease-fire agreement is breached on daily bases by both sides. So I think its best to mention one line about this. The ceasefire agreement is breached regular by both sides. As for the UAV, Israeli sources argue that the UAV was show by Russian officers [5]. Mursel (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

The 1823 Russian Survey of the Karabagh Province: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of Karabagh in the First Half of the 19th Century. Trans. George A. Bournoutian. Costa Mesa, CA, 2011.is used in the article on Karabakh in regards to census information, but is left out in this article. This academic work states that in 1822/3 Armenians made up 97% of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh. This article uses ^ Description of the Karabakh province prepared in 1823 according to the order of the governor in Georgia Yermolov by state advisor Mogilevsky and colonel Yermolov 2nd (Russian: Opisaniye Karabakhskoy provincii sostavlennoye v 1823 g po rasporyazheniyu glavnoupravlyayushego v Gruzii Yermolova deystvitelnim statskim sovetnikom Mogilevskim i polkovnikom Yermolovim 2-m), Tbilisi, 1866. A translation from Russian, compared to the 2011 work by Bournoutian. Although the article is understandably delicate I believe that the modern academic work is more clear then the the translated work from 1866. RNajdek (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)RNajdek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.126.27 (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In the text on demographics two paragraphs speak about the same census of 1823 but make drastically different interpretations of its results. Clarification is needed. Winterbliss (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Removed controversial paragraph until consensus is reached on page on Karabakh. Winterbliss (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki

The Swedish article is about the republic, not the region, and could thus be removed from this article. --78.82.250.63 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) (user:flinga on svwp)

Protected

A 28k shift from one version to the other is way too much to be reverting back and forth over over. Discuss each piece individually, please, and do try to work together? And if anyone is violating the provisions of the arbitration on this topic, please remind them that they are beholden to it and further edit warring will result in blocking. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you'll throw 1/4 of the article back and forth like it's nothing, but not one of you is ready to defend the edits? Hm. --Golbez (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I did not notice this message. User:Oliveriki has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work. I do not hesitate for a second to support his research. The text is big and it would be hard to discuss every entry by Oliveriki in details but his additions feature objective sources from first class Western academics. Azerbaijani editors always discard anything that runs against the spirit and letter of official state propaganda of their bizarre oil dictatorship headed by the uncrowned KGB monarch Aliyev. Azerbaijani futile fight against Western academia is like the objections of of the state-brainwashed Chinese or Soviets against Western accusations of human rights abuse. The favorite method of Azerbaijani objections to truth is finding Armenian grandmothers in the bloodline of Western academics (!!!!!). User:Tuscumbia was banned for six months for entertaining such ideas. Golbez I think u should restore the text and if some people disagree they should state why they do point by point. Zimmarod (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the onus for keeping an edit is on the person making it, not the person reverting it. I don't really know or care which side is right, just figure it out before this gets unprotected. If Tuscumbia was banned for six months, that just makes them one of a long line of editors on both sides who have been banned over this petty fight so that's not going to sway me one way or another. All I care about is stopping the edit war without having to actually read the material, because I burned out on picking through the contributions to these articles years ago. It's just that this behavior annoys me enough that, instead of un-watchlisting the article, I make the children sit down and tell them to play nice. --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear: I don't know if one side is right or not. I don't care. I just don't like edit wars, and I don't like having to enforce them by blocking people when there's been zero discussion on the topic. So, the article gets locked until there's discussion. Maybe in a week I'll switch it to the version with your edit, and then swap it back and forth forever until discussion takes place. --Golbez (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Golbez, please see the futility of building a consensus with User:Tuscumbia here on talk pages in Murovdag [6]. I think five editors spend a month in empty talk with a stubborn POV-pusher. Zimmarod (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)