Talk:Karki, Azerbaijan

Adil's changes

Also, it's not true, there are several sources which are not Azerbaijani, such as AP news report, and another website.--AdilBaguirov 21:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more sources: http://www.caffproject.net/resources/aze/aze0076.pdf and http://www.caffproject.net/resources/aze/aze0071.pdf --AdilBaguirov 21:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that an incorrect version of the page is reverted to by two users, Nareklm and Aivazovsky, and that all my sourced information and references are thus removed.

The main three changes I introduced were:

1) occupied by Armenia since January 1990.[1][2][3] [4], and not 1992, as it currently incorrectly states.

2) That there are about 2000 refugees from Kerki, who now live in the main territory of Naxcivan.[5] [6] [7]

3) And that the Azerbaijani cemetery was destroyed [8].

The Karki page should be unprotected, reflect these details, and be watched against vandalism. --AdilBaguirov 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the references you introduced are from Azerbaijani sources. I'm sorry, but they are in no way reliable and thus have no place on this encyclopedia. All one needs to do is see the URLs of your sources to find their bias: azeri.ws, azerbaijanfoundation.org, echo-az.info, azembassy.gr, etc. -- Aivazovsky 12:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the territory is that of Azerbaijan (internationally recognized) and has not been a subject of popular discussion in the West. So what sources, even Armenian, you have at your disposal? I don't think it's fair to remove the sources when you don't have your own to oppose them. Atabek 21:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, that's not true, and your persistent claim shows your intentions. Half of the URLs are neither Azerbaijani, nor written by Azerbaijanis. What does an AP story from newsbank.com have to do with this, or from Caffproject, or from World66.com? Yet, I am ready to reach with the members of Armenian Wiki a tacit ban on using Azerbaijani and Armenian sources in this and other pages, such as Naxcivan. Would that suit you? Meanwhile, in relation to Karki, your arguments are not valid. --AdilBaguirov 22:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are additional two sources: one Turkish [9] and the other USAID, US Department of State [10], which outlines all the refugee/IDP assistance to the refugees/IDPs from Karki who since 1990s settled in Yeni Karki (New Karki) within Naxcivan. --AdilBaguirov 06:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And here's another one from a Russian source: "13 января - В результате вооруженных нападений армяне заняли деревню Карки Нахчыванской Автономной Республики Азербайджана." [11] --AdilBaguirov 06:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that there are Azeri refugees from Karki, none of the sources you have provided really clarify your point. I don't think that the Turkish source is neutral (for obvious reasons) and the US source does not state anything about the exclave, but only discusses Yeni Karki. The Russian source as well as the Azeri sources you provided claim that Karki was taken in 1990. However, Human Rights Watch, I would say, gives a more accurate depiction of events, stating that it was taken in 1992. I would trust them over any Azerbaijani source. I have not been able to view your AP News report. The link isn't working on my computer.

You also don't need to be so hostile towards me. You should argue in a civilized manner and I don't find statements such as "your persistent claim shows your intentions" to be very friendly. I'm just trying to approach this article in an objective manner. -- Aivazovsky 11:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The manner in which you automatically revert everything and ignore the talk pages speaks better about your objective approach. Meanwhile, all sources have been presented -- all Azerbaijani and Armenian related pages cite their own sources too, so let's not invent new rules here. Although, as I said, I am ready to consider the complete elimination of both sources from all pages, but you haven't answered that. So until other Az-Arm pages cite their own sources, Karki page will too. The AP report is paid, but you get a short snippet in Google when typing Karki with a dateline of 1990. Meanwhile, HRW is correct that by 1992 the occupation of Karki was completed and Armenians started to demine the road and otherwise settle. Meanwhile the first attacks and expulsion of the population was in January 1990, as other sources state. So both are correct -- the ambiguity is just like when did the NK war start, in 1987, with first refugees, in 1988, with the Feb 20 decision of NK Oblsoviet, or later? When did the conflict become a full-scaled war -- in Nov 1991, or in Feb 1992? Etc. Meanwhile, once again, there are independent US and other sources, like World66.com and Caffproject. Likewise, what you think of Turkish source is not surprizing, yet it's not an Azerbaijani source, and you can't make up excuses under which you would disqualify sources. You have not a single source that would challenge the veracity of any of the sources presented -- you accept the fact of occupation and you accept the refugees, just like I accept the HRW date but with a special note, and offer the additional sources on the date, on the number of refugees and their present living condition, and the destruction of the Azerbaijani cemetery. --AdilBaguirov 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't have any Azeri or Turkish sources used in this article unless you want to add "According to Azeris and Turks..." before every sentence. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing contentious about the sources -- not a single Armenian source disputes that. So there is no need to denote the origin of the sources -- all readers can see that in the footnotes anyway, it is not a secret. Also, once more, things like occupation and refugees are mentioned in non-Azeri and non-Turkish sources too. --AdilBaguirov 17:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about you post your proposed changes here using non-Azeri/Turkish sources. What you have above is a mess.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand -- the multitude of sources shown is to show that the facts are out there. We can all choose which citations to retain, and which keep in this archive, it doesn't matter to me, as long as the facts get presented. If we ought to eliminate most Az-Tr references, that's fine by me, as long as, once again, the presentation of facts does not suffer. --AdilBaguirov 17:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Many things are out there, let me repeat once again. Show us your proposed changes without Azeri and Turkish sources. We're not eliminating most, we're eliminating ALL Azeri and Turkish sources for the sake of reliability and neutrality. Now you have non-Azeri/Turkishs ources, so what's the problem?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't do such a thing unilaterally -- do you agree that we then go through a similar Armenian page and remove all Armenian (as well as possibly Russian -- a quid pro quo for Turkey) references? --AdilBaguirov 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you don't understand, something is bothering you about the current version. You have sources (non Azeri/Turkish) that can potentially help you modify this version. Type the changes you want to make here so that others can comment before implementation. This is a discussion page for the Karki exclave, I don't see how other pages are relevant. I will discuss each potential case individually in the proper place. Russia is not quid pro quo for Turkey by any stretch of imagination.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work this way -- if we don't use, for some unknown reason, Azerbaijani and even Turkish, sources on this page, then we can't use Armenian, and Russian, sources on Armenian pages. And yes, Turkey is very similar to Russia vis-a-vis Azerbaijan and Armenia respectively. --AdilBaguirov 04:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a different situation. Here we have an area that forms part of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict (this is not an article specfically pertaining to one country or the other). Sure, politically, it is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but the area, being now under Armenian control needs to be seen from a neutral perspective.

Also, all of the information pertaining to Azerbaijan on the World66 website is taken from Azerbaijani sources. Hence, that source cannot be viewed as neutral either. -- Aivazovsky 11:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the World66 [12] has nothing to do with Azerbaijan and the article is obviously written by them themselves, whilst they don't cite sources, which is not unusual on the web. Meanwhile, once more, nobody can accept the unilateral guidelines like those advocated by a few of you -- all sources I've provided are fine under Wikipedia's policy, since they are not used to specify the fact of occupation per se, instead, they only provide more details on that occupation and control, such as the number of refugees. Kerki is no different than any of the 16% of Azerbaijan that's Armenian-occupied, and it was occupied in connection to the NK conflict (or Armenian-Azerbaijani war). And since both Az and Arm sources are cited in connection to the NK conflict, then the same rule applies to Karki -- or else, all NK-conflict related pages should devoid themselves of both Az and Arm sources. --AdilBaguirov 13:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Adil, World66, like Wikipedia is a website stimulated by free contributions and I'm sure you've seen that a user called azerbaijan08 contributed to this article. [13] In fact, this same user maintains a website called azerb.com. Also, if you knew anything about Wikipedia policy, you would know that Armenian and Azeri sources can only be used when prefaced by something like "According to Azerbaijani sources", etc. -- Aivazovsky 22:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Pause from reverting for now

Adil you need to stop reverting to your own version. You keep on saying there was a compromise in the discussion page, but I don't see any compromise. Until then it should be left this way until we can come to an agreement in the discussion page. ROOB323 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you decided to use a Talk page for a change, as you are generally very busy reverting pages. Anyhow, compromise was reached, since the only "problem" was about the claim about destruction of an Azerbaijani cemetery in Karki by Armenians -- the link is to an Azerbaijani source. As Armenian user Eupator offered, "You can't have any Azeri or Turkish sources used in this article unless you want to add "According to Azeris and Turks..." before every sentence" -- to which I agreed, and inserted that clarification. Meanwhile, all other links are to third-party NPOV, and should not be removed. Thus, reverting the version I've edited is contrary to Wikipedia's rules on NPOV and verifiability. If you have some specific problem with any wording, discuss it here, otherwise, they stand. Likewise with links/URLs, as they have been all presented and discussed. --AdilBaguirov 06:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the article is NPOV, it correctly identifies the sources of the information, as requested above by one of the reverting editors, Eupator. My comment left above gives more details. --adil 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, why are you reverting fully sourced info? The links are all third-party, English-language, from US sources, and the language has been made as NPOV as it gets. Unless you have a factual dispute and/or the sources are not verifiable and otherwise very biased, you cannot revert. --adil 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Adil, I never agreed to any of your additions and I furthermore explained why they don't work. Again, all one needs to do is see the URLs of your sources to find their bias: azeri.ws, azerbaijanfoundation.org, echo-az.info, azembassy.gr, etc. -- Aivazovsky 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Karki, Azerbaijan. 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/20081119141040/http://www.cag.edu.az/Azerbaycan-Respublikasi.pdf to http://www.cag.edu.az/Azerbaycan-Respublikasi.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} 13:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Captured or occupied

@Mastersun25 the correct terminology is captured, since not a single country other than perhaps Azerbaijan refers to Karki or the other exclaves/enclaves as occupied. Nagorno Karabakh may be de jure considered part of Azerbaijan but it is not considered "occupied by Armenia", is it?

I am puzzled by your argumentation. What do you mean by "not a single country other than perhaps Azerbaijan refers to Karki or the other exclaves/enclaves as occupied"? Are you sure about that? Do you have a prove of this notion? Karki was a terrotory of Azerbaijani SSR whose legal descendant is modern-day Azerbaijan, and is a de-jure Azerbaijan's exclave within Armenia, same as Artsvashen is a de-jure Armenian exclave within Azerbaijan. Both were captured during the first Karabakh war in the early 90s, both occupied. Also unlike these exclaves, NKAO had a status of autonomy within Azerbaijani SSR, so these examples are not to be compared. --Mastersun25 (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Mate, Kelbajar has the word "occupied" attributed to it because, well UN called it occupied in a Security Council resolution. Now if you can cite some important countries or organisations that attribute the word "occupied" to this exclaves, then you are free to keep it as occupied, instead of captured. East Jerusalem is considered occupied because the UN called it occupied. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I understood your agrumentation in this case, but unfortunately we do not have and can not expect a UN resolution for a 19 km piece of land that was occupied 30 years ago. But it does not change the fact that it is technically an occupation --Mastersun25 (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't up for interpretation, if you can provide a reliable source like UN stating that it is occupied, then as I said I'll let the word "occupied" be attributed to it, if not then this discussion is over. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I got your point. Would you mind changing the word "occupied" in the Artsvashen article as well then? Just to keep it objective. --Mastersun25 (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You can do that, I wouldn't mind. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mastersun25: I noticed this discussion since you linked it in Artsvashen edit history. Generally on wikipedia, WP:OTHER isn't used to justify changes in different articles like you did in Artsvashen, and please be aware of the edit war notice in your talk page. For the sake of consistency, we can change all the so called "enclaves" to controlled, but you did the change regardless of reaching a consensus here. Your last message still hasn't been answered, but you were quick to change Artsvashen using the discussion here as a reason [1]. This is not how you reach a consensus or argue on wikipedia, wait till the person at least replies to you. For the sake of consistency tho, we can change them as you suggested. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree there should have been a discussion on the Artsvashen page as well. But I think it is fair to compare the two exclaves since they have similar political status but from the different sides of the conflict, so I think that if we do not mention the fact of occupation here, we shouldn't do in the Artsvashen article as well. I am glad we have reached some kind of consensus at least regarding this issue. --Mastersun25 (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus discussion?

I am unable to find the discussion on the consensus to move this page from Karki, Azerbaijan to Tigranashen. Where is it? Jeff in CA (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither am I able to find such a consensus. In fact, through Google search results alone, this move seems highly erroneous:

Google Search:

–"Karki" "Enclave": 477,000 results

–"Tigranashen" "Enclave": 1,560 results

Google Ngram: [14]

Google Scholar:

–"Karki" "Enclave": 245 results

–"Tigranashen" "Enclave": 11 results

Google Advanced Book Search, per WP:SET (hide “Tools” to see totals):

–"Karki" "Enclave": 1,940 results

–"Tigranashen" "Enclave": 156 results

With 277 times more search engine hits, Karki is by far the WP:COMMONNAME for this village. AntonSamuel, based on the reasoning expounded above, could you please self-revert per WP:BRD? Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 00:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I checked Google News for reports on the village, and the majority utilized Tigranashen - but if there is an overlap of mentions of the village vs. the enclave, then that's an additional issue - I'll move the article back so that a move discussion can take place instead. AntonSamuel (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

@Historianarm Please cease edit-warring, repeatedly replacing "Karki" with "Tigranashen" against consensus and Wikipedia norms is not appropriate. I suggest you read the Wikipiedia policy WP:ONUS before making further edits, also see the message I left on your talk page. – Olympian ^loquere 04:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)