Talk:Kalbajar District

Reason for revert

First off, these are Azerbaijani rayons, people from Nagorno-Karabakh don't even recognize them, and use their own divisions. If we want to use the language used in the various de facto countries, we should probably be moving Famagusta to Gazimağusa, Morphou to Güzelyurt, etc. —Khoikhoi 02:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Kalbajar & Karvajar aren't really the exact same things, as illustrated by the article (different borders and such). —Khoikhoi 02:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the stub templates, because the article is not a stub anymore. --Grandmaster 09:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, stop removing material from this page. Kalbajar is not Nagorno-Karabakh, it's a region between NK and Armenia. Atabek 06:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of Kalbajar is in Nagorno-Karabakh, though. --Golbez 07:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment removed.

I direct you to calm down and cease your attacks immediately. Keep in mind that the second Armenian-Azeri arbitration is nearly complete, and it will specifically allow me to block you for the comments you just made, should you make them again. Consider this your sole warning. --Golbez 07:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the comment here is even worse. You can clearly see that the amount of Armenian cognac in me was rising. I hope you guys had a good laugh, instead of getting offended.

Atabek, a significant part of Kelbajar is in NK. And I didn't remove but moved the names to appropriate article and linked it to this one. I have not seen any other city article that futures a list of names. All of the names are red linked and the list has been tagged with "citation needed" tag for over a month. I believe that my edit was justified and was in good faith. VartanM 20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for heavily tagging the article but it needs sources to confirm its claims. I will try to find some tonight. Also the list of names should be moved to the article that deals with list of names. VartanM 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This still is a province of Azerbaijan according to the international law. And cite your sources for your edits. Grandmaster (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

International law has nothing to do with the internal provinces of a state. BTW, I recall some discussion in another article which said that after NK's declaration of independence, its terrirory was abolished by Azerbaijan and redistributed amongst neighbouring provinces in Azerbaijan proper, including Kalbakar. This info needs to be added to the article. Meowy 17:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing both quotes. Neither are needed - it is not a contested fact that the area is currently under the control of NK and Armenian forces, so no reference is needed to support that fact. The UN quote is also off-topic, dealing with a general pronouncement, and is only there so you can insert the word "occupied" into the article. The Hewsen quote is only there to provide balance against the word "occupied". Remove the former, and there is no need for the latter. I'm also replacing the word "expelled" with "displaced". "Expelled" implies a deliberate expulsion ofthe area's population after the area had fallen under the control of Armenian forces. No source to support such a claim is cited. Similarly, a word that would imply they left on their own decision, such as "fled", would not be useable unless a source was found to indicate that the area's population had retreated along with Azeri forces. I've chosen "displaced" for now because it is a neutral word - maybe a more suitable one can be found, one which is a bit stronger, but without references proving an actual expulsion an extreme word like "expelled" is POV. Meowy 17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction: Kurds

In the introduction, we read Before the outbreak of hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1992, it was a predominantly Kurdish inhabited area. The section Demographics (1989) says: Azerbaijanians 83.19% (55.082), Armenians 14.79% (9.794), Kurds 1.88% (1.248), That is not predominantly Kurdish. -- PhJ (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ceded vs returned

I believe that 'ceded' or 'handed over' is more NPOV than 'returned' as it describes the fact without taking sides. This is ho it's described in neutral sources as well (see [2] for example). Alaexis_¿question? 14:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"hand over" implies giving it away/gifting it to someone that never owned it, therefore makes it factually wrong and POV. How is "Returned" not NPOV? Kalbajar has always been part of Azerbaijan according to international law, therefore it is being returned to its control. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Literally every country in the world, including Armenia, had always recognized Kalbajar as part of Azerbaijan. Here, it was occupation, and now, it was returned to Azerbaijan. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we see that there are reliable sources who describe it as a hand-over. Alaexis_¿question? 15:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Really? Here's an Al Jazeera article with title Azerbaijani army enters Kalbajar, region returned by Armenia. And here's a WSJ article with title Anger, Fear and Sorrow Consume Armenians Leaving Land Returned to Azerbaijan. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, this case supports my version almost as much as yours:

“ Azerbaijani army enters Kalbajar, region returned by Armenia

Kalbajar was expected to be handed over on November 15, but Azerbaijan agreed to delay the takeover after a request from Armenia.

”

Alaexis_¿question? 15:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

They're using "return" as the main word (which is the article's title) and using "handed over" in the meaning of Armenians giving it up after 27 years of occupation. We have established that Reliable sources use this and it makes sense according to international law. Therefore, I'm having quite a problem understanding your argument for how "return" is WP:POV. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is term used by reliable sources, so it's not hugely problematic, my point is that 'handing over' (which is also used in RS) is better when one side believes it's liberation and the other side that it's an occupation. Alaexis_¿question? 18:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring the facts on the ground for the sake of making one side happy isn't what an encyclopedia is for. According to international law, the land was always part of Azerbaijan, but was occupied by separatist regime for 27 years and now it was returned to Azerbaijani control. "Return" does not mean "liberate", it simply means that country who owned it before, got back control over it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alaexis: As you haven't replied, is it fine to change it to "returned" now, if you don't mind? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier. I still believe that ceded is better but returned is also a valid option. Alaexis_¿question? 17:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. 'Ceded' represents the act clearly and is more NPOV. Furthermore, the lands themselves have been Armenian lands throughout history. Hyeprofile (TC) 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and we've reached a WP:CONSENSUS about it, so it's better to WP:DROPTHESTICK if you have no new, real arguments. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was a consensus, more like me not wanting to waste my time on this argument. Alaexis_¿question? 17:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the lands themselves have been Armenian lands throughout history. This isn't hywiki. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 01:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden no we haven't reached consensus. You're pushing a partial POV when I'm explaining that ceded is more NPOV than returned. You've reverted this twice buddy. Youve' also removed my added info about 2015 demographics. I will add it back until you can justify your position here. Please respect our NPOV. Hyeprofile (TC) 16:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A consensus doesn't become irrelevant when a new person shows up who disagrees with an already established one. If you don't like the consensus, explain your reasons here and try to reach a new consensus, don't delete the already established one, it's WP:DISRUPTIVE. Kalbajar District of Azerbaijan includes most of western Martakert Province and also a large part of the Soviet Kalbajar District wasn't part of Artsakh's Shahumyan province, so it's simply irrelevant and wrong to include Shahumyan's demographics in this article. If you add WP:POV and WP:DISRUPTIVE material back each time without reaching a consensus, then I'd, unfortunately, have to report you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden I repeat, we haven't reached consensus, as Alaexisclearly said. BTW I did not chime in 'after' but 'during' discussions to reach consensus. Also I'm not a "new person"; I have been editing this article for quite a while. Again, you're pushing a partial POV when I'm explaining that ceded is more NPOV than returned , and you're failing to explain your argument, while I've taken the time to explain mine quite clearly. 'ceded' was adopted as the consensus on many other similar articles, so please respect our NPOV. Hyeprofile (TC) 13:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

During? It's been almost 2 months since me and Alaexis dropped the conversation in favour of "returned", you joined after the discussion had already ended. I said you were new to the discussion, which you are. If you don't actually have any arguments to support your claims, then please don't waste both of our times. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry CuriousGolden, but Alaexis doesn't represent my POV, and to quote you on another talk page "consensus is only acquired when editors agree verbally and is not inherited from a lapse of time. see talk (admins please intervene)". If you don't want to respect my POV, which is fairly well rationalized by the english language, then clearly you're the one that's delving into rhetoric and you're the one adding WP:POV and WP:DISRUPTIVE material back each time, not me. Who insists on 'returned' so much, I mean seriously 'ceded' means the same thing and is more neutral dude! Furthermore, you removed well cited and justified demographic material, so I've warned you twice already and I'm giving you one more chance. If you don't at least add back the demographic material, I will be the one who reports you... .Hyeprofile (TC) 13:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hyeprofile, I think, with this behavior, you're to one to be mentioned in ANI. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Solavirum, but you don't really explain what you mean by "my behaviour". My behaviour respects all the rules, not to mention basic civility and logic. In more than 17 years of editing Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, I have never received a sanction. You, on the other hand, have received blocks and bans, and you've been warned. But more to the point, I have been participating at building consensus on this article since 2006 (check my talk page), so just because bullies like you and CuriousGolden keep up your WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour and are pushing WP:POV edits, I won't just roll over and take it. I have a right to have my opinion heard, and I also have a right to protect my version of the consensu, which others like Alaexaes support. So unless you justify why we shouldn't use "ceded", that is the consensus that I interpret since that was the original version that CuriousGolden so persited to change. So I will revert back to 'ceded' and you and CuriousGolden will need to justify why we should change that consensus. HyeProfile (T·C) 00:59, 3 February 2021

Many of my edits were reverted multiple times, so per WP:BRD we should discuss here and try to reach a new consensus.

Reading this article again, it's clear to me that the slow but steady reverting by a few individuals of all the previous edits (from me and others) that introduce any mention of Armenians in the area of Karavachar (oh, what folly to think Armenians lived in the area! *sarcasms*) have slowly brought this article to the state that the current wording in it is clearly not NPOV, and attempts to show Armenians as "invaders" when the "facts on the ground" (to use CuriousGolden's words) show that Armenian presence in the region predates any Azeri presence by at least a millenia (if not more). Any scholar in the english language would agree that the use of words like "handed over" or "ceded" is more NPOV that words like "returned", so until someone can explain what more neutral english language words to use, I will consider "handed over" as the WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. So before changing this wording, please follow the WP:BRD rule and please explain on this talk page why you feel the words "handed over" or "ceded" are not more NPOV than "returned", otherwise I reserve the right to report this to the ARBCOM or even seek to protect this article. And if you prefer to have a debate about substance of who was there initially (and therefore argue the word "returned" is more appropriate), please make sure to explain here what your arguments are based on, because Azerbaijan didn't exit until the 20th century, and the Azerbaijani people aren't recorded in the area of Karvachar until way after Armenian churches were built there (see history of Surb Astvatsatsin Monastery, for example); Armenia proper to the west and Artsakh proper to the east are full of Armenian churches and monasteries built between the 5th to 7th centuries, and the Arab invasion didn't occur until the 7th century. HyeProfile (T·C) 16:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Demographics

Artsakh locator Shahumian

Since CuriousGolden keeps reverting my edits without proper justification, let's talk about it here like civilized people and reach consensus. Since the info is well cited and geographically relevant (which I explain more below), I have added it back and we will need to reach consensus before you remove it.

First of all, the current demographic data is clearly not NPOV and is pushing a one-sided Azerbaijani view of the population figures within the geographic boundaries of the Kalbajar region. The 1999 data is fake misinformation that is not based on an actual census (as it clearly says in the article "note that the census was not actually carried out in this year as the region was occupied by the Republic of Artsakh and the Azerbaijani population was internally displaced at the time"!). There is also no mention of any factual or cited data for the entire timeline of the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh (from ~1994 to 2020) before part of the region was ceded so it omits key information that's actually available in proper census data.

So the first issue we need to reach consensus on is that many people think that the 1999 census figures need to be removed as they are fake data (and therefore certainly not NPOV). It's a universally accepted fact that the entire Kalbajar region was no longer under the control of Azerbaijan in 1999, therefore the Azeribaijani sourced census figures cannot have been based on any actual census info; it's a no-brainer. Also, it was widely reported by multiple third-party organizations (Red Cross, Amnesty International) that no Azeri population remained in the Kalbajar region after 1995 and until 2020, so nobody believes these that they figures anyhow (there certainly wasn't 83.2% Azerbaijanis in the region when the Azerbaijani source! itself accepts that the Azerbaijanis relocated to other parts of Azerbaijan); it's misinformation that has no place on Wikipedia.

The second issue we need to reach consensus on: here's what I added in my [|1003650000 edit] "As of 2015, there were at least 3,100 Armenians in the western part of the region, which corresponded with the Shahumyan Province of the Republic of Artsakh, as well as many more Armenians in the Eastern part which was covered by part of the Martakert Province of the Republic of Artsakh." In his first revert [|1003703930 edit] log, CuriousGolden stated "+demographics of Shahumyan Province which does not correspond to Kalbajar's borders is irrelevant". I of course added it back since this was an unjustified revert. My [|1003990172 edit] log justified it as "the demographics I added are fully enclosed within the Kalbajar region (the edit explains that Shahumyan province is fully contained within the Kalbajar region)". In his second revert [|1003997647 edit] log, CuriousGolden stated "Kalbajar District of Azerbaijan also includes most of western Martakert Province and large part of actual Kalbajar wasn't part of Artsakh's Shahumyan province, so it's simply irrelevant and wrong to include Shahumyan's demographics in this article" First off, the former Kalbajar region corresponds with the Republic of Artsakh Shahumyan Province (the entire Shahumyan Province exactly coincides with the the entire western part of the Kalbajar region) and the western part of the Martakert Province (which pretty much coincides with the eastern part of the Kalbajar region). Furthermore, the only portion of the Kalbajar region which was ceded back to Azerbaijan after the 2020 war is the former Shahumyan province (they have pretty much the same borders), so it's very relevant to start talking about the demographics within the new geographic borders of the Kalbajar region since the former eastern part of the region was not ceded. I added the 2015 Shahumyan Province census figures since it at least adds more recent data on the population that corresponds to the ceded portion of Kalbajar region and it is based on an actual census within the geographic boundaries of Kalbajar. If you include 1999 fake data, I fail to see how you would not include 2015 real data. Hyeprofile (TC) 14:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum you once again reverted my Demographics edits without first explaining yourself on here, which goes against step #2 of Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. This also goes against the restrictions that have been enacted against you on [|WP:ANI]. You and CuriousGolden are starting an edit war here, and I really don't want to get into that, but I won't be bullied when the information I'm adding is ten times more solid than what already exists in the article. Since I've more than adequately justified my edits, I redid the edits with further improvements (but only the demographics ones, to disconnect from the 'ceded' vs 'returned' lack of consensus, as added show of good faith). I've added actual 2005 and 2015 census data and more citations to further strengthen the solidity of my data and sources, and prefaced the Azeri 1999 fake data with more neutral and fact-based statements to ensure the reader doesn't take the data as facts. Explain yourselves on here before deleting any of my additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyeProfile (talk • contribs) 16:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Borders of "western part" of Shahumyan Province absolutely do not correspond to the Soviet Kalbajar District, let alone the Azerbaijani Kalbajar District. I've posted its map here. Look at it and see if it corresponds fully for yourself. When someone explains you a reason for their revert, it's better to try to understand their reasoning instead of calling it "unjustified". — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, you've reverted my addition of the well-sourced and cited demographic data 3 times now in less than 24 hours, going against the WP:3RR and the WP:1RR in place for Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. You cannot just revert all my edits and explain yourself simply as "Borders of "western part" of Shahumyan Province absolutely do not correspond to the Soviet Kalbajar District". Your claim is just not true, and most people see that. First of all, I never said "the western part of Shahumyan Province"; I said "the entire Shahumyan Province exactly coincides with the the entire western part of the Kalbajar region" which is entirely accurate. How can you claim otherwise?. Just look at the red portion in the map in the article (western half of the Kalbajar) and look at the map you posted in the thumbnail, an you'll see the Shahumyan Province outline coincides pretty well with western half (red part) of the Kalbajar District. Furthermore, I've taken the initiative explaining myself on the Talk page, and making the argument that if fake 1999 data (which the data itself admits is not even based on a census in the geographical boundaries) is included, then my well-sourced and cited data which is based on an actual census should also be present, especially since the data is more recent and the source is much more reliable. You cannot just brush it off, and you need to provide better explanations, especially since the content is suppose to be WP:NPOV. I will motion the admins to unblock so I can add the data which others would agree is valid, and for the arbitrators to sanction you for WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior. HyeProfile (T·C) 01:50, 3 February 2021

Really? I've made sure that my reverts haven't broken 3RR, so you can try reporting me for 3RR if you want. But it looks like you've made 3 reverts within 24 hours yourself. I honestly have no idea how you don't get simple information about how borders of provinces of different entities do not correspond and I'm not going to try to explain you it any further when you have no intention to understand. The "fake" 1999 data as you call it is the data of all the refugees from Kalbajar, calling things you don't like as fake sounds a lot like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Do you know the reason for full protection? Edit warring. It was protected so you can actually try to understand the arguments presented to you in this talk page instead of just brushing it off as "fake", "propaganda" and "anti-Armenian". I honestly have no energy nor time to explain you obvious things any further. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But what was the reason for removing referenced information about the Armenian population of the territory when it was controlled by Artsakh? Alaexis_¿question? 08:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The census records number for Artsakh's Shahumyan district, which does not correspond to either Azerbaijani Kalbajar District nor the Soviet Kalbajar District. Artsakh's Shahumyan district includes several villages from Nagorno-Karabakh itself as well, including Charektar, while doesn't include villages that were in both Soviet and Azerbaijani Kalbajar like Zağalar and Taxtabaşı. So, including the population of a place that does not correspond to this actual district is wrong, instead, it can be added in the Shahumyan Province article. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly note this in the text but there is a significant overlap and mentioning the actual population sounds at least as important as mentioning the number of displaced persons. Alaexis_¿question? 09:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I'll add it back with a note when the protection is expired. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not even a "significant overlap", it's an almost perfect correlation with a statistically insignificant exclusion in the southeast. In other words the western part of Kalbajar district significantly corresponds to the Shahumyan Province. The statistically insignificant exclusion in the southeast side of Shahumyan province is really only the Andzavner and Dashtaglukh villages that are excluded but they were actually part of Martakert Province, so for simplicity the mention I made about the demographic of the eastern part being hard to seperate from the overall Martakert demographics captures the demographics of those two villages anyway. Furthermore, nobody would contend that in those years 2000 to 2020, even Andzavner and Dashtaglukh villages had a majority Armenian population, so if anything the data I've added for 2000 are understated somewhat. It's important to add this data since it's the only actual census data available for those years within those geographic boundaries. HyeProfile (T·C) 15:50, 3 February 2021

References