I just explained to you, that they were ALREADY there, they didn't take it by force, they already lived there, for litearlly thousands of years (we have archeological evidence for at least 2 thousand, thus thousands, in plural).
Legally the place does belong to Azerbaijan, because URSS gave it to them to appease Turkey, but de-facto it was never Azeri land.
Note: I am talking about Nagorno-Nakbath proper, not the lands around it.
That said, I'm not well informed about this topic and I'm just going off the maps I find. Although the source also has maps of Armenian genocide, so I don't expect them to have an anti-Armenian bias.
Also by force, I'm referencing the previous Karabakh war of 1993. You can't deny the existence of force there.
First, there were no "Armenain vilayets" in the Ottoman Empire. It was a term people in Europe and USA used to define the six vilayets where there were the most Armenians. It was not an official designation.
Second, Nagorno-Karabakh was not one of the "Armenian vilayets" because it wasn't part of the Ottoman Empire. It was part of the Russian Empire.
Finally, Armenians predate Azeris (and Turks) in all the areas we are speaking about and were the majority in many of them up until the Armenian Genocide. In a few, they are still the majority to this day. Nagorno-Karabakh is one of those.
The argument I was responding to was "Karabakh became Azeri land in the 20th century because Russia wanted to appease Turkey", and I'm saying that the maps show the land has been under Azeri control during 9th-17th centuries (and Ottoman/Russian after).
A discussion on whether being a majority ethnicity gives Armenia the right for occupation would be quite complicated and unsuitable one for a tech forum.
It's also a bit absurd to take territory by force, and claim "ethnic cleansing" when others try to take it back.