Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Nagorno-Karabakh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Untitled
31 October 2003—27 February 2005
top
How come there is not a single Azerbaijani weblink below your page on Nagorno-Karabkh? How can you maintain impartiality when you have four website links which are all pro-Armenian? I am sorry to see that Wikipedia is far from impartial on these issues and thus looses credibility...
Truly worrying...
Kubilay Gultekin
Say, are those ethnic statistics correct? I thought Many Azeris left during the war
- The numbers probably refer to the last census (pre-war). There are no Azeris left in NK. I'll rewrite this page when I have time apoivre 12:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- i have no personal knowledge. available references give the current stats as i modified them. Badanedwa 21:07, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a battlefield. do not remove one language/ethnos or the other, or link to racist web sites. Badanedwa 21:07, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
I can see a map from Estonian Wikipedia. We asked Estonians to put Slovene names into the map and they did it so I can see no reason why they wouldn't do it with English --Fpga 07:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article is entirely Point of View, copied from the web site of the NKR office in Washington, DC. Zfr 23:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see that it is. The article pretty much just describes facts and events, and I don't think I've ever heard a different description of the conflict.
- For comparison, here's a statement that clearly isn't NPOV: "The Azerbaijani government has contributed very little towards the resolution of the conflict, presumably waiting for the economic burden of holding a cease-fire and reductions in trade with other countries to force Armenia into retreat, while Azerbaijan itself is not significantly affected economically, and enjoys high levels of trade with other countries because of its oil reserves."
- The above statement is strongly believed in by most Armenians, and would generally be cosidered an only mildly biased point of view. Since the article doesn't even come close to saying statements like that, I would say it's safe to call it a NPOV article.
- Oh, and if anybody is aware of different interpretations of the conflict, please mention them here, I, for one, would love to hear them. --Aramgutang 04:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
removed paragraph
I added a paragraph, that Aramgutang removed. In deference to his experience with the subject, I'll trust his judgment -- but let me just say that this question is what draws some to the NKR question, not as an abstract problem but as one of the relationship between ethnicity and territory.
Here is the excised paragraph:
The dispute is a problem of border geometry: Nagarno-Karabakh, mostly populated by Armenians, is essentially surrounded by Azerbaijan, while the Azeri-populated enclave Nakhichevan is surrounded to the North and East by Armenia. If Armenia and Nagarno-Karabakh are to be united as a contiguous territory, it would require keeping Azeri-populated land in between and permanently separating Azerbaijan proper and Nakhichevan; likewise, if Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan are to be united in contiguous borders (once true, but no longer realistic), it would require seizing much Armenian-populated land, particularly Nagarno-Karabakh. -anonymous.
- This is simply wrong. Look at the maps and you will see yourself. Only a thin slice of southern Armenia will help connect mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan. Separation of these two is completely unrelated to Karabakh, geographically. roozbeh 19:55, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- I removed the paragraph because Nakhichevan has very little to do with Karabakh, and there's no dispute concerning its borders. Azerbaijan has never expressed intent to form a contigious border with Nakhichevan, and Armenia is not trying to form a contigious border with Karabakh either. However, since there are less than 10km separating the Karabakh border and Armenia next to the town of Lacin, Armenia is pushing for an open transport corridor through it, not a unification of the border. In fact, if you find a more detailed map, you will see that there are 2 other small regions enclaved by Armenian territory that are controlled by Azerbaijan, and 1 other such region enclaved by Azerbaijan, yet controlled by Armenia. Thus both countries are fine with having enclaves they control separate from them, as long as the ethnic majority of an area determines who it's controlled by (except for the case of Karabakh, obviously). The separation of Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan has not been an area of dispute and has existed thoroughout history, and thus has pretty much nothing to do with the Karabakh conflict. Also, I find that the sentence "If Armenia and Nagarno-Karabakh are to be united as a contiguous territory, it would require keeping Azeri-populated land in between and permanently separating Azerbaijan proper and Nakhichevan" simply doesn't make sense. Please explain or correct it if you can. --Aramգուտանգ 01:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Where is truth?
As far as I see all the information about Daglig Garabag is subjective. It is obvious that it was written by Armenians. So it is completely biased and cannot be taken as fact, since it is given in one format and one point of view: Armenian. To be fair the information should be given regarding only facts not assumptions. Or if you insert information it should not be describing only one position of Armenians but Azeri's as well. Let's say if you write massacres over Armenians in some Azeri towns were conducted, you should also mention massacres conducted by Armenian vandals over Azeri population in Azeri city of Hodjali in Daglig Garabag in 1992.
You should mention that over 300,000 Azeri people were forced to leave their homes in Armenia where they lived for centuries. You should mention that there also was Azeri population in Garabag which was against the independence of autonomous republic. You should mention that until 18 century the majority of the population of present Armenia (not even Garabag) consisted of Azeri people not Armenians. It is after Russian politics the Christians (Armenians) from Persia and Eastern Ottoman Empire started to move and dislocate to present Armenia and Garabag territories. It's not just words, it's fact, which you can discover in archives (of course if you wish).
So the point here is not deny everything presented by Armenians, but to put information that would reflect the true historical events. The matter is to deliver to the readers the very objective and rich information from different points of view, not just Armenian. And let the reader decide what to choose, let him search the truth.
05:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC) User:24.136.35.45 (Where is truth?) diff
- Well, of course, that's the whole point behind Wikipedia. That's why there's a notice on top of the article about its disputed neutrality. And like I've said before, you're welcome to add any valid counterpoints to the article, as long as they're backed up with sources. As an Armenian, I have little motivation to go out and find arguments against what I've believed in all my life, it is you who should collect the facts you wish to be known and incorporate them into the article. Also, I would disagree that the article has assumptions in it (besides maybe the phrase "Karabakh was subdued by Azerbaijan, with approval from the Allies interested in the oilfields nearby Azerbaijan's capital, Baku."), it mainly describes only facts. Like you said, some facts may be missing, so feel free to fill them in. Also, please try to provide neutral sources, since for every Azeri site claiming one thing, I can find you an Armenian site claiming the opposite, it is the hard to find independent press (non-Turkish, which are Azeri biased, and non-Russian, which are Armenian biased) articles and international body reports on the subject that count.
- P.S. A word of advice, in the future, try to sign your posts (by writing "--~~~~"), and also, your contributions and opinions will be held in higher regard if you have a registered username. --Aramգուտանգ 10:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Kubilay Gultekin
How come there is not a single Azerbaijani weblink below your page on Nagorno-Karabakh? How can you maintain impartiality when you have four website links which are all pro-Armenian? I am sorry to see that Wikipedia is far from impartial on these issues and thus looses credibility...
Truly worrying...
Kubilay Gultekin
00:46, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC) User:172.149.163.27 diff
comparative example
This is a letter I sent to an Armenian university professor, Dr. Papazian, at U of Michigan-Dearborn, after reading some of his questionable comments.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO RESPOND
I have a special interest in learning about the Nagorno Karabakh region and in my search came across your fact sheet. I was born in Baku, but I am Jewish and in no important way consider myself Azerbaijani, for obvious reasons. I am also a college student and very interested in international political developments.
The reason that I am contacting you is for some sort of clarification on the information you provided as well as a response to an Azeri view that I have found on the following web site:
http://www.ehtiram.s5.com/whats_new.html
All of my relatives from Azerbaijan, Jews, of course, believe that ultimately N-K is a part of Azerbaijan. From what I've read, I also believe that to be true.
Real independence can only be granted by an international organization, such as the UN. There is also never a situation where solely a majority vote justifies independence, even in a legal region. Legally, I have a unique US address that no one else may have, but I have no right whatsoever to independence due to a majority vote of my home's inhabitants.
On the web page provided, they make a argument that self-determination is granted to colonies, and never to autonomous regions of already formed nations, unless both sides agree. Neither is the case with N-K. Even the UN guarantees the territorial integrity of its members. In addition, an Armenian country already exists.
I am constantly comparing the case to the establishment of Israel, which is of great personal interest to me. Unlike N-K, the territory was: (1) a colony (British), (2) was given independence by an international body (UN), (3) a similar Jewish nation did not previously exist.
However, I am in favor of a Palestinian country, one with UN recognition, simply because no other alternative exists. The Palestinians cannot move to another Arab country because that would benefit Israel, and would not lead to its destruction, a goal shared by most Arab nations. That it why they keep the Palestinians in limbo.
Why can't Armenians in N-K simply move to Armenia?
The added notion that N-K should be independent is ridiculous. Armenia denies trying to annex N-K. Since no N-K nation ever existed, there is no need for one to exist now.
07:25, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) User:Kalbagdola (comparative example) diffs
- From the POV of a neutral American, I would dispute any claim that any individual or group of individuals doesn't have a right to self determination. Self determination is a core ethic of the UN as well as its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so asserting that NK would need UN approval to be independent is factually wrong. Furthermore, as an American, which was founded on the principle that all sovereign power originates in the people AS INDIVIDUALS, and only delegated to governments, the people of NK can decide whatever they want. Finally, as to the issue of contiguity, such a concept has no ethical, moral, or legal mandate whatsoever. Many nations have non-contiguous territory (the US among them), so why can't you people just get along? - User:Mlorrey 17 Jan 2005 01:18, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) User:69.173.98.149 diff
- RESPONSE
- By your reasoning, the population of Manchester, NH would have the option of leaving the union and taking the town with it. Certainly that is not ever going to happen. As appealing as secession is, even to me, it is illegal. Your comments concerning U.S. are plainly wrong. In addition, I have no contiguity issues, as Azerbaijan itself has an exclave.
- The question here is a modern one. Putting aside historical rights, does one sovereign nation have the right to occupy another's territory for non-defensive reasons? That is why there is not a single government that recognizes N-K, including Armenia.
- (kalbagdola, 1/17/2004) 02:28, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) User:Kalbagdola diffs
Separatists
The term "separatists" is not neutral and should not be used in the article.
"(3) The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility of the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self- determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations." See: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted UN General Assembly, Resolution 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December 1966.
States that have ratified or acceded to the Covenant (as at April 1999): Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan.
Also Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
20:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) User:64.136.2.254 diffs
- re: The term "separatists" is not neutral and should not be used in the article.
- Also it is not a correct statement that .."Nagorno-Karabakh, formally part of Azerbaijan, is now predominantly ethnic Armenian..".
- It is well known, that Nagorno-Karabakh was always predominantly ethnic Armenian (75%), and it was part of the Soviet Azerbaijan, which does not exist now.
- Rovoam 11:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rovoam changes
Version 1:
- Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijani: Dağlıq Qarabağ or Yuxarı Qarabağ, literally "mountainous black garden" or "upper black garden"; Russian: Нагорный Карабах, translit. Nagornyy Karabakh; Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ, translit. Lernayin Gharabagh), referred to by Armenians as Artsakh (Armenian: Արցախ), is a region of Azerbaijan, in southern Caucasia, located about 270 km (about 170 mi) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian and effectively under Armenian control. The local Armenian separatists declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country in the world.
Version 2:
- Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijani: Dağlıq Qarabağ or Yuxarı Qarabağ, literally "mountainous black garden" or "upper black garden"; Russian: Нагорный Карабах, translit. Nagornyy Karabakh; Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ, translit. Lernayin Gharabagh), historically known as Artsakh (Armenian: Արցախ), is a region of former Azerbaijan Soviet Republic, in southern Caucasia, located about 270 km (about 170 mi) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. This predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923. Karabakh has declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not yet recognized by any country in the world.
Version 1:
- Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was conquered by Tigranes II, ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia. In the early 4th century AD Alwanians managed to regain Artsakh, and eventually in 387 AD it became a part of Alwania again. In the 5th century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania.
Version 2:
- Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was part of the Kingdom of Armenia, ruled by Tigranes II. In the 4th century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania.
Rovoam, please discuss why are you reverting both of these paragraphs. —Cantus…☎ 18:30, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Cantus, if you pay a little bit more attention to what other people say, you will be able to find my messages, in which I had already provided the answers to all your questions.
- As you perhaps know, Karabakh had always been Armenian populated region, not just now. According to the Soviet population census (as of 1979), the population of Karabakh was 162 000, from which there were 123 100 Armenians (75,9%) and 37 300 were Azeri people (22,9%). That's why it is correct to say that this autonomous region was predominantly Armenian populated, even before the conflict.
- It is also well known fact that this autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923. And I don't see any reasons why this fact must be hidden.
- The term "separatists" also does not look right.
- Christianity become the official religion in Alwania in 4-th century, NOT in 5-th. It is also well known fact.
- Karabakh initially was never a part of Alwania, as it was always separated by the Kura river. This opinion is based on the study of ancient writes such as Strabon, Josephus Flavius, Plinius Secundus, etc. In addition, we have a lot of old maps, which clearly show the border between Armenia and Alwania, which was always along the Kura (Kir) river.
- I have made several attempts to negotiate and discuss these issues with you, but you have never responded to any of my messages.
- I strongly believe, that you are in the violation of the very basic principles of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia should present only facts without any political propaganda. And, in all cases, you have to discuss issues with others, and not to ignore messages sent to you.
- If you disagree with the above statements, let's bring this matter to the Arbitrator and let him decide who is right and who is wrong here...
- Regards,
- Rovoam 22:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In response to Rovoam's post in my talkpage.
Dear Rovoam, I also hope we with you won’t be dragged in another protracted dispute and we will settle our differences through civilized discussion. With all my respect, I want to say it straightforwardly from the very beginning that your edits do not correspond the Wikipedia NPOV standards. Let’s compare the initial version (btw, created by other mostly neutral Wikipedians!) and your edits, I have shown the changes in bold to make the changes more visible.
Paragraph 1
Initial version:
Nagorno-Karabakh […] referred to by Armenians as Artsakh (Armenian: Արցախ), is a region of Azerbaijan, in southern Caucasia, located about 270 km (about 170 mi) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian and effectively under Armenian control. The local Armenian separatists declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country in the world.
Edit by Rovoam
Nagorno-Karabakh […] historically known as "Artsakh" (Armenian: Արցախ), is a region of former Azerbaijan Soviet Republic, in southern Caucasia, located about 270 km (about 170 mi) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. This predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923. Karabakh has declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not yet recognized by any country in the world.
1) Nagorno-Karabakh […] referred to by Armenians as "Artsakh" VS. Nagorno-Karabakh […] historically known as "Artsakh"
- “Artsakh” is a pre-Islamic name for the region. I am sure you would agree with me on this. “Karabakh” is a name given in medieval times when Islam came to the region and also when the Turkic tribes began to flow to the Caucasus in XI-XII cc. I am sure you know this too. In this circumstance both names (“Artsakh” and “Karabakh”) are *historical*.
Artsakh was a region of Caucasian Albania and was also captured at times by ancient Armenian kingdom. However, contemporary Azeris, which claim (“rightly” or “wrongly”, another question) to be descendants of ancient Caucasian Albanians, do not call the region “Artsakh” but call it “Karabakh”. Therefore, the pre-Islamic name “Artsakh” even though not of Armenian origin by itself, is mostly referred by the Armenians and this is clearly stated in the Wikipedia article. Having said that, I believe, the initial version pointing to this fact is more correct and appropriate.
2) The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian and effectively under Armenian control. VS. ??
- Why erase this sentence? Currently the region is predominantly ethnic Armenian (although historically it was not always the case), and it is under Armenian control/occupation. POV should be avoided here too.
3) The local Armenian separatists declared independence …. VS. Karabakh has declared independence
- Rovoam, you claim term “separatist” is not an “objective” terming. But this is the term used in international documents and proceedings, as well as the international media outlets with regard to the local Armenians in Karabakh. I could bring you hundreds of examples, but for now I would limit myself to two most recent examples: the Council of Europe resolution, which clearly spells out the term “separatist”. [1] and US State Department fact sheet on Karabakh [2], which clearly says stipulates territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
4) This predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923
- Mentioning of Stalin in this manner is not correct and doesn’t correspond to NPOV. This issue has been disputed for decades. Armenians claim Karabakh was put under Azerbaijan by Stalin’s “arbitrary decision”, while Azeris claim that it was Stalin who gave part of Azerbaijan to Armenia (Zangezur part of Armenia separating mainland Azerbaijan from Nakhichevan) and also forced Azerbaijan to accept autonomy for Karabakh Armenians within Azerbaijan. My suggestion would be to omit this controversial issue for the sake of avoiding future disputes and POV edits and instead, to focus on the facts.
Paragraph 2
Initial version:
Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was conquered by Tigranes II, ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia. In the early 4th century AD Alwanians managed to regain Artsakh, and eventually in 387 AD it became a part of Alwania again. In the 5th century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania.
Edit by Rovoam:
Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was part of the Kingdom of Armenia, ruled by Tigranes II. In the '''4th''' century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania.
- Why delete historical reference to the fact that Artsakh was *conquered* by Armenian king Tigrannes and put instead a vague edition saying that in “95BC it was part of the Kingdom of Armenia”? And why delete reference to the fact that Albanians regained this territory from the Armenians later afterwards? I do not think a person concerned with NPOV would make such editions.
In short, I call Rovoam to be more impartial in his edits. Certainly the page is not perfect. I myself have some objections to the content. But before making some changes, one should first explain his suggested editions in the talkpage, receive feedback and only after that it is reasonable to change the content.--Tabib 10:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Dear Tabib! You are right, both "historical" names - Artzakh and Karabakh - are correct. The modern (official) name of this region is Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is now also a historical name, and it is also correct. However, when we use term "historical" we usually mean "first historical". Taking this into consideration, it is correct to say that historically this region is known as Artzakh, and this is Armenian name.
- If you would like, you can say "first historical name", but this would not make any sense. The first known name is Urtehe, which is known from Urartu period. This name is used by Strabon (together with other name - Orhistene) in his description of ancient Armenia. Movses Khorenatsi calls it Sunik, etc., etc. So, the subject is more complicated then you see it...
- You really believe that it is prohibited to mention Stalin's name in Wikipedia? How about other names? Are they prohibited too? For example, may I mention Hitler when I speak about Word War II? Would this correspond to NPOV? However, it was Stalin who created all this mess in Nagorno-Karabakh! This is a FACT!!! No doubt about this!
- I know, Azeri also blame Stalin for Armenia very existence. After Turkish invasion into that region almost 2/3 part of Armenia was taken to Turkey and approx. 1,5 million Armenians died. Speaking of Karanahk, more then 40000 people were killed by Turks only in one city - Shusha.
- Now, if we agree that all names of political persons are prohibited, as it violates NPOV rules, why you refer to Armenian king Tigrannes? Don't you think, it's also wrong to mention his name in connection with this subject?
- Why you refer to Caucasian Albania in this article? Does it really matter? -- The subject of "Caucasian Albania" today is a part of the modern Turkish and Azeri propaganda, and it has nothing to do with the reality. I know how you feel about your motherland, but please, be aware that Wikipedia is not a Turkish encyclopedia!
- Talking about Caucasian Albania, it is well known that this country was situated on the left side of the Kir (Kura) river, and Karabakh was never part of this country. This fact is based on Strabon, Plinius, Phlavius et al. See this map, for example -
- Armenia, Kolhida, Iberia and Albania. Plus, do you mean that this land should now belong to Albanians?!
- My dear Turkish friend! Please understand one thing here. The Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda. No matter what you write here, it would not change the reality. We read Wikipedia to learn something new and to share our knowledge with others, but not to influence political desicions. It's simply impossible! Trust me!
- With best regards,
- Rovoam 12:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My Armenian colleague Rovoam. Frankly, I expected a more civilized and sincere discussion based on facts and not on bias and propaganda. While you call me your "Turkish friend" the content and implications of your postings and esp. your edits are not friendly at all. So far I didn't seriously interfere with this page and I want to stress that the contents of the page (before your POV edits) were largely a product of third party Wikipedians and also another Armenian editor Aramgutang, whom I haven't had an honour to know well, but who seemingly was more balanced in his approach to this particular page than you. As I said before, I am not fully content with the initial page (i.e. page version last edited by Cantus, before your edits) either, because in my view the initial version also has some Armenian bias (that's why label NPOV was placed there) but your edits are extremely biased and provoke new edit and revert war. The arguments you bring are irrelevant and with all my respect, senseless. What the term "first historical name" is supposed to mean? Didn't I explain you that both names, no matter "first" or "second" are *historical*? And who said that mentioning Stalin is "prohibited"? Why you misinterpret my words? And what relevance has Stalin to ancient Tigrannes?? As to your claim that territory of "Karabakh was never part of Albania", then you contradict yourself, because even in your edition, you couldn't avert mentioning of Artsakh being part of ancient Caucasian Albania.
- In short, I repeat my earlier suggestion. Please, do not start an edit and revert war and discuss your views in talkpage, receive feedback and only after that, if consensus is reached, make substantial changes to the content. This is the way Wikipedia functions and develops. --Tabib 14:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Dear Tabib! You haven't answer to any of the above arguments! You have to stop your violent Turkish vandalism and listen what other people say about you. Otherwise, I will have no choice, but to restrict your access to this site forever. 16:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC) User:Rovoam diff
- Rovoam, Come down to earth. You are nobody “to restrict my access to this site forever”. Where disappeared your sham politeness in previous messages? I believe so far I was rather deferential in my replies and didn’t give you pretexts for such kind of statements. Such attitude and words are not worthy of a person who wants to engage in a civilized and factual discussion. I advise you to choose the words you are using more prudently, and carefully consider your own arguments and editions in the light of Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. --Tabib 21:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
the edit war
Hi all. I was asked by Tabib to offer an opinion on the edit war currently raging here. I am no expert on the subject, but I did edit this page a few times, mostly to flesh-out the infobox (see: diff) plus a few subsequent adjustments. I have had no prior contact with Tabib or Rovoam; I have had some prior (contentious) interactions with Cantus.
This is obviously a controversial subject and I see POV in both Rovoam's edits and in the version of the article that Tabib and Cantus are reverting back to. I also see relevant information in Rovoam's edits. I would suggest that folks calm down and talk about specific changes. I will try and assist on the talk page. Everyone please cease wholesale reverts to any of the prior versions (as I write this, Rovoam's have been reverted; I do not mean to specifically endorse this).
- "arbitrary decision of Stalin" — is this factual? if so, it merits mention in some form in the article.
- "not yet recognized" — 'yet' is POV-pushing.
— Davenbelle 19:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
an unhelpful posting
(I am inclined to simply delete this; comments? — Davenbelle)
- So far ALL contributions on Wikipedia brought by Tabib (Azeri Turk) revolve around Turkish people GOOD PEOPLE/Armenian and Persian People BAD PEOPLE. One really wonders who at Wikipedia should be interested in his personal problems. Instead of profiting from new learning, we are being pestered by banalities and trivial POV. This is SICKENING, man. --84.154.60.174 21:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Edit War II, The Redirects
Maybe this page should be about the 'Republic of'. Maybe there should be two pages. But there should not be warfare. There should be talk. — Davenbelle 21:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Davenbelle, Thanks for your positive reaction to my request for third party opinion. I hope presence of you and Cantus as third neutral parties will discourage Rovoam from engaging in a revert war and also, will make the discussion more sensible and fruitful.
- First, I want to clearly tell you that creating a new page under name "Republic of" is unacceptable. Nagorno Karabakh is an internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan and this is an indisputable fact. All the questions regarding the Karabakh conflict and the Karabakh's current situation should be dealt here. I understand that you are not well familiar with the topic, therefore, I will cut short my criticism of this suggestion of yours.
- Second, I want to stress once again, that I am not content with the initial version last saved by Cantus either. Especially I am not satisfied with the way the Nagorno Karabakh fact box is designed, with only writing in Armenian on the top (before that there was only Nagorno-Karabakh and no protracted Armenian description of the self-proclaimed republic, which is not correct in my view, but this is for later..). But so far I didn’t want to interfere in the discussion because generally the page content seemed to be rather even handed. I am not claiming to be an impartial person, but I certainly did not push my POV in this page as Rovoam and my only contribution to this page so far was simply reverting obvious biased POV edits by Rovoam to previous less erroneous edits by third party editors.
- My stance regarding the page content is that we should focus on the facts and not on some vague and controversial statements. Rovoam attempted to remove the term “separatist” describing the Karabakh Armenian authorities, he exposed his biased POV by adding “yet” to the sentence on Karabakh’s non-recognized status. (“The NKR's sovereign status is not [yet (-?!)] recognized by any country in the world.”), he tried to misinterpret the legal status of Karabakh by arguing that it was allegedly “Soviet Azerbaijan” who had Karabakh as its part and this doesn’t apply to present-day independent Azerbaijan Republic, nonsense can’t be more obscene. This list of biased POV editing is far from being complete and all these facts show that throughout the whole edit history in this page Rovoam was not objective, to put it mildly.
- I want to say briefly about Stalin. I actually do not mind mentioning Stalin in the Karabakh page. BUT, if accepted as expedient, this mentioning should be construed in an objective manner not favoring the position of one party and discrediting other’s position. Stalin’s negative image in the history has been continuously exploited with propagandistic goals by both Armenians and Azeris. In a sense Stalin became a scapegoat and a propaganda card for both sides. As I mentioned above, Armenians claim that Stalin arbitrarily placed Karabakh under Azerbaijan. Azeris claim that Stalin gave Zangezur to Armenians and similarly wanted to give Karabakh and Nakhichevan to Armenians as well. This is really a long story and a very complicated one, therefore, for the sake of avoiding continuous biased editings and promoting certain political agendas I suggested avoiding mentioning Stalin (whose role is often being exaggerated in this conflict) from the page. In any case, these are my preliminary suggestions. If needed I am ready to further substantiate them.--Tabib 21:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, aggressive tactics like messing with redirects and adjusting every page that links here is not going to make the anons (yes, possibly Rovoam) many friends. You guys need to talk and work this out or the edit war will continue. If you don't, this will end up in dispute resolution. I am also going to suggest that you consider a mediator. — Davenbelle 00:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
another unhelpful posting
(User Tabib, keep personal problems out of here, once and for all!! Please!)
(I am inclined to simply delete this; comments? — Davenbelle)
- Davenbelle, you mean good, but please wait until this dispute has been solved by fair discussion. This will maintain transparency. I am carefully following the argumentative methods employed by the participants, as I believe to have discerned improper action before.--LIGerasimova 10:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- (I will refrain from deleting this; however, I urge only polite posts. — Davenbelle 20:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC))
Why start edit wars (edit world wars?) on every page you descend on, with your apparent Turkic/Turkish/Turkey problem? All you do is post POV or delete other's texts, on account of POV. Cut it out. --84.154.120.102 22:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Stop irrelevant personal attacks! You (anon user 84.154.xxx.xxx) vandalized the page Safavids THREE times ("Safavids were Turkic-speaking dance ensemble"-! [3])! You think thus you are taking revenge for your Persian POV loss in a civilized discussion in the Safavids talkpage, but I am not going to give up to your provocations. This discussion is about the content of the Karabakh page, so stay away with your irrelevant personal attacks.--Tabib 06:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- User Tabib's war against Wikipedians.
- User Tabib apparently invariably vandalizes pages, by deleting pertinent editorial text and posting abusive nonsense instead. Most of his postings, particularly the ones on this page and the pages Safavids and Talk, constitute POV or ethnically directed insults. His postings are prone to contain references to TURKS, TURKOMANS, TURKEYS and related TURKISH matters. Roughly 65 % of his other postings are concerned with editing wars and abusive attacks of fellow editors. He has attempted to incite others to team up against victims of his obsessive "Turkification" assaults, e.g. user Deli-Eshek. User Tabib may have severe personal problems, but Wikipedia ought not be his forum for exhibiting his deficits.--84.154.51.75 14:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Tabib, I have also noticed that you are very pre-occupied with all Azeri or Turkish related articles, fighting and chasing other users if they disagree with you on your Turkish favorite subjects. I am pretty sure, that you also deny facts about Armenians, Greek and Assyrian Genocide, committed by Turkish government in 1915... Tell us the truth: are you denying these Genocides? This will tell us a lot! Please, be honest!
- Your friend Cantus cannot be considered as the third party user! Most likely this is your own (second) nick name
Mediation request
Davenbelle, thanks for your brief note. I am also of the opinion that anon edits quite possibly carried out by Rovoam won't make him friends in Wikipedia and instead will incite further revert wars. I ask Rovoam to stop reverts and leave the initial version, i.e. the version not edited either by me or him, and resort to formal mediation. If Rovoam agrees I will post formal notice on that in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I also ask third party users, in particular, Davenbelle and Cantus to be more active in the discussion.--Tabib 06:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let's discuss!
- There are two, slightly different versions of this article:
- 1. Version supported by Tabib:
- The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian and effectively under Armenian control. The local Armenian separatists declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR).
- 2. My version:
- This predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923. Karabakh has declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR).
According to Tabib, it sounds like this region has become ethnic Armenian only now, as a result of the recent war in Nagorno-Karabakh. This is not true.
According to the latest Soviet population census (as of 1979), the population of Karabakh was 162 000, from which there were 123 100 Armenians (75,9%) and 37 300 were Azeri people (22,9%). This was always a predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region. Now, after Armenians took over, there are about 95% Armenians. These are the true and correct facts, which can be easily verified by other sources.
Now let's talk about Stalin and about history.
Nagorno-Karabakh became a subject of the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1918 when both countries declared independence from Russia. Territorial dispute has not been resolved until 1920, when both young states became part of the Soviet Union, and actually lost their independence due to the actions of Russian communists (Bolsheviks). In December, 1920 the Azerbaijan communistic government has dropped former complaints on Nagorno-Karabakh and some other territories populated by Armenians, recognizing these territories as part of the Soviet Armenia.
However, finally the Azerbaijan new Soviet government has renewed the complaints and has addressed them to Moscow for support. On July, 4, 1921 so-called Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party has voted for inclusion Nagorno-Karabakh into structure of Armenia. But next day, on July, 5, the new session of Caucasian Bureau has reconsidered its first decision in favour of Azerbaijan and ordered to transfer this territory to Azerbaijan. This part of resolution of the Caucasian Bureau has been implemented in 1923, when Autonomous Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh was formed.
Supporters for the Armenian position frequently emphasize, that resolution of the Caucasian Bureau from July, 5, 1921, was obviously accepted under Joseph Stalin's pressure (as he was the dictator in the Soviet country), and, in any case, this resolution contradicts with the principle of self-determination and cannot be considered as valid: the problem should be solved by the countries, which it directly involves, and not by the Committee created specially for this case and inside the ruling party of the third country.
I don't actually mind, if we slightly re-phrase my version, not mentioning Stalin's name, but, instead, describing this history as it is described above (i.e. providing more details).
If we do this, then I would agree to change this paragraph:
- The NKR's sovereign status is not yet recognized by any country in the world.
to this:
- The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country in the world.
as suggested by Tabib.
As of ancient times, the history of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania, is not well known, and it cannot be used as a political argument. However, it is known that Albanians were Caucasian languages speaking tribes, not Turkish-speaking, as Azeri people are. There is no connection between Caucasian Albania (which was Christian country) and Azerbaijan (which is Muslim country) - everything is different: different language groups, different religion and different culture... Plus, Turkish tribes invaded this region only in XI century, but by this time Albanians have already disappeared from the history as they were assimilated by Arabs and, partially, by Armenians. These are the only known historical facts.
For this reason I have suggested to remove the following:
"Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was conquered by Tigranes II, ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia. In the early 4th century AD Alwanians managed to regain Artsakh, and eventually in 387 AD it became a part of Alwania again. In the 5th century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania."
There are a lot of mistakes in the above statement. For example, Christianity was accepted in 4-th century, not in 5-th century. The whole paragraph is very misleading, it is based on arbitrary assumptions, myths or propaganda!
With best regards, Rovoam 06:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Rovoam, This last post above in which you state your viewpoint and arguments clearly makes more sense. We can continue our discussion in this way, provided no arbitrary unilateral changes made on the page.
- However, referring to your irrelevant posting above I urge you not to try to discredit me and user Cantus, who has no relation to me whatsoever. This may be considered as a personal attack. By supporting anon user 84.154.xxx.xxx you implicitly back up his methods. Btw, his vandalism is now being considered in Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. So please, let’s not get distracted and keep a civilized discussion here.
- Going back to the discussion itself. First, I want to stress that I was not the author of the sentence “The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian” If you have strong objections to the word “now” I, as a gesture of goodwill, do not object removing this word from the sentence. However, as I noted earlier, historically Karabakh was not always “predominantly Armenian”. Thus for example you wouldn’t probably deny that before early XIX c. mass resettlement of Armenians from Persia and Ottoman Turkey to the Caucasus, more than 70% of the population of Karabakh was Muslims (Azeris) and only 21-25% were Armenians according to the population census conducted by Russian authorities at the time. In subsequent periods massive resettlements of Armenians and other Armenian refugee inflows into the Caucasus continued following the wars between Russian Empire and Persia in 1828, Russia and Ottoman Turkey in 1828, 1853-1856, 1877-1879 and also during Armenian riots in 1894. This drastically changed the demographic situation of not only Karabakh but of the whole Caucasus.
- You also write “Now, after Armenians took over (!?), there are about 95% Armenians”. I wouldn’t be so modest. It is a well known fact that after ethnic cleansings of the Karabakh Azeris during the conflict (1988-1994), Karabakh became a *mono-ethnic* Armenian territory (term taken from recent Council of Europe resolution on Karabakh [4]). By the way, there is no any mention of this ethic cleansing in the page content either. Maybe we should consider this issue too?
- Now, there are historical facts, and whereas they are indisputable, they are also controversial and widely (mis-)used in propaganda purposes. In order to avoid disputes and future possible propagandist interpretations I never attempted to put these facts, which one may well argue should be indicated in the page content.
- Same applies to mentioning of Stalin. Whereas you rightly point that he was a dictator and adopted arbitrary decisions, your interpretation of his role if based on solely Armenian POV. You present a summary of historical events which would be very useful if not some false biased statements.
- Your statement that Stalin allegedly favored Azeris and “gave” them Karabakh is totally wrong. Under Stalin’s pressure Azerbaijan withdrew its claims to Zangezur and ceded it to Armenia. Stalin also pressured Azerbaijan’s then communist government to cede Karabakh and Nakhichevan. However, this was such a hotly disputed issue and Stalin’s role her should not be overestimated. The fact that the Kavburo (Caucasian Regional branch of the Communist Party) changed its decisions several times proves that. However, I want to drag your attention to the text of the last decision of Kavburo on Karabakh adopted on July 5, 1921:
- “Proceeding from the necessity of national peace between the Muslims and Armenians, and economic links of the upland and lowland Karabakh, its constant link with Azerbaijan, to leave the Mountainous Karabakh within the Azerbaijan SSR, having granted it a broad regional autonomy with the administrative center in the town of Shusha included in the autonomous region”.
- Pay attention, the word used is not “transfer”, as Armenian side misleadingly proclaimed for decades but “leave”.
- I renew my suggestion. For the sake of avoiding conflicts, let’s concentrate on facts and as much as possible avoid controversial statements which will lead to further disputes and controversies.
- And last remark. Rovoam, you cannot erase mentioning of Caucasian Albania from the text because historically Artsakh was one of the provinces of Armenia. As to your claims that Azeris have no relation to ancient Caucasus Albanians, as I noted previously, rightly or wrongly, that’s what Azeris claim, and this is a subject of another discussion. And…Christianity became Albania’s official religion following the assembly in Aluan (situated in the territory of present-day Karabakh, Agdam) in 488, that makes 5th century.--Tabib 10:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Davenbelle's comments
Rovoam, Tabib, thank you for returning to the talk page and addressing the issues you each have with the article. I will try and keep up with the goings on here, but I have little time for it during the next few days; I will be able to participate more heavily this weekend. Rovoam, you commented that Cantus may be an alias for Tabib and I would like to say that I very much doubt this is the case; I also doubt that Cantus will be an active participant on this talk page, however he may well revert to the version that Tabib has been. I will not favor either of your preferred versions of the page, however I will react strongly to actions such as abrupt redirects such as occurred anonymously recently.
Let's address this question:
- 1. Version supported by Tabib:
- The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian and effectively under Armenian control. The local Armenian separatists declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR).
- 2. Version supported by Rovoam:
- This predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923. Karabakh has declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR).
(to be followed by "The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country in the world." — Rovoam offered to agree to the omission of 'yet' and the dropping of the Stalin reference contingent on a re-phrasing...)
Tabib, do you agree that the ethnic composition of the area is and has long been heavily Armenian? I would ask you both to address the re-phrasing option — propose wording! If you two can work out these sentences, I expect/hope the other issues will follow.
Thank you both for your explanations of the role Stalin played in this; I do find this interesting.
I have a quick question I'd like to toss out; is there a significance to Rovoam's version referring to simply 'Karabakh' instead of 'Nagorno-Karabakh'? (Tabib, you also used this form in a comment above.) The opening paragraph gives a whole slew of names and it would seem the order they're listed is at issue, too. 'Nagorno-Karabakh' seems to be pretty much 'Nagornyy Karabakh' from Russian — I would appreciate either or both of you enlightening me about the naming of the area (but please, not the 'Republic of' aspect).
I ask about the name because I want to get into whatever issues there are about the infobox. I fleshed-out the infobox last month into pretty much its present form; this is what the box looked like before I worked on it — just the NKR flag and coat of arms and the map. I have worked on many such infoboxes and saw that this one needed work. The NKR government is the actual functioning government in the area and the infobox covers that. Let's start with the title; would 'Nagorno-Karabakh' be acceptable to both of you?
There are other issues here that I have not addressed and for this I am sorry; I hope that my comments can serve as a catalyst for your cooperative efforts! Let me suggest that you address issues in small bites. An option that you may want to consider is editing a working copy of the article, not the actual article; this would be a simple matter of copying the article into a subpage and working there; in such a private copy you would be free to make comments right with a section under discussion. This is only one way of working; if you want to talk about issues one at a time and then insert mutually agreeable text into the article, that works well, too.
Peace, Davenbelle 10:35, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
p.s. I want to add that I wrote all this before reading your most recent posts here, Tabib (made just a few minutes ago).
Naming peculiarities and speculations: Karabakh, Nagorno-Karabakh etc.
Davenbelle, thanks for your comments. It’s a pity though that we incidentally posted simultaneously, so you couldn’t really comment on my last post. Also, I hope you will be mistaken in your guess about Cantus and we will have him actively participating in the discussion as well.
I understand your initial confusion with certain names and arguments. That’s normal to any person not sufficiently familiar with the topic. I would suggest you to read for background info the Regions and territories: Nagorno-Karabakh from BBC, the U.S. Department of State recent fact sheet on Nagorno-Karabakh and Council of Europe recent report on Karabakh
I may also be inactive or less active in the coming days because of my work, so I hope the discussion will continue in a patient and civilized manner and we won’t experience future unilateral reverts.
I want to address the questions raised by Davenbelle in bullet points. But I warn him and everyone else that as we dive into historical issues, this discussion will get more and more complicated:
- Since the beginning of the XX c. Nagorno-Karabakh (N-K) was largely Armenian-populated region (as I noted earlier, before XX c. that was not the case, as “Muslim”(Azeri) population constituted the majority in the region). The fact that N-K is now predominantly Armenian populated is clearly shown in the article. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if someone agrees with this statement or not, that’s the fact.
- The terms Nagorno-Karabakh (Nagornyy/Nagorny/Nagornyi Karabakh), Mountainous Karabakh, Dagliq Qarabagh/Karabagh etc. or simply Karabakh are often used interchangeably. In English the name most widely used for referring to the region is “Nagorno-Karabakh” (esp. in official documents). This is not the case with other languages though. For example, in French the region is called Haut-Karabakh, in German – Bergkarabach. Although, as I said, the whole bunch of terms are being used interchangeably, in strict academic terms there are differences between Karabakh and Mountainous (Nagorno-)Karabakh. “Karabakh” historically is referred to the territory consisting of mountainous and lowland parts (lower and upland Karabakh). Historically upper and lower parts were an integral part of one economic and political space. Since ancient times herdsmen used lowland and upland parts of Karabakh for summer and winter pastures respectively. There was no division of the region and there was no “Nagorno-Karabakh” then. Karabakh was a single political space as well when it was part of the Safavids state (1501-1734) and later part of the Karabakh khanate (1751-1822) The term “Nagorno-Karabakh” (or “Mountainous Karabakh”) appeared only with creation of “Autonomous Region of Nagorno-Karabakh” in July 7, 1923.
- There are lots of speculations over the term “Nagorno-Karabakh”. Thus, Armenian side often misinterprets the origin and meaning of the name arguing that “Kara” means “black” in Turkish and “bagh” means “garden” in Persian. However, this is distortion of the truth, aimed at discounting Azeri belonging of the name. In Azeri language, which is a Turkic language, there are lots of words with Persian and Arabic roots. Therefore, claims that the name “Karabakh” is a compound of “Turkish-Persian” words is not correct. Both are native Azeri language words and the name for the region was given in medieval times (app. X-XI cc.) by the ancestors of the present-day Azeris. I wanted to make it clear in advance too, in order to avoid future misinterpretations.--Tabib 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just a few small comments
- The word historically: historical is the opposite of contemporary not of ahistorical.
- The word separatist: seems perfectly neutral to me.
- Mentioning Stalin: it was indeed a decision made by Stalin, arguing that stating that makes the decision look sinister doesn't seem to make any sense. BTW. later on we mention Bolsheviks and everyone knows they're evil, should we remove that mention?
- Not yet recognized: seems to suggest it someday will be recognized as an independent state, we don't know that.
- The Republic of and info box: though de iure a part of Azerbaijan it's de facto an independent political entity, Azerbaijan does not control it's territory, the article clearly states so, as do other articles on similar topics (like Abkhazia or Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
- As for the name: the wikipedia policy is to use the most frequently used English name, in this case it's Nagorno-Karabakh a Russian version of the Turkish name (as Europeans and Americans saw this conflict as an internal Russian affair going somewhere on the peripheries of the Soviet Union (and probably still do)). It was actually at one point explained, before someone removed it for unknown reasons. Separating the article into a two separate ones about the historical region and the political entity seems futile until it gets a lot longer). 12:56, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) User:193.219.28.144 (a few comments)
- 193.219.28.144, thanks for comments. If you have a username please, sign your future postings. Based on your and Davenbelle’s earlier comments, I can conclude that:
- Generally there is a consensus that term “separatist” referring to Karabakh Armenians is perfectly neutral and should be retained
- On the other hand the word “yet” added by Rovoam to the sentence “The NKR's sovereign status is not yet recognized by any country in the world.” is seemingly accepted by other editors to be biased and inappropriate. Therefore, this word should not be used in that sentence.
- Also,
- On term “Nagorno-Karabakh” again: User 193.219.28.144 states that “Nagorno-Karabakh a Russian version of the Turkish name.” This is not quite correct description. I already explained that it is not “Turkish” but “Azeri-Turkic” (or simply Azeri) name.
- On Stalin issue again: We should try to avoid misleading and false statements. The sentence included by Rovoam read: “This predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923.” This sentence is wrong. It does not correspond to reality and also doesn’t comply with the NPOV standards. As I noted earlier, Stalin’s negative image in contemporary historiography is widely exploited by both sides to attain political objectives. The logic behind this sentence is perfectly clear and far-sighted. It aims to show that ostensibly it was only Stalin’s decision (whereas in fact the situation at that time was much more complex) and this decision is therefore illegal now, which allows Armenian propaganda activists to consider the whole history of Karabakh’s belonging to Azerbaijan first within Azerbaijan SSR and now in independent Azerbaijan Republic as void and illegitimate.
- Excellent historical account on “Stalin’s role” in decision of Kavburo to leave Karabakh within Azerbaijan and subsequent disputes over the creation of “Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region” can be found in an Azeri-created [www.Karabakh.org]. The site itself is rather pro-Azeri, but the history section sheds light on some important issues. Please, see sections Karabakh within Azerbaijan SSR and Establishment of the MKAR (Mountainous Karabakh Autonomous Region) for details.--Tabib 14:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- A short offtopic question, I'm confused what is the relation between Azerbaijan and Turkey and the question doesn't seem to be clearly answered either in Azerbaijan on in Azeris. Are Azeris a group of Turks who have been seperated from their motherland by [[Russia] (as for example with Moldavia where Russians occupied the easter part made the Romanians write in Cyrillic script and called it the Moldovan language) or simply a seperate nation with their own language (like Belgs and Germans)?
My Opinion
Thank you, Davenbelle, for your time. Your comments are very reasonable! And your understanding of this difficult problem is perfect.
As a user, I am more active in the Russian side of the Wikipedia, where I contributed a lot of articles, mainly about Russian theology, philosophy and culture, which are my favorite subjects We too sometimes have similar disputes, but they do not go to such extreme conflicts.
After so many years living under the pressure of the Soviet regime, we, Russians, became very sensitive to any kind of obscure propaganda, so we hate it so much. We don’t want to be fooled again, and we want to learn the true facts only. We think, we are able to make our own opinion without any kind of ruling direction.
Here is my personal point of view on the subject we discuss:
Stalin
There is nothing wrong in referring to Stalin’s name (or any other bad names), if it relevant to the subject. However, I can accept the idea to mention Bolsheviks instead. However, we have to be more specific and provide objective and detailed facts. This is what I would like to include in the article:
- This predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of the Bolsheviks in 1923.
- Nagorno-Karabakh became a subject of the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1918 when both countries declared independence from Russia. Territorial dispute has not been resolved until 1920, when both young states became part of the Soviet Union, and actually lost their independence due to the actions of Russian communists (Bolsheviks). In December, 1920 the Azerbaijan communistic government has dropped former complaints on Nagorno-Karabakh and some other territories populated by Armenians, recognizing these territories as part of the Soviet Armenia.
- However, finally the Azerbaijan new Soviet government has renewed the complaints and has addressed them to Moscow for support. On July, 4, 1921 so-called Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party has voted for inclusion Nagorno-Karabakh into structure of Armenia. But next day, on July, 5, the new session of Caucasian Bureau has reconsidered its first decision in favour of Azerbaijan and ordered to place this territory under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan. This part of resolution of the Caucasian Bureau has been implemented in 1923, when Autonomous Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh was formed.
- Supporters for the Armenian position frequently emphasize, that resolution of the Caucasian Bureau from July, 5, 1921, was obviously accepted under the Bolsheviks pressure, and, in any case, this resolution contradicts with the principle of self-determination and cannot be considered as valid: the problem should be solved by the countries, which it directly involves, and not by the Committee created specially for this case and inside the ruling party of the third country.
As you can see, in the last paragraph I clearly state that this is the position of those who support Armenian point of view.
The modern name of the region is Karabakh
The modern name of the disputed region is Turkish name or Azeri name – Karabakh. As far as I know, Armenians accept this name very well, as they probably like it, and so should we. The word "Nagorny" is Russian name (in Russian it means "Mountainous"), and it serves the purpose to distinguish between Mountainous and Flat Karabakh (which is now under Azeri’s control).
However, the official name of this state is the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. This is how they, Armenian "separatists", call them themselves. Do we afraid to call it this way? Do we invent a better name? Does it make sense at all to argue about names? What is important and what is not? From my point of view, it is important to name things as they are, providing facts, but not judging these facts, either we like them or not. Important thing is not a name, of course, but the territory itself and to whom it belongs to.
Is it correct to name self-proclaimed state in Cyprus the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? If it is, then nothing wrong the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as well (and we also should rename article itself, not just title inside). We have to be consistent with the rest articles of Wikipedia!
Caucasian Albania
I would suggest to change this paragraph to be the following:
- According to Azeri point of view, Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was part of the Kingdom of Armenia under Tigranes II ruling. In the early 4th century AD Alwanians managed to regain Artsakh, and eventually in 387 AD it became a part of Alwania again. In the 5th century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania.
Because Armenian point is different here, but we try to present all facts and all point of views, from both sides.
What's wrong with this statement (which Tabib does not like)???
- Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijani: Dağlıq Qarabağ or Yuxarı Qarabağ, literally "mountainous black garden" or "upper black garden"; Russian: Нагорный Карабах, translit. Nagornyy Karabakh; Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ, translit. Lernayin Gharabagh), (Armenian historical: Արցախ, translit. Artsakh), is a region of former Azerbaijan Soviet Republic
Isn't it true, that Karabakh was a part of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialistic Republic? Should we hide this fact? Why?
Please note, that I slightly modified the above phrase, as I am willing to compromise and get to the mutual agreement.
Regards, Rovoam 21:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong in using the name Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh in the article when referring to it, the article should however be at Nagorno-Karabakh. We usually use a short name instead of a full official name, just like the article about the Republic of Azerbaijan is at Azerbaijan, Republic of Armenia is at Armenia or the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is at Venezuela. 21:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) User:193.219.28.144
- Agreed! We have to rename the article Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to a shorter name, like Turkish Cyprus, to be consistent with the above rule. Correct?
- Rovoam 00:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. By the way, the current name for the Karabakh article is Nagorno-Karabakh. This is grammatically wrong! It's either Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or simply Nagorny Karabakh, but definitely not Nagorno-Karabakh!
Davenbelle
- Q: "Nagornyy Karabakh" in the first paragraph is a typo, yes? an extra 'y'...
- Q: "Karabakh" is never spelled with "hk" at the end; a typo?
- —Davenbelle 02:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to propose that we agree on the name of the region (omitting the word republic). Currently many pages point to "Nagorno-Karabakh" but if any of the other variations are mutually acceptable to Rovoam and Tabib (and anyone else that shows up!), the page can be moved; this would be done by proposing the move and having the community at large vote on the idea; this would take some time.
See: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Article_template. This standard calls for the infobox title to be the:
- Official country name in local script
- (transliteration if applicable)
While this is not an internationally recognized country, there is a functioning government that operates by the name "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" — note that there is no hyphen (see: nkrusa.org). Obviously its political status is, and must be, covered. Is it acceptable that the infobox remain in its current form? (factual correction re NKR, if any)
Rovoam makes a good point about the precedent of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus; on the other hand, the (unrecognized) Republic of South Ossetia is at South Ossetia and the (unrecognized) Republic of Somaliland is at Somaliland. Both of the latter use "Republic of" over their infobox. I would suggest the infobox should have "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" first and then the appropriate name in Armenian and Azerbaijani (obviously, omitting "Republic" in Azeri); Russian, too of you like.
I would also like comments on the ordering of the names in different languages in the opening paragraph. Another approach we could take here is to arrange the various names and translations (in some order) in a table somewhere in the article; this would make the opening paragraph much more readable. This would leave the hotly disputed sentence as pretty much the opening of the article.
You have both made considerable comments about the history of the area and I would like to see a lot of this information hammered into an agreeable form and included in the article. Please continue to addresses each other's posts and suggest mutually agreeable language.
Please let me know your feelings about the approach I describe in the notice I posted at the top of this page.
— Davenbelle 04:35, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
The Azeri exclave...
Another name-issue: what is the proper name of the following?
Nakhichevan (this is the article, the others are a mess of redirects!)
Naxcivan Autonomous Republic
Naxçivan Autonomous Republic
Naxcivan
Naxçivan
Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic
Nakhjavan
Naxcivan Muxtar Respublikasi
Nakhchivan
Nakhichevan ASSR Soviet Union, right?
— Davenbelle 05:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
A common problem with geographic name on the territory of the former Soviet Union is that people commonly know and the Russian version of the name instead of the local (Kiev instead of Kyiv, Kishinev instead of Chişinău and so on). That's also the case here.
So to address specific points.
- The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does indeed have a title under the full official name unlike other entities, otoh i'm not sure if the title Turkish Cyprus wouldn't be ambiguous and treated as if it refers to times when Cyprus was indeed Turkish.
- The name Nagorno-Karabakh is indeed wrong, but commonly used in english language.
- The hk is indeed a typo
- yy is simply a different transliteration of Russian
- The infobox is about the political entity not the region, since people in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, we should only include the name in the official language.
193.219.28.146 06:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. — Davenbelle 20:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Correct names in English
Full name: Nagorno Karabakh Republic
Short Name: Nagorno Karabakh
Shortest: NKR
This is based on Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the United States of America
Thank you, Davenbelle, for pointing this out... Rovoam 10:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. — Davenbelle 20:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- My posts regarding naming conventions Naming peculiarities and speculations: Karabakh, Nagorno-Karabakh etc., NAMING: dry facts, and esp. Correct naming issue.--Tabib 19:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
some findings
re Tabib: "I want to stress that I was not the author of the sentence “The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian”"
It appears that Tabib did add that now to this sentence; among the other changes were the removal of Republic from the infobox title, and a very significant change to the Meanwhile, negotiation continues. paragraph of the article (The mediating countries proposed a plan to formally incorporate Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia, in exchange for a transport corridor → details of the talks have remained largely secret and nearby bits...). This was the first edit of the article by Tabib.
I have corrected the spelling of 'Karabakh' (no 'hk') in this talk page. I have also added signatures to previously unsigned posts; please review to see if I have made any mistakes.
Mostly this posting of mine has been a clean-up pass on the page.
Sincerely,
— Davenbelle 20:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Davenbelle, I already touched this issue to this in my reply below . Just wanted to add, that leaving one word "now" aside, I think in that edit I did some very good update work on the current state of negotiations based on neutral language. Comparison you mentioned [5] testifies that. Hope to hear from you on my request and suggestions in my last post below.--Tabib 22:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
the spooks take
Armenia prides itself on being the first nation to formally adopt Christianity (early 4th century). Despite periods of autonomy, over the centuries Armenia came under the sway of various empires including the Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Persian, and Ottoman. It was incorporated into Russia in 1828 and the USSR in 1920. Armenian leaders remain preoccupied by the long conflict with Muslim Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a primarily Armenian-populated region, assigned to Soviet Azerbaijan in the 1920s by Moscow. Armenia and Azerbaijan began fighting over the area in 1988; the struggle escalated after both countries attained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. By May 1994, when a cease-fire took hold, Armenian forces held not only Nagorno-Karabakh but also a significant portion of Azerbaijan proper. The economies of both sides have been hurt by their inability to make substantial progress toward a peaceful resolution. Turkey imposed an economic blockade on Armenia and closed the common border because of the Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas. CIA factbook on Armenia
Azerbaijan - a nation with a Turkic and majority-Muslim population - regained its independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Despite a 1994 cease-fire, Azerbaijan has yet to resolve its conflict with Armenia over the Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh enclave (largely Armenian populated). Azerbaijan has lost 16% of its territory and must support some 800,000 refugees and internally displaced persons as a result of the conflict. Corruption is ubiquitous and the promise of widespread wealth from Azerbaijan's undeveloped petroleum resources remains largely unfulfilled. CIA factbook on Azerbaijan
(just for reference — Davenbelle 20:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC))
Request for restoration of initial PRE-DISPUTE version
Davenbelle, I accept the rules and guidelines you set up above. From Rovoam’s comments, I suppose he also accepts them.
In this regard I call you to be more attentive. I want to remind you that one of the major rules proposed by you that we all agreed on was: *The main article should not be edited, and especially not reverted.
This means that the initial (i.e. PRE-Dispute) version of the Karabakh article which was in place before should be kept intact until we solve our differences in the talkpage.
However, Davenbelle, you overlooked that Rovoam carried out a revert at 19:46, 16 Feb 2005 [6]. He reverted the initial version deleting whole paragraphs from the text. I have to remind you that dispute started from Rovoam’s attempt to change unilaterally the content and before that, even though I also had some strong objections to the content, I didn’t interfere in controversial issues in this page, being aware that it will cause protracted disputes.
Proceeding from the said above, I request you to restore the original (for clarity I repeat, PRE-DISPUTE) version (but with present notice for editors on the top-!), which should be kept intact while active discussion is going on. The original pre-dispute version is basically the one last saved by Cantus at 12:58, 10 Feb 2005 [7] All later edits by you (until your last edit on Feb 17, in which you overlooked unilateral POV revert by Rovoam) and me are only reverts to this original version. You can compare the original and present POV versions here.My only contribution to this page before Rovoam was updating info on negotiations, which is written from rather NPOV perspective and so far neither Rovoam nor anybody objected to this last paragraph on peace efforts. As to "now", I explained that historically Karabakh's population was not always Armenian, but I certainly do not insist on this word being included in that particular sentence. --Tabib 22:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I was quite aware that Rovoam had reverted to his version; in one of my earlier posts above, I said "I will not favor either of your preferred versions of the page". I have not edited the article except to undo the change to a redirect and to add the notices at the top; the {{NPOV}} tag had to go in. I should point out that Rovoam's revert was before I posted my notices ("rules") at the top of the both pages; in fact, it was one of the reasons I posted them. The version you've requested the page be kept at for the time being is basically a version without most of his edits, but with many of yours; this may well not be acceptable to Rovoam. I would like to hear from him before making any significant changes to the main article.
- Rovoam, please comment on Tabib's request. I am prepared to revert back to an even earlier version and reapply various edits, but this would be a lot of work.
- Is there any version of the article that you would both agree to for now? If you both could agree to the removal of a few contentious aspects of the current page, we could then work-out what to replace them with here and then copy them over to the main article.
- I'm sorry that this is a short note, but I'm out of time for the moment. I urge you both to compromise and suggest specific sections to be edited into the article; once we have a base, I will make any changes that are agreed to; in fact, if you reach an agreement on any specific point, either of you are free to make the change; I will change the notice to reflect this if no one objects.
- Thanks to you both for your cooperation!
- — Davenbelle 01:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, Davenbelle. I would like to keep the page as it is, in its current state, not changing it before we reach a mutual agreement. I hope, that wouldn't take too long.
- Rovoam 17:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Rovoam, I am not entirely sure to which version of the page you are referring; I expect that you mean this version (your last revert plus Danny's minor edit plus my addition of the notices at the top), however, I have now made an additional edit that I discuss below This edit was made before your above comment was posted, so you could mean that version...
- Tabib and Rovoam, I would ask you both to agree to work from the version of the main article that I edited with the summary: "removing contentious stuff pending agreements on talk. The idea is this is a baseline". This is the current version of the article as of this posting. My intent was to create a version of the page that was not specifically either of yours and was also acceptable to you both for the moment. Please work with me here.
- — Davenbelle 19:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Davenbelle, the version you are talking about is a result of unilateral change by Rovoam which, as I explain above and below, you overlooked. Therefore, my request regarding the restoration of any of the PRE-DISPUTE versions (which are in any case much complete and correct than the present chopped out version) is in force. Simultaneously, please consider the page version proposed below, which as I said is prepared based on the discussion, various opinions and formulations raised during the talks, and most importantly prepared with regard to Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. You asked me to prepare a wording for certain paragraphs, so I prepared a whole page for you and other members to consider.--Tabib 19:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- — Davenbelle 19:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Now, going back to the content discussions… --Tabib 22:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Historical discussions (cont’d)
NAMING: Dry facts
- Ideally, the correct name for the region would actually be ‘Mountainous Karabakh’, but as I already noted earlier, most widely used term is “Nagorno-Karabakh”.
- Correct Rovoam 19:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Name “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” (“NKR”) is the name for describing self-proclaimed state formation created by the separatist Karabakh Armenian authorities. Most international organizations, including the Council of Europe to which both Armenia and Azerbaijan are members of, prefer to indicate this name within quotation marks. (e.g. an example from a recent CoE report: The President of Armenia, President Kocharyan, was the first “president” of the self-declared but internationally not recognised “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” (see quotation marks?) [8])
- I am strongly disagree with with the idea of using quotation marks. If we use quotation marks here, then we have to use them elsewhere (i.e. in other articles, for example in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus et al.)
- Nagorno-Karabakh was part of the Azerbaijan SSR and today it remains an internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan and only country disputing belonging of Karabakh to Azerbaijan is Armenia, where Rovoam is (originally) from. Rovoam’s attempts to pass Karabakh as “part of Azerbaijan SSR”, simultaneously not mentioning that today it is also a part of present-day Azerbaijan Republic is an extreme example of nationalistic bias.
- No, Tabib. This is not a dry fact. This is a personal attack on me. I am not from Armenia, I am from Moldavia (or Moldova). But let's discuss the subject, not my personal background. I thought, that we have agreed to stop personal attacks, haven't we? Rovoam 19:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Suggestions:
- The page title should be retained as Nagorno-Karabakh, other naming versions should be redirected to this page
- As suggested by Davenbelle, the infobox should have both English, Armenian and Azeri versions of the name for the region. Example (variations may apply): Nagorno-Karabakh / Lernayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetut’yun / Dağlıq Qarabağ
- The page could also be well named Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, as it's technically easy to redirect other pages. Or we have to rename/redirect other similar articles to make them all consistent with each other (example: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus).
- Tabib, please understand, that if you are not willing to compromise, I wouldn't compromise either. Is that clear? Rovoam 19:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Exploitation of Stalin’s negative image with propaganda purposes
It’s interesting that whereas Rovoam brands the articles on history of creation of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region in the Karabakh.org web-site ([9], [10], as “primitive propaganda”, the dates and events brought in those articles actually match to those by Rovoam copied from Armenian web-sites. The only difference I see between what Rovoam writes and the information contained in those online sources are differences of interpretation. Therefore, the answer to the question on what interpretation is “primitive propaganda” is not so unequivocal…
The original text (btw, unlike many other paragraphs kept by Rovoam) gives following description, which is very biased in my view. My comments given in brackets []:
- In 1920, Transcaucasia was taken over by the Bolsheviks who made promises they would return [?!] Karabakh to Armenia. Needing to appease Turkey [was it only Turkey to be appeased? What about Armenians?], however, Moscow never kept this promise[misleading POV]. The young Turkish republic was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia and Moscow hoped Turkey would, with a little help from Russia, develop along Communist lines. As a result, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was established as a state within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923 on most of the territory and the rest [?!]was directly incorporated [?!]into Azerbaijan [?!-for detailed comments, see below]
My major concerns about this paragraph:
- Wording “return” (referring to Armenian claims to Karabakh) is wrong and represent an extremely biased POV. In previous post I brought the text of the Communist party Caucasus Bureau (Kavburo) decision, which used the term “leave” and not “give”, transfer” or whatever referring to Karabakh’s status within Azerbaijan.
- Moreover, Karabakh’s de-facto belonging to Azerbaijan was recognized yet in 1919 by the Allies and on April 3, 1919 the commander-in-chief of the Allied troops in the Caucasus general Thompson officially recognized the authority of the Karabakh general-governor Khosrov-bey Sultanov appointed by Azerbaijan. I think this historical fact should also be clearly stated in the text.
- The last sentence of the paragraph is intentionally misleading formulation indeed: First, the lowland was not ethnically mixed as mountainous part, it was only Azeri populated, therefore the present formulation using words like “directly incorporated” create a false impression that Azerbaijan took forcefully something that didn’t belong to her. Second, it was mountainous part which was separated from the lowlands on the demands of Armenians to create an autonomy in which they would constitute a majority.
Proceeding from the stated above, I suggest the following paragraph instead:
- In 1920, Transcaucasia was taken over by the Bolsheviks who in order to attract public support made promises they would give Karabakh to Armenia along with Nakhchivan and Zangezur (presently part of Armenia separating Azerbaijan from Nakhchivan proper). However, Moscow also had a far-reaching plans concerning Turkey, hoping that it would, with a little help from Russia, develop along Communist lines. Needing to appease Turkey, Moscow agreed to a compromise solution giving Zangezur to Armenia and leaving Karabakh and Nakhchivan within Azerbaijan. As a result, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was established within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923. Most of the decisions on transfer of territories and establishing new autonomous entities were made largely under pressure from Stalin, who is still blamed by both Azeris and Armenians in arbitrary decisions against their national interests.
- I disagree. Bolsheviks have never interested in gaining an attraction or any public support. By the time Red Army was entering Transcaucasia, Karabakh was under full Armenian control, but Armenia was facing Turkey army from the South and Red Army from the North. The agreement was reached between Armenia and Soviet Russia. It was agreed that if Armenian forces leave Nakhchivan, Zangezur and Nagorno-Karabakh, then these regions would become part of the Soviet Armenia. As a result, Armenians withdrew the forces, and Red Army was taken over the area. As soon as Red Army took full control over the area, Bolsheviks forgot all about promises made, and, on the very next day, the Nakhchivan and Nagorno-Karabakh regions were given to Azerbaijan as autonomous regions (that was also part of the agreements). The plan did not work so well in Zangezur, as Armenians failed to withdrew their troops from that area. For this only reason it remained within Armenia territory. Overall, Armenia lost Kars, Ardagan, Erzerum areas (which are now part of Turkey), Nakhchivan (which is now part of Azerbaijan), Karabakh (which is now disputed) and some territories on the North (which is now part of Georgia). Over 90% of Armenian territory was lost. This was in addition to other troubles Armenians lived through in XX century - about 1,5 millions were killed during Armenian Genocide (in 1915) and hundreds of thousands more killed during Turkey invasion into the area in 1918. Rovoam 20:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Artsakh province of Caucasian Albania
Rovoam suggests following (biased) edition “According to Azeri point of view, Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania…” This is certainly not an “Azeri point of view”. It’s a historical fact that Artsakh was a province of ancient Caucasian Albania. This fact is clearly mentioned by ancient historians, including ancient Albanian historian Moses Kalankaytuk (Kalankatly) and Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi (both lived in IV c. AD)
It’s not accidental that Christianity was proclaimed Albania’s official religion namely in Artsakh (Karabakh) in Aluen (modern city of Agdam, now a ghost town in Karabakh populated by Azeris before the latest conflict). Even after Arab invasions Christianity was largely preserved in Karabakh and autonomous church (called Albanian church-!) was preserved although underwent substantial Grigorianization (Armenian church is Gregorian).
Artsakh and other parts (namely Utik and Paytakaran) of Albania (as well as parts of Iberia, modern Georgia) was conquered several times by ancient Armenian kingdom. In 95 BC it was conquered by Armenian king Tigrannes II but according to ancient sources following defeat at the hands of Romans in 66BC Tigran had to give up all the territories he conquered (except for Mesopotamia and Corduena) and the Albanians regained this territory back. Later the territory was gained and regained by Armenians and Albanians. However, it is a historical fact that in 387 according to a peace treaty between Parthia and Roman Empire, Armenia was divided between these superpowers and Albanians using advantage of it, regained Artsakh back.
Proceeding from above, I suggest the following slight editions to the initial text:
- Nagorno-Karabakh comprised one of the historical parts of Aghbania*, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artsakh. In 95 BC it was conquered by Tigranes II, ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia. Following the defeat of Tigranes II at the hands of Romans in 66 BC, Albanians regained Artsakh. Ancient Albanians and Armenians switched control over the territory until the early 4th century AD when Albanians managed to reclaim Artsakh, and eventually in 387 AD it became a part of Aghbania again. In the 5th century Christianity become the official religion in Aghbania.
- Aghbania – substitute for Alwania (both are variations for Albania, but “Aghvania” is more correct and gives much more results in Google than “Alwania” (1040 for Aghbania as opposed to 265 for Alwania)
btw, Original version was as follows:
- Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was conquered by Tigranes II, ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia. In the early 4th century AD Alwanians managed to regain Artsakh, and eventually in 387 AD it became a part of Alwania again. In the 5th century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania.
Christianity in Aghbania: 4th c. VS. 5th c.
I have already shown that Christianity became the official religion of Caucasian Albania in 488 AD following the church assembly in Aluan (situated in present-day Karabakh). This is 5th (fifth) century and not 4th century as Rovoam states. Simple.
p.s. As I said earlier, I’ll be busy at work for next10 days. Hopefuly, I will manage to read the posts and react to them at least once a day.--Tabib 22:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Stuff excised due to contentiousness
I have removed the non-English names because the order is disputed. When agreement is reached, they will be restored.
Rovoam's language order:
| Armenian | Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ |
| Azerbaijani | Dağlıq Qarabağ or Yuxarı Qarabağ, literally "mountainous black garden" or "upper black garden" |
| Russian | Нагорный Карабах, translit. Nagornyy Karabakh; translit. Lernayin Gharabagh |
Tabib's Language order:
| Azerbaijani | Dağlıq Qarabağ or Yuxarı Qarabağ, literally "mountainous black garden" or "upper black garden" |
| Russian | Нагорный Карабах, translit. Nagornyy Karabakh |
| Armenian | Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ, translit. Lernayin Gharabagh |
It would appear that Tabib's are correct with only the order to be worked out. Yes?
I have removed most of the opening paragraph and added a new second paragraph glued-up from the US CIA's factbook; this is only intended as a placeholder; it also raises some new issues...
Fragment of Rovoam's opening paragraph:
- ...is a region of former Azerbaijan Soviet Republic, in southern Caucasia, located about 270 km (about 170 mi) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. This predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923. Karabakh has declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR).
Fragment of Tabib's opening paragraph:
- ...is a region of Azerbaijan, in southern Caucasia, located about 270 km (about 170 mi) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian and effectively under Armenian control. The local Armenian separatists declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR).
(I would like to comment that the word established has a strong implication of recognition and would be best avoided; to declare something is to make an assertion, irrespective of what others think of what is said.)
I have also removed the 4th and 5th century paragraph.
Tabib's version:
- Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was conquered by Tigranes II, ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia. In the early 4th century AD Alwanians managed to regain Artsakh, and eventually in 387 AD it became a part of Alwania again. In the 5th century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania.
Rovoam's Version:
- In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was part of the Kingdom of Armenia, ruled by Tigranes II. In the 4th century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania.
When an agreement is reached about any of these cuttings, the main article will be updated.
Peace,
Davenbelle 08:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
p.s. Please tell me if there is anything else still in the article that either of you feel is unacceptable as a baseline from which to begin adding mutually agree text back to.
infobox title
I changed the infobox title to simply "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" for the moment.
Would you both agree that the heading should be:
Nagorno Karabakh Repupblic
Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետություն
(Lernayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetut’yun)
Dağlıq Qarabağ
(Mountainous Black Garden)
Q: is "Republic" == "Հանրապետություն" ???
Q: is "Republic" == "Hanrapetut’yun" ???
This all amounts to: English NKR, Armenian for NKR, (alt Armenian for NKR), Azerbaijani for NK, (alt Azerbaijani for NK), right?
Would it be acceptable to omit the parentheticals since this is rather a lot of text; it will, of course, all be in the article somewhere!
— Davenbelle 10:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
The most reasonable idea, seems to include the names in an order that doesn't make a political statement but explaining the etymology of the English name (like it was done some in past as you can find in the articles history) so the sentence would look something like this:
- Nagorno-Karabakh (from the Russian (Нагорный Карабах) variant of the Azeri name Dağlıq Qarabağ meening mountainous black garden, the Armenian name is Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ -- Lernayin Gharabagh, Armenians also refer to it by the historical name Artsakh (Արցախ))
- [...] and established the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (եռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետություն -- Lernayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetut’yun)
grammer will have to tweaked a little, but this is probably the stuff a hypothetical reader will want know about the name.
(btw a common problem with using foreign names just like with Republika Srpska, the Nagorno is adjective not a noun, it most likely comes from Нагорно-Карабахской автономной области and as Rovoam pointed outed is incorrect, but thats beyound the scope of this article)
I don't thing it's necessary (or appropriate) to include the Azeri for the NKR itself.
As for the NKR infobox, we include only the name in the official language followed by English as we do in other articles.
As an aside I don't see the point in translating one part of the name and leaving the other transliterated from Russian, why write Mountainous Karabakh, either Nagorno Karabakh or Mountainous Black Garden? 193.219.28.146 15:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My response--Tabib 19:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Pre-Dispute version: rules apply for all
Davenbelle, I am writing to file a formal objection to your last edit in which you removed the rest of the “contentious” paragraphs (btw, most of these “contentious stuff” were deleted earlier by Rovoam). I know that your intentions were good although erroneous therefore, in order to prevent any possible misunderstandings and misinterpretations, I want to state I am glad to see that you treat this discussion seriously. As I see from your posts, your interest in the subject is rather high, although I would wish you to be more informed on the legal and political side of the issue. I want to reaffirm that despite some of your erroneous edits, which has to do with the level of your knowledge of the subject and certainly not partiality, overall I am satisfied with your role in the discussions. I also want to restate that I agreed to your mediation and accepted the guidelines you’ve set above. Therefore, I consider that these guidelines apply to all the discussants, including yourself. Having said that, I object to the recent changes you’ve carried out removing virtually all the paragraphs that have been disputed either by myself or Rovoam. I want to repeat again that the one of the rules of the discussion was *The main article should not be edited, and especially not reverted. This applies to everyone, including you. I also want to repeat that, as I said, PRE-DISPUTE version (to which I also have my own objections) should be restored until the discussion determines the ultimate text. Now, although I felt that you are ready to accept my suggestion, you also have set forth two arguments contrary to my suggestion which can be summarized as follows: a) Rovoam’s unilateral changes of the page content took place slightly before you posted the guidelines; b) you argued that the original PRE-DISPUTE version I suggested to be restored was one without Rovoam’s edits but with “many” of mine. Both these arguments do not hold.
- It was my intent that I be the only editor, however, I did not explicitly state this (primarily agreed-to edits, as I've said I am seeking a baseline version from which to go forward). I am willing to revert-out my last edit, but I will not pick a particular version as "pre-dispute". — Davenbelle 21:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I will recuse myself from whatever exactly my role here is upon request. I do not feel that you're asking that. I wish to arrive at a mutually agreeable version of the article that we can discuss further changes to. The intent of my last edit was to seek a lowest common denominator; I would hope that we do not have to begin with a blank page. If you specifically ask me to I will revert my edit; that would be back to the version that I posted the notice on with the NPOV tag; I don't think you would view that as in improvment. — Davenbelle 03:19, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Even if you were late to post the guidelines accepted by everyone before Rovoam’s unilateral edit took place, you still must have reverted Rovoam’s changes to the original PRE-DISPUTE version. Because, Rovoam’s edits which are largely reflected in the current page are against the spirit of the guidelines (or “notice”, if you want) and of the whole discussion going on here, i.e. the principle that no unilateral change should be made to the page w/o the issue being discussed in the talkpage first. It is not fair to consider Rovoam’s unilateral edit rightful, just because you didn’t post these guidelines earlier enough to avert such kind of unilateral action by a party to the discussion.
- I do not see how we can hold Rovoam to rules that had not been talked about yet. — Davenbelle 21:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I did contribute to this page before Rovoam and before this discussion started. But, as I said before, I did not make substantial changes to the contentious (esp. historical) issues, being aware that this may cause protracted discussion, which I always tried to avoid. As you see from this edit history comparison ([11]), my major contribution to the page was concerning the update on negotiations (last two paragraphs). This part is written from very NPOV view and cannot be source of dispute. Therefore, it is not correct to compare my edits which mostly didn’t touch upon controversial issues, and the edits by Rovoam, which provoked this long dispute. BUT, I have a second option for you to consider. You are welcome to revert to the last version by you (Davenbelle) saved at 08:22, 25 Jan 2005 which is the earliest version not edited by me at all. However, in this case, you will lose many good data, update and clarifications contained in later pre-dispute versions. So, you choose.
- I am very reluctant to go back that far. Re-applying older edits would be a lot of work, and the negotiations here, would be endless. Others would likely object. Also, in your first edit you did remove "The mediating countries proposed a plan to formally incorporate Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia, in exchange for a transport corridor between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan." and replaced it with "The details of the talks have remained largely secret, but reportedly the sides discussed non-hierarchical relationships between the central Azerbaijanian government and the Karabakh Armenian authorities." (only fragments of the diff); this seems significant to me (I am unsure about the true facts here, though). — Davenbelle 21:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Davenbelle, I removed that false statement alleging that ostensibly Karabakh would be given to Armenia in exchange for whatever, namely because this was Armenian POV and speculations. The paragraph I entered instead simply states what is indisputable and represent NPOV. It clearly states that the the negotiations remained secret (so no concrete details are known). The only *concrete* fact which is known about these talks pronounced yet in 2001 by Armenian foreign minister Vartan Oskanian and later implicitly by certain Azerbaijan officials and opposition was that the negotiations were envisaging a "non-hierarchical relationships". Therefore, I believe, my update was much more correct and neutral than the previous one. --Tabib 21:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Current content: False and Misleading
My major concerns about the current content is that after Rovoam’s edits and unintended false editions by Davenbelle, the text looks like the most outrageous example of Armenian propaganda. Just consider one single starting sentence: “Nagorno-Karabakh, or 'Mountainous Karabakh' is a region in southern Caucasia”. What that is meant to imply?? Is Mountainous Karabakh a black hole, a region by itself, which has nothing to do with Azerbaijan? Even Armenian propaganda doesn’t present such formulations. In short,
- The text clearly should spell out that Nagorno-Karabakh is an internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan, although currently occupied by Armenian forces. This is a fact that needs no proof. But for the person like Davenbelle, who’s just starting to get into the issue, I would recommend again to have a look (if you hadn’t yet) at Regions and territories: Nagorno-Karabakh from BBC, the U.S. Department of State recent fact sheet on Nagorno-Karabakh and Council of Europe recent report on Karabakh, as well as four UN Security Council Resolutions on Karabakh. In short, the international community doesn’t recognize the separatist regimes in neither Nagorno-Karabakh, nor Abkhazia, nor South Ossetia nor Transdnistria and recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova. Therefore, none of these separatist regimes can be described apart from the countries which they are part of.
- I will read these next. I understand that the current page is quite light weight; it is only intended as a starting point for adding further details based upon agreements reached here. The faster consensus is reached on what to say, that faster the main article page will improve! — Davenbelle 03:19, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- p.s. I should add that I had written a number of other replies to postings yesterday, but lost them before I'd posted them. Duh!
Correct naming issue and infobox, again
- From a political and legal (i.e. international relations and int’l law) perspective, the correct name for the region is Nagorno-Karabakh. Rovoam is wrong in not differentiating between “Nagorno-Karabakh” and “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” (see his post above). Addition “Republic” (“Nagorno-Karabakh Republic”, abbreviation - NKR) is used to refer to the self-proclaimed state formation created by the separatist Karabakh Armenian authorities (each word in this sentence is valid). I have an impression that my arguments are often being overlooked, therefore once again, I have to repeat that in usually international documents when they mention “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” they often put this name in quotes (“”) and/or add “self-proclaimed” in front of it. This should be practised in Wikipedia as well. I already brought an example from recent Council of Europe report [12], hope you had a chance to look at it. CIA factbook [13] also puts the term “self-proclaimed” when mentioning “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” (although usually gets along w/o putting quotation marks).
- I do not believe that we should use quotes for pretty much the same reasons User:193.219.28.146 gives below. — Davenbelle 21:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what anon user 193.219.28.146 was saying so far, esp. the start sentence (talk about it a bit later), but I do not agree with his POV that only Armenian and English names of the region should be indicated in the infobox. My view is that all three variants (i.e. English, Armenian and Azeri) should be shown in the infobox (This method has been successfully implemented in Abkhazia page in which all the languages involved are represented).
- It was my intent to include all, in that order, as a compromise. Strictly speaking, the infobox and its title are supposed to be about countries and their govenments, however the title amounts to a large piece of signage on the page and it's fair to include all. — Davenbelle 21:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- As a continuation of this issue my suggestion is to put it like this Nagorno-Karabakh / Lernayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetutyun [with Arm letters] / Dagliq Qarabag [with Az letters].
- I would use line breaks instead of slashes. — Davenbelle 21:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I would strongly favor putting Nagorno-Karabakh in English, omitting “Republic” b/c in my view, mentioning “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” w/o putting it in quotes and/or mentioning adding “self-proclaimed” has a connotation of bias favoring separatist regime. After all, why we should call it “republic” if it is not recognized by any international player as such. I want to bring to your attention that both Abkhazia and Transnistria pages which deal with a similar conflict issue, the infobox contains only names of the region, and not names of the self-proclaimed entities. However, I am prepared to discuss this issue in which format to put the three languages in the infobox. I would like to hear Rovoam’s comments on this as well.
- I feel that the infobox does need to refer to the "Republic" in English and Armenian; the infobox is primarily about the political entity; for the Azeri line, whatever text that translates as "Mountainous Black Garden" or "Mountainous Karabakh" should be used. — Davenbelle 21:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Proposed page version
Finally, I would like to introduce you the version that I edited based on the proceedings of the present discussion, based on the arguments and counterarguments, and simply opinions pronounced by me and Rovoam, as well as Davenbelle and anon user 193.219.28.146. I do not claim the text to be perfect and I hope to hear your views and critiques of the text. But I carefully chose each and every word to the best of my knowledge and abilities in order to fit the overall content and formulations to the Wikipedia NPOV standards. Please, see New Nagorno-Karabakh page draft. I hope Rovoam (and possibly some others) will avoid instantly labelling it “propaganda” etc. and instead will come forward with constructive comments
- I will look at this next; it is difficult to compare versions of text on different pages; what I may do is paste your page into the main article in order to get into its history; this will allow the use of the Compare selected versions feature. I will, however, revert back to a placeholder version of the page. As he says below, this version is not acceptable to Rovoam. — Davenbelle 03:06, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
p.s. I’m still busy at work, so pls, be patient if you don’t hear from me within 24 or even more hours.--Tabib 19:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This version CANNOT be accepted. I am sorry, but if you are not willing to compromise, we will never get to the agreement. Rovoam 20:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Which makes me think that we will end up with arbitration. The whole content there is based on facts which even Armenian scholars do not reject. Why wouldn't you come up with something more constructive?--Tabib 21:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Formal mediation would be the next step... — Davenbelle 21:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
A few more comments
established and declared. My dictionary states establish: to bring into existence, declare: to make known formally, so the sentence
- [...] declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR).
tells us the people living in Nagorono-Karabakh not only formally announced they're not a part of Azerbaijan, but also created their own political structure which now controls the region. This is an important distinction. Many groups in diffrent places have at diffrent times declared independence without any practical consequences.
infobox: the infobox isn't about the region, we don't give infobox to regions but to states (and unrecognized political entities). A region doesn't have an official langauge, a capital, a president, currency and so on, those are all political attributes. As for the languages, here the article about Abkhazia seems to be diffrent (btw stange the Georgian name is only include transcribed), perhaps becouse there are actually two political entities, there's the legal government of the Georgias Autonomous Republic and a self proclaimed (de facto Russian controlled).
the quotation marks: writing "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" in quotation marks strikes me as artificial, wikipedia isn't a subject of international law, it has no authority to recognize or not recognize, we simply (and quite clearly) state what the legal status is. Also it's a slippery slope.
currently occupied by Armenian forces: what regular forces of the Republic of Armenia are currently deployed in the region, this issue keeps poping up. I think it should be stated in the article. 20:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) User:193.219.28.146 diff
- Thanks for your on-point comments. Good question 'bout the "boots on the ground" -- I do not know the answer -- is there any real distinction between the Armenian military and NKR's? — Davenbelle 03:06, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, all of us are working simultaneously. That impresses. 193.219.28.146, thanks for your message. Although I felt a bit of Armenian bias in your comments, I appreciate you made them.
- It's a good sign; however, simultaneous editing results in edit conflicts which are tedious to deal with. — Davenbelle 22:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- “Declared” & “Established”: I recall Davenbelle saying in one of his previous posts that “the word established has a strong implication of recognition and would be best avoided; to declare something is to make an assertion, irrespective of what others think of what is said.” I completely agree with this statement. As I stated on numerous occasions, today there are lots of separatist regimes, including Karabakh, Abkhazia, S.Ossetia and Transnistria, which all unilaterally declared independence and “established” self-styled “states”. And the question whether these separatists should be treated differently from other separatist who were not as “successful” in achieving certain “practical consequences” (as you formulated it) doesn’t really matter. What matters is that there exist separatist ethnic authorities in all of these regions, which illegally gained control over a territory and expelled part of the population which is not of their ethnicity.
- They are established from their, and their supporters' points of view; their opponents see it differently. Avoid this word. — Davenbelle 22:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Moreover, I want to add that it is wrong to say that “Nagorno-Karabakh proclaimed it independence”, because Karabakh Azeris comprising apprx. ¼ of the population didn’t participate in this “independence referendum”. Karabakh Armenians made this decision unilaterally without regard to the needs and interests of the Karabakh Azeris and the people of Azerbaijan. Therefore, this decision on “proclaiming independence” should be attributed certainly not to Nagorno-Karabakh, but to the Karabakh Armenian community.
- In any case, my suggestion (in the draft page) is to put the sentence as follows: The local Armenian separatists declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and formed "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (NKR)
- Infobox (again?): I see your point. But the “unrecognized political entities” you’re talking about can also be named simply as Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Certainly each case has different and similar characteristics. But frankly, I don’t see any link between putting all three language names for Karabakh in the infobox (as this is the case with Abkhazia) and your view that the conflict situation in Abkhazia is “different” (just because it has some Georgian government in exile-? No logical link). In short, I want to stress once again, that there should be both English, Armenian and Azeri versions included in the infobox (as this is the case in Abkhazia for example).
- Quotation: “Nagorno Karabakh Republic”: Consider the following sentence from Council of Europe report: The President of Armenia, President Kocharyan, was the first “president” of the self-declared but internationally not recognised “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic”. Does this sentence strikes you as “artificial”? This is the way it should be. But I see your point and partially agree with your opinion that perhaps putting quotation marks in every name Nagorno-Karabakh Republic would be too much for Wikipedia. I am willing to compromise on this issue, but my request/suggestion would be to put quotation marks in the first mentioning of the name “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic”. All further references may be shown without quotation marks. In short, I am ready to compromise on this issue as a gesture of good will.
- Thanks! --Tabib 21:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Established -- Formed is just fine, the important point is that a declaration is just a piece of paper while (especially an unrecognized one), what's important is that are de facto in control over the region. Should separatists who succeeded be treated diffrently then those who did not. Of course, hardly anyone cares about failed separatists, while when they are active or actually control some territory the situation is completely different.
- Nagorno-Karabakh proclaimed it independence -- indeed an unfortunate sentence, better to write the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, that's detailed later in the article:
- The Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians held a December 10, 1991 referendum in which the overwhelming majority of the population voted for outright independence. The Azeri community of Nagorno-Karabakh boycotted this referendum.
- Infobox -- I thought the whole point was to distinguish between a geographic region Nagorno-Karabakh and a political entity the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, as for Abkhazia I meant not the situation there is different but the articles infobox is different then we usually use, perhaps it includes the name in Georgian and Abkhazian as it refers to a Georgian autonomous republic with Georgian and Abkhazian as it's official language and to de facto independent (from the government of Georgia that is) Republic of Abkhazia with Russian and Abkhazian as it's official language. With the NKAO abolished the region is now divided into rayonlar of Azerbaijan (and a sahar) and the NKR has no Azeri equivalent.
- Quotation -- Yes it strikes me as very artificial, politicians must often bend backwards and use artificially sounding language. Besides if we use quotation marks here to stress this is not an internationaly recognized republic, we'd have to do the same with "president" Ilham Aliyev (or Alexander Lukashenka if you mind the previous example) to stress he's not a democratically elected president, "Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe" to stress they aren't actually Liberals, and countless over examples I can't even begin to imagine.
- 22:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) 193.219.28.144 diff
- Thanks again. on-point. — Davenbelle 03:06, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Armenia and Albania on the old maps (ONLY MAPS)
(Posted by Rovoam) diffs later...
As one can see Albania is located to the North from the river Kir(Kura), i.e. Karabakh is not part of Albania.
Source - Sephardic Studies and Culture
Again, Karabakh is part of Armenia, not Abania.
Source - Maps of Asia Minor: www.raremaps.com
Again Artsakh area is inside Armenia. Albania is on the left bank of the Kura river (i.e. on the North)
Source - is the same: www.raremaps.com
Source - http://www.math.uni-bremen.de (Universität Bremen)
Source - http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/
I have no time now to submit other maps and to provide copyright information for all these images, but I may do it later. Rovoam
- Rovoam, these are interesting, but will need tagging. — Davenbelle 22:46, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
FYI, I looked these up; until I saw these, I had not realized that what they're calling the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast is not adjacent to the Armenian border; there's quite a bit of other Azerbaijani territory under Armenian/NKR control. — Davenbelle 03:06, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm
- http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/armenia.pdf
- http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/azerbaij.pdf
- You are right. This fact is already addressed in the article:
- Today Armenians remain in control of the Soviet era autonomous region, a strip of land (called the Lachin corridor) linking it with the Republic of Armenia, as well as the so-called security zone--strips of territory along the region borders which had been used by Azerbaijan artillery during the war.
- This so called Lachin corridor was artificially created during soviet era to restrict relationship between people living in Karabakh and in Armenia. Though the distance between Karabakh and Armenia was very short (about 30 miles, if I am not mistaken), people from Karabakh were taken long-long trip, 400 - 500 miles, through the territory of neighboring Azerbaijan, to visit their relatives or friends in Armenia. There were no direct and good roads to connect Karabakh with Armenia, and this problem was intentional.
- On the other hand, today some parts of Karabakh remain under Azerbaijan control – Shaumyan district, Getashen, Khanlar, Martakert, and even one village that is located on the territory of Armenia - Artsvashen. Rovoam 04:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The red-link in the article for Lachin corridor should get a version of your explanation; I had read the passage in the article (really, I have read just about everything here!) but had not realized the restrictive nature. This corridor was also mentioned in the piece of text that Tabib removed re the negotiations; I would think that the Azeri's would very much want peaceful access to the Nakhchavan exclave. I believe West Germany had limited highway-access to West Berlin; freight, cars and the like (no tanks!). Would I be correct in assuming that the "line of control" between Armenian and Azeri forces is tense and rather closed-down to commerce and travel? — Davenbelle 04:57, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Maps comment
This is going to be my last posting for today. Rovoam do you understand that by putting these maps you virtually disproved all your claims that Armenia always had Artsakh as its part? I dont know about Davenbelle and others, if they see and understand it on the map, but in the first three medieval maps it is clearly shown that original Armenian homeland was actually situated farther to the west and south-west in the territory of modern Turkey. It is a well known historical fact that Armenian homeland was historically further to the south west from trhe Caucasus in eastern Anatolia, around the lake of Van (situated in modern Turkey) and westwards in upper Mesopotamia. Actually I should be thankful to you for bringing these maps.
As to the last fourth map, it is certainly not historical but nmodern created, and it shows the territories conquered by the Tigrannes II, who established so called Greater Armenia. it is well known fact (and this was in the page content too) that Tigrannes conquered lots of territories in Mesopotamia and Caucasus from 95 BC to 66 BC. There were other Armenian kings who also conquered territories from their neighbours, including Artsakh from Albanians. BUT, passing this map of "Greater Armenia" as a map of Armenia itself (i.e. Armenian homeland) is completely WRONG. By the same logic, the Romans could claim that they were aborigins of all the territories they conquered from Britain to Caucasus. So, once again thanks for bringing out these maps. --Tabib 22:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Just a brief note about the last map, which was probably posted while I was writing). Similarly to fourth map this one also depicts the boundaries of "Greater Armenia",which was an empire consisting of various conquered territories and peoples and has nothing to do with Armenian homeland.--Tabib 22:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Tabib! You've missed my point again. The point is: Albania was located on the left bank of the Kura Riva (which means: ON THE NORTH from Karabakh).
- No one should claim territories based on ancient history. But I have posted these maps for only one reason. To prove that Albania has nothing to do with today's problems.
- Rovoam 22:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- P.S.
- Tabib wrote: By the same logic, the Romans could claim that they were aborigins of all the territories they conquered from Britain to Caucasus.
- My reply: By the same logic, the Azers claim that they were aborigins of all the territories where Albanians lived on about 1000 years ago. But what Azeris have in common with Albanians?! - They belong to different time, different religion, and even different language groups! Albanians are not Turkish. Rovoam 22:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Tabib's reply: Well, let me remind you the point was that the maps of "Greater Armenia" represent the empire, created by means of conquest of other's territories, and not Armenian homeland, which as the medieval maps you've placed explicitly show, was situated far away in upper Mesopotamia and eastern Anatolia (present-day Turkey) and certainly, did not include Artsakh (and even most parts of present day Armenia as well). Also in this particular case we were talking only about Albanians. No mention of present-day Azeris and their link (perceived or real) to ancient Albanians was not discussed (and frankly, Caucasian Albania page is more appropriate to discuss this topic, rather than this one).Therefore, no need for such off topic remarks which only serve to divert the discussion.--Tabib 05:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My reply: By the same logic, the Azers claim that they were aborigins of all the territories where Albanians lived on about 1000 years ago. But what Azeris have in common with Albanians?! - They belong to different time, different religion, and even different language groups! Albanians are not Turkish. Rovoam 22:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Artsakh in the ancient history
Artsakh (Armenian - Արցախ, Russian - Арцах) - historical (Armenian!) name of Nagorno Karabahk.
For the first time Artsakh appeared under the name "Urtehke" or "Urtehini" as it is mentioned in Urartianian cuneiform writings.
In the I century BC Artsakh is mentioned under the name of "Orhistene". Strabo (born 63 BC or 64 BC, died ca. 24 AD) mentions Orhistene among the Armenian provinces (as well as Phavneni and Kombiseni).
Clavdius Ptolemeus (Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαίος; c. 85 – c. 165) in his "Geography" informs, that "Great Armenia is located from the north to a part of Colchida, Iberia and Albania alone the line, which goes through the river Kir (Kura)" (see: Ptolemaios Klaudios, "Geography", V, XII).
Plinius Secundos (23–79 AD better known as Pliny the Elder) writes, that "the tribe of Albanians settled on the Caucasian mountains, reaches … the river Kir making border of Armenia and Iberia" (see Plinius the Second, "The Natural history ", VI, 39).
Movses Khorensky (V century AD) names Artsakh "Small Sunik" (Armenian "Pokr Sunik"). According to Movses, here, in Artsakh, young Grigorius (grandson of Gregory the Illuminator) was buried after he was killed on the field of Vatnyan (see Moves Khorensky, "History of Armenia", III, chapter 3).
Other Armenian historian of V century - Egishe (Elishe) writes, that after defeat in battle (451 AD) many of the Armenians rising against Persians, ran "in the impassable countries Tmorika and in dense woods of Arstakh" (see Egishe, " The Word about Armenian War", sec 6-th).
Busand (V century BC) tells, that Musheh Mamikonian has restored border between Armenia and Albania on the river Kura (Kir).
In "The Armenian Geography" (VII cent. AD) Arstakh is mentioned as 9-th of 15 provinces of Great Armenia.
Since X century AD in historical works and sources Artsakh is mentioned under the name "Khachen" (the named of fortresses, the residence of the Armenian prince Sahla Smbatjan). The Byzantian emperor Konstantin Bagrjanorodny addressed his letters "to prince of Hachen - to Armenia".
The name "Karabakh" for the first time is mentioned on XIV century. At this time Artsakh has been broken up to tens Armenian princedoms, with the center in Gandzasar, under the Catholicos ruling. In 1672 Catholicos Pyotr in the letter to Russian tsar Alexey (Mihajlovich) names himself "the Catholicos of all Armenians".
---
This is a brief history of Artsakh (Karabakh), which based on the facts, and with references to the available historical sources.
All the maps above (taken from non-Armenian sites, mainly Universities) are just to illustrate this brief historical description.
Rovoam 01:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Albanian province of Artsakh and Armenian claims
Davenbele, first I want to thank you for indicating the page version I propose (btw, based on some of the discussants comments) in the history so that everyone could see and compare. Considering this, I think I can compromise on my earlier demand to restore pre-dispute version, although I retain my opinion that while our discussion is continuing, it would be more expedient to have the pre-dispute version restored, rather than having present chopped out and false version of the page. But I make this concession in order for us to go ahead and not get stuck in where we are.
So, let’s get back to the discussion of historical issues.
I want to repeat once again, Artsakh was a historical province of Caucasian Albania and at times it was conquered by Armenian kings who established Greater Armenia. The territories of Greater Armenia differed greatly from the Armenian homeland. We should keepo in mind that it was an empire formed out of many conquered territories with different indigenous ethnicities living there. Throughout its history Albania had two capitals, one named Kabalaka (present Kabala in northern Azerbaijan) and second Partaw (present Barda in Karabakh, left bank of the Kura river-!). Also, as I said earlier, Christianity was declared Albania’s official religion in 488 in Aluan, also situated in Karabakh (Artsakh). As you see, Artsakh was a very important cultural and political region of Albania, otherwise Albanians would establish their capital here and wouldn’t choose this place to declare Christianity as their official religion. Here are some sources for you to consider:
- "In the first century A.D. the region now occupied by Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was part of the province of Artsakh, which belonged to Caucasian Albania. Feudal relations developed in the third through fifth centuries, and Christianity began to spread. In the early eighth century the Arabs conquered Artsakh, as well as all of Albania, and Islam penetrated the area… “
Source: Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, 1973, "NKAO, Historial Survey" (Great Soviet Encyclopedia was sort of “Encyclopedia Britannica” of the USSR)
- [Nagorno-Karabakh] (negôr´ne-kerebäkh) , region (1990 pop. 192,000), 1,699 sq mi (4,400 sq km), SE Azerbaijan, between the Caucasus and the Karabakh range. Xankändi (the capital, formerly Stepanakert) and Shusha are the chief towns…The population of the region is mainly Armenian (76%), with Azeri (23%), Russian, and Kurdish minorities. A part of Caucasian Albania called Artsakh, the area was taken by Armenia in the 1st cent. AD and by the Arabs in the 7th cent. The region was renamed Karabakh in the 13th cent.
Source: Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2005.
- Armenian scholar, B. Ishkhanian, wrote in 1916: "The Armenians residing in Nagorno-Karabakh are partly aborigines and descendants of the ancient Albanians ..., and partly refugees from Turkey and Iran, for whom Azerbaijani lands offered a refuge from persecution and oppression."
Quoted from: Aliyev, I. "Nagorno-Karabakh: History, Facts, Events." Baki, 1989, pp. 73-74. (In Russian).
According to the ancient Albanian historian, Moisey/Moses Kalankaytuk (Musa Kalankatly), southern border of Caucasian Albania was along the Araz/Araxes river, not Kura (I, 4), and did not change until the [Arab invasion of] VII-VIII century.
Referring to the events in I c. AD, he mentions “…someone from the family of Sisakan, one of the descendants of Yafet-Aran who inherited the plains and mountains of Albania beginning from the river Yeraskh (Araxes/Araz) up to the castle of Hunarakert*." (II, 21)
Pay attention: “plains and mountains of Albania (and not Armenia-!). Btw, “History of Aghbania” by Moses Kalankaytuk reached us only in ancient Armenian language (grabar), so today even Armenians themselves cannot deny this source.
Same information can be found in “History of Armenia” of the "father of Armenian history" Movses Khorenatsi, whom Rovoam mentions but with an off-the point issue. Khorenatsi was contemporary of Moses Kalankaytuk. He also confirms Caucasian Albania's border along Araxes in his chronicle about the I century A.D.:
“…[Arran] from a clan of Sisak inherited Albanian plain with its mountainous part, beginning from river Yeraskh till the castle called Hnarakert…” (II, 8)
Also it is interesting to note that according to maps included in the "History of the Armenian people" (Vol I, Erevan, 1951-52) by the well-known Armenian historian, S.T. Eremyan, both banks of Kura were included as part of Caucasian Albania in II century B.C. It depicted the regions of the right bank of Kura, such as Sakashena, Otena (Utik), Caspiana (Paytakaran) and Orhistena (Artsakh) as Albanian.
A last very important point. Strabo, Ptolemy, Pliny the Elder to whom Rovoam refers have all lived in I c. BC – I c. AD. It is well known that at this time Armenian kings (esp. during Tigrannes II) waged wars of conquest, so quite possibly the information of these authors reflects the territorial acquisitions of Armenia at that times. For example Strabo wrote: "...Armenia, being a small country before, was enlarged by the warfare carried out by Artaksi (Artashes) and Zariadrij [II c. BC]... Together they expanded their possessions by occupying part of the lands belonging to the surrounding peoples…". (Strabo XI, 14, 5)
At the same time there are lots of inconsistencies in the works of these authors which has been widely documented and criticized in the historiography. These authors (Strabo, Pliny etc.) based their descriptions of Caucasus mainly on earlier works by Patrocles and Heratosfen as well as the testimonies of Roman soldiers, whose goal was to fight Ponthian king at that time and not study of Albania.
In short, my point is that regarding the history of Albania and Artsakh during II cc. BC and I c. AD, local historians (esp. Albanian Moses Kalankaytuk and Armenian Movses Khorenatsi) undoubtedly provide a more credible historical picture of the region than author’s of antiquity.
Proceeding from all the said above, I think the following paragpaph contained in my suggested version is formulated from rather even-handed position and reflects the historical truth.
Nagorno-Karabakh comprised one of the historical parts of Aghbania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artsakh. In 95 BC it was conquered by Tigranes II, ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia. Following the defeat of Tigranes II at the hands of Romans in 66 BC, Albanians regained Artsakh. Ancient Albanians and Armenians switched control over the territory until the early 4th century AD when Albanians managed to reclaim Artsakh, and eventually in 387 AD it became a part of Aghbania again. --Tabib 04:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Karabakh was never a part of Albania
- There are multiple mistakes in the above comments by Tabib.
- First of all, Moisey/Moses Kalankaytuk is not an Albanian historian, but rather Armenian. The only book is known as written by this name is "The History of Alwank", and it was written in Armenian language. The history science knows nothing about Moses Kalankaytuk or his ethnic origin, but the old manuscripts of this book exist only in Old Armenian language. This composition is attributed to Moses Kagantvatsi (VII century) or Moses Dashurantsi (X century).
- Second, there are mentions of the Islam and prophet Magomete in this book, which means it was written after VII century, while "father of Armenian history", Movses Khorenatsi, lived in the V century. It means, Moses Kalankaytuk could not be contemporary of Khorenatsi, as wrongly stated by Tabib (see above).
- According to Moisey/Moses Kalankaytuk the Christianity in Albania was introduced by Gregory the Illuminator and his grandson Grigoris, who became the first bishop of Albania (during time of Albanian king Urnair).
- Finally, as I said before, there is no point of going into all these debatable history questions. Armenians existed in Vi century BC (at least) and they exist now, but Albanians no longer exist, and they are not involved in the current ethno political conflict.
- I also think, it is not appropriate to blame Tigranes II, the ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia, who lived more the 2000 years ago, in today's problem. Maybe it is more appropriate to blame more recent dictators, like Ataturk who killed 1,6 million Armenians in XX century, or even Stalin, who arbitrary placed Karabakh under jurisdiction of Azerbaijan in 1923?!
- Rovoam 07:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Devil’s advocacy and the irrefutable facts
Rovoam’s subtitle for his message speaks for itself in terms of his compliance with NPOV standards and I can only regret that my counterpart in this discussion is/was mainly not Aramgutang, another Armenian editor in Wikipedia, with whom I (although have disagreements) seemingly would have a more fruitful talk based on facts and not on their constant denial. In order to show that Artsakh was a historical province of Albania I brought authoritative quotes from Great Soviet Encyclopedia (which was the same as Encyclopedia Britannica for the Soviet Union), Columbia Encyclopedia, prominent Armenian historian of early XX c. (Ishkhanian), Armenian medieval chronicler, father of “Armenian history” Moses of Chorene who himself called the Karabakh “Albanian plains with its mountainous part” (!) and also I cited ancient Albanian chronicler Musa/Moses Kalankaytuk. And instead of commenting on these facts Rovoams chooses to play a devil’s advocacy and find “multiple mistakes” in my writings.
- (Rovoam:“Musa Kalankaytuk was not an Albanian historian…”): Musa/Moses Kalankaytuk is considered to be an author of “History of Albania” chronicles, the only (preserved) chronicle written by native Albanian historian who lived somewhat in VII-VIII cc. There are a lot of historical discussions that Musa Kalankaytuk was not one person but several persons working under one name. In fact, the original chronicles consisted of two parts describing history of Albania from ancient times till VIII c., but then a third part was added describing later X c. events. It is widely believed that since Musa Kalankaytuk could not live in X c. then this third part was added later.
I have mentioned above (within this subtitle) that “History of Albania” by Moses Kalankaytuk reached us only in ancient Armenian language (grabar). However originally the chronicles, at least their earlier parts, were written in Albanian, because in its chronicle Musa Kalankaytuk (or the person(s) writing under this pen-name) describes the history of Albania, its struggle against foreign invaders including Armenians, mentioning the role of Armenian catholicos Yelia in convincing Arabs to subjugate Albanian church to the Armenian church (!). I have mentioned all these facts already, and in my view, the fact that “History of Albania” has reached us in ancient Armenian language also makes this chronicle more reliable, since even Armenians cannot deny the facts written in these chronicles. In short, whoever Musa Kalankaytuk was, he is perceived as Albanian historian who wrote famous “History of Albania” chronicles. By comparison, we still have some ongoing discussions regarding the true authorship of Shakespeare’s poems (some argue that it was not William Shakespeare but Francis Bacon, who wrote them), but nevertheless while these discussions are definitely interesting from historical point of view, these discussions do not make us to discard Shakespeare as the author of “Romeo and Juliet”, “Otello” etc.
- (Rovoam:“ Moses Kalankaytuk could not be contemporary of Khorenatsi…”): As I mentioned Moses Kalankaytuk lived somewhat in VII-VIII c. whereas Rovoam rightly says that Moses of Chorene, who I repeat, confirmed that Artsakh was a historical Albanian province, lived in V c. So, when I said they were “contemporaries” I meant that they lived approximately at the same historical period in early middle ages. Maybe I made a mistake, but this was a technical mistake. My point when I mentioned these two historians was not stressing that they were “contemporaries”, but to underline that both of them stated clearly that Artsakh was a historical part of Albania. Therefore, no need for devil’s advocacy here.
- (Rovoam: “Armenians existed in Vi century BC (at least) and they exist now, but Albanians no longer exist, and they are not involved in the current ethno political conflict…”): Yes, you’re right. So what problem you have with simply indicating that they existed in this land before, even if they don’t exist now? This part about Artsakh being a historical province of Albania has to do only with stating the historical fact and not with “current ethno-political conflict”…
- Rovoam’s last “point”: smth like “do not blame Tigrannes II, blame Ataturk and Stalin” (?!): Unfortunately, you do not give up your methods of continuous references to unrelated issues and mixing up everything in one big messy porridge. Who blamed Tigrannes? He’s just an ancient Armenian king who conquered Artsakh from Albanians back in BC era. And why you bring here Ataturk, who is well respected in Turkey and rest of the world, and why you bring the ever inflating numbers of Armenian victims during WWI conflict with Ottoman Turks? (now not 0,5 mln, not 1 mln, and even not 1,5 but 1,6 million, what next?..). Can I treat such attempts as provocations on your side aimed at diverting the discussion to other irrelevant topics? I hope this is just a false impression I got. But in any case, I will not allow the discussion to be diverted to issues not directly related to the Nagorno-Karabakh page content. Wikipedia talkpages are not a forum for discussions but a medium for editors to discus and agree on preferably mutually acceptable page content, based on NPOV. --Tabib 05:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Proposed additions to the article (Rovoam's)
Based on the above arguments
I would like to suggest the following paragraphs to be included into the final article (instead of going into all of the above historical details):
- Ethno demographic evolution of what is now known as Nagorno Karabakh, for a long time was a subject of strong disagreements between the Armenian and Azerbaijan scientists, and each party tried to furnish historical proofs in support of the point of view on the history of disputable region.
- Not going down deeply in ancient and medieval history, nevertheless, it is necessary to notice, that the Armenian party can present impressing number of neutral sources which testify, that Armenians prevailed in region during more than millennia.
- The Turkic population has appeared there not earlier the beginning of XVIII century, having established eventually the board above the Armenian majority in the form Karabakh khanate, included in structure of Russian empire in 1813. During soviet time, as well as in imperial Russia, administrative borders of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region do not coincide with ethnic borders.
- Rovoam 03:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. The above statements provide enough information on the ancient history subject for this article. More details can be provided in other articles about Albania, Karabakh khanate, Artsakh, etc. Rovoam 19:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Another important paragraph to include into the article
- In the international legal terms the problem of Nagorno Karabakh should be considered not as territorial dispute, but as a typical case of self-determination. The Armenian party believes, that mainly Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh can and actually should be considered as people having the right for self-determination.
- From the point of view of international law this conflict is an example of contradictions between two fundamental principles: on the one hand, rights of people for self-determination, and on the other hand, a principle of territorial integrity according to which the state borders can only be changed under the peaceful agreement of parties involved.
- Rovoam 04:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the proposals; I hope to hear Tabib's input on this when he next returns. Do you have specific spots in the article in mind? I should advise that a bit of copyedit would help, and if you like, I'll take a go at it. Your second point really seems to get at the core issue here.
- Could you also let me know your take on the placeholder page I put together? Does the approach of removing contested material pending the negotiation of new text seem workable to you? Thanks. — Davenbelle 04:30, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, Davenbelle, for your time! I will review the page soon. I am actually planning to slightly re-arrange the entire article. I promise, I will be as objective as possible, keeping in mind that there are opponents always watching.
- Rovoam 06:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Please see the rules I placed at the top of this talk page and let me know if the approach I'm taking is acceptable to you. The rules are, of course, entirely voluntary. My goal here is to end an edit war (and at this point, to prevent one from restarting). There's an explicit acceptance somewhere on this 50 pages of talk by Tabib, but I don't really know how you feel about working with a mediator. I am not one of wikipedia's formal mediators, just a user, and a new one at that. If you ask me to change my approach, I will. I believe that if an edit war breaks out on the article again, it will end up in mediation, or the page will get protected on who-knows-what version. No matter what happens, the large amount of information that you and Tabib have posted to this talk page now represents an asset for any future editors to build on. You comments, talk, and cooperation are appreciated.
- Peace, Davenbelle 07:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
This FYI only
In the spring and summer of 1991 the Soviet armies supported by militia and armies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan, have attacked on adjoining to Nagorno Karabakh the Armenian villages with the purpose of carrying out of mass ethnic cleaning. So-called operation "Ring" has been stopped only after a failure of August (1991) putsch in Moscow.
This military action became last case use of military force by already dying Soviet regime. Soviet Union now quickly moved to the crash.
The events of ethnic cleaning in Getashen and other Armenian populated areas in Azerbaijan were described in Russian newspaper "Moscow News". Here is the page from one of the articles published those days in Moscow.
"Moscow News" article (May 1991): Mass ethnic cleaning of Armenian villages in Karabakh by Azeri militia (text in Russian)
Fragment. Translated from Russian.
"...The group of 53 peasants where taken by the army members of the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan to the nearby village. The chief of a regional police station Mamedov has declared their hostages. One of them, 45-years Arsene Aganesjan, have been sent to fellows villager with the ultimatum: if they will not sign a paper about voluntary departure from the village, the hostages will be killed. The document, testifying about voluntary desire to leave village, have signed 750 persons."
It was happening when Soviet Union still existed...
- Thanks; interesting. This didn't get a lot of coverage in the west. Is the crash a common way of referring to the break-up of the Soviet Union? — Davenbelle 06:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- p.s. a new article appeared yesterday: Karabakh
- Yes, it is... However, Russians also use term Collapse...
- Rovoam 07:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. Soviet newspapers also have not covered enough. The Moscow News is an exception.
- BTW: The article title is - I testify: there was a massacre in Getashen.
- Here is additional source of information:Human rights center of Memorial society (in Moscow). . I hope, you will find this very informative. Rovoam 07:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And this is another picture - Lachin corridor at the end of the war, 4 years later...
Lachin at the end of the war. Link from Karabakh to Armenia
FYI-Reaction: Ethnic cleansing of Karabakh Azeris and ruined Azeri settlements
I consider Rovoam’s recent attempts to bring off the point propaganda, not related directly to the content of the page (namely his “FYI” post on Chaykend/Getashen), his inclusions of untagged maps and astonishingly passing them deceitfully as “proofs” of “Armenian belonging of Artsakh” (whereas they, esp. the medieval ones, testify to the contrary-!) as counterproductive and deceptive, to say the least. This kind of actions by Rovoam do not facilitate friendly discussion. You Davenbelle, and possibly other passive watchers seemingly don’t know much about Karabakh and the Armenian-Azeri conflict, which is as you (Davenbelle) correctly noted, because of the fact that these events did not get proper coverage in Western media. This low level of knowledge makes the discussion so difficult and allows Rovoam to employ such kind of propaganda tactics. I am against diverting the discussion from the page content to the historical and political issues. This will complicate the discussion and overwhelm the talkpage with fruitless accusations and counteraccusations.
I was most appalled by the way Rovoam posted the picture of ruins of what once used to be an Azeri town of Lachin showing the ruined houses of Azeris who once lived there. The context within which this picture was posted by Rovoam (i.e. right after his “description” of the Chaykend/Getashen events) creates a false impression (esp. among the newbies to Karabakh issue) that this is Azeris who ruined these houses and this city, whereas in fact this picture is an evidence of Armenian brutalities and ethnic cleansing against Azeris in Karabakh. In order to complete the picture, here are some other similar photos of destroyed Azeri towns of Shusha and Agdam:
Truth about Chaykend/Getashen: In may-june 1991Joint forces of OMON (special police force) of the Azerbaijan SSR and troops of the Soviet Interior Ministry hold a "passport control" in the villages with Armenian and mixed population in the Geranboy district located to the north of Nagorno-Karabakh (but outside of the autonomy’s border). This operation was in response to numerous earlier incursions by Armenian militants to the neighboring Azeri villages. Before that Armenian militants in several helicopters attacked the neighboring Azeri village of Kushtchu, burned the village and massacred dozens of civilian villagers. Ultimately this operation ended with resettlement of some 6.000 Armenians "with their consent" from the Geranboy district to Nagorno-Karabakh proper. During this operation (and this is shown in the scanned and posted article too), 18 Armenian civilians, 4 Armenian militants and 7 Azeri militiamen died, more than hundred, mostly Armenian civilians were wounded. It is widely believed that, by helping Azeris in this operation Moscow "punished" Armenia for her failing to participate in the earlier-conducted All-Union referendum (on whether USSR should continue existing or not. At that time Azerbaijan took part in this referendum while Armenia rejected to participate). Certainly, the events in Chaykend were a tragedy and I have no intention to underplay the sufferings of the Armenian civilians, citizens of Azerbaijan.
Spiralling nature of the conflict: Chaykend events in which as I said 18 civilians died, is not the only tragedy of the Armenian-Azeri conflict and certainly, not the most prominent one. Before this there were anti-Azeri riots in Vardenis, Ghukark, Masis, Spitak, Azizbekov districts of Armenia during 1988-1989 in which more than 200 Azeris were killed hundreds were wounded, approximately 200,000 Azeris living in Armenia were expelled. Soviet army troops actively participated in deportation of the Azeri population of Armenia arguing that they cannot provide security for the Azeri population. In some instances when Azeri villagers in Armenia resisted deportation, Soviet army troops carried out forced deportation similar to what took place later in Chaykend. As the number of angry and frustrated refugees from Armenia grew emotions run high in Azerbaijan. Anti-Armenian riots took place in Sumgayit in 1988 during which 26 Armenians and 6 Azeris died, and in Baku in 1990 during which dozens, mostly Armenians died. In early years of conflict (1988-1990) in Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions similar attacks occurred against Azeris. In June 1989 (two years before Chaykend-!) Armenians with assistance of the Soviet troops banished the whole Azeri population of Stepanakert (more than 10 thousand people).
Khojaly Massacre
In brief: This was the biggest and most horrible civilian massacre in Karabakh and the biggest massacre in the world in 1992. At night from February 25 to 26 the Armenian armed forces with support of Russian 366th regiment attacked the town of Khojaly in Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. Occupation of Khojaly was followed with unprecedented brutalities against the civilian population. In a few hours the Armenians killed 613 innocent and unarmed people. Among them were 106 women, 83 children. 56 people were killed with special brutality. 8 families were totally exterminated. 25 children were totally, and 130 children were partly orphaned. 476 people became disabled persons (of them 76 were minors). 1275 people were taken into hostage and even though afterwards most of the hostages were released from captivity, the fates of 150 of them are still unknown.
International Reports:
Human Rights Watch Helsinki (from its 1994 report “Azerbaijan:Seven years of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh”): [p.5] :…In February 1992, Karabakh Armenian forces - reportedly backed by soldiers from the 366th Motor Rifle Regiment of the Russian Army - seized the Azeri-populated town of Khojaly, about seven kilometers outside of Stepanakert. More than 200 civilians were killed in the attack, the largest massacre to date in the conflict [28]. 28. There are no exact figures for the number of Azeri civilians killed because Karabakh Armenian forces gained control of the area after the massacre. While it is widely accepted that 200 hundred Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died.
- “Massacre by Armenians”, The New York Times, Tuesday, March 3, 1992
- Agdam, Azerbaijan, March 2 (Reuters) - Fresh evidence emerged today of a massacre of civilians by Armenian militants in Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly Armenian enclave of Azerbaijan.
- Scalping Reported
- Azerbaijani officials and journalists who flew briefly to the region by helicopter brought back three dead children with the back of their heads blown off. They said shooting by Armenians has prevented them from retrieving more bodies.
- "Women and children have been scalped," said Assad Faradshev, an aide to Nagorno-Karabakh's Azerbaijani Governor. "When we began to pick up bodies, they began firing at us."
- The Azerbaijani militia chief in Agdam, Rashid Mamedov, said: "The bodies are lying there like flocks of sheep. Even the fascists did nothing like this."
- Truckloads of Bodies
- Near Agdam on the outskirts of Nagorno-Karabakh, a Reuters photographer, Frederique Lengaigne, said she had seen two trucks filled with Azerbaijani bodies.
- "In the first one I counted 35, and it looked as though there were as many in the second," she said. "Some had their head cut off, and many had been burned. They were all men, and a few had been wearing khaki uniforms."
- “Corpses litter hills in Karabakh”, The Times, 2 March 1992
- (ANATOL LIEVEN COMES UNDER FIRE WHILE FLYING TO INVESTIGATE THE MASS KILLINGS OF REFUGEES BY ARMENIAN TROOPS)
- As we swooped low over the snow-covered hills of Nagorno-Karabagh we saw the scattered corpses. Apparently, the refugees had been shot down as they ran. An Azerbaijani film of the places we flew over, shown to journalists afterwards, showed DOZENS OF CORPSES lying in various parts of the hills.
- The Azerbaijanis claim that AS MANY AS 1000 have died in a MASS KILLING of AZERBAIJANIS fleeing from the town of Khodjaly, seized by Armenians last week. A further 4,000 are believed to be wounded, frozen to death or missing.
- The civilian helicopter's job was to land in the mountains and pick up bodies at sites of the mass killings.
- The civilian helicopter picked up four corpses, and it was during this and a previous mission that an Azerbaijani cameraman filmed the several dozen bodies on the hillsides.
- Back at the airfield in Agdam, we took a look at the bodies the civilian helicopter had picked up. Two old men a small girl were covered with blood, their limbs contorted by the cold and rigor mortis. They had been shot.
- “Armenian Raid Leaves Azeris Dead or Fleeing”, The Washington Times, 3/2/92
- "...about 1,000 of Khojaly's 10,000 people were massacred by the Armenian Army in Tuesdays attack. Azerbaijani television showed truckloads of corpses being evacuated from the Khocaly area."
I refrain from posting numerous photos from this tragedy, because no human being can see these photos with women and children raped, mutilated and mass massacred. If some has a strong heart he/she can see some of the pictures here or simply search the internet.
And here is the typical Armenian propaganda article “explaining” that it were Azeris themselves “Who killed the peaceful people of Khojalu and later defiled their bodies…” (!?) because of the “political intrigues”. It shamelessly distorts the facts and quotes and the political situation at that time in order to “prove” that Armenians are not responsible for the genocide in Khojaly. The conclusion of the article is that “It follows from the above-described facts that the blame for the death of the peaceful people of Khojalu and those Armenians who had been taken hostage in the village lies on the Azeris …” [14] Even Nazis were not so brutal and hypocritical…--Tabib 04:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tabib, for the above information. The war between Karabakh and Azerbaijan became the longest and one of the bloodiest conflicts in states-successors of Soviet Union, lasted for about 4 yeras, from 1991 to 1994. There were a lot of civilian casualties on both sides. According to last estimations, it has killed 15000 people, and the number of refugees has exceeded one million.
- The war could be avoided if both parties compromise something to each other.
- The link you have provided gives a very reasonable explanation on what happened. This is just my personal point of view, however.
- Rovoam 05:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you too. But see, the whole problem here is that POV pushing and methods you employ don't give any room for compromice. So far we couldn't agree on details, which are indisputable and recognized by the whole world (e.g. that Karabakh is legally part of Azerbaijan, that Artsakh was part of Albania etc., that unlike your claims Turks/Azeris were in this region long before XVIII c. etc.)You formulations are always misleading. Just in this last message you write "conflict between Azerbaijan and Karabakh", isn't thisjust another Armenian POV pushing? The whole world knows that this is an Armenian-Azeri conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh involving Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as Karabakh Armenians and Karabakh Azeris. Here's a quote for you from Human Rights Watch Helsinki 1994 report "Azerbaijan:Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh" (pp. 67-74):
- "As a matter of law, Armenian army troop involvement in Azerbaijan makes Armenia a party to the conflict and makes the war an international armed conflict, as between the government of Armenia and Azerbaijan. "
- "The Republic of Armenia has claimed that all Armenian citizens participating in hostilities in Nagorno Karabakh [region] or [remainder of] Azerbaijan are merely 'volunteers.' Human Rights Watch / Helsinki found that this claim is not true... " (and many more other quotes)--Tabib 05:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Tabib, please clarify for me one question. If we assume that Artsakh was a part of Albania 1000 years ago, why do you think it should now belong to Azerbaijan? Azeri are Turkish-speaking muslim people, while Albanians Caucasion-speeking Christian people? Don't you see some fundamental problem here?
- Rovoam 08:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- See, you do this again. You again try to divert the discussion from the point and intentionally confuse current political issue (i.e. Armenian occupation of Azeri territory) with historical issue (Artsakh’s belonging to Caucasus Albania). These are two different issues that should be dealt separately. And also, I’ve numerously stated throughout the discussion that whether Azeris are right or wrong in their claim that they are descendants of the ancient Albanians as well as ancient Turks is an issue which should be discussed in a different talkpage. (i.e.Talk:Caucasus Albania). Btw, France, a Roman-speaking nation, claims ancestry to both Celtic-speaking Gauls and Germanic Franks; Slavic Bulgarians, got their name from Turkic-speaking tribe of Bulgars, which invaded this Slavic people in 7th c., Bosnians, once a Christian Slavic people, is now a Muslim nation. Do you see “some fundamental problem” here?..--Tabib 05:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Another incorrect statement in the article
- Under Arabs Alwanian church was subordinated to the Armenian Church, which prompted rapid Gregorianization of the local population.
Albanian Church was always of a "Gregorian type".
Here is a very brief history of the church:
The beginning of Christianity in Albania is linked by the church tradition with the activity of Gregory the Illuminator and his grandson Grigoris, who became the first bishop of Albania (during time of Albanian king Urnair). All future claims of Armenian Church to be the oldest in relation to Albanian were based on this event.
Being under ideological influence of neighboring Armenian Church, the Albanian has acted against Council of Chalcedon. Armenian and Albanian Churches have condemned both Nestorianism and Evtihianism, and agreed on Armenian confession on 491 AD in the city of Dvin (Council of Dvin).
Halkidonians have declared Armenians and their allies, including Albanians, in Monophysitism. Armenians and Albanians have regarded Council of Chalcedon as a return to the Nestorianism.
- Rovoam 09:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Historical fact: subjugation of Albanian church to the Armenian under Arabs
No matter which church was "the oldest", ever since Christianity became a religion in Albania, it had a separate Albanian church apart from Armenian church based on Monophysitism. Albanian church on the other hand adopted Dyophysitism and was in this sence different from Armenian Gregorian church. This is a very important historic detail, because subordination of the Albanian church to the Armenian along with conversion of the majority of the Albanian population (esp. those living in the plains) to Islam predetermined the future destiny of the Albanian people: part of them became Muslim and were later assimilated by the incoming Oghuz Turks, other esp. those in mountainous areas gradually were Armenized.
- Tabib, you are wrong: Albanian church never adupted Dyophysitism, they were Gregorian, oposing Chalcedonian confession (i.e. oposing Dyophysitism). Please, stay with the facts! Rovoam 08:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, sorry, but I think you should look at history books once again and perhaps, you should have posted this after you read the remaining part of my message below. This historical fact is stated by Musa Kalankaytuk in his “History of Albania”, which gives the texts of Armenian catholicos Yelia addressed to Arab ruler Abdul Malik and Abdul Malik’s response to Yelia. It clearly shows that the decision to subjugate Albanian chucrch to the Armenin pursued strictly political goals aimed at not allowing Albanians to ally themselves with Byzathium. In short, details are below.--Tabib 05:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Part of Albanian people became Muslim and were later assimilated by the incoming Turks, but other part of them were assimilated by Armenians, which now live in Karabakh. As a matter of fact, some of the Arminians consider themselves as Albanians. Rovoam 08:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This is actually a sensational confession from you. Now you finally say that some Albanians after Arab invasion “became Muslim and were later assimilated by the incoming Turks”. (!) I wonder why you kept denying this so far. Also by this *confession* (can’t name it otherwise) you confirmed my earlier arguments (when I also quoted Armenian author Ishkhanian) that present Karabakh Armenians are partly descendants of the ancient Albanians. --Tabib 05:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Armenians themselves recognize that "The Armenians residing in Nagorno-Karabakh are partly aborigines and descendants of the ancient Albanians ..., and partly refugees from Turkey and Iran, for whom Azerbaijani lands offered a refuge from persecution and oppression." (Armenian scholar B. Ishkhanian, 1916)
Also consider the following:
- In V-VI cc. Albania was drawn to the dogmatic struggle of Monophysites (one holding the doctrine that Christ's nature remains altogether divine and not human even though he has taken on an earthly and human body with its cycle of birth, life, and death) and Dyophysites (according to the dyophysite formula, Christ, the Son of God, consists of two natures, «without confusion, without change, without separation, without division.»). At the end of VI- beginning of VII cc. due to the strengthening of the Byzantine political influence in the Caucasus, the Albanian church together with the Iberian adopted Dyophysitism, while the Armenian church preserved its adherence to the Monophysitism. But beginning from the 40s of VII c. the Karabakh area as well as the whole Albania and the Caucasus, underwent invasion of the Arabs professing Islam. By 705 the Arabs completed the invasion of Albania and the country became to be ruled by the Arab feudal lords- emirs. The Albanian church under the pressure from the Arabs and with the direct assistance of the Armenian church had to renounce Dyophisitism: Arabs couldn't tolerate the ideological unity of Albania and Byzantium.
- The last Albanian Catholicos up until the Arab conquest in 703 was Orthodox. However, during the Arabs rule on the territory, the Armenian Catholicos wrote a letter to Abd-al Malik, the Arabian khalifa attacking Albanian Orthodox beliefs and accusing Albanians of fostering a friendship with Byzantium. Since the Arabs did not have good relations with Byzantium, they gave a decree that the Albanian church would be put under the jurisdiction of the Armenian church.
Udins Today by Zurab Konanchev Udins, a small ethnic group in Azerbaijan, descending from Albanians preserved its original language and Christian religion. Also, you may look here
- Following the conquest of Transcaucasia by Arabs at the beginning of the 8 century, the Albanian church under the pressure of Arabs and with active assistance of the Armenian church broke of with Diophysitism. In an effort to coordinate activities of subordinated Christian population, the Arab caliphate supported Monophysitism among broader strata of the population to thus oppose Diophysitism of the Byzantine Empire. In reply to information of the Armenian Catholicos to the caliphate regarding the Albanian church, professing Diophysitism Orthodox, the Arab caliphate transformed the Albanian church into Monophysite and hierarchically subordinated it to Monophysite Armenian church in 705. Christianity in Caucasian Albania by Farida Mamedova
The first church in Caucasus is situated near the village of Kish in Shaki, north-central Azerbaijan. It is believed that the church was first built by St. Elisey, the first Christian preacher in the region. This church has been preserved till our days. --Tabib 05:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tabib, please stop referring me to Azeri-Turkish sites!
I know subject much better then you! Have you ever read THE SOURCE of this history book? I think, you have no idea what it is all about! Instead of referring me to Turkish sites, just give me exact reference to the Book and chapter number.
I have published the complete source of the translation of this book from old Armenian to modern Russian. I have this Russian translation on my Web Site - Movses Kalankatuatsi, "The History of the Aluank Land", Translated from old Armenian by Sh.B.Smbatian, Erevan, 1984. So, if you give me exact references, I will go and check.
And remember, we cannot cannot continue with the article, before we verify this issue!
Rovoam 04:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I can't stop marvelling at how you contrive to ignore the facts and intentionally mix different issues. The sources I brough labelled by you "Azeri-Turkish" simply state the historical fact that Albanian church was subjugated by the Armenian church in early medieval century and they simply refer to ancient Albanian historian Musa Kalankaytuk. I also provided authoritative sources such as Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, ancient Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi, XX c. Armenian historian Ishkhanian. Do you think these sources are also "Azeri-Turkish" propaganda?!
- You have provided the following links:
- * http://karabakh.org/?id=3044&item=5
- * http://www.karabakh-doc.gen.az/ru/azerpeople/ap033eng.htm
- These sites are Azeri-Turkish nationalistic sites which contain anti-Armenian and anti-Christian propaganda.
- * The Great Soviet Encyclopedia - is not a neutral source, as it contais soviet (communist) point of view. Specifically in providing false information about history of Karabakh (as you well aware). In all cases this is not a historical source ...
- * Please provide me links to the sources of Movses Kalankatuatsi, Movses Khorenatsi, etc., instead (if you wish to continue negotiation). Otherwise, our nagotioation will be interrupted, as I don't want to waste my time. In this case, I will revert the article to the original and correct version without talkig to you any more.
- By the way, Movses Kalankatuatsi is not Musa Kalankaytuk. The name Musa is islamic, but Kalankatuatsi was Christian writer, who hated Islam...
- Rovoam 09:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I dont like this kind of posting when comments are included right in the middle of my message and thus, consistency of my earlier posting is violated. Please, post you comments at the end of the posts. Also, I do not agree that Great Soviet Encyclopedia is not an authoritative source. Only unknowledgeable or biased people can say that. As to the sources, I have always provided you with the exact quotes from both Moses Kalankaytuk and Movses Khorenatsi, as well as others. Read the discussion more attentively and you'll see. I have no intention to waste my time either. So, if you continue your disruptive behavior there is really no point of arguing with you further. --Tabib 12:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I have already brought certain excerpts in English from Musa Kalankaytuk proving proof to both of my arguments: 1) territory of present day Karabakh (Artsakh) was in ancient times part of Caucasus Albania; Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Albanian province of Artsakh and Armenian claims 2) Albanian church was subjugated to Armenian after Arab invasion Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Historical_fact: subjugation of Albanian church to the Armenian under Arabs. So you say you know issue "better than [me]" and you wanted references from me? Then read again these excerpts taken from the web-site quoted by you yourself:
- "...некто из рода Сисака, одного из потомков Иафета, по имени Аран, который унаследовал долины и горы страны Алуанк, от реки Ерасх до крепости hЫнаракерт [Ðݳñ³Ï»ñï]. Из-за его [Арана] мягкого нрава страна эта была названа Алуанк, ибо из-за мягкого нрава звали его Алу... "
Translation: "...someone from the family of Sisakan, one of the descendants of Yafet, named Aran who inherited the plains and mountains of Albania beginning from the river Yeraskh [i.e. Araxes/Araz] up to the castle of Hunarakert." Pay attention: “plains and mountains of Aluank/Albania" (and not Armenia-!).
- Also read this again:
:ГЛАВА V ПОСЛАНИЕ КАТОЛИКОСА АРМЕНИИ ЕЛИИ К АМИРМУМИНУ АБДЛМЕЛИКУ ОТНОСИТЕЛЬНО ТОГО ЖЕ
- Властителю вселенной Абдала амирмумину от епископосапета Армении Елии.
- Волей вседержителя Бога страна наша покорно повинуется вашей власти. Как мы, так и алуанцы исповедуем одну и ту же веру – в Бога Христа. Теперь же, тот, кто является католикосом Алуанка в Партаве, договорился с императором ромеев, в молитвах своих поминает его и принуждает всех, стать единоверными с ним. Так знайте вы об этом и не оставляйте без внимания, ибо некая знатная госпожа заодно с ним. Повелите своей высокой властью наказать по заслугам тех, кто вздумал грешить против Бога.
- ГЛАВА VI
ОТВЕТ АМИРМУМИНА АБДЛМЕЛИКА НА ПОСЛАНИЕ АРМЯНСКОГО КАТОЛИКОСА ЕЛИИ
- Письмо твое искреннее, человек Божий Елия, католикос [ç³ÃÕÏǹ] армянского народа, я прочел, и милостью отправляю к тебе моего верного слугу с многочисленным войском. Взбунтовавшихся против нашего владычества алуанцев я повелел [вновь] вернуть к вашему вероисповеданию. Мой слуга накажет их в Партаве на твоих глазах, а Нерсэса и женщину ту, единомышленницу его, заковав в железные цепи привезет с позором к царскому двору [моему], чтоб я выставил их в назидание всем мятежникам.
- ГЛАВА VII
ПРИБЫТИЕ АРМЯНСКОГО КАТОЛИКОСА ЕЛИИ В ПАРТАВ И НАКАЗАНИЕ НЕРСЭСА. НА ЕГО МЕСТО ВОЛЕЮ СОБОРА АЛУАНКА ВОЗВОДЯТ АРХИДИАКОНА СИМЭОНА
- И прибыл великий hайрапет армянский Елия в великий город Алуанка – Партав. Воссев в главной церкви, он приказал привести к себе Нерсэса. Но так как тот скрылся, его не могли найти. Тогда благоверный Шеро, князь Алуанка, схватил его приближенных и потребовал, чтобы они привели Нерсэса. [Привели] этого гнусного на большое судилище, и стоял он молча перед [католикосом] Елией и не мог оправдаться, и потому согласно царственному повелению подвергся тяжким пыткам. И прикован был он к той женщине нога к ноге и снаряжен в дальний путь на чужбину, но, не принимая пищи дней восемь, умер. [Перед смертью] он попросил похоронить себя в оковах и проклял Шеро, ибо считал его причиной несчастья своего и Спрам и за раздор, возникший между князем и Спрам из-за власти.
- И правил Нерсэс праведно на hайрапетском троне лет четырнадцать, а как еретик – года три с половиной, подобно антихристу, который явится в последние дни.
- После всего этого на соборе том избрали Симэона, мужа святого и кроткого, и рукоположили его в hайрапеты Алуанка. Он избавил страну от смут Нерсэса и завещал заблудшей церкви много правил истинной веры. А все книги гнусного Нерсэса, полные ереси, собрав в сундуки, [велел] бросить в реку Трту, в местности, называемой Бердакур, там, где он проводил лето.
- На троне [Симэон] находился года полтора.
- I think Rovoam got the point. For those who doesn't understand Russian, these paragraphs are talking about subjugation of Albanian church to Armenian church. It's interesting to note that because when this was written the Albanian church was already under Armenian church (and therefore was Monophysite) the text displays the last independent Albanian catholicos Nerses Bakur in negative lights as a heretic which dared to "derail from the true religion".
Nonetheless from the historical perspective the point is very clear: Albanian's, who along with Iberians (ancient Georgians) and Armenians were Monophisite, switched along with Iberians to Dyophisitism sometime in late VI early VII cc. This was done due to the increased influence of Byzathium, which also adoped Dyophisitism. In the meantime, Armenians remained adherents to Monophysitism. When Arabs came in early VIII c., they feared that religious proximitity between Albanians and Byzathium would also cause political proximity. Thus, decision to subjugate Albanian chucrch to the Armenian pursued strictly political goals aimed at not allowing Albanians to ally themselves with Byzathium. Armenian catholicos Yelia who wrote a letter to Arab khalif talking about the "dangers" of religious proximity between Albanians and Byzathium, played an important role in convincing Albanians to pursue this policy. This historical fact should be properly described in the eventual page content. --Tabib 08:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Nevetheless, you misinterpreted the facts. You have referred to the Chapter V (of Book III), but you have decided not to mention Chapter IV.
- In this Chapter IV people of Aluank confirm that they belong to Armenian confession, complaining about bishop Nerses, who decided to convert them to Dyophisitism. As a reply to this message, Armenian catholicos writes a letter to Arab khalif. As these chapters are part of Book III, they were written in IX century BC or later.
- Rovoam 10:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On details of subjugation of Albanian church to Armenian: excerpts
Here's the Chapter IV which shows who misinterprets the facts.
ГЛАВА IV ПОСЛАНИЕ СОБОРА АЛУАНКА АРМЯНСКОМУ КАТОЛИКОСУ ЕЛИИ
Католикосу армянскому, владыке Елии от всего собора Алуанка поклон.
[Мы обращаемся к вам], ибо отцы наши и отцы ваши исповедовали одну веру и заботились о спасении душ друг друга, благодаря чему наша страна до последних дней оставалась непричастной к губящей вселенную скверной ереси халкидонской, которая по попустительству Господа Бога наполнила ныне всю вселенную.
Теперь же, Нерсэс, которого мы считали нашим добрым пастырем, оказался волком и стал раздирать разумную паству Христову. Поэтому мы пожелали напомнить об этом вашей святости, чтобы вы посетили нас, как свою паству, и исцелили наши недуги.
Будьте здравы в Господе.
In order to prevent any further speculations here's the English translation (which may contain minor interpretation errors, but fully preserves the meaning):
MESSAGE OF SOBOR (CHURCH) OF ALUANK TO ARMENIAN CATHOLICOS YELIA
Bow [or obeissance] to catholicos Armenian, ruler Yelia from the whole sobor of Aluank.
[We turn to you], because our fathers and your fathers practised same religion [implying Monophytism] and cared about salvation of each other's soul, and thanks to this our country till recent days remained uninvolved to the bad Chalcedonian heresy [implying Dyophisitism] which destroys the universe, and which with God's will has filled the whole universe.
And now, Nerses, whom we considered a kind pastor, turned to be a wolf and began to tweak the wise flock of the Christ [meaning Albanian christians]. That is why we wished to remind your highness about this, so that you would visit us, as your flock, and would heal our deceases.
If to decode this religious text, we can see, that a group of Albanian monks was dissatisfied with Nerses Bakur, the Albanian catholicos who embraced Dyophisitism and they invited Armenian catholicos to come and reestablish Monophisitism in the country. Rovoam grossly distorts the facts and historical sources, when writing that according to Moses Kalankaytuk "people of Aluank confirm that they belong to Armenian confession, complaining about bishop Nerses". Nothing of the kind is written in the text. A group of Albanian monks addressing Armenian catholicos on behalf of the Albanian sobor talks about Monophisitism and not some "Armenian confession". This clearly demonstrates who misinterprets the facts, me or Rovoam.--Tabib 12:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
One more contradiction/problem found in the article
In the Nagorno-Karabakh article we read:
- After the Russian Revolution in 1917, Karabakh became part of the Transcaucasian Federation, which soon dissolved into separate Armenian, Azeri and Georgian states.
The Transcaucasian Federation article states:
- The Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic was a short-lived (1922-1936) Soviet republic, consisting of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, which were traditionally known as the Transcaucasian Republics in the Soviet Union.
It means that, Nagorno-Karabakh could not become part of the Transcaucasian Federation in 1917, as it is incorrectly stated in the article, simply because Transcaucasian Federation did not exist in 1917.
Rovoam 20:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's a wrong redir someone (we won't mention who) confused the Transcaucasian Democratic Federal Republic and the Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic. 21:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC) 193.219.28.146 diff
- Thanks, the redirect can easily be changed. — Davenbelle 21:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Turns out we actually have an article for the Transcaucasian Democratic Federal Republic, though under a counter-intuitive name (and a bit stubby). 21:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC) 193.219.28.146 diff
- History of Armenia also links to Transcaucasian Federation which now redirects to Trans-Caucasian Democratic Federative Republic (thanks). Reading History of Armenia, and also Stepan Shaumyan, has me a bit confused; these articles discuss an Islamic rebellion/uprising — are the Transcaucasian Federation and the Trans-Caucasian Democratic Federative Republic both the result of this uprising? (such a complex region and such complex times.) — Davenbelle 22:49, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't understand the question? The story with Stepan Shaumyan: he was one of the 26 baku commissars (an important part of soviet mythology) and wanted to establish a communist government in the transcaucasia but was overthrown by the Muslim (or Tatar modern day Azeris) Musavat party. This Musavat party along with Georgian Mensheviks and Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnak) formed the government of the Transcaucasian Federation until it collapsed into sperated Georgian, Azeri and Armenian Democratic Republic during an invasion by Turkey (with Georgian seeking German protection, Azeris supporting Tureky and Armenians remaining loyal to the Ententa).
- The topic is indeed complex and little know part of European history. Diffrent events are emphesized in versions presented by Armenians, Azeris and Georgians and to make matters even worse the facts have in the past been intentioanlly obscured with communist propagand. Maybe we should request an article about History of Transcaucasia similary as it has been suggested for one about the History of the Balkans.
- I think I understand a bit better now; the Transcaucasian Federation/TCDFR was basically an attempt of the various locals to break away en mass from falling Tsarist-Russia while the Bolsheviks were busy with the Revolution/Civil War. The Georgians, Armenians and Azerbaijanis didn't, ah, Federate well together and it came unglued and soon the victorious Red Army showed up and tried it all over with the Transcaucasian SFSR until '36 when they made 3 smaller 'SSRs. 10:49, Feb 20, 2005 User:193.219.28.146 diff
- Thanks for the input; and the links. My watchlist just keep on growing! — Davenbelle 12:03, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- p.s. Could you please sign you posts? It helps keep it clear where one post ends and the next begins; use: ~~~~.
- Rovoam, I thought that I should point out that I created the redirect from:
- It previously was a red-link. I believe the Nagorno-Karabakh article is referring to the Transcaucasian Federation entity that is mentioned in the second paragraph of the Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic article — a later entity. Transcaucasian Federation could, of course, be an article in its own right (possibly at Transcaucasian Democratic Federal Republic, if that is the proper name). — Davenbelle 21:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- p.s. I read the entire article Human rights center of Memorial society (in Moscow) last night with great interest; thanks.
Thanks guys!
I've been reading through all the stuff you guys have posted; the external links, too! And I must say, you've both posted exellent material. I'm please to see signs that you're working together. If I've missed replying to one of you somewhere on this page, please forgive me. (the page is about 60 page long now!)
I'd like to suggest that when you each next need a bit of a break that you take the time to review a few important pages; here are some links I recommend:
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Wikipedia:Wikiquette
- Wikipedia:Civility
- Wikipedia:Cite your sources
- Wikipedia:Verifiability
- Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
- Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
- Wikipedia:Policy Library
- Wikipedia:Utilities
Thanks, Davenbelle 06:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Aramgutang's edit
Aramgutang made a minor edit to the Nagorno-Karabakh article: "added a missing "the", and changed Gukasian to Ghoukasyan (the spelling given by his official webpage)". Aramgutang has also edited the Arkady Ghoukasyan article and is a previous contributor to the Nagorno-Karabakh article. I reverted the edit, not because there's anything I can see wrong with it, but simply because I've stated that I would maintain the page in a static state during this discussion. I ask for your consent to restore this change — I would also ask you both to incorporate Aramgutang's changes into the versions of the article you are each working on. Mr Tan also made a well intended edit (which reordered the article a bit and added section breaks) which was reverted by Rovoam (as I would have had to, for the same reason).
These edits, in the face of the front-and-center notice requesting that users refrain from editing the page while this dispute resolution is in progress, highlight the impracticality of locking-down the article for any significant time and the urgency of the need to reach agreements expeditiously. In the absence of strong objection, I will restore Aramgutang's edit — sometime in the "near-future".
In this same short time-frame I would like you both to propose specific updates to the main article and I would urge you find agreement on a few specific points — any points; one's you'll need to work-out between yourselves.
Sincerely, Davenbelle 21:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- After reading some of the above discussion and both Rovoam's and Tabib's version of the article, I have come up with the following version for the beginning of the article (my writing may not be up to standard though, since I'm quite tired right now):
- Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed region in Transcaucasia, situated in the southwest of the Lesser Caucasus mountain range. While considered by international bodies to be part of Azerbaijan, the predominantly Armenian population of the region have declared independence from Azerbaijan on 10 December 1991, claiming the majority of the region as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR).
Its sovereign status, however, is only recognised by Armenia, which(Aramգուտանգ 00:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Its sovereign status, however, is not recognised by any country in the world, and Armenia effectively controls the region as well as surrounding parts of Azerbaijan proper as a result of a prolonged military conflict. A ceasefire has been in effect since 12 May, 1994, after 6 years of violence that claimed over 15,000 lives and forced over 1 million refugees to flee their homes.
- Nomenclature:
- The common English term for the region, Nagorno-Karabakh, is an amalgam of the Russian term for the region, Нагорный Карабах (Nagorniy Karabakh), and Нагорно-Карабахская Республика (Nagorno-Karabakhskaya Respublika), the term for the NKR. The "Nagorno-" form can only be used as a prefix to an adjective, and thus the term Nagorno-Karabakh would be invalid in Russian. In Azerbaijani, the region is called Dağlıq Qarabağ (insert transcription here) or Yuxarı Qarabağ (insert transcription here), meaning "mountainous (or upper) black garden". The Armenian term for the region is Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ (Lernayin Gharabagh), and Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետություն (Lernayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetutyun) for the NKR. The historic name for the region, Արցախ (Artsakh), is also commonly used in Armenian.
- The initial paragraph in this case is simple, neutral, and to the point. It describes the physical location, current political status and situation, and indicates that the dispute was a significant one, making as few implications about the past of the region as possible. Since the nomenclature of Nagorno-Karabakh is quite complex, a separate paragraph on its names in different languages may be in order, immediately following the first paragraph.
- I'm quite confident that Armenia in fact does recognize the sovereignity of the NKR, and this information was included in the older versions of the page, so I chose to bring it back. Also I think the article should clearly separate Nagorno-Karabakh and the NKR. While N-K is the name of region, NKR is the name of the republic which does not actually include the entire region within its borders, and additionally includes an Azerbaijani province not in Nagorno-Karabakh. However, since the taxobox concerns itself specifically with the republic, it should have NKR in its title.
- Currently, I find that Tabib's version is the more objective of the two, which seems surprising given the accusations of pro-Turkish POV he has received in the past. Even more suprisingly, Rovoam, who has written the very well balanced and well written Russian Wiki article on the N-K, has not been able to show the same level of objectivity here. Just a personal opinion, no offense. --Aramգուտանգ 03:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, Aramgutang, for comments. I agree with most of them, but would like to make one important correction. I think, it is very well known, that NKR is not recognized by any country, including Armenia. It is, indeed, true that Armenia has good relationship with NKR, but it does not recognize its status officially. It is really important to be correct on each and every little detail in the article.
- My Russian version of the article is much more developed. Here I was trying to make it as short as possible. I have removed the entire paragraph about Caucasian Albania, as it has nothing to do with the NKR, etc. In my Russian version of the article I put more info about legal aspects of the problem (which I was trying to avoid in English version, because it would be difficult for English-speaking reader to understand all that details).
- I looked into whether the NKR is recognised by Armenia, and you are right, it is not. Sorry, for some reason I was really confident that it did. I altered my version of the introduction above to reflect that.
- About you comments on Tabib's version: I believe that the information about Caucasian Albania should stay, as it is fairly brief, and provides a fairly NPOV description of the more ancient history of the region. Once the article becomes large enough, the information could be moved to History of Nagorno-Karabakh to avoid cluttering the main page, replacing it with a summary of the more pertinent history of the region. The factual accuracy disputes however, should be resolved, although I don't think I know enough about the history of the region to have an opinion on which version is more correct.
- You may be correct about the population information, since it is known that there was a population census conducted in 1989 in Armenia, and it is likely that the other Transcaucasian republics also conducted them at the time. However, the situation in Karabakh region may have already been prohibitive of taking an accurate census, so estimates may have been released. While this can be speculated about, the 1979 census provided solid data, and is probably appropriate to use.
- I believe that the statement about the Allies does have meaning, as the Allies did act as interational bodies at the time, via the post-WWI treaties. To be valid, however, the statement should specify which particular treaty assigned N-K to Azerbaijan (I presume it's the treaty of Sevres, see this map, since by the time the treaty of Lausanne came into effect, the area was already Russia-controlled). --Aramգուտանգ 00:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, Aramgutang, for your proposed opening, and for your time and comments. I feel that it gives the article a fresh start. Rovoam, Tabib, I would urge your acquiescence to the inclusion of this into the main article as soon as the issue of Armenia's recognition of NKR is decided. Tabib, I hope that you can provide the text for the translation of the Azeri.
- Rovoam, I looked over the Russian version of the N-K article, and while I do not understand Russian, it's obvious that there's a lot of content there; there appear to be detailed sections on the conflict. I would hope that much of this material can be brought into the English article.
- While I feel that I have facilitated the discussion here, I do not feel that my role should continue to include policing the article or this talk page. I have removed the 'notice' at the top of this page that outlined a set of 'rules'. I will, however, continue to participate in the discussion as time permits, and urge all to work together cooperatively.
- Sincerely, Davenbelle 06:53, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
- p.s. these are all public domain:
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/armenia.gif
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/armenia_pol_2002.jpg
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/armenia_pol_2002.pdf
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/armenia_rel_2002.jpg
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/armenia_rel_2002.pdf
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/armenia_sm97.gif
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan.gif
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan.pdf
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan_pol_2004.jpg
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan_pol_2004.pdf
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan_rel_2004.jpg
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan_rel_2004.pdf
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan_sm97.gif
- http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan_ssr.90.jpg
Davenbelle’s role, Aramgutang’s edit, and suggestion to proceed further discussion paragraph by paragraph
I am very busy at work these days and also because of Wikipedia crash couldn’t get to you earlier. Certainly, I do not mind Aramgutang’s minor edits in the page (I have some objections to his proposed edit though, see below). As I see, Rovoam is not against Aramgutang’s minor edits either. But I don’t see the point of making such small edits (like changing spelling from Gukasyan to Ghukasyan or whatever) IF the present page content is in such an appalling condition, worse than any propaganda page and as full with erroneous expressions as incomplete and choppy.
Davenbelle, I can only regret that you removed the edit notification. I may be wrong but my impression is that you feel that your role as a neutral third party mediator /facilitator has been exhausted. (I personally would like you to continue active facilitation). In any case, I highly appreciate your efforts to bring the parties closer, and highly value good will and intentions that you’ve contributed to this discussion so far. I hope that you, a person who knew virtually nothing about Karabakh conflict and its political and historical dimensions before this discussion, is now much well informed about this delicate issue. I am thankful to Aramgutang for his involvement to the discussion. Aramgutang was one of the Armenian editors of Wikipedia who contributed to the Nagorno-Karabakh page before Rovoam. Aramgutang’s arguments and reasoning reveal a more sincere and serious intention to come into agreement on the content of this page, so I certainly look forward for his positive influence in the discussion.
Having said that, I want to share my concerns regarding Aramgutang’s proposed edit. These concerns are mainly on certain accents and formulations, which I consider slightly biased POV. I very much hope that Aramgutang will treat my criticism positively, by this criticism I didn’t meant to downplay his abilities or undermine his good intentions. My point is that, I believe, although we are not dealing and should not deal with politics in Wikipedia, but, bearing in mind the delicateness of the issue as well as Wikipedia’s immense popularity in internet, we should be very careful in the formulations we choose and try to be politically neutral and correct.
- Aramgutang start his paragraph with sentence like: “Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed region in Transcaucasia, situated in the southwest of the Lesser Caucasus mountain range.” This initial sentence does not mention that Nagorno-Karabakh is both geographically and politically part of Azerbaijan (and not of Transcaucasus or whatever). This important fact is mentioned merely in a second sentence that it is “considered to be part of Azerbaijan by” “international bodies”. I think such formulation and accents are not correct and represent a slighly Armenian POV.
- Aramgutang writes, “The common English term for the region, Nagorno-Karabakh, is an amalgam of the Russian term for the region, Нагорный Карабах (Nagorniy Karabakh), and Нагорно-Карабахская Республика (Nagorno-Karabakhskaya Respublika), the term for the NKR”. This sentence has not only bias but is erroneous and confusing too. It’s true that English naming “Nagorno-Karabakh” was taken from Russian name of the region, but “NKR” has nothing to do here, simply because NKR is not “the common term for the region” (common name in English is only Nagorno-Karabakh), therefore it cannot be an “amalgam” or whatever of the Russian term either.
Moving forward from paragraph to paragraph
My suggestion (btw, based slighly modified proposal of user 193.219.28.146 proposal and initial version) is to have the following opening paragraph instead:
Nagorno-Karabakh (from the Russian (Нагорный Карабах) variant of the Azeri name Dağlıq Qarabağ meaning mountainous black garden, the Armenian name is Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ -- Lernayin Gharabagh, also referred mostly by Armenians as Artsakh (Armenian: Արցախ)), is a region of Azerbaijan, in southern Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. The region is predominantly ethnic Armenian and effectively under Armenian control. The local Armenian separatists declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and formed "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country in the world.
I think this paragraph is very objective, clear and accurate and there should be no reason why someone should object making this a starting paragraph. The first mention of “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” will be put in quotes, to stress that it is not a legitimate and recognized entity (which is a fact not not “my POV”-!); however, future mentions will not be put in quotes, to avoid getting into “slippery slope”, as User:193.219.28.146 earlier suggested. I will post another paragraphs for discussion too. I think our discussion can proceed faster if we discuss the content paragraph by paragraph. So, please, let me know your comments and/or ay possible (hopefully objective ;-) additions to this starting paragraph.--Tabib 09:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think the paragraph-by-paragraph thing is a great idea, I'm totally behind it. Let's do that. Going right into it, this is what I think the 1st paragraph must include:
- Name etymology/variants
- Geographic location
- The fact that N-K is a region of Azerbaijan
- The fact that it's effectively controlled by Armenia
- The fact that there is an unrecognised, self proclaimed government there, called the NKR
- The fact that this is a yet unresolved and bloody conflict
- Hopefully we can all agree on that. The last point, which hasn't really been mentioned in the 1st paragraph before, I believe should be there to tell people who have never heard of N-K that this is a signifcant, ongoing conflict that has led to much suffering, and deserves people's attention.
- Now, on to your comments on my intro. I believe that a geographic description should be separate from a political description, and use neutral geographic objects such as mountains or seas as reference points, rather than cities. I described the region as Transcaucasia, since I was looking for a broad term for the region, and: it's unclear whether it's in Europe, Asia or the Middle East; the term Caucasus usualy refers to the northern areas; Transcaucasia is the most common term for the region in Russian and Armenian (please let me know if this is the case in Azerbaijani too).
- I disagree with the statement that "considered by international bodies to be part of Azerbaijan" has an Armenian POV. In fact, when I was writing it I was looking for the most unambiguous way to say that for all intents and purposes it is politically part of Azerbaijan. If you can think of a better phrasing, don't hesitate to submit it, however I strongly believe that it should be in the second sentence, as the region has geographical significance in that it is the area around the Karabakh mountain range, regardless of political affiliation, if that makes sense. Plus it makes things sound more neutral.
- I agree with putting quotation marks around the first mention of the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic". However, I think you misunderstood the whole explanation of the "amalgam" of Russian terms. I could explain it in great detail if you like, but for the sake of simplicity, it's probably best not to mention it all and forget about the whole thing, since it will only add to confusion and isn't really useful information.
- And finally, even though the discussion is far from over, I propose starting to archive some of the discussions on this page, to keep the page length manageable. I propose archiving everything before the "Thanks guys!" paragraph, however, since I'm a newcomer to this discussion, your (i.e. Tabib's, Rovoam's and Davenbelle's) opinion is more important here. --Aramգուտանգ 01:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you Aramgutang for your constructive comments. I wish I could have similar positive discussion with Rovoam too. I totally agree with you on what the 1st paragraph should include. In fact I myself was trying in vain to convince Rovoam not to delete these points from the original sentence (which he did). I think the initial paragraph I suggest complies with all the criteria supported jointly by you and me. It clearly addresses various name etymology questions, states that N-K is part of Azerbaijan, points to its geographic location and the fact that the territory is under effective Arenian control (I intentionally dont suggest *occupation* in order not to protract the discusion further).
- We may have one hopefully minor disagrement. You suggest putting what you name political description separate from geographic description. I, on the other hand, do not see a fundamental problem with putting the "political" and "geographic" descriptions in one sentence as long as the sentence is clear, understandable and accurate. In short, I believe, the sentence "Nagorno-Karabakh ...[name etymology]... is a region of Azerbaijan, in southern Caucasus, located about 270 km (about 170 mi) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku." is rather simple, understandable and accurate sentence. Please, let me know if this sentence is acceptable for you. Also, if you want and think it's important, please, make changes and/or additions to the initial paragraph suggested by me (based on initial version of the article and earlier suggestion by anon. 193.219.xx.xx). --Tabib 09:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We could do a better work if we take our time
Are we in a hurry? If not, we can re-write the entire article to make it really perfect from all point of views - both Azeris and Armenians. If nobody minds, I could provide a translation of my Russian version of the article, enhancing it to provide various views and more details for all of the different subjects, discussed above.
Rovoam 03:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We are not "in a hurry", but nobody wants to protract this discussion further. This discussion has grown almost 100 pages long and we still cannot agree on simple things because someone constantly and stubbornly pushes for his biased POV. Therefore, I believe it's time to proceed the discussion paragraph by paragraph.--Tabib 10:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We cannot do this simply because current version of the article is not acceptable in general. Rovoam 21:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I’m talking not about the current version, even not pre-dispute version, but the version I suggest based on our discussions, which corresponds to historical accuracy and Wikipedia NPOV standards much more than any of your suggestions so far. Unfortunately, we are simply stuck in this vicious circle of dispute, because you block any initiative to proceed further.--Tabib 13:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The History of the region starts in 7th century? Why not from VI century BC? or not from XX century?
"In the 7th and 8th centuries, the region was invaded by Arabs, who pillaged it and converted a portion of the population to Islam."
What's a reason? Is 7th century so special?
Rovoam 04:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that history of the region before Arab invasions should be mentioned in the page (and certainly, will be). But I also want to remind you that in the current version of the page we do not have references to the earlier history of the territory namely because Rovoam consistently deleted and refused to accept the fact that Artsakh was one of the historical provinces of Caucasus Albania. Here's the initial version deleted by Rovoam:
- "Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was conquered by Tigranes II, ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia. In the early 4th century AD Alwanians managed to regain Artsakh, and eventually in 387 AD it became a part of Alwania again. In the 5th century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania."
- And here's the version I suggest based on the discussion so far, based on the historical facts and different viewpoints and formulation preferences of the sides.
- "Nagorno-Karabakh comprised one of the historical parts of Aghbania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artsakh. In 95 BC it was conquered by Tigranes II, ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia. Following the defeat of Tigranes II at the hands of Romans in 66 BC, Albanians regained Artsakh. Ancient Albanians and Armenians switched control over the territory until the early 4th century AD when Albanians managed to reclaim Artsakh, and eventually in 387 AD it became a part of Aghbania again.
- [Christianity]] first came to Aghbania with the mission of St. Eliseus yet in I c. AD. Christianity was widely accepted in the Vth century after St. Gregory the Illuminator converted and baptized Albanian king Urnayr. In 488 AD, following a church assembly near Aluan (situated in present-day Karabakh area), Christianity become the official religion in Aghbania." (last paragraph based on my discussion with Rovoam here.--Tabib 13:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The statement "Nagorno-Karabakh comprised one of the historical parts of Aghbania, or Caucasian Albania." needs to be proven based on historical sources. Otherwise, it sound like a declaration or someone's opinion.
- Again, Christianity become the official religion in Aluank at the time of king Urnayr (344 AD?), not in 488 AD. The Church Assembly in Aluan, called by king Vachagan, was called to establish canonical rules, not to announce official religion. (See: Movses K. Book #1, chapter # XXVI.)
Rovoam 20:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can we independently move forward or shall we resort to formal mediation?
I am sorry but I am beginning to lose my temper. How many times I cited ancient Armenian and Albanian chroniclers Movses Khorenatsi and Moses Kalankaytuk, which themselves call the area of present-day Karabakh “Albanian plains with its mountainous parts”?! What argument in favor of Albanian belonging of Artsakh can be stronger than these two most respected sources? Didn’t I bring quotations from Great Soviet Encyclopedia (btw, original entry (in Russian) for N-K can be found online here and Columbia Encyclopedia (original entry here)? (also discussion details: here and throughout the rest of the talkpage). As opposed to my sources, what proof YOU have for your claims that “Artsakh was an Armenian land” except for your maps, which actually disproved your allegations (for details see Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Maps_comment)?!..
Throughout the whole discussion I tried to be open as much as I could to the dialogue and be flexible to any suggestions. I constantly tried to reformulate the sentences I suggest in a way to adapt them to both side’s interests and for the sake of coming into terms, I tried to avoid controversial topics and claims which I could rightfully raise. For example, I never raised the issue of renaming expression “Armenian control” with “Armenian occupation”; I never demanded mentioning of ethnic cleansing of Azeris from occupied Azerbaijanian territories in the page content; I never touched the issue of mass Armenian resettlement from Ottoman Turkey and Persia to Caucasus in XIX c. by Imperial Russia, which eventually made Armenians a majority in present day mountainous Karabakh and even in present-day Armenia (before that the population of these territories were mostly Azeri-Turks). I never raised numerous other issues, which I could rightfully raise and demand including these facts in the page text. Maybe I should, maybe my stance so far was too soft. But my goal was avoiding protracted conflict and disputes between myself and Armenian editor(s). Before Rovoam’s unilateral edits, which provoked this whole discussion here, I even did not interfere to rewrite Nagorno-Karabakh page, although I was not satisfied with a number of pro-Armenian POV statements in the pre-dispute version of the page.
As to adoption of Christianity in Caucasus Albania, I think here we increasingly switch from the discussion on page content to discussion of academic issues. It’s not a principal question whether we take as a starting point adoption of Christianity in Caucasus Albania from the time when Albanian king Urnayr was baptized sometime in IV c. or from V c. when Christianity became finally established as Albania’s only official religion. What is more important and relevant to the page content are THREE INDISPUTABLE HISTORICAL FACTS: 1) Artsakh was historical part of Caucasus Albania ([16]); 2) Albania adopted Christianity during IV-V cc. and at this time both its political and religious centers were situated in Partaw (present Barda), situated in present-day Karabakh area; 3) After Arab invasion Albanian church was subjugated to the Armenian church, which played a crucial role in gradual transformation of Albanian ethnic identity, as part of them remained Christian, but were Gregorianized/Armenized, and other part adopted Islam and were later Turkified. ([17])
Rovoam, I want us to solve our disagreements without resorting to formal mediation and arbitration. I suggest you once again: let’s come into terms. Aramgutang, another Armenian editor in Wikipedia already supported my idea to move forward on paragraph by paragraph basis. I don’t see the reason why you shouldn’t follow his step. I believe all other participants including Davenbelle, Cantus, anon user 193.219.28.144 would also support this approach. Please, let me know if you agree to proceed with this approach and do you accept the three historical facts I underlined (we can work together on sentence formulations, but the historical facts should be kept intact). I am afraid if I do not get positive response from you on that I will have to ask for formal mediation. I hope you’ll agree with me that if we cannot come into terms, mediation (and perhaps arbitration) would be the only solution for us to move out from this stalemate.--Tabib 13:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I am sorry, Tabib, but all your statements above are so wrong! Here what you insist of:
- * 1) Artsakh was historical part of Caucasus Albania
- This is a big question! Artsakh is an Armenian word. It was first part of Urartu, then it was part of the Kingdom of Great Armemia (i.e. Tigran the Greater kingdom), etc., etc.Rovoam 21:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Do you actually read what I write? Before stubbornly denying every fact, read through the arguments and sources I bring once again here and here. And now bring me if you can one single authoritative source, which would claim that Artsakh was historically an “Armenian land”. There is no such source. All references to Artsakh as part of Armenian kingdom refer to the times when this area was conquered by ancient Armenian kings, who created a so-called “Greater Armenia”, which, as I stressed earlier (last post), was an empire and not an “Armenian homeland”.--Tabib 14:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This is a big question! Artsakh is an Armenian word. It was first part of Urartu, then it was part of the Kingdom of Great Armemia (i.e. Tigran the Greater kingdom), etc., etc.Rovoam 21:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- * 1) Artsakh was historical part of Caucasus Albania
- * 2) Albania adopted Christianity during IV-V cc. and at this time both its political and religious centers were situated in Partaw (present Barda), situated in present-day Karabakh area;
- Partaw (present Barda) is situated present-day in Azerbaijan Republic. It is not part of Karabakh. It is not disputed area. Please, look at any MODERN map. Or ask your friends in Azerbaijan. This is a very simple think to check! Could you accept at least present-day reality?! Rovoam 21:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Could you stop speculating on facts and arguments? I said Barda is “situated in Karabakh area” not Nagorno-Karabakh. You certainly know you are wrong, because you know very well the distinction between Karabakh and Nagorno-Karabakh. I ask other editors, who don’t know and/or overlooked this discussion on naming issues to refer to one of our initial posts Naming speculations: Karabakh, Nagoro-Karabakh etc., which explains the differences between “Karabakh” and “Mountainous (Nagorno-) Karabakh”. In short, “Karabakh” is referred to show the wider area consisting of lowland and upland parts, which was named Karabakh in medieval times. “Nagorno-Karabakh”, a term which appeared in 1923 with the establishment of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (Region) (abbr. NKAO), is used to indicate the mountainous, upland part of wider Karabakh area. Lowland Karabakh regions such as Barda, as well as Agdam, Fizuli, Gubatly, Jebrayil (last four regions currently occupied by Armenians), up to Agdjabedi are part of wider Karabakh area. Btw, Nagorno-Karabakh is not a “disputed area” either. It’s legal and political belonging to Azerbaijan is recognized wordwide, the only party which “disputes” this fact are Armenians.--Tabib 14:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Partaw (present Barda) is situated present-day in Azerbaijan Republic. It is not part of Karabakh. It is not disputed area. Please, look at any MODERN map. Or ask your friends in Azerbaijan. This is a very simple think to check! Could you accept at least present-day reality?! Rovoam 21:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- * 2) Albania adopted Christianity during IV-V cc. and at this time both its political and religious centers were situated in Partaw (present Barda), situated in present-day Karabakh area;
- * 3) After Arab invasion Albanian church was subjugated to the Armenian church,
- This is not true. From day number one, Armenia and Albania had accepted the same type of Cristian confession. Later, Armenia first tried to accept Halkidonian confession, and as a result Albanians broke with then, as they wanted to keep Monophysitism. At that time Albanians established independent (from Armenian church) church for the first time. Durung Arabs, Albanian bishop Nerrses tried to join Halkidonians, but was stopped by Armenians (with help of other Albanians and enforced by Arabs).Rovoam 21:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What are you talking about?! Do you realize that you just narrated a story which is diametrically opposite to the historical facts? You write, “Armenians wanted to accept Holkedonian confession and as a result Albanians broke with then?”/them/. What a nonsence? Conflict between Armenian and Albanian churches emerged namely because the Albanian church along with Iberian accepted decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and adopted Dyophisitism whereas it was the Armenian church which rejected the decisions of Council of Chalcedon and retained Monophisitism. Albanian church was always independent from Armenian church up untill invasion of Arabs who directly helped Armenian catholicos Yelia to subjugate Albanian church. Moreover, in Caucasus Albania it was Albanian kings who appointed bishops, convoked councils, arranged a search of Christian relics, i.e. all that fell under the competence of the clergy and church. Maybe Rovoam could also suggest that Albanian kings were acting under some Armenian catholicos as well?.. On the other hand, the Armenian church is one of the five so-called monophysite churches, characterized by their rejection of the doctrines of the Council of Chalcedon (451) AD. In contrast to Chalcedon's doctrine that Christ is one person existing in two natures, the Church of Armenia affirms that Christ's humanity cannot be separated from his divinity. After the incarnation the thoughts and actions of Jesus were those of a single unitary being. This doctrine has sometimes been described as monophysitism because it ascribes to Christ one nature. For details on Armenian church and Monophisitism please see, BELIEVE: Religious Information Source web-site Monophysitism; Armenian Church--Tabib 14:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This is not true. From day number one, Armenia and Albania had accepted the same type of Cristian confession. Later, Armenia first tried to accept Halkidonian confession, and as a result Albanians broke with then, as they wanted to keep Monophysitism. At that time Albanians established independent (from Armenian church) church for the first time. Durung Arabs, Albanian bishop Nerrses tried to join Halkidonians, but was stopped by Armenians (with help of other Albanians and enforced by Arabs).Rovoam 21:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- * 3) After Arab invasion Albanian church was subjugated to the Armenian church,
MMM: Unknown Rovoam, please tell me who are you? Are you Armenian? In first, I would like to tell you that Karabakh wasn't a part of "Historical Armenia"! And Karabakh is natural Azerbaijani land for ever. Armenian or crazy Gukasiyanian and Kocharianian propaganda provide missunderstanding to all Armenian people. Your propaganda creates Armenians like people that has historical mission to liberate lands in several parts of the world where Armenians never habitated. Armanians (current name) came to so called Armenian plato (it is geographical name that has existed more early before than Armenians!? came to that part of the world). Some tribes (current name Armenians) from Middle East came to underlined part of the world in VII century BC (according to Professor Piatrovski, former Director to Ermitage, St.Petersburg). And they have accepted geographical name of Armenian plato as their original people's name. Mr Tigran II was Parfianian and he was nominated as ruler for Armenia (province of the Parhian Empire). He never was your King of something like that becouse he was Parhian. Moreover, in that period the titul of King was like a Govenor in current times. And this titul does not corrrelate with modern understanding and meaning of the word of King. Armenia never was an independent Kingdom! Armenia was a part of Persian, Roman, Ottoman and Russian Empires. Please read huge pool of books very careful and do not use Armenian missintrepted version of Armenian history. This is only introduction or LikBez for you. Yours MMM
- I don't think the post above by anon User:81.136.53.85 is helpful. Wikipedia talkpages are not for waging historical debates, but discussing the page content. For details, please, refer to Wikipedia talkpage: what is it used for?. I'll be waiting for response from Rovoam on how we should proceed further: whether we resort to mediation and confess that we failed to come to agreement independently, or demonstrate good will and intentions and find a commonly acceptable solution.--Tabib 18:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Dear Tabin! Here is my plan on how we should deal with our disagreements. We have two options -
- * Present all our points of view, both yours and mine, on the same page, dividing the article into the corresponding sections. We will present our pro- and contra- arguments for each of the disputed subject in the special sub-section. In other words, we will provide two different versions for the ancient history, for the modern history, for the legal issues, political issues, etc. etc.
- * Another option would be to create two different articles - your version and my version. The main page of the article will have a special description, explaining why there are two articles for the same subject, and there will be the links to these pages.
- I know, how is difficult it is to come up with agreement on such a subject, as I was also participating in discussions of some other conflicts - Israeli-Palestinians, Abhazian-Georgian, Moldavian, etc. etc. I am free of national preferences as I am not Georgian, or Abhazian, or Armenian. But I understand how you feel - you take this personally, as you have feeling based on your national background, so it is so much more difficult for you to keep neutrality. I am sure, that you usually take your own opinion as the most objective from all, but - trust me - the picture looks different for different people. Please, keep this is mind...
- Rovoam 22:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. Wikipedia server is very slow now, as they still recover database data. We need to wait till it's up and running again normally. Also, this discussion page is getting too long. If we continue, perhaps we should start on a new page, summarize our points and discuss our differences. I think, this will help us to get back to the point. Plus, we both need to take our time to work on our own versions of the page, improving both of them, so we could bring them to some third (nuetral) party for the final judgement on NPOV issues. Thank you, Rovoam 23:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Rovoam, your “plan” serves only to protract and derail this discussion even further. There cannot be two variants of the same entry in Wikipedia: this is nonsense. We cannot create several “variants” of articles each time a dispute on page content emerges. There are other effective means to deal with this problem, namely Wikipedia dispute resolution process. As to your statement “[You are] free of national preferences as I am not Georgian, or Abhazian, or Armenian”, even another Armenian editor Aramgutang, agreed that you were not objective (to put it mildly) in this discussion at all. --Tabib 14:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)