This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Armenia B‑class Nagorno-Karabakh is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Archive box collapsible

What happened to the Human Rights section which demonstrated blatant abuse of the rights of Azerbaijanis by armenian christian fundamentalists. Who has deleted it? The artivcl;e has lost all its neutrality and and nothing but POV in favor of christian armenian fundamentalists? Whare are all those useless editors? --213.172.73.210 (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, as this article is about a geographical region, I would think the geographical map on Nagorno-Karabakh will be more appropriate rather then the political map. Just like it is done here : Balkans, Siberia, Anatolia. And one more thing - geographical regions don't have "Infobox country" in them. Steelmate (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gulmammad, the word of "separatist" at intro looks too much dubious and POV. Pls discuss at first here as the prev. one is the last consensus. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a de facto independent republic which is officially part of the Republic of Azerbaijan" - so a republic is officially part of Azerbaijan? I think region is offically part of Azerbaijan not the republic. Steelmate (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I have hard time finding rule in English Wikipedia regading italisizing non-Latin words/letters. The Armenian language has italics in it, but don't know if we can use it in English Wikipedia, although it is used in Armenian Wikipedia and many other Wikipedias. According to Golbez his personal tradition was to italisize only Latin and Cyrillic texts(like Russian), and non italicise the others. If anyone knows what is English Wikipedia's policy on that please welcome to post here. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the section blanking and some unexplained deletions by an IP. Andranikpasha (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik you don't have to explain obvious vandalism. VartanM (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the Turkish recognition of the Republic of Kosovo, the Ankara Government is under logical pressure to endorse the same recognition to the Republik of Nagorno Karabakh. This is a normal and equitable step for Turkey who is following the "road to Europe". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't quite make sense, since Turkey and Azerbaijan are allies, and Turkey and Armenia are enemies. Equitable? Maybe. But geopolitics aren't built on equitability. --Golbez (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

logical pressure :) funny that was also said for Northern Iraq,and guess what in 2 days they leaved their sunny flag to and claimed diplomatic support of Baghdad. Dont day dream Turkey can not recognise the independande before Baku, which means terrorists win(no muslim kurds, nor turkics reside in Karabagh, which is enough ho label them as terrorist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.42.184 (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the image deleted by bot as result of sock activity. Grandmaster (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs removing images are banned User:Azad chai. I rolled back his edits. Grandmaster (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to writing the facts without drawing out original conclusions from the facts. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what actually the current version of the article does. It contains some dubious claims about the role of Turkey, which are nothing but speculation. However the fact is that the text of KAvburo resolution was as follows:

Proceeding from the necessity of national peace among Muslims and Armenians and of the economic ties between upper (mountainous) and lower Karabakh, of its permanent ties with Azerbaijan, mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR, receiving wide regional autonomy with the administrative center in Shusha, which is included in the autonomous region.

You can find this text in any source that quotes the Kavburo resolution. So the edit that you reverted was factually accurate and made no conclusions. Grandmaster (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some sources for reverted unsourced facts, see. --Gulmammad- 21:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a specific sentence and reference about how Azeris were displaced into camps for a time after the war? Without a similar statement about Armenian displacements, it seems to give undue weight to the Azeri situation, especially since the very next sentence offers a neutral statement on the issue. --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have changed some names in the article , first the region is Lachin not Qashatag , and Lachin never was a part of Nagorno Karabakh Oblast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.21.93.57 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Location of Nagorno-Karabakh within the Caucasus" changed to "Location of Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan" as the map is not map of whole Caucasus but only Azerbaijan and Armenia from which it is seen that NK is in Azerbaijan. And time zone changed to one used in the Azerbaijan Republic since the article says NK is officially part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Gülməmməd ^Talk 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stop editwarring Gulmammad! this article is consensused during the years between the members and your POV addings must be agreed at first. Wiki is not the right place for the naked propagand. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, folks, am I going to have to take this entire suite of articles over again? I would really rather not, my blood pressure has thanked me ever since I gave up. I don't typically do arbitration enforcement - the rulings tend to be a little slow or arcane for me to care about - but I will throw each and everyone one of you at arbitration enforcement if you so much as blink your eyes towards violating the one revert restriction, and I will police that harshly.

Step number one: The map caption stays at "South Caucasus"; the map shows all of the local countries, it is not specific to Azerbaijan alone, and it is by far the most neutral option. Would we give a map of Lesotho and say "Location of Lesotho within South Africa?" Hells no.

Step number two: Time zone? No. The Azeri point of view is that it's under AZT. The Karabakhi point of view? No clue. The NPOV solution is to use UTC and UTC only, especially since an article on the REGION has little to do with politics. Right?

Step number three: Now I have to go to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and figure out the complaining there about the damn map. --Golbez (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step number four: ??????

Step number five: Profit. :) Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step number six: VartanM pokets all the profit. C'mon Golbez the Karabakhi point of view is ARM. Gullmamamad if you didn't get it yet this article is about geography of Nagorno-Karabakh, not politics and we keep politics out of it. VartanM (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me how is AZT politics? Read this and understand the difference between MST and AZT. Gülməmməd ^Talk 06:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple... would Palestinians want to be told they are under Israeli Standard Time? No. UTC is the neutral answer. I'm not saying use MST, you apparently read something that was not written. --Golbez (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, the above comment wasn't addressed to you but VartanM, anyway. Regarding MSK (above MST was typo), here is my edit and its revert. I think people should start doing more useful edits than doing reverts and counting others reverts toward violation of 3RR to get them blocked, or tagging articles, or nominating them for AfDs, and then call someone their Profit. Gülməmməd ^Talk 14:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between AZT and MST isn't relevant for this article, as it is a nonpolitical article and will use the NPOV UTC. Also, keep in mind you are under a 1RR, not a 3RR. --Golbez (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know if the village of Fakhlul was/is involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh story? It is supposed to be close to Stepanakert. Does it have an Armenian name? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word form "Nagorno-" is a combining element that was used before the adjective "Karabakhskaya" in Russian to form the name of the former administrative entity known as the "Nagorno-Karabakhskaya Avtonomnaya Oblast'." When used before the noun "Karabakh" instead of before the adjective "Karabakhskaya," however, the correct word form would be the masculine adjective "Nagornyy" (spelled more simply as "Nagorny") rather than the combining element "Nagorno-." The name form "Nagorno-Karabakh," as a proper noun, is, therefore, the result of a translation error and should be replaced by the correct form "Nagorny Karabakh." Atelerix (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, and Moscow should be Moskvá, but on the English Wikipedia we use the English word for the place, not the name. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• And in we would use the name Deutscheland instead of Germany. We use the common English name; Nagorno-Karabakh is not too commonly known among English speakers, but that's certainly the most commonly known name among people who do know of it. --Golbez (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Nagorny Karabakh" is simply a corrected version of a mistaken form that, unfortunately, is still in current use in an English context. Neither "Nagorno-Karabakh" or "Nagorny Karabakh" is an English name. An actual English name would be something like "Upper Karabakh." Atelerix (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the English translation. By your logic, the actual English name of Montenegro is "Black Mountain". There's a difference between name and translation. Again, by your logic, the name of Japan would be "Home of the Sun." Japan is the English name for it. (France apparently treats things differently, since they call it Haut Karabakh.) --Golbez (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not advocating that foreign place names be translated into English. Several international organizations have now begun to use the correct form "Nagorny Karabakh" in place of "Nagorno-Karabakh," and the authors of this Wikipedia article would do well to "get with it." See the following websites:

http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/nagorny-karabakh/index.php

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/11/mil-071129-rianovosti02.htm

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/azerbaijan-armenia-photos-201206

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa//repertoire/89-92/CHAPTER%208/EUROPE/item%2019_Nagorny-Karabakh.pdf

Atelerix (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This subject has been touched upon on a number of other articles, where maps by so called "Andrew Andersen, PhD" were used as reference. First of all, the map of Karabakh in Karakoyunlu state used on this page is obviously dubious. There was no town called Shusha during Kara Koyunlu reign, it was established only in XVIIIth century during the reigns of Karabakh khan and Qajars. And there are no references to existence of principalities in Karabakh during Kara Koyunlu either. So drawing self-invented maps and using these as some reference to historical source is not quite acceptable for encyclopedia. And in general, again, I would like to request that some credentials for "Andrew Andersen, PhD", the blogger, be provided as far as his expertise in regional history and historical geography are concerned. Atabek (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous maps of Andersen used in Georgian history articles and nobody criticized it as dubious. Even the map in question is already used in this article. If it's removed here it should be removed there as well.

What about Shusha, there are evidences of a castle there long before 1750. The Georgian king Irakli II, wrote:

«Хамс составляет владение и во оных сем воеводских правленей, народ весь армянского закона, в том владении находится армянской патриарх… один человек (Панах Али), закону магометанскаго и от народа жаванширскаго, принял силу; среди того правления, Хамсы, состоит старинная крепость, которая им обманом взята…»

Грамоты и другие исторические документы XVIII столетия, относящиеся к Грузии. Том I, с 1768 по 1774 год. С.Петербург, 1891, с. 434—435

--Vacio (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal interpretation of a primary source. Not Ok. There's like a million of primary and secondary sources saying that Shusha was founded in the 18th century. And Andersen is a self-published source. Not acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every map on Wikipedia is self-published and an interpretation of primary sources, (and most of them don't have the actual name of their creator). So that alone is not a reason to remove one! If you describe the specific problems with the content of this map, and those problems are enough to make the map inaccurate for its purpose within this article then it should be removed. However, I don't think the indicating of the location of Shusha before it existed is enough of a reason. The purpose of the map's usage here is not to show the location of Shusha but to show the location of Karabakh and neighbouring territories during that time period. Why not just remove Shusha from the map? Meowy 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio and Meowy, the above arguments do not justify the usage of map by a blogger in encyclopedia. The fact is, Andrew Andersen is not an authoritative source on history, he is an amateur, in fact, unable to provide or produce any credentials. Hence a highly controversial map with invented borderlines and even city names that didn't exist at a time, shall be substantiated by a source, which either of you didn't provide so far. Moreover, showing the principalities of Karabakh as something separate from Qaraqoyunlu state is just plain fabrication. Do you have a source proving that Qaraqoyunlu controlled all territory with exception of this little "island" which Andrew Andersen invented? Atabek (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andersen's maps are used all over the place on wikipedia, particularly when it comes to articles related to Georgia. You need to get a community consensus about their status if you want to remove them. Discussing their validity on this article is fruitless.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, what are you? Not even a "blogger", not even someone who uses their own name. Under your standards should I dig back into all your edits and remove any maps you might have added? Of course not! The map should be judged on the value of its use here. Its value is based on its relevance and on its accuracy, not on its creator. Meowy 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P143-144, "Armenia, an Historical Atlas". "It was Jahan-Shah (the leader of the Karakoyunlu - my note) who, apprised of the existence of the Armenian princelings of the Siunid house in Karabagh dispossesed by Timur, restored them to their possessions and granted them the title malik, Arabic for king". The source goes on to say that he did this to have his northeast frontier protected by bordering it with a territory whose rulers would be loyal to him as well as offer resistance to any invaders. In other words, the territory was separate from Karakoyunlu territory but ruled by princes who were expected to support the Karakoyunlu. Meowy 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, it's irrelevant where Andersen maps are used, that's an issue for people who edit Georgia-related pages to worry about. If I am asked to provide an opinion on those Andersen maps, I will. It's relevant, however, that Andersen is neither a scholar, nor an expert in history to make those maps. The map presented on the main page is not referenced to any scholarly source, it's an invention based on an interpretation of a blogger who was fired from his position for racist anti-Muslim sentiments. So if you guys insist, I think we should request an impartial third opinion. There was a substantial discussion before on background of Andersen and lack of scholarship, some other important facts which confirm my points, i.e. where did he get his PhD from, where does he teach, which scholarly journals did he publish in, can you provide samples of his professional work on history, and so on.

Meowy, who is the author of "Armenia, an Historical Atlas"? Can you please, cite the full source for the sake of NPOV? As far as "not even using own name" is concerned, I think it's important to pay attention to yourself first before questioning others, and it's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion subject. I am not making maps, never uploaded one to my memory, but I do question a source from an amateur, which you try to present as a scholar. Atabek (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is Armenia: A Historical Atlas, by Robert H. Hewsen, University Of Chicago Press, 2000. You were the one questioning others, dismissing people you don't know as "bloggers" and "amateurs", so try acting on your own advice. All I want is for the map to be judged primarily on its accuracy and on its usefulness within this article, and not dismissed for no other reason that because some editors for some reason don't like the source. As far as I see, the only thing wrong with the map is the use of non-standard spelling and the addition of Shusha before it actually existed. The latter can easily be corrected. Meowy 21:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is not the proper forum to discuss this because Andersen's work is used all over Wiki. If you're so passionate about excluding Andersen's maps from Wikipedia get a community wide consensus that will affect all of Wiki.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andersen was not fired for anti-Muslim comments, and the one website that you referred to it said the "investigation was still pending," meaning that you're assuming he's guilty before the investigation has been completed. And Eupator is correct, we can't cherry-pick what maps are acceptable and which ones aren't. If you are so passionately against him, then just get a consensus from the rest of Wikipedia – why are you complaining about it here and not on the Georgian articles? The author of Historical Atlas is Robert Hewsen, who GM likes to quote so much.

Stop wasting our time with your absurd rants about everyone who disagrees with your POV and do something more meaningful on Wikipedia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name any works by Andersen, published anywhere outside of his website? Also, see the comment by the admin Mikka at the bottom of this thread: [1] Grandmaster (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should confine your criticism to what you think are flaws in the actual map. The majority of maps on wikipedia are without sources; many are without named authorships or have been created by wikipedia editors - are you suggesting that they all should be removed? Meowy 23:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here some articles which use one or more maps of Andersen: [2] [3][4][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. These are only articles of the English Wikipedia. Other Wikipedias use them likewise. So, once more, this is not the right place to discuss whether we should or not use Andersen's maps. If they are not reliable, then the above mentioned articles should remove them as well. --Vacio (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should all be deleted, if anyone doubts their reliability. But I'm not interested in other articles, my concern is that the map used in this particular one does not come from a reliable published source. The fact that this author is used in other articles does not prove his reliability. You still haven't answered my question about the works that Andersen published anywhere outside of his website. --Grandmaster (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest I compared the Andersen map with the nearest equivalent maps in "Armenia, an Historical Atlas", especially the one on p143 titled "Armenia under Turcoman Domination, 1378-1502". The various "Georgian" kingdoms are roughly in the same position, which is good given that indicating their positions is the main purpose of the Andersen map. A specific border for Kachen/Karabakh is not shown on that map, but is shown on the map on p135 titled "Armenia under the Ilkhanid Domination 1256-1335". Its position is similar to that on the Andersen map - and given that we have a source saying that the Khachen principalities/melikdoms still existed during the Karakoyunlu time there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Andersen map on that point. There are mistakes in the Andersen map though - Bayburt is shown as part of the empire of Trebizond, when by this time it would not have been (if it ever was). Worse still, it shows territory marked "Ottoman Empire" directly to the south of Bayburt, which is a nonsense. The Ottomans captured Trebizond in 1461, then the inland castles of the former empire a decade or so later, and only after that did they begin to extend their rule deeper inland. When the Trebizond Empire was extant the region of Erzincan was not part of the Ottoman empire, it was ruled by independent emirs, and then by the Ak Koyunlu. In other words, the Andersen map seems to be accurate for its titled purpose (showing the Kingdom of Georgia in the 15th century), and for its use here (indicating the position of Khachen), but it is not accurate for the territory at the western end of the map. Meowy 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the map per discussion at WP:RSN here: [32] Grandmaster (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any consensus to remove the maps. VartanM (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for its inclusion. We asked a third opinion, and it was that Andersen is not a reliable source. Grandmaster (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw you avoiding Meowy (third party editor) and another guy who didn't even bother looking at the links. VartanM (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy is a party to the dispute and arbitration case, and thus not a third party. And a third party opinion was that Andersen is not a reliable source. Grandmaster (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "arbitration case"? The map stays until valid reasons are presented for its removal. There was nobody at that discussion except you and Atabey who said they wanted it removed. No valid reasons were presented to support its removal and you refused to answer the issues I raised in that discussion. Meowy 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinserted the map into the article. It was removed by Baku87 who did not give any edit comment or explanation for his edit. Meowy 16:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus for inclusion of this map. We discussed this many times, and even asked for a third party opinion. You were told that Andersen is not a reliable source. If you insist on this map, take it to dispute resolution. But you cannot force the map into the article. Grandmaster (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for the exclusion of this map. Yes, we have discussed this many times and even asked for a third party opinion. Third party opinion failed due to total lack of interest. You were asked to provide credible reasons for the removal of the map - you provided none, and you refused to address legitimate points rased by other editors. You cannot force the removal of the map from this article unless you provide a credible argument for doing it. Baku87 removed it without even making an edit summary. Meowy 16:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think following the example of Caucasian Albania controversial POV maps, created by dubious bloggers claiming to be qualified researchers, and not based on any serious historical research should not appear on the page until there is consensus. The fact that third party opinion didn't show up, Meowy, does not justify single-sided non-neutral POV. Atabəy (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, there was a third party opinion If the maps come from a blog, and they deal with contested borders, then they are not reliable. So whether you agree with it or not, as a POV party, the neutral opinion confirms that the maps by blogger Andersen are not acceptable and need to be removed. Atabəy (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is not from a blog, and it does not deal with contested borders. So leave it where it is. Meowy 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't abide an edit war, even a slow motion one. Protected for one week on the version I found it on, and if this isn't resolved in a week, maybe I'll switch it to the other version for that week. But you will *not* continue to do this back-and-forth. Come to a conclusion. --Golbez (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about the map, and issues surrounding it, is going on at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Andrew_Andersen_Maps Meowy 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no international law or laws that would say "Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan." I think this phrasing should be modified. Please advise. Some counties and international organizations made statements whether they consider NK as part of Azerbaijan. That is it. Capasitor (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of Grandmasters last edits for the following reasons:

• The historiographer Mirza Jamal (btw. the vizir of the Karabakh khanate and a relative of Panah Ali khan) and the text of the Kurekchay Treaty are primary sources. And Wikipedia rules require: Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources.[33].

• The Ganja Khanate or Karabakh Khanate were established under Persian rule in 18th c., while the Princedoms of Artsakh-Khachen existed more than 1000 years from 821.

• The mention Kurekchay Treaty is out of its context: the precondition for Ibrahim Khan and his descendants to rule this region was that they should obey the Russian Empire (article 1). Not to mention that it was subsequently replaced by the Treaty of Gulistan.

• Kurekchay Treaty refers to the Karabakh Khanate, i.e. the whole Karabakh region, therefor it is completely irrelevant to the intro of this article. Also, it was only an agreement, while the charter of the Paul I was a recognition, it refers to the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Please use secondary and third party sources to interpret primary sources as Wikipedia rule require, and use them on the right place. --Vacio (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not interpret the primary source, just quoted it. Treaty of Kurekchay is not out of context, but perfectly fits into the context, thus it should be mentioned. Karabakh khanate included the mountainous part of Karabakh too, so I see no reason why an important part of the history of the region should not be mentioned. And most importantly, the intro represents a consensus between the parties, which took years of discussions to reach, so please propose your changes at talk and get a consensus before changing the intro. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The intro represents a consensus" - is that why it is such a mess? A committee-designed horse that turns out looking like a camel! Why is there no explanation of what the whole Karabakh region is, what the "Karabakh Khanate" was, what their relationship is with Nagorno Karabakh? Why are there huge gaps in its history, it starts in the 19th century with too much detail, and then goes straight into an overlong and even more overdetailed section dealing with the Nagorno Karabakh war that would be more suitable for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article. Why no mention of the fact that all of it is currently a de jure part of Azerbaijan? What is the purpose of the infobox with the map - it seems more suited to the NK Republic entry? There seems to be a lot of vagueness about the difference between and purpose of this article and the one about the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Meowy 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because this article used to cover the republic as well. It was only split a few months ago. TA-ME (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the merits of Grandmaster's inclusions about Karabakh in the 18th-19th centuries, this passage does not belong in the introductory paragraph. Please consider moving it into the History section or into the separate History of Nagorno-Karabakh article. Capasitor (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karabakh khanate refers to a part of the history of Nagorno-Karabakh it has nothing to do with the intro of this article. The Princedoms of Karabakh and the NKAO are the former statuses of Nagorno-Karabakh, therefore they can be mentioned in the intro, as well as the fact, that the first was recognised by the Russian Empire. Together with the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is predominantly inhabited by Armenians, and that for a very long time.--Vacio (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in its present form the article is not perfect, but the topic is very sensitive too. There are 13 archives of discussions that resulted in the present version, which was stable for a very long time. The intro is not perfect too, I have my objections to some wording as well, but unilateral changes are not acceptable. The article should develop through consensus. I agree with Capasitor that the old history does not belong to the intro. It should be described in the main body of the article, and yes, there are many omissions in the history section, such as for instance the treaty between the Khan of Karabakh and the Russian emperor. The intro should just describe basic facts of the recent history that are not disputed by anyone. This all can be fixed, but we need to discuss and agree on changes that are to be made to the article. Grandmaster (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took 14 pages of talk to get us to here? :( Meowy 20:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster vandalizes this article, look how he removed my edits which were based on the US-based scholar Robert Hewsen. [34]. If he did not agree with some of my edits, why he reverted all my edits (incl images)? I agree to reach a consensus on disputed topics, but this is not the way we should do that. --Vacio (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get the mediators to have a look at proposed changes. This article is a very sensitive one, previous disputes over it resulted in arbcom cases. I don't think we need to go that path again. Grandmaster (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes should be discussed at length and agreed upon by all interested parties. This article does not take well to WP:BOLD actions. I've reverted the changes. Discuss, then change. A further note would be that to take care when describing other user's actions as vandalism. It is generally looked down upon when their edits are in good faith. I would also recommend to any newcomers to read the discussion archives, from one to thirteen. There may be questions later ;) - Francis Tyers · 06:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added info about the alternative interpretation of the term "Karabakh" found in some Westerns historical texts. Capasitor (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I have also edited the history section, and removed the historically false statement that implied that ostensibly there was considerable migration of Armenians to Karabakh from Persia. This issue was discussed in depth in the article in Shusha a short while ago. See it here [35] Capasitor (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went over discussions in archives and included in the History section some items based on material that have already features in Wiki articles in NK. All of them are just plain facts from easily verifiable sources. I mostly discussed early history of NK. Capasitor (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC) I will strongly object to calls to form consensus if that is based on frivolous objections or trivial disagreements. We do not need this kind of "mediation." My comments are meticulously documented and are based on facts that border on common knowledge. Capasitor (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The info about Armenian immigration to Karabakh has a source, it cannot be deleted. There are more sources on that. Also, the alternative version of the name of Karabakh is not serious and 99% of sources do not support it. Per WP:Weight, it cannot be given equal weight to the most prevalent etymology. And Armenians conquered the region in the 2nd century B.C. That's what the majority of sources, including Hewsen, say. Grandmaster (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According Hewsen's recent work, "Armenia: A Historical Atlas", p. 37, Artsakh was part of Orontid Armenia between the 4th and 2nd cc. See the Orontid map in Artsakh, which looks like that of Hewsen.--Vacio (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quote, please. He clearly says that no Armenians lived in the region before the 2nd century B.C. Why did you removed the quote from Hewsen? Grandmaster (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hewsen clearly says that Armenians took these lands in the 2nd century B.C.

Thus, it was only under Artashes, in the second century B. C., that the Armenians conquered Siwnik' and Caspiane and, obviously, the lands of Arc'ax and Utik', which lay between them. These lands, we are told, were taken from the Medes. Mnac'akanyan's notion that these lands were already Armenian and were re-conquered by the Armenians at this time thus rests on no evidence at all and indeed contradicts what little we do know of Armenian expansion to the east.

Robert H. Hewsen, "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians," in Thomas J. Samuelian, ed., Classical Armenian Culture: Influences and Creativity. Pennsylvania: Scholars Press, 1982.

So please do not distort the source and do not delete sourced info. Grandmaster (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And from the same source:

What do we know of the native population of these regions - Arc'ax and Utik - prior to the Armenian conquest? Unfortunately, not very much. Greek, Roman, and Armenian authors together provide us with the names of several peoples living there, however - Utians, in Otene, Mycians, Caspians, Gargarians, Sakasenians, Gelians, Sodians, Lupenians, Balas[ak]anians, Parsians and Parrasians - and these names are sufficient to tell us that, whatever their origin, they were certainly not Armenian. Moreover, although certain Iranian peoples must have settled here during the long period of Persian and Median rule, most of the natives were not even Indo-Europeans.

So, the Armenians conquered the region in the 2nd century B.C., and before the conquest the population of the region was not Armenian. Grandmaster (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, your last quote from Hewsen is out of context. There above he wrote:

The general consensus today is that the Armenians, as we know them, represent a fusion between these incoming tribes-conventionally called "Armens" -- and the diverse natives of the plateau who had previously formed a part of the Urartian federation. For this fusion to have taken place, however, the so-called "Armens" would have had to have spread across the plateau from west to east,

Remember that quotes out of context are against WP rules. I wrote in the article what Hewsen actually says. This issue was recently discussed in talk:Artsakh with little consensus. So why do you bring up it again in this article? It wasn't you who reverted all my edits with the demand to reach consensus first?--Vacio (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a neutral formula for designating the ancient peoples of Artsakh as being of "obscure origin" - that is what the majority of authors say directly or imply. About the Orontid kingdom: this map is part of Hewsen's Atlas published in 2001. Hewsen did say something about Artsakh becoming part of Armenia in the 2nd century BC but that was in 1982 - 19 years ago. Apparently, he changed his views as he studied the subject in more detail. Grandmaster: open the map, smell the coffee, see the borders and please put this issue to rest. Capasitor (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still expecting a quote from Hewsen about Orontids and the 4th century. Hewsen clearly says that Armenians did not live in NK before the 2nd century B.C. As for Armens, you should know where Urartu is located, and Hewsen describes the timeline of migration of Armenians. According to him (and other prominent scholars, such as Minorsky, Trever, etc) Armenians conquered NK in the 2nd century B.C., not the 4th. And Orontids are never ever mentioned in the quoted work. Why do you guys distort the sources? Grandmaster (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio, the Urartian federation was no longer in the 7th century BC. The period we are referring to is the 2nd century BC. In the 2nd century context, the word 'Armenian' could not possible refer or have any link whatsoever to those ancient migrants from Phrygia. By that time Armenia had been an established nation-state, and there was no ambuguity in what was meant by 'Armenian.' Even the Urartian language went extinct in the 6th century BC. There is no evidence that migrants from Phrygia kept coming in until that late. They had long assimilated the ancient Urartian tribes to form an ethnic group that is called Armenian. Besides, most of what is now Nagorno-Karabakh was not even controlled by Urartu, so those peoples could not make up the Armenian nation any earlier than the time of the conquest. Parishan (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artsakh was not a formal political entity within Caucasian Albania, therefore it is incorrect to say "Artsakh was a porvince of Armenia and Albana".

Under Albanian rule, Arc’ax, while often referred to, does not appear to have been a recognized political entity, and beginning with the ninth century, when our sources become more explicit, we find it composed of a number of small political units, for example, a Siwnid principality called Xac’ēn in the center and an Aranšahikid one called Miws Haband ‘the Other Haband’ (later Dizak) in the south.
Robert H. Hewsen, Armenia: A Historical Atlas. The University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 102.

I have corrected this point.--Vacio (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinamik, I have modified the introduction that you had suggested, making it arguably more comprehensive from historical and geographic perspectives. Next time please provide explanation for your actions on this page before or immediately after changes made in text. As to your suggestion about administrative divisions of Azerbaijan, I think it is un-appicable to Nagorno-Karabakh because these divisions have nothing to do with political reality. Thanks. Capasitor (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, at the very least, if you aren't a native speaker or have problems constructing grammatical sentences in English, ask someone who knows the language better to check over your edits before saving them. I'm not pointing the finger, just bare it in mind. - Francis Tyers · 13:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I worry about this in particular. --Brand спойт 13:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is quite surreal, but that is not the only example. - Francis Tyers · 19:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a direct quote that Karabakh was part of the Orontid state in the 4 c. BC. Hewsen and Donabedian converge on that. Also, Skythians were Indo-European tribes, therefore I mention "peoples of uncertain Indo-european and Caucasian origin."Capasitor (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not distort Hewsen. He clearly says that Armenians did not live there before the 2nd century B.C. Also, Donabedian is not a reliable source. Get some reliable third party source to support your position. I can refer to Azerbaijani authors to say something completely different. Grandmaster (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hewsen says 387 A.D.:

Let us take as a starting point the question of the ethnic composition of the population of Arc1ax and Utikl, the regions between the Arax and the Kur which were Armenian territory until 387 and which lie in Azerbaidzhan today.

Grandmaster (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donabedian is not a serious scholar. He repeats fringe theories of Mnatsakanian, which were criticized by Hewsen. His only argument to support the Orontid claim is the reference to Khorenatsi, and such approach is considered revisionist. This is what Hewsen wrote about that:

To attempt to demonstrate that these eastern territories were always Armenian by quoting Movses Xorenac'i, as Mnacakanyan does, is hazardous in the extreme. Whoever the enigmatic Xorenac'i may have been, whenever he may have lived, and however valuable his compilation of antiquities may be as the received tradition of the Armenian people, it has been amply demonstrated that his historical knowledge is highly defective even for the most recent periods with which he deals, and that as a source for early Armenian history his book must be used only with the greatest care. The same is true for the other texts which Mnacakanyan marshals to his cause; all are late and none of them can be used as sources for the extent of Armenian penetration to the east or the boundaries between Armenia and Albania prior to the time of Artashes, let alone the time of Alexander.

Grandmaster (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we remove Donabedian and stick to professional and respected scholars. Otherwise we will have to explain what Hewsen thinks of the references to Khorenatsi. Grandmaster (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Authors often argue with each other and change their point of views. Hewsen did not agree with Xorenaci or Mantsakanyan in 1982 but apparently now he does agree - see his map 19. Nothing extraordinary. Original ancient sources and primary sources cannot be excluded simply because someone disagrees with them. And they cannot be excluded because some nationalist WP editor does not like them. Capasitor (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about secondary sources like Donabedian, not primary so no need to call someone "nationalist". But even when resorting to primary sources an appropriate reference is highly recommended. --Brand спойт 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map cannot be used as a reference. I do not see Hewsen changing his views in any text. As for the primary sources, wiki rules require that we give preference to secondary sources. It does not meant that primary sources should not be used at all, but they are better used in combination with secondary sources, interpreting them. Donabedian is a not a top expert, plus he has an obvious bias in this issue. Grandmaster (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More cherry-picking? Whereas Hewsen(ian) is a "professional and respected scholar" on the Nagorno-Karabakh talk page, on the "Armenian-controlled territories" page, he is just another crummy "known Armenian nationalist"?

It should be noted that Hewsen's assertion that the region was only conquered by Artashes I has been challenged by numerous historians of Artsakh. Hewsen's thesis rests solely on the account presented by Strabo, who, however, states that Artashes carried out his conquests against the Medes and Iberians, not the Caucasian Albanians. Bagrat Ulubabyan, Karen Yuzbashyan, as well as the foremost scholar on Caucasian Albania, Aleksan Akopyan, reject Hewsen's thesis. At the very least, Hewsen's thesis should not be given some monopoly and we should note that the interpretation based on Strabo's passage is divided into two scholarly camps.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone other than nationalist Armenian scholars disagrees with Hewsen. Note, that Russian scholars Trever and Shnirelman and famous British historian Minorsky say exactly the same as Hewsen. So it is a general consensus among international scholars, that Armenians conquered the region of NK in the 2nd century B.C., and we should stick to the position of international scholars, and not the position of Armenian or Azerbaijani scholars, who are known to be engaged in propaganda wars. Grandmaster (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is not going to cut it. Those same scholars you deride as nationalists are the main sources for historians like Hewsen (Hewsen lists no less than 5 sources written by Bagrat Ulubabyan in his Historical Atlas alone). Disagreement among scholars doesn't mean their nationalists, I'm not surprised you have yet to make that distinction yet.

A propaganda war is like saying the churches or princes in Karabakh are Albanian or erasing the name "Armenia" from historical maps. That's why no one ever quotes whackjobs like I. Aliyev, Bunyadov or Mamedova. What Armenian historians here are arguing is that Strabo never makes any mention of Albanians losing lands to the Armenians, much less Artsakh and Utik, a perfectly legitimate interpretation of an ancient text. An up-to-date source is required to back up your claim that there is a "consensus", and not just simply naming a few names and saying that a consensus exists, which is OR. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I.Aliyev is a very respected scholar, encyclopedia Iranica refers to him in a number of articles, including the one about Caucasian Albania. So if you guys are going to refer to the likes of Donabedian or Ulubabian, I will be referring to Igrar Aliyev. I asked you before, and I'm asking you again. Who else other than Armenian scholars claim that the original population of Artsakh was Armenian? So far I haven't seen you citing any decent third party source to support your claims. If what Armenian authors saying is right, someone outside of Armenia and Armenian diaspora must agree with them. Btw, Hewsen is not of such a good opinion of Ulubabian. Ulubabian made stupid claims, for instance he claimed that Udis were Armenians. In any case, the rules require using third party sources, and not partisan ones. So we should stick to the rules. Grandmaster (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so respected that he repeats the stupid claims made by his mentors that Armenians came and stole Azerbaijan's identity :lol: We all know that comparing Armenian historians to Azeri historians is akin to apples and oranges (you can pick whichever fruit you want). Of course some historians, Armenians included, might say things which don't conform with others' views but Azeri historians are far worse in going so far as falsifying material and erasing the name "Armenia" from maps and historical sources, which is why no 3rd party historian repeats, much less uses, their idiotic claims about the cultural cleansing of Caucasian Albania of Armenia. Armenian historians began challenging the Strabo assertion in the 1970s and 1980s, after the sources that you keep quoting were published.

Ulubabyan's claim about the Udis (which I have yet to see in any of his works) is not too controversial. If you honestly believe that proposing a new theory on the identity of a people (where little to no sources exist) from 2,000 years ago is a far worse crime than saying that Armenians entered the region in 1828 then I would say you've been believing too much of your country's propaganda. Unsurprising that you still haven't understood this concept after all these years.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulubabayan or Aliyev - the and many others generically come from the Soviet and post-Soviet tradition of nationalist scholarship. But there are shades of gray here. Some of them are better scholars. The problem with Azerbaijan is that ALL Azerbaijani scholars come from the pants of the psychotic pseudo-academic and hate writer Ziya Buniyatov who as vice-chairman of the Az. academy of sciences created Az. historical science as we know it - from scratch. Armenians have a few rotten apples too but because Armenians are indeed an ancient people they did not need to resort to extensive fabrications. Plus, there was no a super-historian like Buniyatov in Armenia who would organize the entire academy for mass-producing pseudo-historical idiocies on massive scale. Ulubabayan is a benign example of a scholar who had a potential to become a nationalist academic but never did. Plus, he is endorsed by third-party non-Armenian scholars of substantial caliber like Hewsen (an ethnic Turk) and Donabedian (a French with Spanish roots). Igrar Aliyev, on the other hand, was ridiculed and exposed as a vile nationalist and fabricator. Capasitor (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long standing agreement to avoid the use of partisan sources. This means both Azerbaijani and Armenian sources and authors are excluded. There is a very good reason for this. The reason is that if we use these sources there becomes very little way to quality control the article, and it will degenerate (yes further!) into a mess of extremist opinions on both sides. I'm sure there are enough crack-pot authors on both sides to fill a whole encyclopaedia. But that isn't going to be Wikipedia. - Francis Tyers · 20:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Patrick Donabedian is a French scholar and French diplomat, who was born and presently lives in France. He has a solid academic background, and he relies on primary sources. I am not aware of anyone in Western academia who ever questioned his academic credentials. All participants: please avoid using racial or ethnic suspicions and mis-characterizations to exclude reputable and non-partisan authors as sources to push POV. For example, I heard that Robert Hewsen mother is an Azerbaijani Turk from Iran (hence, the rumor says, his interest in the region and his criticism of some authors from Armenia). There were voices suggesting he is "unreliable." But this is just ridiculous. Thanks. Capasitor (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment here: He was not born in France, he was born in Tunisia, then a French protectorate. Do you have any sources that state that Hewson's mother is Azerbaijani or that he has any ethnic affiliation? - Francis Tyers · 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I agree with mediator: sources by authors of undisputed allegiance should be used, this doesn't imply racism or something. I'm about to roll back the version. Apart from partisan references (Chorbajian, Donabedian, Samuelian etc.): first, weasel words like "according to one interpretation" are discouraged. Second, it's not like "part of what Western authors call Caucasian Albania" - Caucasian Albania is a common name among historians. And third, "Strabo attests that by the second or first century B.C. the entire population of Greater Armenia — Artsakh and Utik included — spoke Armenian" should be either challenged and removed or verified by citation - the article is sensitive. --Brand спойт 20:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tyers's comment is both stupid and offensive. It is racist to imply that there is something suspect in all Armenian and all Azerbaijani sources. If he thinks expressing his opinions are advancing the situation, he is deluded. The quality of the source material is what is important, not the ethnicity of who wrote it. It is very disturbing to think that an administrator believes it acceptable to exclude what could be a credible source written by a highly-regarded academic for no other reason than that academic's ethnic origins. Meowy 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tyers is right theoretically. The likes of Ziya Buniatov (Azerbaijan) or Souren Aivazian (Armenia) should be excluded from this edits. However, Meowy, Mr. Donabedian is not a fit into this pattern. Because of

the reasons I mentioned. I have to repeat: Patrick Donabedian is a French scholar and French diplomat, who was born and presently lives in France. He has a solid academic background, and he relies on primary sources. I am not aware of anyone in Western academia who ever questioned his academic credentials or publications. He is perfectly fitting as a neutral source. Capasitor (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He said it quite plainly - "Azerbaijani and Armenian sources and authors are excluded". Nothing about where they happen to live or work. A source should be excluded because its content is unsuitable to be used as a source on Wikipedia, not because the source's author is of an "unsuitable" ethnic origin or is living in an "unsuitable" part of the world. Meowy 03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I urge both Capasitor and Meowy to stop spouting off about racism and related terms. And please don't exaggerate, there is no disturbance concerning Francis. The policy of consensus is quite clear, no need of gaming the mediator's words, Meowy. --Brand спойт 06:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donabedian is a French Armenian. I can also cite some Russian Azeri historian, claiming that he has no bias and is a thrid party. But most importantly, Danabedian has a very poor knowledge of ancient history, he repeats revisionist ideas of such scholars as Mnatsakhanian, who were criticized by both Western and Russian scholars. See for example his claims that Armenians were present in the region in the 4th century B.C., repeating word by word the ideas of Mnatsakhanian, which were refuted by Hewsen as nationalistically motivated. Indeed, I do not see any respected expert on Albania saying the same thing. Compare his views with Camilla Trever, for example, another prominent expert on Albania. I think when it comes to the ancient history, we should refer to the top international experts, whose expertise and reliability cannot be questioned. Donabedian is not such an author. Grandmaster (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Iranica maybe also a revisionist source, Grandmaster, he? There is sayed that the Armenians settled in the Karabakh region in the 7th c. BC [36].

Bordering on Media, Cappadocia, and Assyria, the Armenians settled, according to classical sources (beginning with Herodotus and Xenophon), in the east Anatolian mountains along the Araxes (Aras) river and around Mt. Ararat, Lake Van, Lake Rezaiyeh, and the upper courses of the Euphrates and Tigris; they extended as far north as the Cyrus (Kur) river. To that region they seem to have immigrated only about the 7th century B.C. Afterwards Armenia was part of the Median and Persian empires (see, e.g., Xenophon, Cyropaedia 2.4.22).

I recall that the question about the ancient population of Artsakh was a very long time and very hotly disputed in the article Artsakh without consensus. I thought we should not make statements in this "very sensetive" whithout cnesensus. Apparently some users think they may do that.

No consensus, then we better shouldn't bring that point here, the main article about Nagorno-Karabakh here. Remember that this article should contain only the basic facts about the history of Nagorno-Karabakh. Thus statements which rather concern the history of Caucasian Albania, Lower Karabakh, Karabakh Khanate etc., as far as they are not directly related to the topic, must be removed unconditionally.

I strongly oppose the policy of Grandmaster making qoutes from Hewsen's debate with Mnacakanian out of it context, which is against WP:NOR rules.

I added in the article what R. Hewsen says essentially: the people of Artsakh were a fusion of diverse native tribes and the incoming tribes of the Armens. I want to know why it is removed without further discussion, and also the mention that Amenians settled in the region in the 7th c. BC from Iranica.

Also, if there are two works of Hewsen, with two contradictory statments, I think we should give priority to the last one. If there are users who dont agree with this, lets call mediators for help or see what WP rules say on this. As far as there is no consensus the "Disputed" tag remains in the relevant section. --Vacio (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you chose to keep the quote from R. Hewsen, neglecting the opinion of other users, I will directly quote "Atlas", where he says, that even if the Armenian should have lived in Artsakh "only" 1.000 years, that would be enough for them to be free from Azeri rule. --Vacio (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hewsen does not say that about the people of Artsakh. He says that about Armenians in general, and that has nothing to do with Artsakh. Please refrain from making any personal interpretation of the source. Here's the large quote from Hewsen with the full context:

Let us take as a starting point the question of the ethnic composition of the population of Arc'ax and Utik, the regions between the Arax and the Kur which were Armenian territory until 387 and which lie in Azerbaidzhan today. To Mnac'akanyan, this territory was originally Armenian; to Bunjatov, it was Albanian. What do we actually know of its history? Our earliest information is to be found in the History of Herodotus. According to this author, the proto-Armenians were migrants who entered the Armenian plateau from Phrygia in the West, i. e. from Anatolia. The general consensus today is that the Armenians, as we know them, represent a fusion between these incoming tribes-conventionally called "Armens" -- and the diverse natives of the plateau who had previously formed a part of the Urartian federation. For this fusion to have taken place, however, the so-called "Armens" would have had to have spread across the plateau from west to east and, though we know little of the circumstances attending this migration, we do catch glimpses of it taking place. Herodotus, writing ca. 450 B. C., makes it clear that in his time the Armenians inhabited only the western third of the plateau, and that to the east of them lay pre-Armenian peoples-Saspeirians and Alarodians, - who had previously formed components of the Urartian state. Xenophon, who travelled through Armenia in the winter of 401-400 B. C., confirms the data of Herodotus, for when he entered the territory of the Phasians and Taokhians, in what was later called north-central Armenia, it is clear that he had left the Armenians behind.

After the fall of the Persian Empire to Alexander in 330 B. C., the Orontids, who had been the Achaemenian governors of Armenia, were allowed to keep control of their province, but, by the time they assumed the royal title in ca. 190 B. C., we find them residing at Armavir in the Ararat plain. Obviously, the fall of the Persian Empire had provided an opportunity for continued Armenian expansion towards the east, so that in the century between Xenophon's journey and the establishment of the Orontid monarchy, the Armenians, under Orontid leadership, must have secured control over the central Armenian plateau.

From Strabo we learn that under King Artashes (188-ca. 161 B. C.), the Armenians expanded in all directions at the expense of their neighbors. Specifically we are told that at this time they acquired Caspiane and 'Phaunitis', the second of which can only be a copyist's error for Saunitis, i. e. the principality of Siwnik '.Thus, it was only under Artashes, in the second century B. C., that the Armenians conquered Siwnik' and Caspiane and, obviously, the lands of Arc'ax and Utik', which lay between them. These lands, we are told, were taken from the Medes. Mnac'akanyan's notion that these lands were already Armenian and were re-conquered by the Armenians at this time thus rests on no evidence at all and indeed contradicts what little we do know of Armenian expansion to the east. Since these eastern regions had formed part of the Persian province of Media before the time of Alexander, it seems likely that if they were seized by the Armenians from the Medes a century or so later, then they had probably remained a part of Media throughout that time. To attempt to demonstrate that these eastern territories were always Armenian by quoting Movses Xorenac'i, as Mnac'akanyan does, is hazardous in the extreme. Whoever the enigmatic Xorenac'i may have been, whenever he may have lived, and however valuable his compilation of antiquities may be as the received tradition of the Armenian people, it has been amply demonstrated that his historical knowledge is highly defective even for the most recent periods with which he deals, and that as a source for early Armenian history his book must be used only with the greatest care. The same is true for the other texts which Mnac'akanyan marshals to his cause; all are late and none of them can be used as sources for the extent of Armenian penetration to the east or the boundaries between Armenia and Albania prior to the time of Artashes, let alone the time of Alexander. As for the Armenian origin of the House of Siwnik' asserted by Movses, this is highly dubious, and we have evidence of Siwnian separateness and ethnic particularlism as late as the sixth century A.D.

What do we know of the native population of these regions - Arc'ax and Utik - prior to the Armenian conquest? Unfortunately, not very much. Greek, Roman, and Armenian authors together provide us with the names of several peoples living there, however - Utians, in Otene, Mycians, Caspians, Gargarians, Sakasenians, Gelians, Sodians, Lupenians, Balas[ak]anians, Parsians and Parrasians - and these names are sufficient to tell us that, whatever their origin, they were certainly not Armenian. Moreover, although certain Iranian peoples must have settled here during the long period of Persian and Median rule, most of the natives were not even Indo-Europeans.

Robert H. Hewsen, "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians," in Thomas J. Samuelian, ed., Classical Armenian Culture: Influences and Creativity. Pennsylvania: Scholars Press, 1982.

As one can see, Hewsen never ever says that people of Artsakh were a fusion of Urartians with Armenians, as Vacio claims. He says that about Armenians in general, and makes perfectly clear that the original population of Artsakh was of non-Armenian and mostly non-Indo-European origin. Urartians did not live in Artsakh. So there's no point in distorting the original source. As for Iranica, the article is written by 2 different scholars. The same article also says:

Armina under Darius and Xerxes had much narrower boundaries than the future Armenia of the Artaxiads and the Arsacids. The “Armenians” with the inhabitants of Paktyikē (?) and other peoples of the northwest formed the 13th satrapy, whose tribute was fixed at 400 talents (Herodotus 3.93). The Armenians in the strict sense must then have lived in areas between Cappadocia, the Tigris, the Euphrates, and the lake of Van.

Now how could Armenians immigrate in the 7th century B.C. to the region near Kura, if in the 5th century B.C. they lived "between Cappadocia, the Tigris, the Euphrates, and the lake of Van". Impossible. Note that the second article is written by an expert on Albania, who wrote the article about Albania in the same encyclopedia. Therefore the opinion of M. L. Chaumont is more specialist, when it comes to Albania. In any case, it is impossible to say that Iranica supports your position, when it has 2 different statements within the same article. Grandmaster (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capasitor, please stop removing sourced info, like you did here: [37] This is not the first time when you simply delete information that you do not like. Grandmaster (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in this exchange, undo is not a method or argument. спойт is edit-warring. Do not remove references and sources. As a conciliatory measure, I have to restore to the last version of Grandmaster. Capasitor (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Francis mentioned, "please do not use the "undo" feature for undoing good faith additions" Capasitor (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Additionally, Strabo's citation is well-known one. It is available from dozens of sources. But I find strange is that Francis, Grandmaster and Brandmeister were editing this article nearly simultaneously. It looks like they are someone's socks. Capasitor (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing people of sockpuppetry is one of the worst things you can do. I really suggest you retract that, or the well will be irreparably poisoned, if not between you and them, then within you yourself. You'll look at every edit with suspicion. It's an empty, worthless accusation to make unless you are willing to immediately go to WP:RFCU and throw out the evidence; I assure you, they will reject your claim without even running a check. Please assume good faith; without it, we are lost. --Golbez (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I stay corrected. However, please deal with blind "bad faith" reverts in a timely fashion too. This is something that really warrants more of such tone of yours. Also, please deal with the issue of questioning the suitability of reputable Western academics on the basis of unfounded ethnic bias and racist prejudices of the likes of "Grandmaster" and "спойт". Meanwhile, as a token of cooperative predisposition, I will take care of some of their concerns in the text. Capasitor (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dealing with anything at the moment. My sanity requires I not spend too much time worrying about these articles; I also need to find out just what the status of the AA2 arbitration is, as apparently some of the provisions may have expired. And I don't feel like protecting the article again at the moment. --Golbez (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to concerns about Strabo (although those who practice vandalism do not deserve that), I am quoting the largely anti-Armenian author S.Cornell in his "Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, p. 64." The quote is easily available online. Capasitor (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misuse the words "vandalism" and "bad faith". Except obvious vandalism (to which Capasitor's contribs aren't related), I don't blindly use the undo option, leaving the edit summary blank. Opposing racism, I have already wrote that consensus doesn't assume it. Consequently, regarding Caucasian Albania I don't reject Western academics on alleged prejudiced basis - if you want I'll give a thorough evidence that this term is common not merely among Western scholars. Now the sources were reasonably questioned once again, but seems like you are running away from consensus. And when citing Strabo, a direct quote from his own work instead is appreciated. --Brand спойт 06:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to repeat about Patrick Donabedian: 1. He is a French scholar and French diplomat, who was born and presently lives in France. 2. He is not a "French Armenian." He is of Spanish origin, I heard - the Spanish root "Don" in his last name shows that. Besides "French Armenian" is a meaningless concept. There are people who are Armenians (those who were born in Armenia or who have Armenian citizenship) but he apparently is not one of them. 3. Even if he was a "French Armenian" there is no way of "proving" it, and it does not matter because you cannot exclude authors based on suspected ethnic roots of his remote ancestors. 4. He has a solid academic background, and he relies on primary sources. I am not aware of anyone in Western academia who ever questioned his academic credentials. He published several excellent books. If he supports Mnatsakanyan (no evidence) or someone else it is because these people apparently deserve endorsement and support. 5. Please avoid using racial or ethnic suspicions and mis-characterizations to exclude reputable and non-partisan authors as sources to push POV. 6. If we start excluding people because of who we suspect they are, we may start questioning people on the basis of who they are not. 7. I am repeating this for the last time. 8. Grandmaster said - "But most importantly, Danabedian has a very poor knowledge of ancient history, he repeats revisionist ideas of such scholars as Mnatsakhanian, who were criticized by both Western and Russian scholars." This comes from your own wrong perception of reality. This is OR and POV. You are totally wrong. And there is no one in the academic community of prominence who shares this view. Capasitor (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also deleting the word "baylarbeyly" ridiculously written in modern Latin-based Azerbaijani! while pointing to a 16th century phenomenon! Find me an Arabic-based Persian or Turkic contemporaneous equivalent if you want an original transliteration. Capasitor (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This book is written by the Armenian diaspora, and is far from neutrality and objectivity. Even Armenian authors admit that:

See a book written by Diaspora Armenians, where this point of view is clearly presented: Levon Chorbajian, Patrick. Donabedian and Claude Mutafian. The Caucasian Knot. – Zed Books. London and New Jersey, 1994. [38]

The fact that the authors are from Diaspora and not Armenia does not make it neutral and third party. Grandmaster (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a review about that book:

Levon Chorbajian, Patrick Donabedian and Claude Mutafian The Caucasian Knot: the history and geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabakh Zed Books, GBP 14.95: This is certainly not the most balanced or objective of books. The back cover blurb informs us that it "helps us to understand why the Armenians feel so strongly that Artsakh is theirs and is worth dying for". At least the publishers are up-front about it. [39]

Why such a book should be used as source? Grandmaster (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You picked some weird entries on the Internet made by unknown people. I do not exclude you put these entries on the Internet yourself. Thanks. No more pranks please. Capasitor (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking, right? How could I put Mark Grigorian on the Internet? Or how can I be the publisher of the Peace News magazine? Please find reliable third party sources to support your position. I'm not referring to Azerbaijani sources either, because the rules require us to use third party sources. See WP:RS: Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. So please use third party sources, as per rules. Grandmaster (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capasitor, have you ever read about beylerbey? Turkish language itself uses "beylerbey" ("Onomasticon Turcicum: Turkic Personal Names", Nationmaster Encyclopedia, etc.) and this is the word applied notably in "Armenian Cultural Monuments in the Region of Karabakh" by Samvel Karapetyan. Azerbaijani in turn uses "bəylərbəyi" and so on and so on, hence the beylerbeydoms were formed. --Brand спойт 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brand, thank you for your comments. I am not against the use of the word beylerbey, on the contrary. I am against using the contemporary Latin Azerbaijani transliteration of the word because it is not historical to do so. Your comment shows that either your English is simply too poor and you do not understand what you and others are saying, or your IQ level is rather low (which is typical for many individuals of Azerbaijani ethnic background), which affects both your English and your ability to engage in subject-relevant communication. Overall, I seriously doubt your fit to use Wikipedia as editor. I will no longer respond to your pranks. Please consider "editing" other articles or leave WP. Capasitor (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]