Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Human Rights Section

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)

Geographical map instead of political

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)

Intro changes

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)

Don't think this is the right intro text

"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)

Italics in Armenian

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)

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

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

Recognition by Turkey

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Recent edits re: July 5, 1921 meeting of the Cucasian Bureau (Kavburo)

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

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)

Some sources added

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

The refugee question

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)

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)

Recent changes

"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)

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)

Property

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)

Step number four: ??????

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Fakhlul

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)

The name "Nagorno-Karabakh" should be changed to "Nagorny Karabakh"

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Dubious map by dubious Andersen

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

International Law?

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)

Some edits by Grandmaster

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Vandalism by Grandmaster

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Province of Albania

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)

Dinamik

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)

English

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)

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

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

Orontids and Karabakh

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hewsen is not an ethnic Turk, he has Armenian ancestry. Donabedian is Armenian. As for Aliyev, if he is so bad, why do international scholars refer to him? Igrar Aliyev never said anything about identity, and the article about him is written by Ali Doostazde, not me. He says that Iranians respect this scholar very much. Grandmaster (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't see any contradiction between the two excerpts of Iranica, the first says where Armenians immigrated in the 7th c. BC (it does not say how many they exactly were there), the second says where the most Armenians lived, where the Armenian population was concentrated at the time. That this article is written by two autors is noting specials and there is no reason to negelct it. You wrote in the Article that no Armenians lived in Artsakh in ancient times, I have a source which that they lived and for the second time: I want to know why it is removed? --Vacio (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the source of Hewsen, I think he is clear in saying that the Armenian people represent a fusion between diverse natives of the Armenian plateau and the incoming tribe of Armens. If you think this is a "personal interpretation", I think it would be good to ask help from third-party users and/or mediators. In any case, I think you should pay some time to reach a consensus here, before quoting Hewsen out of its context. This excerpt was some months ago removed from here because it was disputed in talk:Artsakh and unfortunatly we did nor reach a consensus. Even if no Armenians had lived in Artsakh in ancient times, the current leading of the Early historiy would not be acceptable. No one would begin the History of England with the excerpt "the ancient people of Englangd were not English". Also imagine yourself if I and other users would start literally quoting any excerpt from Hewsen, which we think is very important. --Vacio (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I also concern why the mention about Orontid Armania, that it included Nagorno-Karabakh, was removed. It was based on a map of Hewsen from his recent work "Armenia: A Historical Atlas".--Vacio (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And here is the place where Hewsen says that the Armenians were merged with those native poeples of Artsakh and Utik:

These peoples, all conquered by the Armenians in the second century B. C., must have been subjected to a great deal of Armenicization over the next few centuries, but most of them were still being cited as distinct ethnic entities when these regions passed to Albania in 387, some 500 years later.

Robert H. Hewsen. "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians," in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chicago: 1982, 27-40.

--Vacio (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by спойт

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Repeated frivolous reverts by спойт

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Me? Joking? "Peace News is written and produced by and for activists, campaigners and radical academics from all over the world" - says the front page. This is not an academic publication but a group of fringe radicals with hippie psyche who put leftist crap on the net because no one takes them seriously. Mark Grigorian? who is that dude? Is he a Western-published scholar? Capasitor (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Grigorian is a Western-published Armenian author. Whether good or bad, he admits that the book is written by Diaspora Armenians. And academics could be radical, but they have no anti-Armenian bias. Therefore their opinion about the book is notable. Here's another opinion about that book:

The Caucasian Knot is also about the Caucasus but it is devoted to the ongoing dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabagh region. It is translated from the French Artsakh: Histoire du Karabagh (1991). There is a Preface by G. Chaliand, and an Introduction to the English Language Edition by Levon Chorbajian. It is comforting to come across academics like Chorbajian who seem to know the answers to all the problems of the area. The simplistic analysis of Bolshevik politics and of the essence of Western politics is amazing. His final sentence to the Introduction sets the tone for the rest of the book: 'While too many journalists and foreign policy specialists in the West continue to be guided by Russocentrism ... ' (p. 42).

The Introduction (from the French original) by P. Donabedian and C. Mutafian is along the same lines as Chorbajian's Introduction, with sweeping generalisations and a romanticised and censored account of affairs. Sections titled 'The History of Karabagh from Antiquity to the Twentieth Century', 'Karabagh in the Twentieth Century' and 'Conclusion' follow the two Introductions. What could have been an excellent book unfortunately reads like a propaganda document distributed by the Armenian state. Among the more amusing expressions in the book is the name 'Tatar' which the authors consistently use to refer to the Azerbaijanis. This is not only historically wrong but has also traditionally upset the Azerbaijanis!

Even the most accommodating reader will start asking questions about the validity of some of the claims made in the book. I am sure I have come across similar volumes written by Azerbaijani nationalists. The book contributes very little to the sad state of affairs in Nagorno-Karabagh (or the 'Black Garden', as Goldenberg calls it from its translation). The contents and the style of this book contrast sharply with Goldenberg's account of the conflict in her work. Maybe the only thing to say is that 'both sides are trapped within the logic of war' (Goldenberg, p. 173).

University of Manchester

Cigdem Balim-Harding

Grandmaster (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed a reference to a map as support of a claim about the 4th century conquest. Maps cannot be used as references, and their interpretation is OR. Please provide quotes from text sources to support your claims. I quoted the written source by the same author, where he says a completely different thing. Grandmaster (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

1a. On Donabedian: We already discussed that journalists like Grigorian cannot provide a balanced view on the validity of historical sources - they are not qualified. Donabedian is not a "Diasporan Armenian" but even if he is he cannot be disqualified base on alleged racial or ethnic origin. WP forbids that. He is a well-published and well-quoted Western scholar. If someone provides a reference that Donabedian is a member of an Armenian Diasporan political party or organization - then he is qualified to be called "Diasporan Armenian." He is just a man with a last name ending on "-ian." I know Irish people whose names end in "-ian" (Killian and Fenian) - they are not "Diasporan Armenians."

1b. On Suzanne Goldberg. This scholar belongs to the category of early confused and ignorant academics who had not have a chance by the mid-1990s to learn enough about Karabakh to comment on the works of other more advanced academics. Most of them, Goldberg including, stopped their ignorant allegations later on. The passage below shows that Goldberg does not know what she is talking about: "Among the more amusing expressions in the book is the name 'Tatar' which the authors consistently use to refer to the Azerbaijanis. This is not only historically wrong but has also traditionally upset the Azerbaijanis!" Not only is this an emotional passage, she is wrong - Azerbaijanis were indeed routinely called "Tatars." Goldberg was ignorant, and therefore her comment on Donabedian does not count. Another such academic was Audrey Alstadt. She wrote the book "Azerbaijani Turks" filled with laughable nonsense that was ridiculed by experts; she had to exit academia in shame.

2. On the map. Grandmaster- be consistent. Either you remove your map from Caucasian Albania article, which reflects OR, or you leave both the reference to Hewsen's and your map in Caucasian Albania. Now you apply double standards. Map cannot be used as reference? I found nothing like that in WP.

3. On St. Elisha establishing "Caucasian Albanian Church." Kaghankatvatsi says that Elisha founded a physical church (chapel) at Gis. Nothing about The Caucasian Albanian Church. Read the text - it is online. The entire article on aucasian Albanian Church is OR.

4. On Schnirelman. Schnirelman is a good scholar but good scholars occasionally make silly claims if they try to fabricate a "balanced" argument in order to appear unbiased. After criticizing Azerbaijani nationalists Schnirelman apparently felt obliged to say something critical about Armenians too. His argument about Strabo sounds silly (of course if he indeed said that) because by saying that he raises doubt and disqualifies ALL ancient historians from Herodotus onward. If you want to leave this quote by Schnirelman, go to the article on Caucasian Albania and remove Strabo's references about the 26 ancient tribes of Caucasian Albania that Strabo alleged existed. He was not there and he did not study them, did he! Capasitor (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays.

1a: to what was previously mentioned above, I'll add that Donabedian is an art historian. The proof that Donabedian is of Armenian diaspora was already given, while your negation of that remains baseless. And it's already a time to understand that the sources are not challenged on "alleged racial or ethnic origin" (note that Kalankatuatsi, Shirakatsi etc. remain), don't misinterpret the existing policy.

2. The caption for the map is a self-reference which has been discussed extensively so it is to be rewritten.

4. "Good scholars occasionally make silly claims if they try to fabricate a "balanced" argument in order to appear unbiased". Errare humanum est, but in this case it is your own claim to justify a POVish position so far - how can you know when they try to fabricate a "balanced" argument in order to appear unbiased"? This comes close to OR. "After criticizing Azerbaijani nationalists Schnirelman apparently felt obliged to say something critical about Armenians too". Of course, Armenians are white and Azerbaijanis black once again. But this was done objectively, to avoid unilateralism.

Lastly, please either use a sandbox or edit in something like Notepad first before cramming the page history as it makes difficult to revert the odd changes.

--Brandспойт 10:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Blind reverts are a gross violation of WP rules.Capasitor (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

They are not 'blind'. To clarify what has happened: first you have fell back into the old ways, then started making good-faith edits like [40], [41] and [42]. As a result, it became roughly impossible to restore the consensus, except manually because of intermediate versions. Btw, your approach to Strabo in particular is quite eclectic: he is used to support one of your points, but when it gets to Albania, you discover that "he was not there and he did not study" Albanian tribes, and that Schnirelman's argument about Strabo "sounds silly". I'm reverting to the last stable version, as was done before. --Brandспойт 20:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said before the user Brand is not fit to participate in this discussion and edit this article. He moves through WP, enacting blind reverts, and peppering WP pages with nonsensical mumbojumbo. The last article he disfigured this way was House of Hasan-Jalalyan. It seems that no one takes him seriously anymore. Here he again - simply failed to understand what I mean in my notes on Strabo. Also, whether or not from "Armenian Diaspora" (I do not know what it means to be from "Armenian Diaspora") - Donabedian is a good, unbiased, well-respected and well-quoted scholar. He indeed doubles as an art historian, which is a strength and not a weakness. Capasitor (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this discussion:

{{:Curious why the house is purely Armenian when the last ruler was called Allahverdi II Hasan-Jalalyan, not to mention why the entire dynasty is Hasan. May be Hasan is original Armenian name as well. Seems like related edits evaporated once again. --Brandспойт 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Next time before disrupting a good article with ridiculous tags and posting inflammatory and ultra nationalist language in the talk page do try and read the article first. But i'll help you with that task, look up note 21 for the names.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just read this post of mine, and come back if you need more proofs. --Vacio (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)}}

Capasitor, this is the talk page for NK, not the House. If you want me to address, invite to the talk page of Hasan-Jalalyan. No need of elongating this thread. --Brandспойт 11:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Donabedian vindicated

Cigdem Balim-Harding, who criticized Donabedian in the quote by Grandmaster, is a Turksish-born-and-raised-and-educated scholar and an ignorant one (I stay corrected, it was not Suzanne Goldberg). Here is a real Turkish Diaspora. If Donabedian was born in Armenia, raised in Armenia, educated in Armenia, or belonged to Armenian organizations or parties, or was accused of nationalist bias by real scholars and not by Cigdem Balim-Harding - then we could doubt Donabedian as a source. I was curious indeed who really criticized him and I thought it was a reputable academic like Goldberg - but it turns out Donabedian was criticized by an obscure Turkish nationalist like Cigdem Balim-Harding. Now everything is clear. Donabedian is vindicated. Look at this Cigdem Balim here, what a ... : [43] Capasitor (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We are circling round. The point is not the "balanced view on the validity of historical sources". Grigorian, as well as University of Michigan just clarify who wrote the book - the authors of the same allegiance as his. You should distinguish Irish last names like Killian from Armenian ones like Donabedian, Karapetian and Varzhapetian. --Brandспойт 14:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cigdem Balim-Harding is as good as Donabedian. If we you can refer to Donabedian, why the opinion of Cigdem Balim-Harding should not matter? Grandmaster 05:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You are kidding, I hope. You cannot seriously compare an unknown and very minor jobbing academic with someone who has written numerous books and articles, whose name is known worldwide in this field, and who has an academic reputation to maintain. That's not to say that a source disagreeing with Donabedian should be discarded - only that proper weight should be given (remember the issue involves an editor, Brand, who seems to be wanting material written by Donabedian excluded as a source). Meowy 19:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You pretend that you have not read my paragraph/explantion above. This is trolling [44]. By her birth and education, Cigdem Balim-Harding is a product of the Turkish nationalist state where people get killed and jailed by the government after saying anything unorthodox about Turkey indigenous ethnic minorities. By his birth, education, native language and career, Donabedian is a product of Western academia - as unbiased and third-party as it gets. Capasitor (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

From my part I'll highlight that in the link provided (Michigan University) Donabedian and co-authors are listed under 'Armenian Research Center'. Clearly and sharply. --Brandспойт 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Brand's fit to edit WP

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)

Blocked for a racial insult. --Golbez (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Name

Is it possible to get a quote from Hewsen suggesting the possible Armenian origin of the word Karabakh? The other two sources should be left out. There is no chance a tourist guide printed in California and a paper on Armenian architecture co-authored by someone named Manoukian can outweigh the dominant scholarly opinion on the origin of this toponym. Parishan (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the quote

It is just possible that Ulubabyan may be correct that the term Karabagh (Arm. Łarabał) is not to be understood as Turkish kara bağ 'black garden' but as Turko-Armenian Łara Bałk' 'Greater Balk". Whatever the case, the fact remains that the kingdom of Arc'ax-Xac'en was the last of the medieval eastern Armenian kingdoms and principalities to survive, and, although its rulers lost the royal title after the execution of Hasan-Jalal-Dawla by the llkhanid Arghun in 1261, Xac'en continued to exist as a principality, and ultimately as several "melikdoms" until the com­ing of the Russians in 1805-1827.

Atlas, p.119

Maybe the next time you should wait a little on the reaction of other users, as you don't have any other serious arguments against the second etymology. I understand that you consider a tourist guid as a non reliable source, but the same you can't say about R. Hewsen, do you? --Vacio (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So this is the theory of Ulubabyan, and Hewsen does not say that it is true, just that it is "possible that Ulubabyan may be correct" that "Karabakh" means not black garden, but black Bagkh (name of some kingdom). This is a theory, not supported by most of the authors, even Hewsen himself. He just thinks that it could be possible. According to WP:WEIGHT, the minority views should not be given equal weight with the generally accepted views. Btw, could you please quote from Hewsen the paragraph before the line about Ulubabyan? It seems that he says there something about the traditional etymology. Grandmaster (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To me it is still not clear how the word kara (black) can be translated from Turkic languages as "greater". It is just a name for a color. Grandmaster (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Kara means in Turkish also "large", you can find that in any Turkish dictionary. The full text is this:

The Kingdom of K'tis-Balk' (the "Other" Haband)

The house of Aransahik—literally 'kings of Aran (Albania)'—was the first known rul­ing house of Caucasian Albania and may have been the one that had founded the Al­banian federation in the first or second century B.C. Replaced by a branch of the the Arsacids of Parthla sometime in the mid-first century A.D., the Aransahikids did not disappear but seem to have survived as the princes of Utik' until the Bagratids of Greater Armenia annexed that principality In 922. Thereupon, the house removed to the mountain valleys in the south of Arc'ax, that is, in the south of the later Karabagh, a territory which they may already have owned. Their new principality, located In the Arc'axian district of the "Other" Haband (so called to distinguish it from the Haband in Siwnik' that adjoined it on the west), was also known as K't'is, after its chief fortress, and, still later, as Dizak. Here were also located the town of C'ri and the great monastery of Amaras. A kingdom by 997, after its acquisition of the kingdom of Siw-nik-Batk' in 1071 it came to be known as the kingdom of Balk', keeping this name even after it lost Siwnik'-Balk' to the Turks in 1166. For some reason, the Turks allowed the eastern half of this joint kingdom to survive, and we hear of its rulers as kings of Balk' for almost another century after Balk' was lost to them. Close ties bound this kingdom of Balk' to its northern neighbor, Xac'en. King Gregory VI of Balk' married his daugh­ter Catherine [Kata, short for Katranide) to Hasan the Great, prince of Xac'en, and, when Hasan's grandson, Hasan ll-Jalal-Dawla (c. 1214-1266), married the grand­daughter of the last king of Balk', the two states were merged into one, Hasan-Jalal assuming the title "king of Arc'ax and Balk'" and subsuming into this title all the ear­lier Siwnid, Afansahikid, and Mihranid claims. It is just possible that Ulubabyan may be correct that the term Karabagh (Arm. Łarabał) is not to be understood as Turkish kara bağ 'black garden' but as Turko-Armenian Łara Bałk' 'Greater Balk". Whatever the case, the fact remains that the kingdom of Arc'ax-Xac'en was the last of the medieval eastern Armenian kingdoms and principalities to survive, and, although its rulers lost the royal title after the execution of Hasan-Jalal-Dawla by the llkhanid Arghun in 1261, Xac'en continued to exist as a principality, and ultimately as several "melikdoms" until the com­ing of the Russians in 1805-1827.

Yes, Hewsen does not say it is true, he says it is possible. Our article also does not say it is true, it says it is possible. But please quote me a WP rule which says that theories can not be mentioned in WP article. --Vacio (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

They can be, according to their weight. If 99,9% of sources say that Karabakh derives from Turkic for black garden, then the more widely accepted etymology should be given preference and get more coverage, than the opinion of 1 scholar, of which the other think that it could be possible. Minority view deserves just a brief mention. That's all I'm saying. Grandmaster (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perma-semi?

Is it time to permanently semi-protect this article? I'd love to just block IPs from the Caucasus but that's not technically available. But it's seen a lot of IP vandalism as of late, and little valid IP contribution. Of the five IPs who have edited in the last week (and all of whose edits were reverted), one is from Germany, one is from Armenia, and the rest are Azeri. --Golbez (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind. Grandmaster 10:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

[Merry Christmas], Happy Holidays and Happy New Year everyone. Capasitor (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Melikdom? Melik?

"Melik" is an Arabic word that means “king” and it was borrowed by dozens of languages. Armenian is not the only language that borrowed this word. The idea that Wikipedia has an article with the heading "Melik", and the content is about Armenian kings alone is absurd. Even more absurd is inventing the word "melikdom". "Melik" is king and "melikdom" is kingdom, respectively, in proper English, therefore, I recommend removal of the Wiki article "melik" and change every occurrence of "melik" and "melikdom" in this article by their proper English corresponding terms "king" and "kingdom". King Abdalla of Jordan does call his kingdom as "melikdom" in English, and no other "melik" (king) does.... (Irakli) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.236.240 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Chorbaijan

I think it has been demonstrated many times already, that Chorbaijan is not a reliable source. It is an Armenian propaganda source, and as such is not acceptable. I can use similar Azeri sources, but you won't be happy with that. Mediators (at least one of them) also said that we should stick to third party sources. So if you have reliable third party sources to support your claims, use them. Otherwise, making strong claim with reference to Armenian sources cannot be acceptable. Grandmaster 05:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Chorbaijan or Donabedian are not reliable sources is to say that the Western scholar Cyril Toumanoff is a Georgian propagandist simply because of his supposed Georgian origin. As I mentioned this smacks of racism. In addition, Chorbajian's research on demographic policy is a well-established academic topic that are supported by numerous primary sources from Azerbaijan as demonstrated in the article. Stop pestering this page with irrelevant and offensive remarks. Capasitor (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand AGAIN, as Golbez wrote. I'll get it as plain as possible once more: if everything is exactly what you claim, why Anania Shirakatsi, Movses Kaghankatvatsi, Movses Khorenatsi are not challenged? I urge you to retract from partisan secondary sources in general as soon as possible. --Brandспойт 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Somehow, I suspect that " Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region and Azerbaijan's Policy of Demographic Manipulations ", at the very least -- not to mention the rest -- hasn't received consensus to be included. The language section is not to be included here, more apt would be for it to appear in the article on the Armenian language. - Francis Tyers · 10:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. One more effective venue has left below. --Brandспойт 10:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed to included material into an article. It is obvious that some population statistics are sorely needed for this article for that time period. Meowy 17:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken here. It sounds like you're saying consensus isn't needed to add material; only to delete it. That's not true. The entire encyclopedia is a work of consensus. Now, on most articles, this isn't an issue; people can add sections to articles without first even seeking consensus, and people deal with it later if there's an issue. But surely you realize this one isn't "most articles". --Golbez (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Francis Tyers seemed to be saying that consensus was a requirement for any edit done to any article. That's what I was disagreeing with. If it were otherwise, then every edit made on Wikipedia would need to be presented beforehand in articles' talk pages. Even so, unless by "consensus" you mean "silence", I don't think consensus is needed to either add or delete material on this article. It is reasonable for an editor to add whatever material he/she likes as long as that editor believes the addition is improving the article. No discussion is needed beforehand to add that new material, though doing it wouldn't do harm. Similarly, if an editor disagrees with content someone else has added, it is OK to remove it without seeking consensus as long as a proper reason is given (and it is also reasonable for the removed material to be reinserted if those reasons can be countered by stronger arguments). None of that needs consensus. It's really only in the case of repeated reverting accompanied by repeated discussions that the idea of consensus should be considered. I don't think we have got to that stage because all we have are a lot of additions, a lot of reverting and very little real discussion. Meowy 19:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Meowy, in this particular article it is not reasonable for an editor to add whatever material he/she likes even when one believes the addition is improving the article - it was already outlined neatly some time ago that this article does not take well with WP:BOLD actions. --Brandспойт 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Any article? No. This one? Absolutely. --Golbez (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

State of Knowledge on Nagorno Karabakh

A couple of very general points about Nagorno Karabakh and the "lop-sidedness" of the entire thing. Many observers hold an entirely wrong point of view that if there is an ethnic or any other group-based disagreement, the best strategy for a "balanced" view is to create a [an often artificially] symmetrical approach to the issue regardless of intellectual and ethical merits of position of individual sides in the dispute. This contradicts the spirit of WP but many mediators and administrators involuntarily fall into this trap. Please don't. The Karabakh-related issue is very lop-sided by itself. It is a unique Armenian land that unlike most other places in Armenia has since the times immemorial maintained a clear Armenian demographic majority and has always been administered by indigenous Armenian rulers (exception - 1752-1822). All this is VERY well documented. Karabakh was subordinated to a Soviet autonomy called "Azerbaijani SSR" for 70 years - a blink of an eye in the 2000 years of Armenian history of Nagorno Karabakh. But the USSR is gone and these times are over. Azerbaijani editors need to find enough intellectual courage to acquiesce with the representation in WP of a humongous amount of well-documented evidence about the history of Nagorno Karabakh that is pouring out of every source. I understand that presenting it all at once on this page is a bit discomforting for nationalist-minded editors and perhaps confusing to some administrators - but they all just need to let it go. We can discuss sources but we also need to set up rules on at what moment an honest discussion is being sabotaged by irrelevant comments just to postpone (indefinitely) the return of long-overdue edits into the text of this article. Capasitor (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: article's current condition

Gentlemen, since protection request has failed, hope we will ultimately fix the stuff now. The most problematic section is Demographics. What we currently have in brief are lop-sided text, blatant NPOV breaches and Chorbajian, Donabedian and Mutafian remaining despite recurring loops of discussion. Some places in article because of its well-known nature fall under verifiability, not truth. --Brandспойт 10:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should start by saying (and be as specific as possible) what material you think needs sources, rather than just reverting the edits of others or placing tags that cover whole sections of the article. Seeking a blanket dismissal of certain authors just because of their alleged ethnicity isn't going to get you anywhere. Meowy 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I revert no more, if you have not noticed. And it seems you have not read previous evidences as well. The challenge is not rooted in ethnicity, but in preventing or minimizing possible bias which requires use of uninvolved scholars. --Brandспойт 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Loking back over the last month-and-a-half I don't see any discussion about content, cartainly nothing about the content you have been reverting. All I see are invalid attempts at rubbishing some well-known academics. Meowy 22:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, many pieces needs proper referencing, for example, in Demographic section about Strabo. --Dacy69 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

Kudos to Francis for stabilizing now. --Brandспойт 22:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Brandспойт- this is not what Francis' action meant. That was an invitation to discuss the removed parts of the text and come to a common denominator. Instead, Brandспойт interprets this as a "win" in his fight against commonsense and the Western academics he tries to suppress. Capasitor (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No one wins or loses here. The problem is that we should use reliable sources, and not Armenian propaganda. Donabedian is certainly not a neutral and objective source. You should stick to third party sources, as the rules explicitly require. Grandmaster 05:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I wrote 'stabilizing'. --Brandспойт 09:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Position on Sources

The problem that Grandmaster and Brand AVOID discussion aimed at consensus building, hoping to substitute a discussion (dialogue) with repetitive monologues. This is not going to fly well here because it is trolling, including edit warring [45], pestering [46] and disruptive editing [47]. You said "Donabedian is certainly not a neutral and objective source," then I replied, and then the conversation stopped. Let me repeat again why Donabedian and Chorbajian are good, reliable and neutral sources:

1. They are well-established and well-quoted Western academics who were born, raised and educated in places where ethnic academic biases are discouraged. They have no affiliation with Armenian state or Armenian educational establishment which may be suspected in promoting bias. 2. They are uncontroversial. Even more - they are so unbiased that even the Government of the Azerbaijani Republic used in their anti-Armenian pamphlets used Donabedian and Chorbajian as references (!!). Here is an example: [48]; Source: Azerbaijan Embassy, Washington D.C.

2a. There was an attempt by Grandmaster to dismiss Donabedian showing criticism by certain Cigdem Balim-Harding; but it was showed here [49] that she is a Turkish-born-and-raised-and-educated person who cannot be considered a reliable source on Armenian-related issues because of unavoidable influence on her of Turkish political and educational systems, which is confirmed by her emotionally-charged tone and ignorant position regarding Azerbaijanis being called "Tatars." In the same way I encourage not to use Soviet or post-Soviet Armenian or Azerbaijani sources unless they receive express endorsement from Western academics.

3. "Diasporan Armenians"? I do not think so. But even if they are, they cannot be disqualified because of alleged racial or ethnic origin. WP forbids that, it is un-academic and un-encyclopedic. If someone provides a reference that Donabedian or others are members of an Armenian Diasporan political party or organization then they can be disqualified from WP.

3a Mark Grigorian's note about Donabedian being a "Diasporan Armenians" is thus irrelevant. Hewsen is also "accused" of being a "Diasporan Armenian" but Grandmaster using him nonetheless.

4. Donabedian and Chorbajian are not isolated; in fact they are most-quoted authors on Nagorno Karabakh. Go to Amazon.com, type Patrick Donabedian and you will see that for yourself. Simple. If everyone is using them as sources why would not WP do the same????? The question answers itself. Here is one of the latest uses of Donabedian and Chorbajian as reference in an encyclopedic volume [50] (Europe Since 1945, By Bernard A. Cook).

If this passage remains undiscussed and/or is met with irrelevant comments that avoid raised points, I would consider the opposing party as forfeiting its right to oppose content based on these sources. Capasitor (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Chorbaijan is not acceptable. It is a propaganda source. It is funny that Capasitor insists on using Chorbaijan, despite that source being blatant Armenian propaganda, but rejects criticism by Balim-Harding solely on ethnic grounds. If Chorbaijan is acceptable, so is Balim-Harding, and the criticism has to be taken into account. Also, she is not the only one criticizing this source. If what Chorbaijan says is true, it has to be written in neutral sources too. Grandmaster 06:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, your edit summary is highly odd. Apart from removing sourced, 3rd-party info (Zürcher), you have stated that "this article is about a region - its existence has nothing to do with modern borders". NK does not hang somewhere in the Caucasian air or in no man's land, it is in Azerbaijan. Then let's remove the mention of NKR as well, according to your logic. Brandспойт 09:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Trolling: How Grandmaster and Brand avoid honest discussion via [51]

Please note the mode of discussion chosen by Grandmaster - he avoids replying to posed questions in a relevant way. Instead he repeats his mantra that everything is just "Armenians propaganda" instead of properly and relevantly answering the questions that would bring us to a consensus. He disregarded my mentions that this "propaganda source" is being used even by the Government of Azerbaijan (!!) [52] and by over 200 international Western-based academics, such as this [53] (Europe Since 1945, By Bernard A. Cook, 2001). Grandmaster also perverts my argument on opposing the Turkish-educated scholar Balim-Harding who criticized Chorbajian - I am not opposing her on ethnic grounds but on the premises of her educational nationalist background. I will be more than happy to include ethnic Turks or Azerbaijanis as sources if they are Western-educated academics not tainted by educational experiences of states like Turkey and Azerbaijan (or to an extent Armenia, in fact) where there are taboos and state-sponsored attacks on academics producing genuine non-nationalist research. Also, Chorbajian's research is supported by numerous academics who produce analogous research or or include Chorbajian in their works as a source, but the most amazing this is it is supported by primary sources from Azerbaijan - that is why I included in the demographic section quotes from Heydar Aliyev and his comrade-in-arms Ramil Usubov who support Chorbajian's note on demographic manipulations in Nagorno Karabakh. Another question is Brand - this user does not reply at all, apparently because his only purpose is to engage in edit-warring and complaining. Capasitor (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Capasitor, why not reproduce here in the talk page exactly what you would like the text in the demographics section of the article to look like? Then we can work out what, if anything, neeeds to be changed in it to get it into the article. Meowy 00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We may resort to that at a certain moment but the problem is that if we do that we would not be in complience with one of key recommendations of WP: Not feeding the Troll. Grandmaster and Brand can be qualified as trolls because they engage in edit warring [54], pestering [55] and disruptive editing [56]. See page on trolls: [57]. Capasitor (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the above comments help, and they won't stop the article continuing to revert between what you want included and what Grandmaster and Brand want. Meowy 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I still see only bad faith and vast, groundless mudslinging. Wiki is not a battleground. Brandспойт 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, then go ahead and answer my questions that I asked here [58]. Bad faith is assumed by you through your allegations. I am spending a lot of time here bending over backwards for you guys. Show me how I am engaged in vast, groundless mudslinging. Capasitor (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you are going about this the wrong way. There is a huge gap before 1989 in the article's demographics subsection. There would be no harm in placing in this talk page the wording you think should fill that gap so that it can then be discussed. Meowy 21:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, we can do that. Indeed, Baku's demographic policy are an important part of the demographic history of the region and we can certainly discuss that. But I want to make sure Donabedian and Chorbajian are not attacked again. Now it became evident that those who try to suppress them have nothing to say to support their arguments. They are just stubbornly parroting themselves. Capasitor (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed personal webisite owned by user:AdilBaguirov. VartanM (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region and Azerbaijan's Policy of Demographic Manipulations

As testified by top leaders of Soviet Azerbaijan and the post-Soviet Azerbaijani Republic (e.g. by President Heydar Aliyev and Interior Minister Ramil Usubov), in the 1960s-1980s Azerbaijani authorities in Baku pursued the policy of premeditated maltreatment of Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh aimed at driving Armenians into exodus and thus changing Nagorno Karabakh’s demographic balance in favor of ethnic Azerbaijanis. As a result of this policy, the percentage of ethnic Azerbaijanis in Nagorno Karabakh artificially increased from 5 percent in 1926 to 24 percent by 1989. All the while, the Armenian majority population of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region never substantially grew in absolute numbers between 1926 and 1989.

That policy is reflected in the Soviet census data: the weight of the province’s Armenian majority dropped from 95 percent in 1923 to 84 percent in 1959 and to 76 percent in 1979. In more than 50 years, the absolute number of Armenians increased by only 9 percent (from 112 thousand in 1926 to 123 thousand in 1979), while the number of Azerbaijanis grew by more than 300 percent (from 13 thousand in 1926 to 37 thousand in 1979 and more than 40 thousand in 1989).

Some authors compared Azerbaijan's policy in Nagorno Karabakh with apartheid. Others drew parallels with Azerbaijan's demographic policy in Nakhichevan:

Armenians feared that in Karabakh, Armenians would one day be a minority as they were in Nakhichevan, another lost part of historic Armenia ... yet now part of Azerbaijan.

Here I reproduced the removed section of the article but footnotes are not seen. 04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this is a showcase of Armenian propaganda? Have you ever read WP:NPOV? Chorbaijan is not acceptable, and I would like to see a scan of Echo newspaper. I highly doubt that it exists. Your text is copied from this Armenian website: [59] That's not the way it works. Grandmaster 07:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to separate the population statistics from opinions about what they could mean: give them first as plain figures and as percentages, and only after that give any intepretations about what those figures could mean (i.e. indicating a "policy aimed at driving Armenians into exodus and thus changing Nagorno Karabakh’s demographic balance in favor of ethnic Azerbaijanis" if that is a direct quote from a source). Meowy 16:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

These "opinions" are based on primary sources (and secondary sources too) and come from "the hourse's mouth." But we can do that too. Capasitor (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster - stop pestering me with your "propaganda" nonsense. Since you are refusing to engage in meaningful conversation, you risk forfeiting your opportunity to discuss this page since it seems that your purpose is to sabotage well-documented materials presented by neutral, third-party sources and by primary sources. Also, Aliyev's remarks are well-known from third-party sources, but I will include the entire text of his speech from Echo. But please consider this source from the Russian agency Regnum:[60] which contain part of Aliyev's speech.

Capasitor (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the full text of the article from Echo:

---

Гейдар Алиев: "Государство с оппозицией лучше" «ЭХО» # 138(383)Ср., 24 Июля 2002

Президент раскрывает некоторые детали переговоров по Нагорному Карабаху и комментирует возможность реализации в Азербайджане "путинского варианта"

Как мы уже сообщали, 22 июля Президент Азербайджана Гейдар Алиев дал интервью руководителям некоторых азербайджанских газет. Как мы обещали, сегодня публикуем полный его текст. Но хотелось бы начать с извинений перед читателями. В течение двух дней нам звонили разные люди и спрашивали: задали ли редакторы этот вопрос? А этот? Это и понятно: президент - человек, вопросов к которому столько, что если задать их все, беседа может затянуться на месяцы. Так что приносим извинения за то, что многие очень важные вопросы задать не удалось, несмотря на то, что разговор длился два с половиной часа. Впрочем, надежду вселяют два обстоятельства: во-первых, открытость, проявленная Гейдаром Алиевым (ни темы, ни постановку вопросов никто заранее инспектировать не пытался), а во-вторых, то, что идея сделать такие встречи традицией возражения у президента не вызвала...

МЕХМАН АЛИЕВ (генеральный директор информационного агентства "Туран"): Господин Президент, Вы только что возвратились из Ялты. В печати о саммите ГУУАМ сообщалось разное. Например, Узбекистан принимает участие в ряде проектов ГУУАМ, но на этом саммите Узбекистан представлял лишь посол. Президент Молдовы Воронин сказал, что Молдова не видит никакой пользы от ГУУАМ. Президент Украины считает, что ГУУАМ развивается, Вы также отметили, что развитие есть. Соединенные Штаты Америки хотят принимать участие в ГУУАМ в качестве наблюдателей. Это очень важный фактор и свидетельствует о важности этой структуры. Хотелось бы услышать от Вас, что в действительности происходит в ГУУАМ?

ГЕЙДАР АЛИЕВ: Знаете, ГУУАМ - не совсем обычная организация. В свое время она была создана во время встречи в Страсбурге по инициативе президентов четырех стран. Вначале мы создали ее как региональную организацию, больше для того, чтобы развивать экономические связи. Когда мы встретились в Страсбурге, шел 1997 год, в то время в Совете Европы проходил саммит глав государств, там мы и создали ее. Тогда все мы были увлечены идеей Транскавказской магистрали. Но были и другие, близкие с региональной, территориальной точками зрения страны, которые стремились принять в этом участие. Таким образом, фундамент структуры был заложен на основе экономических принципов, для расширения экономического сотрудничества. Затем эту организацию начали несколько политизировать. Возможно, с одной стороны, этому способствовало настроение изнутри, с другой - происходило в результате влияния извне. Вначале некоторые думали - зачем нужна ГУУАМ? Другие считали, что ГУУАМ необходима. Так была создана ГУУАМ. Вначале все это трудно было осознать. Многие вообще считали, что это никому не нужно. Но постепенно мир изменился и все привыкли к этому. Поэтому мы считаем, что наличие такой организации никому не вредит. Пусть никто по этому поводу не беспокоится. Если организация приносит какую-то пользу входящим в нее государствам, значит, это следует использовать. Если же она вредит какой-то организации, региону, то и это можно рассмотреть для устранения вреда. Но ГУУАМ не противопоставлена какой-то другой организации. Она не хочет ни с кем конкурировать. Думаю, что и не способна на это. Однако эти страны близки друг другу, к примеру, географическое положение. Когда мы создавали ее, в нее вошли Молдова, затем Украина, потом Грузия, расположенная на побережье Черного моря, потом следует Азербайджан, позже присоединился и Узбекистан. Видите, страны-участницы находятся географически примерно на одной линии. Это было прежде всего связано с большими надеждами, возникшими в связи с нашей нефтяной стратегией. Эти надежды есть и сегодня.

К примеру, вы говорите, о выступлении Президента Молдовы г-на Воронина. Да, в то время существовало мнение, что каспийская нефть будет поступать в Украину, оттуда - в Молдову и это принесет нам пользу. Но я вижу, что сейчас это нереально. Однако г-н Кучма говорит, что нефтепровод Одесса-Броды уже построен. Если нефть будет транспортироваться в Одессу, то они готовы экспортировать ее оттуда до Балтийского моря. Они говорили об этом с самого начала. На конференции, посвященной программе ТРАСЕКА, Кучма также поднял этот вопрос. Поэтому, как видите, существует и такое мнение, и другое. Однако все это постепенно реализуется. И когда реализуется, возможно, действительно, того интереса, что раньше, не будет. Но некоторый интерес усилится. Поэтому я не считаю, что выступление Воронина направлено на развал ГУУАМ. Но во всяком случае мы обсудили, обсудили очень серьезные вопросы и приняли серьезные решения. Если учесть, что мы приняли решение о современной стабильности и безопасности, то одно только это уже - достижение. Если в составе крупной организации сделать это не представляется возможным и мы добиваемся этого в более мелкой организации, значит, мы вносим свой вклад в обеспечение стабильности и безопасности. Равно, как и в борьбе с терроризмом, международным терроризмом. Мы приняли там и другое решение. Вот уже несколько лет на повестке дня СНГ стоит вопрос о создании свободной экономической зоны. Но каждый раз, когда мы собираемся, эта проблема по тем или иным причинам не находит решения. Однако здесь эти государства приняли решение о свободной экономической зоне. Значит, в их экономических связях нет проблем, они способны создать свободную экономическую зону, что принесет пользу их экономике. Если вопрос не решается из-за расхождения во мнениях государств, входящих в состав такой крупной организации, как СНГ, то решение их здесь, в качестве первой ступени, принесет пользу. Мы приняли и другие очень важные решения. Поэтому я считаю, что ГУУАМ будет жить. Хотя ничего вечного нет. Возможно, будут созданы другие организации, в состав которых она войдет и растворится в них. Но пока есть хорошие условия для совместной работы стран, входящих в ГУУАМ, по многим вопросам. Не следует отказываться от этого.

РАУФ ТАЛЫШИНСКИЙ (главный редактор газеты "Эхо"): Господин Президент, некоторое время назад Вы провели встречи с местными и иностранными предпринимателями. Поставленные там проблемы и вопросы, можно сказать, были позитивно восприняты общественностью. Сложилось мнение, что власть намерена начать серьезные реформы в экономике. Сегодня все ждут заключительного совещания, вокруг которого ходит много разговоров. В том числе и о кадровых перестановках. Называются даже конкретные имена. Правда, высказывается и другая версия. Она состоит в том, что никаких кадровых перестановок ждать не следует, а все изменения будут носить исключительно функциональный и структурный характер. Вы можете как-то это прокомментировать?

ГЕЙДАР АЛИЕВ: Хочу подчеркнуть: проведенные нами две встречи - одна - с местными предпринимателями, другая - с работающими в Азербайджане предпринимателями из зарубежных стран - сами по себе были очень важны. Во-первых, потому, что и предприниматели, и вся общественность еще и еще раз убедились в том, что Азербайджанское государство считает развитие предпринимательства одной из основных задач, заявляет, что развитие рыночной экономики - основа экономической политики Азербайджана, и не только основывается на этих принципах, но и принимает различные дополнительные меры по их осуществлению. Это воодушевило предпринимателей. Во-вторых, состоявшиеся там беседы облегчили работу предпринимателей еще до того, как мы приняли решения, осуществили последние мероприятия. Возьмем, к примеру, такой незначительный вопрос. Хотя, возможно, это и не мелочь. Я подверг критике работу Государственной дорожной полиции. Сказал, что в Азербайджане нет необходимости в таком штате сотрудников ГДП. Человек живет, работает, бизнесмен он, преподаватель или вообще не имеет никакой должности, никакой профессии. У него есть автомобиль. Это вполне естественно. На перекрестке его останавливает работник ГДП и требует предъявить документы. Ковыряет эти документы так долго, что человек, лишь бы избавиться от него, платит деньги. Но если бы на этом все закончилось! Город-то у нас большой. Его останавливают на другом, на третьем перекрестке... Это, как я сказал, вызывает у людей большое недовольство. Да и кому это может понравиться?! Тот же самый работник ГДП, как он будет себя чувствовать, когда его остановят в 3-4 местах? Как будет себя чувствовать наш министр внутренних дел Усубов? Конечно, отвратительно. Я открыто сказал там об этом. Ни о чем другом я не говорил. Но спустя несколько дней Усубов сообщил мне: сократили 300 работников ГДП. Этих людей трудно отучить от таких дел. Но мы должны отучить. Радикалы, критикующие нас, говорят: этого не должно быть. Я тоже считаю, что не должно быть. Мне нравится это еще меньше, чем им. Но как реально осуществить это в жизни?! Усубов говорит мне: "Мы сократили 300 работников ГДП. Но ведь и у меня есть знакомые. Они говорят: "Люди воздают вам хвалу за то, что вы избавили их от работников ГДП". Я-то знаю, еще не полностью избавились. Но одно это уже - результат. Я ответил Усубову: "Нет, ты должен представить отчет". Потому что я помню, что года 3-4 назад мы провели совещание. Глава исполнительной власти Лянкярана сказала, что людей, которые из Лянкярана в Баку везут на продажу фрукты, овощи, бахчевые, останавливают в 6-7 местах, требуют деньги, к тому же время проходит, продукты портятся. Тогда я принял строгие меры и количество работников ГДП существенно сократили. Все были довольны. Но прошло время, я забыл об этом, забыли и другие, и число работников там постепенно увеличилось. Почему? Вы - авторитетные журналисты, я могу вас познакомить со статистикой. Наше Министерство внутренних дел каждый раз дает статистику, согласно которой (и это действительно так) в Азербайджане на каждые несколько тысяч человек приходится меньше всего преступлений. Или же раскрываемость преступлений - Азербайджан тоже впереди всех стран СНГ. Это отнюдь не значит, что борьба с преступностью завершилась. Все относительно, но, сравнивая, видишь, что положение в Азербайджане лучше, чем в других странах. Сейчас Усубов проверил работников ГДП. По числу работников ГДП, не знаю, то ли на 10, то ли на 100 тысяч автомашин, Азербайджан оказался на первом месте среди стран СНГ. То есть он сам подтверждает, что они допустили большую ошибку. Предлагаю даже провести эксперимент: на несколько дней поставим работников ГДП только в некоторых точках, а остальных освободим. Посмотрим, каким будет движение автомобилей в городе. Мы, наверное, сделаем и это. То есть, я говорю о фактах, по которым мы приняли не только эти, но и другие меры. Однако я не считаю, что наша работа на этом закончилась. Я неоднократно говорил об этом, говорю и вам. Над этим работали как мой аппарат, то есть экономический сектор, Вахид Ахундов, Кабинет министров. За день до отбытия в Ялту мне сообщили, что материалы полностью готовы. Я, естественно, должен просмотреть их, это потребует времени. После рассмотрения вопросов я планирую провести расширенное совещание. С другой стороны, кто-то говорит, что произойдут кадровые перестановки, кто-то отрицает это, кто-то утверждает, что хорошо, если они произойдут, кто-то с этим не согласен - все это второстепенные вопросы. Нам необходимо решить прежде всего организационные, экономические вопросы, регулируемые законами и указами. То есть заняться тем, что облегчит развитие предпринимательства. Но если где-то необходимы кадровые перестановки, то для этого мы никогда не станем проводить кампанию. Вы, наверное, видите, в Азербайджане в основе кадровой политики - принцип стабильности. Все кадровые вопросы в конечном счете возложены на меня. Я поддерживаю стабильность. Но если кто-то совершает преступление или не справляется с работой, мы никогда не прощали таких людей. Слава Богу, за девять лет моего пребывания на посту Президента вы видели, сколько людей было отстранено от должности, наказано. Правда, оппозиция тут же кидается их обнимать. Пока эти люди работают у нас, оппозиция утверждает, что они, мол, разваливают, нацию. Некоторые поступают умнее - стараются найти себе другую. Занимаются бизнесом или чем-то другим. Иные же, как говорится, не могут подавить в себе чувство злобы, ищут выход. И находят: оппозиция таких людей ищет. Выясняется, что этот человек был очень хорошим, а Гейдар Алиев относился к нему плохо и пр. А тот спустя некоторое время становится еще большим оппозиционером, чем истинные оппозиционеры, дабы показать, что он действительно в оппозиции. Потому что ведь и там ему до конца не верят. Он должен и там пройти испытательный срок. Потому и проявляет такое рвение. Вы видели все это и еще увидите.

ГЮНДУЗ ТАХИРЛИ (главный редактор газеты Йени юзил): Господин Президент, в борьбе с коррупцией необходимо отдавать предпочтение больше общественно-социальным причинам, приводящим к данным фактам, чем административным методам. Как Вы уже отметили, для этого должна быть создана правовая база. Но в целом, в результате борьбы с коррупцией больше всего страдает не верхний, а нижний эшелон государственных учреждений. В какой степени Вы согласны с таким мнением?

ГЕЙДАР АЛИЕВ: Сейчас я не могу говорить о тех, что внизу. А те, что наверху, видны. Возможно, в ваших словах есть определенная доля истины. Но воспринимать это как политику, нельзя. Просто, может быть, когда идет борьба с коррупцией в верхних эшелонах, их представители, когда чувствуют угрозу, жертвуют 2-3 людьми в нижнем эшелоне: мол, вот, где была коррупция. Такое тоже возможно. То есть, я не могу это ни отрицать, ни подтвердить, но это не сложившаяся практика.

РАШАД МЕДЖИД (главный редактор "525-джи газет"): Господин Президент, самая тяжелая для страны проблема - нерешенный нагорно-карабахский конфликт, не говоря уже о социальном положении миллиона беженцев, - наши соотечественники теряют надежду. Быть гражданином оккупированной страны не прибавляет гордости. Наблюдатели говорят, что ключ к урегулированию конфликта в США и России. У вас сложились искренние дружеские отношения и с Президентом Владимиром Путиным, и с Президентом Джорджем Бушем, и с его отцом. Люди считают, что если на фоне таких отношений урегулировать конфликт не удалось, то дальнейшие перспективы его разрешения весьма туманны. Хотелось бы узнать Ваше мнение.

ГЕЙДАР АЛИЕВ: В Ялте выступили все президенты. Можно сказать, что конфликта нет только в Украине. В Грузии есть, там очень тяжелое положение. Конфликт есть в Молдове, там тоже сложилось тяжелое положение. Есть и у нас. Я достаточно резко выступил там как в адрес ООН, ОБСЕ, Минской группы, так и в адрес сопредседателей от США, России и Франции, руководителей этих стран. Я не хочу повторять свое выступление, оно будет опубликовано в печати, прочитаете. Содержание его в следующем: "Все вы, с одной стороны, утверждаете, что привержены принципам международного права. Вы приняли Хельсинкский акт и заявляете о своей приверженности ему. Основной принцип его - обеспечение территориальной целостности, суверенитета и неприкосновенности границ каждой страны. Вы декларируете и поддерживаете эти принципы. Даже, когда речь идет об армяно-азербайджанском, нагорно-карабахском конфликте, как это недавно имело место в США, вы заявляете, что признаете территориальную целостность Азербайджана. И неудивительно - должны признавать, вынуждены признавать. Но в таком случае, сказал я, почему же вы так пассивно занимаетесь урегулированием нашего конфликта. Вы дошли до того, что заявляете: пусть Президент Армении и Президент Азербайджана договорятся об урегулировании армяно-азербайджанского конфликта, сами решат вопрос. После этого мы окажем любую помощь. Наглядным подтверждением этому служит документ, принятый в Москве на встрече Буша с Путиным. В отношении нагорно-карабахского конфликта там написано: рекомендовать президентам Азербайджана и Армении действовать более гибко, найти путь решения вопроса, мы же - имеются в виду Буш и Путин - после этого готовы оказать помощь. Вот как обстоит дело. Это двойной стандарт. В Ялте я высказал все это. Я сказал: этот двойной стандарт, двойное отношение разрушат мир, ваши принципы. Я говорю вам откровенно, это пройдет и в печати. Зачем нам в таком случае нужна Организация Объединенных Наций? Зачем нужна ОБСЕ? Раз в шесть месяцев меняется председатель ОБСЕ. В течение шести месяцев председательствует одна страна, по истечении этого срока - другая, потом - третья. Сейчас - кажется, Португалия. До нас дошли сигналы, что Португалия вообще не желает заниматься этим вопросом. До этого была Румыния. Председатель парламента Румынии приезжал сюда, он побывал и в Армении, и даже в Нагорном Карабахе. Приехал и говорит: вы должны договориться. Я ответил: вы рекомендуете нам смириться с фактом. Но если мы каждый раз будем мириться с происходящими, кому нужны принципы, за которые вы ведете борьбу? Председатель от Румынии, посетив Нагорный Карабах и приехав сюда, говорит: Давайте сделаем так. Я как председатель ОБСЕ создам парламентскую группу, и мы будем заниматься этим вопросом. Мы урегулируем его. Он несколько раз говорил об этом. Я ответил: И без того существует Минская группа ОБСЕ. Я знаю, что парламентская группа ничего не добьется. Я не согласен с этим. Нет, мол, вы давайте вашего представителя и прочее. Он даже сказал об этом нашему послу в Бухаресте. А посол, как будто открывает для нас Америку. Говорит: мол, есть такое дело, они могут решить это. Я ведь знаю, что все это абсурд. Они не решат никакой вопрос. Во всяком случае я не согласился с ним, и он уехал. Я вспомнил один эпизод о Мешади Ибаде, когда с ним приключилось известное дело, и все подходили к нему, мол, Мешади, дай столько-то, и я сделаю то-то и так далее. Вот и мы сегодня оказались в таком же положении. Понимаете? Я говорю с вами откровенно. Когда говоришь об этих вопросах открыто, наша оппозиция тут же все переворачивает. Смотришь, пишут о чем-то совершенно бессмысленном 7 статей подряд. Я говорю открыто: в настоящее время во всех этих организациях господствует настроение: что было - то прошло, необходимо считаться с реальностью. Говоришь им все это, тогда они заявляют, мол, да, вы правы. Мы признаем территориальную целостность. Спрашиваю: почему же вы в таком случае утверждаете это? Отвечают: но ведь другого пути нет. Я говорю, почему нет пути? Путь решения - эти принципы. Если вы не можете осуществить эти принципы, тогда давайте распустим эти организации. Вы не знаете, насколько открытые, жесткие переговоры я с ними веду. Недавно сюда приехала и представитель Люксембурга, председательствующая в Комитете министров Совета Европы. Вы видели ее. Это очень умная женщина, министр иностранных дел и одновременно заместитель премьер-министра. Она тоже излагала свое мнение. И сказала: ведь часть и вашей земли находится в Армении. Отдайте им что-нибудь, и они возвратят вашу землю. Вижу, что ей неизвестно, что она говорит о нашей земле. Я имею в виду Нахчыванскую Автономную Республику. Я сказал: вы, наверное, говорите о том, что наша земля оказалась территориально отдаленной. Она ответила: Да. Я сказал: знаете, это тоже посягательство против нас. Когда в 1920 году составлялись эти документы, у Азербайджана никого не было в Москве. Власть была в руках армян. Азербайджанскую землю - Зангезур, в частности, его Мегринскую часть, передали Армении, чтобы у нее была граница с Ираном. Это было сделано искусственно. Вот, о чем думали армяне в 1920 году. Ведь, в то время была советская власть. Зачем им нужна была граница? В свое время в КГБ я был одним из тех, кто защищал эти границы. О границе и речи не могло быть. Было железнодорожное сообщение по маршруту Баку-Ереван. Поезда проезжали через Мегри. Ни о каких препятствиях там и речи не могло быть. Но обратите внимание, еще в 1920 году они думали о необходимости выхода Армении к Ирану и добились открытия этой границы. Я вкратце изложил вам историю. А сейчас возвращаюсь к беседе с той женщиной. Я ей говорю, что дело обстоит так-то и так-то. Если армяне хотят передать нам Мегринский район и взамен забрать Нагорный Карабах, пусть внесут предложения, мы рассмотрим. Что плохого я сказал? Это дипломатия. Я знаю, что это нереально, знаю, что Армения не пойдет на это. Мне даже известно, что этот вопрос "появился" не сейчас, он обсуждается в течение последнего года. Месяца 2-3 назад Серж Саркисян заявил: мы, мол, не отдадим Мегри даже если нам отдадут половину Азербайджана. И зная об этом, я открыто, перед прессой говорю председателю Комитета министров Совета Европы, министру иностранных дел Люксембурга: вы бываете в Армении. Передайте им, пусть отдадут нам Мегри в обмен на Нагорный Карабах. Я думал, это произведет на них сильное впечатление. Но нет. Они спокойно перенесли это. Но что произошло потом? В наших оппозиционных газетах было опубликовано 5-6 статей о том, что Гейдар Алиев хочет отдать Армении Нагорный Карабах. Дорогие мои друзья, знайте и вы, и весь азербайджанский народ: ведя эти переговоры, я в ряде случаев могу сказать такое для того, чтобы добиться чего-то путем дипломатических игр, ходов. Но сказать это еще не значит сделать. Я сказал: пусть отдадут Мегри, и мы уступим им Нагорный Карабах. Это не значит, что они в ту же минуту отдали Мегри, а я уступил Нагорный Карабах. А здесь публикуются статьи. Причем руководители партий пишут, что Гейдар Алиев отдает Армении Нагорный Карабах. Разве возможно такое? Возможно? Нет. Должен сказать вам еще об одном. Как вам известно, в свое время состоялся разговор об обмене землей. Когда Сахаров приезжал сюда, шел разговор о том, чтобы передать Азербайджану Мегри. А из Лачина открыть коридор для Армении. Азербайджан не согласился с этим. Об этом мы говорили в Турции с покойным Озалом, затем - с Сулейманом Демирелем, тогдашним министром иностранных дел Турции Хикметом Четином. Не могу сказать, что армяне могли в конце концов согласиться с этим. Но во всяком случае такое настроение было. Однако именно азербайджанская сторона выступала против этого. Вам не известно о том, какое значение имеет Мегри для Азербайджана. Я буду говорить с вами откровенно. Однажды такой разговор уже был. После этого из самых высших кругов, отдельных стран заявили: Вы хотите создать тюркский пояс? Я спросил: а что такое "тюркский пояс"? Мне ответили: Турция, Нахчыван напрямую соединяются с Азербайджаном, а оттуда - со Средней Азией. Я спросил: А против кого направлен тюркский пояс? Мне ответили: а разве Вы не видите, против кого? Но и я не ребенок. Знаю, что это правда. Понимаете?! Я раскрыл вам некоторые вопросы. Думаю, достаточно. Но в голове много таких фактов. Ты, кажется сказал, что я нахожусь в близких, дружеских отношениях и с тем, и с другим. Да, у нас прекрасные отношения. К примеру, у меня были великолепные отношения с Клинтоном. Он очень симпатизировал мне, а я ему. Но ему не удалось решить данный вопрос. Потому что и он не мог. Сейчас пришел Буш. И с ним прекрасные отношения. И с отцом его я давно знаком. Великолепные отношения у нас с Путиным. К примеру, мы открыли в Санкт-Петербурге памятник Низами. Это было очень важно. Сегодня в таком крупном городе, как Санкт-Петербург, есть памятник Низами. То есть у нас очень добрые отношения. Знаете, отношения глав государств могут сложиться в случае соответствия их государственных интересов. Я считаю именно так. А то что, допустим, кто-то мне нравится, и неважно, как он относится к моей стране, - нет, это невозможно. Для меня как Президента Азербайджана, главное - это государственные интересы Азербайджана. Но я вижу, Путин, в отличие от прежних руководителей, прекрасно чувствует, что такое Азербайджан и проявляет к Азербайджану доброе отношение. Он считает, что отношения между Азербайджаном и Россией необходимо развивать без давления, диктовки, имевших место в прошлом. Нам нужны именно такие отношения. Не было такого случая, которым бы я не воспользовался. Встречаясь с ним в Санкт-Петербурге, мы помимо остальных вопросов вновь обсудили эту проблему. Но опять то же самое: "Вы встретитесь с Кочаряном. Посмотрите, что можно сделать. В свою очередь и мы посмотрим". Вы - не простые люди. Вы - ведущая сила нашей прессы. Не подпадайте под субъективное влияние. Поверьте, решение данного вопроса - это смысл моей жизни. С нами произошла такая трагедия, что глядя на глобус, я не могу найти страну, где бы случилось то же самое. Я не могу найти вторую такую страну, земли которой оккупировала бы страна, которую мощно поддерживают столько государств мира и диаспора. Второго такого государства нет. Возьмем, к примеру, Кашмир, Индию. В настоящее время часть поддерживает Индию, другая часть - Пакистан. Но ничего такого нет. Во многих странах мира достаточно много известных выходцев из Индии. Они совсем не стремятся решить данный вопрос. А теперь возьмите армянскую диаспору и ее воздействие на эти государства. Не будь всего этого, мы бы смогли решить наши вопросы. Но мы решим их. Говоря о трудностях, я отнюдь не считаю, что надежда иссякла. Если я потеряю надежду, то немедленно оставлю свой пост. Надежда у меня есть.

РОВШАН ГАДЖИЕВ (главный редактор газеты "Азадлыг"): Господин Президент, приближается референдум. Как оппозиционные силы внутри страны, так и международные организации резко реагируют на это. В ходе визита в Ялту Вы ответили на эту реакцию, сказав, что будете внимательны при проведении референдума. Вам не кажется, что это может создать противостояние как с внутренними, так и с внешними силами? Это - первая часть вопроса. Вторая: высказываются мнения, что после референдума в стране состоятся внеочередные президентские выборы. Как, по-Вашему, возможен ли в Азербайджане "путинский вариант" и кого Вы видите президентом?

ГЕЙДАР АЛИЕВ: Прежде всего мне непонятно, почему референдум превратился в такую проблему. Что в этом особенного? Честно говоря, принимая решение о референдуме, я не мог себе представить, что оппозиция так отреагирует на это. Правда, реагирует только оппозиция, отрицательной реакции общества я не вижу. А вот оппозиция активна. Не могу понять причину. Что в этом особенного? Семь лет назад была принята Конституция. В то время мы вынесли решение о том, что наша Конституция должна приниматься только путем референдума. Это верно, так должно быть и в дальнейшем. Если доверить Конституцию парламенту, то в нее ежегодно будут вносить по пять изменений. Это недопустимо. Вместе с тем проведение референдума в первый раз уже создало проблемы. Значит, мы поступили правильно. С одной стороны, приняли Конституцию путем референдума, а с другой - решение о том, что менять Конституцию можно только путем референдума. Это во-первых. Во-вторых о вопросах, вынесенных на референдум. Как вам известно, их 23. Большинство связано с конвенциями, к которым мы присоединились в период после вступления в Совет Европы, и мы должны привести данные вопросы в соответствие с ними. Часть связана с судебно-правовыми реформами, их тоже мы должны привести в соответствие. Там есть несколько статей. В отсутствие Президента, когда он не может исполнять свои обязанности, его полномочия переходят к председателю парламента. Сейчас предусматривается передача их премьер-министру. Мне кажется, в связи с этим вопросом возникает другой. Вторая статья связана с пропорциональной, мажоритарной избирательной системой. Во-первых, хочу спросить: откуда возник вопрос о том, может или не может в Азербайджане быть "путинский вариант"? "Путинский вариант" означал, что Ельцин долгое время был болен, не мог выполнять свои обязанности. Назначал премьер-министра. Через пять месяцев увольнял его. Увольнял всех министров. Назначал других. Начинали знакомиться с ними и вдруг узнавали, что Ельцин неделю болел, наутро пришел и издал приказ об увольнении премьер-министра. И никто ничего не знал. Не хочу повторять, такое случалось 5-6 раз. Я думаю, что он, наконец, нашел того, кого искал. Он и сам понимал, что по состоянию здоровья не может больше исполнять свои обязанности. И мы видели это. Не только это. Во время выборов в 1996 году, его вторично избирали, он был болен. Помню, мне позвонили и сказали, что Ельцин хочет провести в Кисловодске встречу президентов кавказских республик. Спрашиваю, что за встреча? Говорят: Армении, Грузии, Азербайджана. Я ответил, что не поеду туда. Спросили: почему? Ответил, что там, где Армения, меня не будет. Прислали ко мне человека. Помню, был один из заместителей премьер-министра, потом и его уволили. Здесь он часа два уговаривал меня поехать. Речь шла о том, чтобы мы агитировали население Северного Кавказа голосовать за Ельцина. Тогда рейтинг Зюганова был очень высок. Мы собрались в Кисловодске. Там были и президенты республик Северного Кавказа. Были Тер-Петросян, президент Грузии, я. Приехали, побеседовали. После этого провели совещание. Меня предупредили, что республики Северного Кавказа считают Гейдара Алиева своим аксакалом. В этом есть доля правды. Многие из них работали еще при советской власти. Но и без этого они очень уважали меня. Например, сейчас в Дагестане вновь избрали Магомедали. Он очень хотел, чтобы я был на его инаугурации 25-го числа. Но я не смог, дал указание, чтобы поехал Расизаде. Мне тогда сказали, что я должен поговорить с ними и объяснить. В этих местах, да и в самом Дагестане, очень большую силу имели в то время коммунисты. Мы сделали и это. Кажется, предстоял второй тур выборов, в первом туре они не смогли пройти. Наконец избрали Ельцина. Затем он провел инаугурацию. Приехали на инаугурацию. Он не смог посидеть с нами и получаса. Было странно, он то очень болел, то выздоравливал. То два-три месяца хорошо работал. Но, вообще-то, он был болен. Я думал, что он хотел найти себе преемника, который бы вел всю эту работу. И он нашел его. Причем, слава Аллаху, нашел очень хорошего человека и передал власть Путину. Так вот о каком "путинском варианте" в Азербайджане идет речь? Я пока не болен, не чувствую себя слабым и не намерен оставлять должность. Я уже заявил, что буду принимать участие в выборах 2003 года. Правда, агентство "Туран" задало Швиммеру провокационный вопрос. И Швиммер ответил, что следует внести изменения в Конституцию. Председатель Конституционного суда ответил ему как надо, и на этом закончили. Хотя, задавая этот вопрос, агентству "Туран" следовало сказать, что в Конституции Азербайджана есть переходные положения, согласно которым избираться повторно более двух раз нельзя только Президенту Азербайджана, который был избран после принятия новой Конституции. Откуда об этом знать Швиммеру? Задавая вопрос, агентство "Туран" должно было объяснить это. Не объяснили, объяснил наш Конституционный суд. Больше этого вопроса нет. Если кто-то хочет вновь задать этот вопрос, пусть задает - мы ему ответим. Я буду принимать участие в выборах 2003 года и верю, что народ оценит мои труды по сей день и проголосует за меня. Поэтому не могу понять, кто выдумал "путинский вариант", на каком основании и зачем. Я считаю это абсолютно неуместным. Разъясню еще один вопрос. В 1995 году мы писали, что провели заседания Конституционной комиссии, не случайно написали тогда, что если Президент подаст в отставку или не сможет выполнять обязанности по состоянию здоровья, то три месяца его будет заменять председатель парламента. Так мы думали в 1995 году. Но сейчас положение изменилось, изменился и взгляд на это. Экономика - основа нашей республики. Президента нет, кто-то должен заменять его три месяца. Если его будет заменять премьер-министр (а он разбирается в экономике, в курсе всей работы президента с точки зрения экономики и других вопросов) значит, он три месяца сможет руководить республикой и вреда экономике не будет. А если и будет, то незначительный. А председатель парламента занят тем, что принимает законы. Естественно, при этом и он знает экономику. Однако он не осуществляет исполнительских функций. Исполнительские функции у нас имеет Президент и после него его самый высокий исполнительный орган - Кабинет министров. Поэтому это вполне логичный вопрос и мы поставили его. Теперь делают из этого вывод о том, что будет "путинский вариант", кто-то будет назначен и так далее... Я говорю откровенно. Некоторые утверждают, что это сделано для того, чтобы назначить Ильгама Алиева. Но до сих пор, в течение двух лет, говорили о том, чтобы назначить Ильгама Алиева вместо Муртуза Алескерова. И почему же он не был назначен? Это ведь не такая уж большая проблема. Наша партия имеет в парламенте большинство. Муртуз Алескеров и сам - заместитель председателя партии. Если партия посчитает нужным, чтобы Муртуз Алескеров передал эту свою должность Ильгаму Алиеву, думаю, и Муртуз Алескеров не станет возражать. Но почему мы не сделали этого? Да потому, что такого намерения нет. Никогда не было. А сейчас некоторые выдумывают это, распространяют, уверяют людей. Ну, хорошо, "сняли" бедного Муртуза Алескерова. Теперь вот говорите, не сегодня завтра "снимут Расизаде". Так нельзя.

РАУФ АРИФОГЛУ (главный редактор газеты "Ени Мусават"): Гейдар бей, о Нагорном Карабахе Вы говорили обстоятельно, в некоторых случаях достаточно открыто. Даже донесли через нас до общества то, что скрывалось за предпринятыми Вами неожиданными ходами. Вы достаточно откровенно показали драматизм картины, связанной с Нагорным Карабахом. В конце вы сказали, что не потеряли надежды. Ести ли у Вашей власти какой-то план в связи с Нагорным Карабахом? Можно ли разъяснить и нам направления этого плана? Когда, за какой срок будут получены конкретные результаты для Азербайджана, его народа, беженцев?

ГЕЙДАР АЛИЕВ: Я должен очень широко ответить на ваш вопрос. Во- первых, вы хотите знать, является ли ходом то, что я сказал: пусть предложат Мегри, мы рассмотрим. Знаете, в межгосударственных переговорах могут быть разные предложения, и их рассматривают. Считаю, что ни один из них нельзя назвать "ходом". Каждое предложение рассматривается. Хотите узнать от меня вторую часть этого вопроса. Если скажут: да, мы отдаем Мегри, что будете делать Вы? Я так понимаю. Всему свое время. Это было сказано. Если на эти слова последует реакция, то и у нас будет соответствующая реакция. Поэтому не следует заранее раскрывать этого вопроса. Вообще в политике, в совершенной политике, то есть, на практике, в политической работе нужно следовать именно таким путем. Во-вторых, вы говорите, что сказанное мною прояснило вам некоторые неизвестные вам вопросы. Это действительно так. Я говорю об этом именно вам, уважаемым журналистам, чтобы вы могли правильно понять все, правильно разъяснять эти вопросы там, где это необходимо. Но не надо искажать сказанное мною. Я говорю об этом, доверяя вам. В-третьих, как вы говорите, после таких разговоров я не теряю надежды. Да, все эти факты совсем не означают, что мы должны потерять надежду. У нас еще много возможностей.

РАУФ АРИФОГЛУ: Видите ли Вы какие-либо ошибки в своей политике, и лично как глава государства за девять лет Вашей деятельности какие моменты Вы упустили? Есть ли в этом и Ваша вина или вся вина лежит только на оппозиции, ОБСЕ, Америке?

'ГЕЙДАР АЛИЕВ: Отвечу. Но прежде хочу сказать два-три слова. Нагорно-карабахская проблема возникла в 1988 году. Это не новая проблема. Эта проблема существует с начала ХХ века. Я несколько раз говорил об этом. И в прошлом, когда я работал в органах безопасности, положение в Нагорном Карабахе не было нормальным. Не было нормальным оно и в советский период. За 2-3 года до избрания меня секретарем там произошла большая трагедия. Подожгли тюремную машину с тремя азербайджанцами. Две-три недели я находился там - я был председателем КГБ. Вопрос обсуждали на Бюро. Несмотря на преступление, совершенное против Азербайджана в Нагорном Карабахе, тогдашнее руководство так провело обсуждение, как будто бы ничего не произошло. Никто не понес наказания. Есть стенограмма, можно посмотреть.

Только я резко выступил против действий дашнаков, армянских националистов и в Нагорном Карабахе, и в Армении. Я говорю это не для того, чтобы похвалить себя. Зашел разговор, вспоминаю историю. Однако, несмотря на это, мы контролировали ситуацию в Нагорном Карабахе. За счет чего? Во-первых, конечно, советская система сама позволяла это. Во-вторых, я говорю о периоде, когда был первым секретарем, я много помогал в то время развитию Нагорного Карабаха. В то же время старался изменить там демографию. Нагорный Карабах поднимал вопрос об открытии там вуза. У нас все возражали. Я подумал и решил открыть. Но с тем условием, чтобы было три сектора - азербайджанский, русский и армянский. Открыли. Азербайджанцев из прилегающих районов мы направляли не в Баку, а туда. Открыли там большую обувную фабрику. В самом Степанакерте не было рабочей силы. Направляли туда азербайджанцев из окружающих область мест. Этими и другими мерами я старался, чтобы в Нагорном Карабахе было больше азербайджанцев, а число армян сократилось. Те, кто работал в то время в Нагорном Карабахе, знают об этом. Во всяком случае, благодаря моей воле, другим качествам мое слово было законом для его руководства. Однако, к сожалению, после моего отъезда из Азербайджана положение там начало ухудшаться. Возросло влияние Армении, и наши ничего не делали, упустили момент.

Когда в 1987 году остро встал нагорно-карабахский вопрос, - я говорил об этом, говорю еще раз, это действительно так, - мой уход из Политбюро, моя отставка были необходимы только для решения нагорно-карабахского вопроса. Не случайно через 20 дней после моей отставки начался нагорно-карабахский кризис. Я пытался вмешаться в это дело, но меня изолировали. Человек, который вчера был членом Политбюро, сидел в Кремле, сейчас не имел связи, не мог говорить ни с кем. Понимаете?! Я все это пережил. Наконец, в феврале 1991 года я был избран депутатом от Нахчывана и приехал в Баку. Выступив на сессии, сказал, что Нагорный Карабах уже потерян. Об этом следует знать и сделать выводы. Как со мной поступили? Весь зал ополчился против меня, и к вечернему заседанию подготовили ныне покойного Байрама Байрамова. Это был тот самый Байрам Байрамов, который каждую встречу со мной считал историческим событием для себя. Он начал ругать меня. В конце он сказал, что Нагорный Карабах никогда не принадлежал Азербайджану так, как сейчас: "Гейдар Алиев, если ты не знаешь об этом, я тебя посажу на вертолет и повезу в Нагорный Карабах, тогда увидишь, в какой степени Нагорный Карабах наш". Но в то время в Нагорном Карабахе уже не было азербайджанской власти. Наконец началась война, оккупация. Нагорный Карабах был оккупирован еще тогда, когда Азербайджан был в составе Советского Союза. Оставалась одна Шуша, все остальное было оккупировано. То есть, Нагорный Карабах был потерян уже тогда. Понимаете?! Об этом следует знать. Если бы в последующий период проводилась правильная политика, если можно было бы верно оценить ситуацию, остановить огонь и провести переговоры, то, возможно, мы не потеряли бы остальные наши земли. Но мы потеряли и их. Г-н Арифоглу, теперь я хочу ответить на ваш вопрос о том, чувствую ли я за собой за эти девять лет какой-нибудь грех, не допустил ли я ошибки, раз вопрос не решен? Я отвечаю и вам, и всей своей нации: я не допускал никаких ошибок, сделал все, что возможно. Извините, но мой жизненный, политический опыт, знание этой проблемы и мировых процессов - все это было моими большими возможностями. Не думаю, что кто-либо другой мог бы сделать больше меня. Возьмем, Лиссабонский саммит. Можно было бы написать книгу, снять фильм об этом саммите. Потому что до Лиссабонского саммита мы отправили свою делегацию в Финляндию. Наша цель была, чтобы в итоговом документе саммита первым долгом было написано о признании территориальной целостности Азербайджана. Во-вторых, чтобы в нем был отражен факт оккупации наших земель и другое. В то время там работал Тофик Зульфугаров. Я послал его туда. Араза Азимова послал в Вену (центр ОБСЕ располагался в Вене). Наконец проект итогового документа был готов. Мы прибыли в Лиссабон. Помню, было 23 марта. Хорошие проекты были, если бы их приняли, то нам было бы очень хорошо. Не говорю, что наши земли тут же освободили бы. Однако для нас это был бы серьезный юридический документ саммита. Что получилось? Армяне не дали на это консенсуса, сказали, что не принимают его - все там проходит через консенсус. В то время я встречался со многими людьми. Российскую делегацию возглавлял Черномырдин, встретился с ним. Из Америки приехал Гор, встретился и с ним. Приехали главы государств из Германии, других стран, я встретился со всеми. Высказал им свое мнение. Они ответили, раз армяне не приняли, следует изменить документ. Я согласился. Сказал, посмотрите статью грузин. В статье грузин об Абхазии написано все о том, как абхазцы проводили этническую чистку, применяли насилие, творили беззакония. Вся вина лежит на абхазцах. Я сказал, что Грузия - дружественное нам государство, и я очень рад, что они обо всем этом написали. И спросил, но почему же им можно, а нам нет? Ответили: потому что никто не возражает. Вы должны понимать, у нашего конфликта множество факторов, препятствующих Азербайджану. Наш конфликт, выйдя за рамки внутреннего, стал конфликтом между двумя государствами. Когда выгодно армянам или их защитникам, говорят, что это дело Нагорного Карабаха и Азербайджана. Но когда дело касается принятия документов, Армения как член ОБСЕ защищает и себя, и Нагорный Карабах, потому что там Нагорного Карабаха не видно. Правда, в вопросе Грузии и Абхазии 2-3 государства (не хочу называть их) захотели что-то добавить в статью. Но грузины крепко стояли на своем, и они ничего не смогли сделать. Потому что Абхазия не является членом ОБСЕ. Что же было делать? Я сказал, что не могу принять это, следует внести изменения. А они ответили, что изменений вносить нельзя. Армения не даст консенсуса, и документ не примут. Был последний день заседания, через 4-5 часов оно должно было закончиться. И знаете, что я сделал? Сказал, что я весь документ ставлю под вопрос. Не даю консенсуса на него, и все. После этого и Альберт Гор, и Коль, и другие стали просить, чтобы я взял назад свое вето. Я отказался. Но это означало, что саммит не примет ни одного документа. Я сказал, что мне все равно. Если мое дело не получается, мне все равно, примет саммит документы или нет. В течение нескольких часов они подходили ко мне. Кто только не приходил, что только ни говорили! Помню, беседовал с Альбертом Гором. Мы долго говорили с ним. Я сказал: он же не дал консенсуса. Он ответил, что это и его право. Говорю: Да? Отвечает: Да. Говорю: Но и у меня есть право не давать консенсуса. И я, пользуясь своим правом, не даю его. После этого они собрались, написали известное заявление председателю Лиссабонского саммита. Записали в заявлении все, что было в статье. Мы получили его. Но не в заключительном документе, а в отдельном заявлении. Когда заявление поставили на голосование, армяне не проголосовали, но это не имело значения. Таким образом, в 1996 году мы впервые получили от ОБСЕ документ, в котором признавалась территориальная целостность Азербайджана, территориальная целостность Армении, Нагорному Карабаху предоставлялся статус самоуправления в составе Азербайджана и обеспечивалась безопасность армян в Нагорном Карабахе. А здесь оппозиция начала наносить нам удары справа и слева, заявляя, что мы проиграли в Лиссабоне. Что проиграли? Ничего мы не проиграли. Таким образом, уважаемый Арифоглу, хочу сказать, что не каждый может отважиться поставить под вопрос принятие документа ОБСЕ. Представители 54 государств удивились, что я принял такое решение. Если бы заявление не приняли, то я пошел бы до конца. Покинул бы саммит. Терять было нечего. Я всегда боролся. Я ни перед кем не виноват, делал все возможное. Вы говорите, что я обвиняю ОБСЕ, других и не признаю своей вины. Еще раз говорю вам, что я обвиняю их. Если эта организация не может обеспечить осуществление объявленных ею же принципов, то я имею право обвинять ее. Если Совет Безопасности ООН не может обеспечить осуществление принятых ею резолюций о выводе вооруженных сил Армении, я обвиняю его. В Нью-Йорке собрали всех членов Совета Безопасности. Я все сказал им в лицо. Они ответили так: "Мы принимаем решение, но механизма его исполнения нет". В свое время я говорил об этом Бутросу Гали, Кофи Аннану. Получил тот же ответ. ОБСЕ также заявляет, что у них нет механизма исполнения. Поэтому у меня есть право обвинять их. Пусть они откажутся от этих принципов. Тогда другое дело. С одной стороны, они отстаивают эти принципы, иногда, пользуясь, ими оказывают давление на отдельные государства. Но здесь этого вопроса не решают. В этом дело. Как президент, глава Азербайджана, я продолжаю и буду продолжать сотрудничество со всеми этими организациями. Потому что другого пути у нас нет. Есть один путь, - отказавшись от всех их рекомендаций, - начать войну. Но все они в один голос говорят, что мы не должны этого делать: "Если пойдете этим путем, то вас не поддержит ни одна страна". Мы можем, не учитывая этого, начать войну. Но у нас есть путь. Я не исключаю и этот вариант. Но я говорю откровенно - следует понять, какой тяжелой будет война для Азербайджана. Тяжелой в том смысле, что сейчас экономика Азербайджана развивается, имеет хорошие перспективы, и у нас есть очень важные проекты. Все это должно нарушиться. Все будет служить войне. Это есть, и это возможно.

АФЛАТУН АМАШЕВ (председатель Комитета защиты журналистов Азербайджана "Рух"): Г-н Президент, мой вопрос касается отношений правоохранительных органов с журналистами. После моей последней встречи с министром внутренних дел Рамилем Усубовым мы создали специальную мониторинговую группу. Эта группа держит под контролем отношения полиция-журналист во время проводимых в городе акций. И это дает свои плоды. Но остаются и определенные проблемы. Они касаются возбуждения уголовных дел, связанных с журналистами. До сих пор возбуждено 20 уголовных дел против журналистов. Они или были задержаны, или задержаны и вскоре отпущены на свободу. Уголовные дела же их все еще остаются, что препятствует свободным действиям журналистов. Например, возбуждено уголовное дело против главного редактора газеты "Ени Мусават" Рауфа Арифоглу, которое еще не закрыли, из-за чего он сталкивается с трудностями, собираясь в зарубежные поездки.

ГЕЙДАР АЛИЕВ: Знаете, то, что уголовное дело Рауфа Арифоглу не закрыто, похоже на абсурд. То есть, есть уголовное дело или нет, не имеет значения, он делает свое дело. А с другой стороны, это ему на пользу. Если завтра что-то случится, он заявит, что уголовное дело на него открыли ни за что, чтобы оказать на него давление. Поэтому, если наши прокуроры, полиция, другие хорошо задумаются, то, наверное, закроют это уголовное дело, чтобы он не использовал это в корыстных целях. Думаю, после моих слов они поймут это. АФЛАТУН АМАШЕВ: В результате зарубежные организации делают нежелательные заявления об Азербайджане. ГЕЙДАР АЛИЕВ: О ком заявления? АФЛАТУН АМАШЕВ: Журналистов избивают, - во время последнего происшествия начальник управления полиции Сабаильского района Назим Нагиев избил корреспондента информационного агентства "Туран". Хотелось, чтобы при нарушении законов в отношении журналистов устанавливали и наказывали виновных. На основании Вашего распоряжения, подписанного 27 декабря прошлого года, прокуратуре было поручено устанавливать и наказывать виновных при нарушениях законов в отношении журналистов. Пока у нас нет никаких сообщений об этом. Мне бы хотелось услышать Ваше отношение к этому вопросу.

ГЕЙДАР АЛИЕВ: Али Гасанов, отметьте эти факты. Дайте указание, пусть сделают все, что нужно.

АФЛАТУН АМАШЕВ: Большое спасибо.

ЭЛЬЧИН ШЫХЛЫ (главный редактор газеты "Зеркало"): Господин Президент, в ходе беседы много говорилось об оппозиции. У меня такой вопрос: 33 года назад Вы были избраны руководителем Азербайджана. Вы руководили Азербайджаном в советский период, когда оппозиции не было. И сейчас Вы более 9 лет являетесь Президентом независимого Азербайджана, но страны с оппозицией. Как по-вашему, что лучше? Руководить страной без оппозиции, такой, как Туркменистан, или нынешним Азербайджаном с оппозицией? Во всяком случае хотелось бы знать Ваше мнение о роли оппозиции.

ГЕЙДАР АЛИЕВ: Отвечая на вопрос, я бы сказал, что независимо от того, есть оппозиция или ее нет, быть Президентом независимого Азербайджана, естественно, несравнимо выше, чем быть руководителем Азербайджанской Республики, входившей в состав Советского Союза. Как вам известно, после этого я работал на очень высоких должностях и в Москве. И считаю, что пребывание на посту Президента независимого Азербайджана в эти тяжелые 9 лет моей жизни - превыше и почетнее всего. Это, во-первых. Во-вторых, что лучше: страна с оппозицией или страна без нее? В то время тоже была оппозиция, но тогда она не была настолько свободной. Но не то, чтобы я как первый секретарь делал все, что хотел, и здесь не было мешающих мне или желающих навредить. Были. Просто они не были организованы. Партий не было. Названия "оппозиция" тоже не было. Были определенные группы. Но, естественно, ставить рядом, сравнивать сегодняшнюю оппозицию и их, нельзя. Я считаю, какая бы ни была оппозиция, руководить независимым Азербайджаном - большая честь для меня. Если хотите знать мое мнение, то я не такой человек, чтобы бояться, сторониться оппозиции. Я пережил все это. Сегодняшняя оппозиция - это люди, многих из которых я знал, когда приехал сюда в 90-е годы. С частью их я поддерживал личные связи в Нахчыване или же в Баку. Это - не новые люди. Правда, в то время мы с ними не находились в оппозиции друг к другу. Мне известно, что некоторые из них относились ко мне с большим уважением. Всем известно о том, что в доме, где жил покойный Эльчибей, долгие годы висели два портрета - Ататюрка и Гейдара Алиева. Когда я жил в Нахчыване, то поддерживал телефонную связь и с Эльчибеем. В то время он еще не был у власти. То есть, это не новые для меня люди. Другой вопрос, что в тот самый период в Азербайджане появился Народный фронт, который затем разделился на партии и прочее, то есть это тот же состав, другой оппозиции нет. Они пришли к власти. Спустя год вынуждены были оставить власть. И сейчас, вот уже 9 лет, находятся в оппозиции. Мне хочется, чтобы отношения между оппозицией и властью были нормальными. Сама оппозиция говорит о том, что оппозиция и власть не могут быть друзьями. Потому что она ведет с ней борьбу за власть. Это принцип оппозиции. Но, как она должна вести эту борьбу? Каким путем? Это - другой вопрос. К сожалению, нынешняя оппозиция в Азербайджане, формы ее политической борьбы различны. Это те люди, которые в 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 годах находились на площадях. Они кричали то там, то тут и до сих пор еще не отказались от этих настроений. Но время прошло, мир изменился. Мир никогда не стоит на месте. К примеру, люди сегодня одевают одно, завтра - другое. Не знаю, меняется мода на мебель, еще на что-то, то есть человеческое общество развивается, и по мере его развития изобретается все новое и новое. Точно так же и в политике. Этот процесс идет и должен идти. Но если сегодня наша оппозиция сохранила форму 1989 года, которой пользуется и сегодня, - в то время она выходила на улицы, площади и прочее, не знаю, провозглашала лозунги, - затем кричала "отставка", если она пользуется этим методом и сегодня, то ведь это устаревший метод. То есть, они еще не пересели в "Мерседес", все еще ездят на "ГАЗ-24". Вообще-то они ездят на "мерседесах", я говорю это в переносном смысле, чтобы пояснить свою мысль. Мне хотелось бы, чтобы оппозиция стала современной. А для этого есть прекрасные возможности. Сегодня демократия в мире развивается быстрее, охватывает многие страны мира, сейчас не так, как раньше. Методы работы, планы оппозиции в развитых странах известны. Было бы лучше, если бы они шире использовали это. Оппозиции не следует считать власть врагом. Я лично не считаю оппозицию врагом. Но когда я вижу, что ежедневно на каждой странице газеты в 24 полосы публикуются различные материалы о Гейдаре Алиеве, как бы мало я ни придавал этому значения, все равно думаю о том, ну, зачем это? То есть пусть критикуют, без критики нельзя. Пусть указывают на наши ошибки, а как же иначе. К примеру, я смотрю вечером телевизор и когда вижу что-то такое, то даже в час ночи поднимаю с постели премьер-министра или некоторых наших заведующих отделами и довожу до них свои мысли. Пусть оппозиция учтет это. Я завершаю свой ответ на заданный вами вопрос. Государство с оппозицией - лучше.

АРИФ АЛИЕВ: Г-н Президент, вопросов еще много. Мы поняли Ваш намек на время. Поэтому, как я уже отметил, мы надеемся, что эта наша встреча станет началом традиции. Благодарим Вас за то, что Вы свободно и открыто, насколько позволяет Ваша должность и ответственность, беседовали по ряду моментов. Безусловно, после этой встречи пресса вновь будут критиковать Вас, а Вы, наверное, в определенный момент выразите прессе недовольство. Но возникает понимание, и одно дело критиковать, понимая, совсем другое - критиковать, ничего не осознавая. Поэтому мы благодарим Вас за эту встречу Capasitor (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

---

And the source of the text is? Online link or scan of the newspaper? Grandmaster 18:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Links: 1. Original link: http://www.echo-az.info/archive/2002_07/383/index.shtml [61] 2. Link to the Russian information agency Regnum:[62] which contains part of Aliyev's speech 3. Discussion of the speech on Day.az Azerbaijani website: [63] with original link here [64] Capasitor (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I would like to inform you that you have failed to bring any reasonable arguments in favor of excluding the American scholar Chorbajian outside of your groundless claim that he is "Armenian propagandist." Your and Brand's chance to answer these questions - [65] has expired. Capasitor (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Capasitor, the exclusion of Donabedian is the result of RfC. Please don't aggravate the issue. --Brandспойт 10:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no "exclusion of Donabedian is the result of RfC." In fact, Donabedian and Chorbajian book is well present as a source in other WP articles. Your opinion on this subject is no longer relevant. Capasitor (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will finally read the RfC, it is not merely my opinion. Brandспойт 21:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What "RfC"? Meowy 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Meliks

According to modern historians I know, the Meliks of Karabakh were all the branches of the Syunid house of Khachen. Raffi's metion that they were migrants is according to Robert Hewsen groundless:

Of all the five Meliks of Karabagh, Raffi assures us that only the Hasan-Jalalids were indigenous to the region. Yet we have seen that the Shahnazarids, Beglarids and Isrealids were also of Siwnid descent. The only explanation for Raffi’s statement is that either he was misinformed (he does not state his source) or that the Hasan Jalalids themselves believed this version of the melikal origins possibly on the grounds that they alone inhabited the land Khachen, which as we have seen was the domain of the last Siwnid line. The Hasan-Jalalids were, moreover, the most prestigious of the five meliks for, not only did they represtent the senior line of the House of Siwnik’-Khatchen, but they had secured for themselves a monopoly of the chief ecclesiastical position in Karabagh, the Khatolicate of Albania, which had passed down from uncle to nephew in the Hasam-Djalalian family from at least the fifteenth century.

Robert Hewsen, "The Meliks of Eastern Armenia: A Preliminary Study." Revue des Études Arméniennes. NS: IX, 1972, p. 317.

I have thus corrected this section.--Vacio (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There are other sources supporting non-local origin of 4 meliks, so it is not just Raffi. Grandmaster 15:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The exact origin of each of these meliks is known. Robert Hewsen has studied the origins of the princes and kings of Artsakh since the 1960s. In his works he expatiates when, where and how emerged each of these branches of Khachen. The names of all the princes of Khachen and their desendants, the Meliks of Karabakh, are known from 821 to 1828. So there cant doubt. And Mirza Adigezal bey is a primary source, not better than Raffi. --Vacio (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, an Armenian source from Karabakh, [66] and Muslim Mira Adigezal bey [67] say the same thing. It looks like Hewsen is not aware of these sources. So we have 3 sources against 1. We need to present all opinions, not just one. Also, the rules do not allow quoting primary sources, they do not allow interpreting them. So if we say that such and such sources say so and so, it would not be against the rules. Grandmaster 15:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

All of those sources can not be equated with a top expert who examined the whole history of Nagorno-Karabakh for decenia. And it is not only Hewsen, Cyril Toumanoff has also the same (see: Toumanoff, Cyril. "Manuel de généalogie et de chronologie pour l'histoire de la Caucasie Chrétienne (Arménie-Géorgie-Albanie)." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. London: University of London, Vol. 41, № 2). Please take a look at some articles refering to royal houses and dynasties and see how primary sources and tranditions are treated and are criticized with scholary sources (see for example Bagrationi dynasty).

Your statement that we have 3 sources against 1 is ahistorical and very childish! If you think that we can quote primary sources which contradict modern scholars when we see it fit, I can go and quote in the intro of Caucasian Albania the Armenian historiographer Mattheos Urhayetsi, who wrote that Albania was part of Armenia. --Vacio (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If the info is supported by 3 sources, it is notable. The rules do not prohibit quoting primary sources, with proper attribution. I do not interpret them, just repeat what they say, word by word. The opinion of Hewsen is also notable, and should also be presented, properly attributed to him. That would be in line with the rules, and that's what I did. Grandmaster 18:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Robert Hewsen supports exactly what Vacio is saying.

6. The House of Israelian was the only one of the five in Karabagh that was not native in the region. The Israelids were, however, of ultimate Siunid origin. Robert Hewsen. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 163.

That settles it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster: "We need to present all notable points of view, and this info is supported by 3 sources". No we don't !. We need only to include the mainstream view of modern historians. Hewsen discusses the situation in depth and makes it clear who's from where. If you or others have modern works of scholarship that provide an argument that is contrary to Hewsen than go ahead and present them, otherwise stop edit warring.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Brandmesiter, the current lead is result of months of discussions and compromises. It's not an area where you should be bold and make unilateral changes.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Eupator, you refer to the mention of Azerbaijan in the first sentence? :-) --Brandспойт 10:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The rules do not allow suppression of information just because someone dislikes it. The info about migrant origin of 4 melik families is supported by 3 reliable sources, and should remain in the article. Grandmaster 16:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"The rules do not allow suppression of information just because someone dislikes it." I think you are trying to suppress Donabedian and Chorbajian for no other reason than your dislike of it. However this discussion is no longer relevant - the temporarily removed part of the demographic section goes back to the text of the article without no alterations because no alterations were suggested. Capasitor (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is the lack of reliable sources. As you were explained countless times Donabedian et al are not such a source. And the numbers provided by Armenian sources are a gross exaggeration, as confirmed by third party sources.

Some Armenian authors tend to exaggerate the change in ethnic demography. In actual fact, the proportion of Armenians in Karabakh fell from an estimated 80 to 85 percent in 1924 to 76 percent in 1989.

Christoph Zürcher. The Post-Soviet Wars: Rebellion, Ethnic Conflict, and Nationhood in the Caucasus. NYU Press, 2007. ISBN 0814797091, 9780814797099

Grandmaster 06:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the Isrealids. According to Hewsen it was a branch of the Haykazean family of Zangezur-Qashatagh, in turn a ramification of the medieval Proshid (or Halbakid) family of Vayots Dzor, the latter was an early subbranch of the House of Khachen which left Artsakh for Vayots Dzor in c. 13th century. --Vacio (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And about Raffi's stemma of the Meliks, it is highly improper. Here an other quote from Hewsen's aforecited study:

Second, the data given by the Secrets on the Shahnazarids is clearly more accurate than that found for the same house in Raffi’s work wherein he makes Melik Huseyin (d. 1736) a son of Melik Shahnazar I who flourished c. 1600!

--Vacio (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of Hewsen is notable, and should be included. The opinion of 3 primary sources is notable too, and should also be included, I like how some people demonstrate a double standard here. Just look how many times primary sources are quoted in the article. Just one example:

It was at that time when the foremost Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi confirmed that the River Kura formed "the boundary of Armenian speech." [29] The 7th century Armenian linguist and grammarian Stephanos Syunetsi stated in his work that Armenians of Artsakh had their own dialect, and encouraged his readers to learn it.[30] In the same 7th century, Armenian poet Davtak Kertogh writes his “Elegy on the Death of Grand Prince Juansher,” where each passage begins with a letter of Armenian script in alphabetical order. [31][32] The only comprehensive history of the Kingdom of Aghvank was written in Armenian, by the historian Movses Kaghankatvatsi.

As you can see, the above section contains nothing but the quotes from primary sources. So I see no reason why it is Ok to refer to the primary sources when they support the Armenian position, and not Ok to do so, if they don't. Please do not delete references to migrant origin of meliks. There can be no justification to that. Grandmaster 07:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think primary sources can be best left out from this article when they refer to controversial points of HK history. The abovementioned excerpt is the result of your policy of denying to reach a consensus here in the talkpage, when you know very good that the ancient population of Artsakh is a highly controversial topic. In the article Artsakh I have tried to write a balanced paragraph on this besed on academical sources. I hope some soberminded users will read it and see how bad is it to quote an author out of context. --Vacio (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I am to blame for whatever goes wrong here. Artsakh reflects pro-Armenian POV and is very far from any neutrality, unfortunately. And if primary sources are used in this article to support certain claims, then there's no reason to remove them when it comes to the origin of meliks. After all, Hewsen's opinion is just his opinion. It is notable, and should be reflected. But suppression of 3 primary sources, both Armenian and Muslim, who were witnesses of the events, cannot be accepted. The rules allow the use of primary sources, but not their interpretation. So it is perfectly acceptable to quote those sources to present all existing opinions. Grandmaster 06:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That argument doesn't hold water. Secondary scholalry sources are always better than primary sources. I don't see you arguing against that. Hewsen trumps all three for obvious reasons! I'd rather see the attribution of the aforementioned other primary sources rendered via a secondary source. Primary sources should be used as a last resort if a secondary source is lacking and should never be used for controversial issues. I find it interesting that you continue to divide sources and whatnot into those that "suppport an Armenian position" and those that don't. That's quite sad actually.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 06:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, first please don't make false accusations. Artsakh is generally based on non-Armenian, mostly western sources (as you demanded many times), only there where it speaks of Armenian traditions Armenian sources are used. Then, Raffi nor Mirza Adizegal (both historians of the 19th century) could not be witnesses of what they believed occured in the 16-17th cc, they don't even mention a single source. Their allegation is discounted by R. Hewsen and C. Toumanoff, who are the most prominent western scholars in the field of Caucasology, thus it deserves no mention in this article, although may be it does it other articles as History of Nagorno-Karabakh#Armenian Meliks, which is already done. Also if it comes to primary sources, I can qoute numerious sources, which state that the meliks were the descendandts of the House of Khachen, for example Israel Ori (17th c.), the familly stemma of the meliks by Esayi Hasan-Jalalyan (17-18th cc), the famous chronicles "Secrets of Karabakh" or "The Melikdom of Dizak" and many others. --Vacio (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't think anyone can discount 3 primary sources. I never rejected Hewsen, but other existing points of view cannot be supressed. The rules do not prohibit the use of primary sources. Also, as I said before, primary sources are used throughout the article, and I don't see why they cannot be used in this case as well. Grandmaster 10:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just stonewalling.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't support you, if modern experts say that it is historically unfounded. Again, other pirmary sources must be left out from this article as well, we must include here only information supported by scholars. --Vacio (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hewsen does not claim it as a fact. It is just a version. And other versions must be presented too. Grandmaster 05:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not "a version", it is the result of decades of historical investigation, thanks to which we know the exact origin of each of these Meliks. The "other version" is already mentioned in History of Nagorno-Karabakh#Armenian Meliks. In this artice we must cite only basic facts about the history of NK, which means facts that are certain. Every other information should and will be removed from here. --Vacio (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Church of Albania

The following text is (temporarly) moved:

According to ancient and medieval Armenian sources, the Church of Aghvank was founded by Gregory the Illuminator—the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church—in the 4th century AD. It was fully absorbed by the Armenian Apostolic Church in the early Middle Ages.

Once more, controversial statements must come from reliable third part sources, not from self-published material or (misinterprated) primary sources. These article contains already too much originally interpratated primary sources, which many times are not related to the topic of the articles (what has Albania in the 1st c. to do with Artsakh which then was part of Armenia?). --Vacio (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. And that was Capasitor's edit. Brandспойт 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Echo newspaper (continued)

Looks like Capasitor misunderstands the interview since it became verifiable. First of all, the Aliyev's passage corresponding below, once used as a reference is misinterpreted IMO. The context is as follows (translated):

I only sharply bearded the Dashnaks, the Armenian nationalists both in Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. I'm telling that not to praise myself. The talk has arose, I am recalling the past. But, despite that, we were controlling the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. Owing to what? Firstly, of course because the Soviet system itself was permitting that. Secondly, I am talking about the period when I was the First Secretary, I was assisting a lot with the Nagorno-Karbakh development. At the same time I was trying to alter demography there. Nagorno-Karabakh raised a question on opening an IHE (institute of higher education) there. Everybody was opposing among us. I pondered and decided to open. But provided that there would be three sectors - Azerbaijani, Russian and Armenian. It was opened. [...] There was no manpower in Stepanakert.

Also I've read the bold-pointed passages above. Here is the translation.

[Rauf Arifoglu: Do you see any faults in your politics, and personally, as the head of state, which moments you missed during the nine years of your functioning? Is there your guilt in that or the whole guilt rests on opposition, OSCE and America?]

Heydar Aliyev: I will reply. But first of all I have to say two-three words. The Nagorno-Karabakh problem arose in 1988. This is not a new problem. This problem exists since the beginning of the 20th century. I have repeatedly spoke on that. Yet in the past, when I worked in security bodies, the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh has not been normal. Nor it was in the Soviet period. 2-3 years prior to my secretary election, a big tragedy has occurred there. A jail vehicle with three Azerbaijanis was arsoned. I have been there for two to three weeks, I was the chairman of KGB. The issue was discussed in Bureau. Regardless of crime committed against Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh, the then-leaders conducted the debate in such a way that nothing has happened. No one was imposed a penalty. There is a shorthand report, one may look at.

Do you understand? It is necessary to know about. If a correct politics were conducted in subsequent period, if it were possible to evaluate the situation justly, to halt the fire and carry on negotiations, then we would not probably lose the rest of our lands. But we have lost them as well. Mister Arifoglu, now I would like to answer your question on whether I feel some sin during these nine years, on whether I made a mistake as the issue is not solved yet? I am addressing you and my whole nation: I have made no mistakes and did my best. Forgive me, but my life and political experience, the knowledge of that problem and of the world processes - all this were my great opportunities. I don't think if someone else would do more than me. Let us take the Lisbon summit. One could write a book and shoot a film on that summit. Because prior to the Lisbon summit we have sent our delegation to Finland. Our goal was that in the final document of the summit it should be written about aknowledgement of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity first. Secondly, the fact of the occupation of our lands and other were to be written there. Tofik Zulfugarov has worked there by that time. I sent him there. Araz Azimov was sent to Vienna (the OSCE centre was in Vienna). Eventually, a draft of the concluding document was prepared. We arrived at Lisbon. It was March 23, as I recall. There were good projects, it would be fine if they were accepted. I don't mean that our lands would be freed immediatelly. But it was a serious judicial summit document for us. What has ensued? Armenians did not give a consensus on that, saying they do not accept it - everything there goes through consensus. I was meeting many persons at the time. The Russian delegation was headed by Chernomyrdin, I met him. Gore has arrived from America, I met him as well. The state heads from Germany, from other countries have come, I met them. I expressed my opinion to them. They replied that if Armenians did not accept, then the document should be changed. I agreed. I said look at the Georgians' article. Everything on how Abkhazians were conducting an ethnic cleansing, committing violence and lawlessnesses is written in the Georgians' article about Abkhazia. The whole guilt rests on Abkhazians. I said that Georgia is a friendly state to us and I am very pleased they wrote on everything that. And I asked, why they are allowed and we don't? It was replied: because nobody minds. You have to realize that they are many factors in our conflict, hindering Azerbaijan. Our conflict, getting out of interior bounds, became a conflict between the two states. When it is favorable to Armenians or their defenders, they say it is a matter of Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. But when it gets to accepting the documents, Armenia, as the OSCE member, advocates both itself and Nagorno-Karabakh because Nagorno-Karabakh does not manifest there. Actually in the Georgia-Abkhazia issue two or three states (I don't want to name them) have wanted to add something to article. But Georgians were standing firm and they reached nothing. For Abkhazia is not the OSCE member. What was supposed to do? I said I can't accept this, changes need to be made. And they said the changes are prohibited. Armenia would not give a consensus and the document would not be accepted. It was the last day of session, which was to be ended in 4-5 hours. You know what I did? I said I question the whole document. I do not give a consensus on it and that's all. Albert Gore, Kohl and others asked me to recuse from my veto after that. I refused. But this did not mean the summit would accept no document. I said I don't care. If my business does not progress, I don't care whether summit accepts the documents or not. They were approaching me for several hours. Whomever one likes was coming, whatever one likes was talking about! I remember myself talking to Albert Gore. We were talking long. I said: but he did not give a consensus. He said it is his right too. I say: yes? He replies: yes. I said I have a right not to give a consensus as well. And enjoying my right, I am not giving it. They gathered together since then and compiled a famous request to the Lisbon summit chairman. Noted in request everything that was in the article. We received it. Not in a final document, but in a separate petition though. When the request has been put to the vote, Armenians did not cast, but it mattered no more. Thus in 1996 we have obtained a document from OSCE which recognized the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the territorial integrity of Armenia for the first time; Nagorno-Karabakh was rendered a self-governing status within Azerbaijan, with the security of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh being provided. And then the opposition stroke us a blows from the left and the right, claiming we have lost in Lisbon. What we lost? Nothing. Therefore, mister Arifoglu, I would like to say that not everyone can venture to question the adoption of the OSCE document. The representatives of 54 states amazed that I took that decision. If the decision has not been accepted, I would put a finish to it. I would left the summit. Nothing was lost by it. I have always strived. I apologize to no one, I did my utmost. You say I blame OSCE, others and don't find myself guilty. I'm telling you once more, I blame them. If that organization can not implement the principles declared by itself, then I have the right to blame it. If the OSCE Security Council can not accomplish the adopted resolutions on withdrawal of Armenia's armed forces, I blame it. All members of Security Council were assembled in New York. I said everything to their face. They replied as follows: 'We accept the decision, but there is no gear for its implementation'. I was talking on it to Boutros Ghali, Kofi Annan in my time. I got the same response. The OSCE also claims it has no gear of accomplishment. Therefore I have the right to blame them. Let them recuse from those principles. Then it's quite another matter. On the one hand they uphold these principles, sometimes, utilizing them, put pressure upon separate states. But here this question is not being solved. That’s what it’s all about. As president, as the head of Azerbaijan, I continue and will continue the cooperation with all of these organizations. For we have no another way.

Brandспойт 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You "forgot" to translate the a couple of key sentences in the article: "Нагорный Карабах поднимал вопрос об открытии там института, вуза. Я подумал, решил открыть, но с тем условием, чтобы было три сектора - азербайджанский, русский и армянский. Открыли. Азербайджанцев из прилегающих районов мы направляли не в Баку, а туда. Открыли там большую обувную фабрику. В самом Степанакерте не было рабочей силы. Направляли туда азербайджанцев из окружающих область мест. Этими и другими мерами я старался, чтобы в Нагорном Карабахе было больше азербайджанцев, а число армян сократилось." The highlighted passage that you missed: "... We had been moving Azerbaijanis from areas that lied next to the oblast (province). Through these measures I tried to increase the number of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh and endeavored to decrease the number of Armenians." Nothing about "bearded dashnaks." Capasitor (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your bolded text should be comprehended within the full thought I translated above. It does not assume that there were some racially motivated demographic manipulations. Besides, there were still the Soviet times, when one was prohibited to think in nationalistic terms. Dashnaks were the only ones, whom Aliyev sharply opposed. Brandспойт 09:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that translation, Capasitor, and for pointing out Brandmeister's "forgetfulness". I think a quote from the president of Azerbaijan is an acceptable source to ilustrate Azerbaijan's pre-NK war demographic policies regarding NK. Meowy 20:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The quote in any form is not acceptable - it is a personal interpretation of a source, which in this case is distorted via lifting out of context. That's why I translated the whole bold bunch and bolded the italics above to make it clear what Aliyev assumes. I believe the reference departed through RfC quite justly. Brandспойт 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article in Echo is an acceptable source to illustrate Azerbaijan's pre-NK war demographic policies regarding NK. Brandmeister's opposition to using this info could have been accepted had not Aliyev's words been supported by other primary and secondary sources. Capasitor (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, because of Moreschi, Capasitor's important input to this discussion has been ended. Meowy 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Brand, please discuss then change the intro. I think it the best way is, to place the terms "de facto" and "de jure" in the first or second sentence of the leading. By the way, I don't agree that the NKR is the result of the NKWar, since when it was proclaimed in 1991, the war was not over yet. I think the war itself was the result of NK's seeking for independence --Vacio (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I hoped there would be no edit war on that, anyway. Here are the reverts: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. I briefly addressed this issue here ([68], [69]), but it vain so far. Eupator was talking about some consensus, whereas I believe it is not a subject to. Even if there was some relevant compromise before, it is to be restarted now (Meowy: Why no mention of the fact that all of it is currently a de jure part of Azerbaijan?; curiously enough, he reverted me since then). I believe the issue is not about the proofs since naturally there are megabytes of them. The point is that we know NK is not a neutral territory, no man's land or terra nullius. Thus the mention of Azerbaijan should somehow go in the first sentence and remain so. Brandспойт 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is not only what must be mentioned in the intro, but how. It useful and usual to bring up your proposed changes of the intro in the talkpage and wait on the reaction of other users. Your last edits in the intro were IMO not proper, Nagorno-Karabakh within the borders of Azerbaijan is an oversimplification considering the fact that the latter has no control over it since 1991 (thus at the very point when Azerbaijan became independent). --Vacio (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the current itro is a very poor one. The identification of NK (especially its borders) with NKAO is another bad oversimplification, according to R. Hewsen the region has a territory of 3,175 square miles. --Vacio (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So any suggestions on how the sentence should begin? I recall a version where Azerbaijan has been stable in the lead for some time. Brandспойт 10:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a geographical region - it is not about the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, or the earlier Autonomous Oblast. Your de jure catechism is off-topic for the introduction of this article. Meowy 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Meowy, about a geographical region. We are only discussing the way how Azerbaijan should be mentioned. Brandспойт 13:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To me, the only solution seems to be this: First, establish its neutral, geographic location, which is in the Caucasus. Then, and only then, do you try to explain the political situation. But there's no reason to try to insert a political situation into the basic geographic definition of the region. --Golbez (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I propose to correct the excerpts where NK is confused with NKAO. Geographically NK lies between Lower Karabakh and Zangezur and it covers the southeastern range of the Lesser Caucasus mountains.--Vacio (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether we want this or not, NK is used as the primary acronym for "NKAO" and "NKR". Everyone types it in the google and wiki, not the other ones. So, why not we have both - "in South Caucasus, within the borders of Azerbaijan". On the other note, why we cannot have primary sources on origins of Melikdoms? There are plenty of primary sources on Armenia related articles. Moreover, these sources are more recent and academic than many other old and antique ones used out there. So I am all for mentioning them. --Aynabend (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Because in one definition (the NKR's), it is not entirely within the borders of Azerbaijan, as the NKR exercises sovereignty over a region that borders Armenia. There is nothing to be gained from going immediately to the political without giving context. --Golbez (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is about NK proper. I agree that first the region's neutral geographic location should go (I left it in the reverted edits), and then Azerbaijan. Brandспойт 13:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. The article is about Nagorno-Karabakh, the region. So establish where it is. Since the region is disputed, THEN give the political facts. Don't start off saying "it's in" or "it's within" the borders of Azerbaijan. At least one group disagrees. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re the current version, while I'm not sure about saying it's within the borders of Azerbaijan (since Azerbaijan does not surround the NKR's claimed borders), I'm happier with the geographic definition being delivered first. Geography is the easy part; the political situation is what's complex. It couldn't be done with a minor clause in the first sentence, it needed genuine treatment. --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO a simple mention of Azerbaijan in intro is not political, besides it goes in the second sentence and the geographic definition is delivered first. Brandспойт 07:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Brand, I think you should wait a little for further discussion about how Azerbaijan should be mentioned in the article. I think at least you must make clear that you are are talking about NK's de jure situation and that de facto Azerbaijan has no authority over it! Other than that your last edit were good. --Vacio (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have once more removed the mention about Azerbaijan from the article, as earlier said this point needs more discussion. I purpose to take as starting point the following: the intro begins with 1) a brief geographic information, then comes 2) historic background, and finely 3) its current condition. Thus something like this:

Nagorno-Karabakh, historically known as Artsakh, is a region of the Southern Caucasus, lying between Lower Karabakh and Zangezur and covering the southeastern range of the Lesser Caucasus mountains. The region is mostly mountainous and afforested and has an area of 8,223 km² . From medieval times until 1828 the region has been an Armenian principality . Nowadays the region is de jure part of Azerbaijan, but de facto ruled by the internationally unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The disputed status of the region is currently a subject of peace talks between the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Geographic information needs probably more datail. --Vacio (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but Artsakh along with the medieval times amd 1828 should depart, I think Golbez wouldn't support it either. Besides we have a contemporary map. Brandспойт 10:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Brand, at two points at least we have a consensus. But can you explain why you disagree with a brief mention of its historical background? The region has been a principality, and for a while a kingdom, from the 9th century till the 19th century (all the time ruled by the same dynasty), I argue that a historical background is noteworthy in the intro, includig that it is historically known by the name Artsakh. Here a qoute about the direct connection of medieval Artsakh and 20th century Nagorno-Karabakh:

...the descendants of the "Kings of Arc'ax" played a prominent role in Karabagh during the period of the Armenian Republic, and even after the establishment of Soviet Power, when as recently as 1965, a certain Nikolai Semyonovich Melik-Shakhnazarov -a direct descendant of Antiochus, Prince of Siwnik' of the time of St. Gregory the Illuminator, was First Secretary of the Communist Party of Highland Karabagh and as such, we may be sure, firmly in control of the land of his ancestors. This so-called "Autonomous" Province of Highland Karabagh, an Armenian-inhabited enclave within the Aserbaidjani Soviet Socialist Republic, is in direct lineal descendant of the medieval Kingdom of Arc'ax. A loose end in Armenian geopolitical history, its very existence is a testimony to the significance of the medieval kingdom, whose geography and whose rulers together imposed a sense of unity, identity and self-awareness upon its inhabitants, all reflected in the present-day "Karabagh Question" which has yet to be adequately resolved.

— Robert H. Hewsen. The Kingdom of Arc'ax. In Medieval Armenian Culture (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies). Thomas J. Samuelian and Michael E. Stone (eds.) Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1984, pp. 54-55. ISBN 0-8913-0642-0.

--Vacio (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Information about the ancient times should not be in the intro. If anything, Karabakh became a part of Russia as a khanate, and there was even a treaty signed between the Russian Tsar and the khan of Karabakh. But all this should be kept out of the intro, as the article is about the region in general, and not its history. --Grandmaster 07:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not information about ancient times, but a mention of its historical status, which is common practice in other Wikipedia articles about regions and countries. Present-day Nagorno-Karabakh is the succesor of the medieval Kingdom of Artsakh (btw. its rulers were internationally recognised) and it was ruled by the same princely house of Khachen for almost one thousand years:

Arc'ax/Xac'en/Karabagh...was hold by a branch of the Siwnids from at least the ninth until the ninetheenth -a period of over 1,000 years

Robert H. Hewsen. "The Meliks of Eastern Armenia: II." Revue des Études Arméniennes. NS: X, 1973-1974, p. 286.

I see no reason to omit this important fact from the intro. The Karabakh Khanate existed only much shorter, it did not correspond to the present Nagorno-Karabakh region and even at that time Nagorno-Karabakh was ruled by its own Armenian princes. --Vacio (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

break

"Present-day Nagorno-Karabakh is the successor of the medieval Kingdom of Artsakh and played an important part in the geopolitical history of the region." I almost reverted this, saying "It's just a geographical reason, it can't be a successor, any more than Anatolia is the successor of the Ottoman Empire." But just before hitting submit, I kind of realized that it's not a purely geographic definition. There's history behind the whole dividing up the area between lower Karabakh, upper Karabakh, Zangezur, Nakhichevan, etc. These aren't purely geographic definitions, are they? I'm still uncomfortable with saying "it's the successor" to something right there in the intro, since we aren't talking about a country at all. So I am going to remove it, but with this comment opening for discussion.

IMO, the intro needs to do three things: State the geographic facts (which are not in dispute, though Vacio's edit also introduced a demographic fact which, while not in dispute, could be disputed since people may want to say something about the depopulation of Azeris, one way or another, during the war, so for sanity's sake this might be removed); state the present situation (which is not in dispute); and give a minimum of context. I don't think it supplies enough context; we could use a link to the war in the intro, for example, as OSCE Minsk would have no work if it weren't for that war. But that's modern context; I think it's a bit off to go all the way back to the Kingdom of Artsakh for context while not giving any of the more recent and familiar context (The Soviet NKAO). --Golbez (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-- Brand why are you removing the Hawsen source? VartanM (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Past population statistics would be best added later in the article - so not worth arguing about imho. But the article is in such a mess. :( Meowy 22:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The article contains a claim, with the reference to George Bournatian:

There is no evidence that there were peoples other than Armenians living on the territory of modern Nagorno Karabakh in considerable numbers prior to the mid-18th century.

However according to Hewsen and other scholars, the original population of the region consisted of various Albanian tribes. Thus, this claim contradicts the information of other sources. Grandmaster 07:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It says modern Nagorno Karabakh - obviously if you go far back enough there will be no Armenians at all living there, just like if you go far back enough there were no Italians living in Italy! Meowy 16:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hewsen nowhere contends that the region was inhabitted by Albanian tribes, please be careful not to misinterpret s source, even if you are right that according to Hewsen the region had originally a varied ethnic character (and conceivably also NK). I would agree with the removal of that excerpt; first because it is inaccurate, then I think we better should mention in the passage Demographics only about the current and recent ethnic character of NK. -Vacio (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This claim contradicts the sources:

There is no evidence of a considerable non-Armenian population living on the territory of modern Nagorno Karabakh prior to the mid-18th century.

Again, the Armenians were not the original inhabitants of the region, they came there only in the 2nd century B.C. Its original population consisted of various Caucasian tribes. The general consensus among the scholars is that Armenians moved gradually into the region, and their ancestors were Phrygians. It is believed that proto-Armenians came from the Balkans. If we start stating the opinions of other sources about that, this section will grow with the info that is not related to demographics. So I suggest to remove the opinions and keep the facts. Grandmaster 06:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The "original inhabitants" of the region were the fish in the Tethys Ocean! Meowy 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Penny Encyclopedia info. I have removed this from the article "many Muslim families emigrated to Persia, while many Armenians were induced by the Russian government to emigrate from Persia to Karabakh". According to Bournoutian only 279 Armenian families decided to immigrate to Karabakh from Persia - and none of them actually settled in the area covered in this article (Nagorno Karabakh), they all settled in Zangezour. See http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/sas/bour2.html. As for the Muslims emigrating to Persia, we need a better source for this than some ancient, encyclopedia version of a penny-dreadful. Meowy 17:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, please do not delete sourced info. If you do that again, I will have to complain to the admins. The source is not obsolete, it is valid and relevant. What you do looks very much as an attempt to suppress information. Please stop it. --Grandmaster 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Complain to admins if you feel you want to - but there is little or nothing for you to base a complaint on. In most cases an encyclopedia is not a suitable source for using in a Wikipedia, even less so when it is an old, anonymous, and long-obsolete work created to unknown standards. And, anyway, the quote is off-topic. As I said above, that encyclopedia mentions Karabakh. This article is about Nagorno-Karabakh. The Bournoutian source (a modern source by a named author), citing a contemporary document, says that none of those arriving from Persia went to Nagorno-Karabakh, and the small number that did go to "Karabakh" settled in and around Meghri. Meowy 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)