Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Treaty of Kurekchay

I removed the excerpt about Turkmenchay Treaty. No source was provided so far. Pprimary sources should be interpreted by third party sources. If the treaty is mentioned in this article, I think it should be also necessary to mention, that according to the Turkmenchay Treaty, the Khans of Karabakh binded themselves not to recognise any jurisdiction except of Russian jurisdiction and they undertook to serve the Russian throne forever as its "slaves" (article 1). --Vacio (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not Turkmenchay, it is Kurekchay treaty. Yes, Ibrahim khan swore allegiance to the Russian throne, and the Russian tsar promised to keep him and his descendants as hereditary rulers of Karabakh. It is a real historical document, and is mentioned a number of times by Bournoutian, in his foreword and footnotes to his translation of Mirza Jamal. For example, page 3: Mirza Jamal was thus present during the signing of the Russo-Qarabaghi treaty between Ebrahim khan and Prince Tsitsianov, which made Qarabagh a protectorate of Russia. There you have a secondary source. Grandmaster 06:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you often so impatient when there are differences about one statement or another? Wouldn't it better to pay some time and add in the article information which would represent a consensus? Now, your secondary source does not support the statments you re-added in the article. Indeed, all secondary sources contend that the Karabakh Khanate passed to Imperial Russia by the Gulistan Treaty rather than Kurekchay treaty (about which I still cann't find a single mention in academic sources). Here some of them:

It was not until 1805 that the Russian Empire gained control over the Karabakh Khanate, from Persia. However, its new status was not to be confirmed until 1813 under the terms of the Treaty of Gulistan, when Persia formally ceded Karabakh to the Tsar, itself the culmination of the Russian-Iranian War of 1804-1813

Tim Potier. Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, p. 2. ISBN 9041114777

By the Treaty of Gulistan (1813), Karabakh was transferred from Persia to Russia.

Leonidas Themistocles Chrysanthopoulos. Caucasus Chronicles: Nation-building and Diplomacy in Armenia, 1993-1994. Gomidas Institute, 2002, p. 8. ISBN 1884630057

By the treaty of Gulistan, 1813, Persia ceded to Russia the Khanates of Sheki, Shirvan, Karabagh, Talish, Bacoo, Cooba, and Derend.

The British and Foreign Review. J. Ridgeway and sons, 1838, p. 422.

Two Russo-Pesrian wars followed, one in 1804-1813 and the second in 1826-1828. The first was ended by the Treaty of Gulistan (1813), by wich Russia obtained the khanates of Karabagh, ...

Taru Bahl, M.H. Syed. Encyclopaedia of the Muslim World. Anmol Publications PVT, 2003 p. 34. ISBN 8126114193

I asked earlier to describe certain political and ethnic conditions based on third party sources rather than primary sources. If you have secondary sources dealing with the Kurekchay treaty qoute them, and we will mention about it based on that sources. But if there are no reliable sources about any topic we should not write about it per WP:PSTS and WP:BURDEN. --Vacio (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I provided a secondary source, and yet you deleted the info on Kurekchay treaty. Why? Your source supports this. It was not until 1805 that the Russian Empire gained control over the Karabakh Khanate, from Persia. And what was in 1805? Right, the Kurekchay treaty. Later the status of Karabakh as a Russian protectorate was confirmed by the treaties between Persia and Russia, the existence of which no one denies. This treaty is a fact, its text available online, and is mentioned by secondary sources. What else do you need? I find it strange that you are asking for a secondary source after such a source has been provided. Quoting Bournoutian once again: Mirza Jamal was thus present during the signing of the Russo-Qarabaghi treaty between Ebrahim khan and Prince Tsitsianov, which made Qarabagh a protectorate of Russia. What is not clear here? Grandmaster 06:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I don't get the point. Even Bournoutian confirms what was reverted recently. brandспойт 09:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, Tim Potier says that the Russian Empire gained control over Karabakh from Persia not Ebrahim Khan, thereby this source does not support but contradicts your information about the Kurekchay treaty. Once again, in the main article about NK we should only use reliable academical sources, if there are no such sources about a topic we should not add information about it. I don't believe that a transient mention of a Russo-Qarabaghi treaty in a footnote by Bournoutian in a translation of a primary source does meets this requirement. Even if it would be, Bournoutian asserts that Kharabakh became a Russian protectorate rather than that it "passed to Imperial Russia", he says that it was signed between Ebrahim Khan and Prince Tstsianov rather than Alexander I. --Vacio (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your point. If Bournoutian confirms the existence of this treaty, if its text available in full from the Russian archives online, then why we are even discussing this? And yes, Tsitsianov signed it on behalf of the Russian tsar, it would be strange if the latter had to travel all the way down to Karabakh to sign this treaty. Karabakh was formally a part of Persia, though Persia had no real control over the region and fought numerous wars with the local khans. So yes, by signing the treaty with the ruler of Karabakh khanate Russia gained the control over the region. The existence of later treaties with Persia on this khanate does not make this treaty impossible. The info on the treaty should be restored to the article. It is supported by reliable sources, both primary and secondary. Grandmaster 08:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny the existence of the treaty. The point is that I don't agree with your interpretation of the historical condition and pirmary source. It was not by the Kurekchay treaty the Karabakh passed to Imperial Russia. Neither was it by this treaty that Russia gained control over Karabakh. It was even before the Kurekchay treaty that the Russians occupied Karabakh.

In his quest for domination over Qarabagh, Panah had the aid of Melik Shahnazar III of Varanda, who went over to his service. This move resulted in serious dissension among the remaining four meliks, whose rule was suppressed by the Russians within a generation after the latter occupied Qarabagh in 1805. Meanwhile, Panah died and was succeeded by his son, Ebrahim, who was killed by the Russians in 1806, upon which the khanate was annexed.

Hewsen, Robert H (2001). Armenia: A Historcial Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 155. ISBN 0-2263-3228-4.

--Vacio (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Russia had not "gained control" over the region, they actually controlled it to a lesser extent that the Persians. A protectorate is (to quote Wikipedia) an autonomous territory that is protected diplomatically or militarily against third parties by a stronger state or entity, in exchange for which the protectorate usually accepts specified obligations. Yes, the info on the treaty should be restored, but it should be worded correctly. Meowy 17:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with a mention of the treaty here if it wiil not be based on our peronal interpretation of the primary source and historical conditions (as the removed passage was). Note that according to WP:VERIFABILITY Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed and If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The point is that, if academical sources dealing with the history of Nagorno-Karabakh don't even mention about the Treaty of Kurekchay, how can we be sure that it is noteworthy in our article? A footnote of Bournoutian in his translation of Mirza Jamal's history is IMO not sufficient. If anyone has reliable sources dealing with the Kurekchay treaty, please quote them and we will add information about it based on that sources.--Vacio (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Even the text of this treaty (both the Russian text and the English translation) is not reliably published, a condition required by WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.--Vacio (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The footnote in Bournoutian is more than sufficient, same as the full text of the treaty in Russian. I see no good reason for removal of this important info from the article. --Grandmaster 11:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And what do you mean that it was not reliably published? If you need a printed source, here you go: Под стягом России: Сост., примеч. А. А. Сазонова, Г. Н. Герасимовой, О. А. Глушковой, С. Н. Кистерева. М.: Русская книга, 1992. p. 275-279. You can check that published source, if you wish. --Grandmaster 11:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And you quoted a number off-topic sources that prove nothing at all. None of them says that there was no treaty between the Khan of Karabakh and the Russian tsar. If you have such a source, quote it, otherwise what is the point of this discussion? Grandmaster 11:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the sources I quoted don't deny the existence of such a treaty, that doesn't mean they support your information. And I quote again Tim Potier that "It was not until 1805 that the Russian Empire gained control over the Karabakh Khanate, from Persia. However, its new status was not to be confirmed until 1813 under the terms of the Treaty of Gulistan". Thus the treat of Kurekchay played no part in the transfer of Karabakh to Persia. If you still think that it is an "important info", please provide reliable sources to confirm that. But if academic sources don't even mention about it, I think we shouldn't do so as well (at least in this article). And yes the footnote of Bournoutian is not sufficient in this case. It says nothing about the validity and legitimacy of that treay, it does not state that the Kurekchay treaty ever took effect. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS before further discussion. --09:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what synthesis you are talking about, you refer to that rule every time you do not like some information in the article. However, I propose the wording in line with what Bournoutian writes, i.e.:

Karabakh became a protectorate of the Imperial Russia by the Kurekchay Treaty, signed between the Khan of Karabakh and Tsar Alexander I in 1805, according to which the Russian monarch recognized Ibrahim Khalil Khan and his descendants as the sole hereditary rulers of the region.

I hope that will resolve the problem. Grandmaster 12:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Bournoutian the "Russo-Qarabaghi" treaty was signed between the Khan of Karabakh and Pavel Tsitsianov, not Tsar Alexander I and he says nothing about that Imperial Russia recognised the Khans of Karabakh as the "sole hereditary rulers of the region". Because you did not react to my objections, I will repeat them: Bournoutian says nothing about the validity and legitimacy of that treay, it does not state that the Kurekchay treaty ever took effect. And yes the footnote of Bournoutian can not be considered as a relaible source per WP rules, since it is not dircetly related to the Kurekchay treaty, but the historiographer Mirza Jamal. According to WP:NOR

"To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

I think that we should not mention the Kurekchay Treaty for the moment. Not only because we don't have yet sources directly related to the Kurekchay Treaty, but also per WP:Notability, since no academic source can be found which deals with the history of Nagorno-Karabakh and mention about such a treaty (for example one cant find even one reliable source in google.books wich would do so). --Vacio (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We should definitely mention Kurekchay treaty in the article. There's no reason not to, as it is a very important point in the history of the region, and you nomination of the article about the treaty resulted in keep. --Grandmaster 10:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you do not provide a relibale secondary source directly related to the Kurekchay Treaty, yet you add information about it without consensus refrain from that. --Vacio (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Current activity

Ok, this is the startpoint when Meowy has popped out again. I don't think it is a flamboyant off-topic since the Penny Cyclopædia mentions just Karabakh in general, it does not exclude NK. The only non-controversial edit is this, but the version was already spoiled. Subsequent version has a lapse in the last red bunch from below. Manual restoration anyone? :) brandспойт 16:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to trace those edits now, i'm not sure if you introduced them or if you're just reverting but they're all unrelated and cover a huge timeframe. Each point needs to be discussed separately. The first contested point regarding the status of Caucasian Albania in the late 4th century is the one i'm most familiar with for example. The question is whether Caucasian Albania was a Sassanid administrative unit with Arsacid rulers, a vassal state or a mixture of both.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained my edit re Penny encyclopedia - it's at the end of the "break" subsection of the "intro" section on this page. Meowy 17:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As for Brandmeister's other reversion - the removal of "Persian-controlled" from the phrase "incorporated into Persian-controlled Caucasian Albania", I'm at a loss to explain his objection. Is he disputing the fact that Caucasian Albania was not an administrative unit of the Persian Sassanid Empire? There was no entity called Caucasian Albania that had annexed the Nagorno-Karabakh region - it was the Persian Empire that had done it, and then joined it to the territory of Caucasian Albania. Meowy 17:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Penny is very close to the events it describes, I think Bournoutian has no authority here. And I'm not the only one who states that Albania was not in Persian hands. It was an independent kingdom for many centuries, not even a subject of Rome. Do you see any Iranian activity over CA? :) So "Persian-controlled" goes away. brandспойт 19:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are also disputing "the partition of Armenia between Byzantium and Persia in 387 A.D"? MAybe you would like Bournoutian to have no authority here; alas for you, he has. Meowy 22:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Brand, come back when you're serious. Otherwise stop wasting everyones time. The partition of Armenia was part of the treaty between Rome and Persia, not Rome and Caucasian Albania. "...in exchange for peace in the east the Romans agreed to a partition of Armenia in 387 which left the heartlands of the Armenian kingdom together with Albania, Iberia and Lazika in Persian hands. The Armenian monarchy did not long survive; it was abolished in 428...".The making of Byzantium, 600-1025 By Mark Whittow. Page 205-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Who disputes the partition of Armenian here? The only thing here is the absence of Persian influence in CA throughout most of its history. Meeting half-way, we may leave Bournoutian instead of Penny. brandспойт 08:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The parition was between Rome and Persia. The borders were modified by Persia, as such Albania was under Persian control. As for your next WTF comment. Get real. Iberia, lands as far as west as western Anatolia, Egypt, Northern India etc. were all under Persian influence but Albania, which barely had a few centuries of distinct existence right next to Persia did not?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Albania was not Persian ruled. It had its own kings. While the author in Iranica believes that the kings of Albania only had semblance of authority, other historians think otherwise. According to Josef Wiesehofer, a well known expert on ancient Persia, the territories dependent on Persia had different status. Some were ruled by the relatives of the king, as Armenia, and others had their own kings, but were vassals to the king of kings (Persian shah). And there were territories, called shahr - province. Albania belonged to the category of kingdoms, i.e. it was a vassal state with its own kings, subordinate to the kings of Persia, but it was not a province, even though it was listed among the lands that the Persian king possessed. See this:

If we compare this enumeration with the list of dignitaries from the reign of Narseh in their territorial relations and with the – albeit incomplete – classification of parts of the empire by Kirdir (from the reign of Bahram II), we notice that they have much in common, but that there are also certain differences, i.e. changes. For Shapur we find that certain regions were entrusted as `kingdoms' to the sons of the “king of kings” and other dynasts (MP shah; Greek basileus). These regions lay at the borders of the empire and, in their geographical and political characteristics, must have been a heritage from the late Parthian period, where (in most cases?) Sasanian princes had now taken the places of the previous powerful “petty kings”. Thus Shapur – again in connection with offerings and fires - mentions his following sons: Hormizd-Ardashir (the later Hormizd I) as `great king of Armenia' and thereby crown prince, Shapur as `King of Meshan', Narseh (the later `king of kings') as `king of Hind, Sakastan and Turgistan up to the seashore' or `king of the Sakae', and Bahram (the later Bahram I) as `king of Gelan'. In addition, there were Ardashir, king of Adiabene, Ardashir of Kerman and Hamazasp of Iberia. In its only partially preserved § 92, the Paikuli inscription also lists `kings' (whose names are not specified) of Kushan(shahr), Choresmia, Pardan, Makran, Gurgan, Balasagan, Albania and Segan (see Map 4), as well as two royal individuals called Razgurd and Pand-Farrag (without specifying their kingdoms), and finally the Armenian Tirdad, the king of the Lakhmids, Amr, and his namesake from Edessa. Bear in mind, however, that the NPi does not describe all these kings as subjects of the Sasanian ruler. In § 93 of the same inscription, the enumeration of minor (? and/or local dignitaries?; MP xvaday: `lord') ends with a King Malukh, who does not seem to have ruled in Iran. The relationship of the local rulers with the `king of kings' is usually referred to by scholars as `vassalage'. This term, which applies to medieval Europe, incorporates the threefold condition of the oath of allegiance and military support on the one hand, and enfeoffinent with usufruct of landed property on the other, conditions that, due to the lack of sources, cannot be confirmed for the period under discussion. A second territorial unit after the `kingdoms' is described by the word shahr, which in this case may perhaps be translated as `province.

Josef Wiesehofer. Ancient Persia. ISBN-10: 1860646751

The same source says something different about the Persian governors. It says that they could have been deputies to local kings, but that is not certain:

Whether the 'kingdoms' also had a shahrab as a kind of deputy of the shah cannot be ascertained. It has been assumed that 'provinces' were established only where no other form of government existed, i.e. in all the regions directly subject to the 'king of kings', for instance in the former 'royal land' of the Parthian kings or in the newly conquered territories. Besides, the foundation of cities by the ruler was apparently possible only on 'royal land'.

So, it is unlikely that Albania was Persian ruled, though it is certain that it was a vassal state to the Persian empire. If it was a province, it would have been designated as such, not as a kingdom. So I suggest removing "Persian controlled", as it does not reflect a consensus among the scholars on this subject. Grandmaster 09:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The text doesn't say that Albania was "Persian ruled", but that it was "Persian controlled". It's important to come to some sort of wording that indicates that Artsakh, as a result of the partition, was on the Persian side of that partition (that's actually why I had added "Persian-controlled"). To indicate the status of Caucasian Albania, as an alternative to "Persian controlled", incorporating something along the lines of "as a vassal state of the Persian Empire" would be fine by me. Meowy 16:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Gm, you really wasted your time there. First of all the status of Albania changed so many times that you have to specify a time period when discussing its relations with neighbours otherwise it's useless. We are talking about the late 4th century here, Albania did have its own kings but it's fate was determined by Sassanids, its borders were controlled by Sassanids etc. So Albania had autonomous internal rule but it had no control over its borders or army.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How about something like "After the partition of Armenia between Byzantium and Persia in 387 AD, Caucasian Albania, as a vassal state of the Persian Empire and with Sassanid help, was able to take Artsakh from Armenia." Meowy 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's wrong, because Albania did not take anything from Armenia. There are no primary or secondary sources that say so. After the partition, Sassanids moved the borders around. Some territories were detached from Armenia and attached to Albania, by Sassanids.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedia Iranica source linked to on the Caucasian Albania page names a specific king of Caucasian Albania who did the "taking" (with Sassanid help). But the word "take" implies a military conquest by an entity acting on its own initiative, something which isn't actually indicated in the source, so maybe another word can be found. Meowy 17:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If I were to use a modern analogy, not a bullet was fired and it's unlikely that the local population even noticed any change whatsoever.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Iranica:

The more or less self-interested loyalty of the Albanians explains why the Sasanians helped them to seize from the Armenians the provinces (or districts) of Uti (with the towns of Xałxał and Pʿartaw), Šakašēn, Kołṭʿ, Gardman, and Arcʿax (Pʿawstos Biwzand, History 5.12, 13, in Langlois, Collection I, p. 288; idem, Armenian Geography, tr. A. Soukry, Venice, 1881, p. 39; cf. Markwart, Ērānšahr, p. 118; H. S. Anassian, “Mise au point relative à l’Albanie caucasienne,” Revue des études arméniennes 6, 1969, pp. 306ff.). These territories were to remain in the possession of Albania; a reconquest by Mušeł (cf. Pʿawstos, ibid.) was unlikely.

Hewsen says that the regions of Artsakh and Utik "passed" to Albania:

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.

There's a reason why these regions became a part of Albania, they had a population similar to that of Albania, which consisted mostly of various Caucasian tribes. Sasanians helped the Albanian kings to gain these lands, because of their loyalty to the Persian empire. So I think we can mention that Albania acquired the regions of Artsakh and Utik with the support of Sasanid Persia, of which the Albanian kings were loyal vassals. --Grandmaster 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're reading too much into the word "passed" by introducing your OR. Caucasian Albania was not party to the 387 partition between Rome and Persia and any territorial changes made by the Persian shahs were done outside of any ethnic concerns (more likely political, economic factors as well), your OR claims notwithstanding. As Hewsen notes, many of the people of Artsakh and Utik were Armenian or had been absorbed into the Armenian milieu at this time and by the 400s, the regions were, "beyond question", essentially Armenian ("Armenian Influence", p. 34). Like Eupator said, few, if any, people felt any change when this occurred.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Something - accurate, neutral, and unambiguous - has to be read into the word "passed" or nothing is going to be resolved. BTW, I will not be making any more contributions to the talk page until the unjustified protection is lifted. There was no "edit war", and the protected version has removed a lot of material that was non-controversial and which nobody had objected to, and other material that we have been discussing here and which seemed to be settled. I'm not here to humour admins with their flippant "another week, another war" type comments. If admins can't respect us, those who are actually working on the article (including those I may be disagreeing with), then I will not respect them. It would be really good if everyone else would set aside their diferences and make the same decision. Meowy 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not reading into anything, just stating the opinions of 2 sources. Neither says that Albanians had nothing to do with what happened, or that population did not feel any change. Iranica says that Sasanians helped Albanian kings to seize those lands because of their loyalty. Hewsen does not say anything about the role of the Persians. So lets state the facts. 1. Albanian kings were vassals of Sasanians, but Albania was not a province, it was a kingdom, which was under a strong Persian political influence. 2. Persian helped Albanians to gain the lands of Artsakh and Utik. Those lands had mixed population at the time. I believe we should state these facts in a neutral manner, avoiding any OR. As for protection, it was a result of unilateral removal of important info from the article. Vacio removed the link to Kurekchay treaty, and Meowy removed the quote from Penny cyclopedia. Meowy, you violated your 1 rv per week parole. I don't wanna complain about this to admins. But if the purpose of your wish to lift the protection is to revert it again, it is not a good idea. It is better to resolve the problems at talk, and then ask for unprotection. --Grandmaster 11:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no 1 revert per week parole. Again, I ask editors to boycott this talk page for a week, as a protest against the unjustifed protection and the flippant, contempt-filled, "another week, another war" comment. After the protection ends we can start to resolve things using this talk page. Meowy 16:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Sassanids cancelled the Albanian royal dynasty only in the 6th century, but the Albanian independence was ultimately restored in subsequent century, so I don't think the inclusion of "Persian-controlled" makes sense somehow. Last, here at least, Meowy should drop continuous militant stance. brandспойт 18:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous. Armenia had an army much stronger than the tribes in so-called Albania. There is not even the slightest evidence that those tribes had any army by themselves. The soil was richer and more interesting to the Persians in those lands than the rocky highlands of Armenia. Any nation could enter Caucasian Albania without any resistance. But some editors are claiming that Albania was an independent Kingdom when in fact it didn't have the slightest way to resist to the Persians settlements. Brand claims that the Albanian Independence was ultimately restored. Did Brand even bother reading the several discussions in the talkpages? It was documented that Albania was a geographic region by then, and that it was culturally Armenian and those kings were either Armenian, Georgian, etc. There is in fact not even the slightest evidence of what the Albanian language even meant, not even one publication decipherable which is anything else than Armenian. The only non-Armenian language coming from that region was Persian. Even the so-claimed King Vache II was the nephew of Shah Hormid III and Peroz. Where is this claimed independence? When their kings were Persian, Armenian, Georgians etc..., and that any publication coming from there were either Armenian or Persian. What evidence of an Albanian ethnicity can you come with? Atabek has tried the same thing by manipulating sources, was he not topic banned for it? Dowsett writes: The land of the Aluank' or Caucasian Albania, whose geography and customs already attracted the attention of Strabo and Pliny, represents the easternmost part of the Armenian sphere of influence. Dowsett uses the term Albania as a geographic delimitation, he writes: In Albania, Xacen, part of the old province of Arcax,..., for the same period he also writes: Late name of part of pr. Arçax, forming at this time a small independent Armenian principality. Hewsen writes that by the 5th century Albania was culturally Armenian. Under the Arabs the entire region was tagged as Armenia. Where is this claimed independent Albania?

There was no independent Albania formed of a distinct people, if there ever was one in history. And anyone claiming else is obviously POV pushing when there is not one single notable and credible source which could claim there was such an Albania. Claiming Kingdom of Albania without any specification that the Kingdom was Sassanid, Armenian or else is misleading. And the claim that the Persians helped the Albanians to gain Artsakh and Utik is ridiculous, there is not single source, be it Persian, Armenian or any records other than this secondary source which Grandmaster uses, supporting that there was any action in the process to make of the words helping to gain accurate. The Partition was between Rome and Persia, why in the world would Persia take control of Armenia which included Utik and Artsakh and then leave them to a "independent Kingdom?" All those lands became controlled by Persia which just changed it's internal borders. VartanM (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Iranica says:

The more or less self-interested loyalty of the Albanians explains why the Sasanians helped them to seize from the Armenians the provinces (or districts) of Uti (with the towns of Xałxał and Pʿartaw), Šakašēn, Kołṭʿ, Gardman, and Arcʿax

This is it. Sourced info. The Albanian kingdom was a vassal state of Sasanians, that's why they helped them to gain those lands, which had mostly indigenous Caucasian population. They were in the sphere of the Persian influence, which explains why Persians were interested in helping them to expand their territory. Grandmaster 08:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not merge myself much into off-topic, just some emphasizing. The independence of CA is testified by various sources, even Donabédian and Mutafian affirm that. Regarding army, read Strabo's Geography, 11:4. And this is what Rakhman Sakhiboglu writes (translated):

Because of some reductive estimates by Strabo of the nature of socio-economic relations in Albanian environment, the Russian scholar K.V. Trever has fairly pointed out that Theophanes of Mytilene could have an occasion to see the Albanian warriors, their heavy armament (armour, shields, spears, daggers) by himself.

brandспойт 08:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, Iranica is an encyclopedia, so it qualifies as a tertiary source. You are required to provide the secondary sources from which this claim comes from. What loyalty? Of course they were loyal, they had Sassanid Kings, Persian settlers etc. They were paying taxes to the Persians, they had Persian coins in circulation. Where are the coins from the so-called Kingdom of Albania? Every coin found there is either Roman, Persian or Armenian. Where is the distinct population? Even the so-called King Vache II was the nephew of Shah Hordid III and Peroz. When they were not Armenians they were Persians. The Persians let the artificial kingdom run, because it was one of them running it. Claiming they were loyal misleads readers to believe that Albanians were a distinct ethnic group with a distinct Kingdom. Finding one source, which you can twist the way you want to does not give you the right to present this controversial claim as a fact written on stone. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. There is nothing magical, the Persians modified what had become their internal borders and transfered those lands in a region which they controlled best because it was closer to their influence.

And Brand, what are you talking about? Caucasian Albania in the BC years as testified by Hellenic historians and writers was far away Artsakh. See Alexander the Great Empire maps. Strabo claimed Caucasian Albania to be some region where there were 26 tribes and their languages. Artsakh on the other hand was speaking one language and was part of Armenia. Strabo assumed his readers are intelligent enough to understand that when someone writes that there was one language and was part of that nation it meant they were obviously speaking that language. It's funny that Brand now refers to two Armenian scholars. If someone is going to use those two scholars, that person should use their positions as they were intended to be used. Those scholars consider the new Albania to be a puppet state of Armenia, and BC Albania to be far away Artsakh. In both cases Artsakh as the delimitation and any culture comming from there was mostly Armenian. Brand did not even read the sources he provided. The claimed well equipped army was not even theirs, and this is referring to BC period. VartanM (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Here we go with Donabédian and Mutafian:

The Albanians fiercely resisted the Roman armies, and the coutnry was, it is thought, largely independent until the fifth century AD... The Caucasian Knot, Zed Books, 1994, p. 54

And who says that the claimed army was not even theirs? Ulubabians and Ayvazians? :) brandспойт 21:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep your happy faces to yourself. It's to the contrary, you are providing the interpretations of Azeri ultra-nationalist scholars as if it represents the original source, when those so called Azeri scholars have been exposed numerous times for altering the primary sources in question. And I am not surprised one bit that you are cherry picking and putting words in the mouths of scholars. I will quote from those authors to see what in fact they meant.

The situation of Artsakh and Utik changed after Armenia was partitioned in 385 or 387 between Eastern Roman Empire (soon after the Byzantine Empire) and Persia: the Sasanids put an end to the Armenian Kingdom in 428, and divided Transcaucasia into three new administrative entities. That began a new period in which Artsakh (the future Karabagh) and Utik were politically cut off from Armenia and annexed to another entity. The entire eastern portion of Transcaucasia was reorganized into a province (marzpanate) called Arran or Albania (Aghuank or Aghvank in Armenian). This included, between the Kura and the the Caucasus, the Kingdom of Albania, the ethnic groups along the Caspian and, between the Arax and Kura Rivers and lake Sevan, the two territories now detached from Armenia: Artsakh and Utik. It is estimated that this new entity was created, in fact, around the middle of the fifth century: Utik, a royal possession, was probably separated from the Armenian Kingdom with its fall in 428, while Artsakh, a princely possession, would only have been annexed to Albania after the anti-Persian uprising in 451.

The term Albania was now applied to areas further to the south-west. The political formations situated in the east, on the shores of the Caspian Sea (Lupens, Massagetae), broke off and were no longer known as Albania. On the contrary, the Christian Kingdom of Caucasian Albania, which the Persians had tolerated until 461, would continue in the west in what had been part of Armenia, and in the process it would be strongly influenced by the Armenians. Thus the term Albania changes its meaning, becoming purely geographical and taking over a part of Armenia. It is this transformation which the author of Ashkharhatsiuts (seventh century) had in mind. He specifies that Artsakh and Utik are 'now detached from Armenia and included in Albania', and he takes the care to distinguish this new entity from the old 'Albania, strictly speaking', situated north of Kura. Summarizing these changes, Anasian writes that after the partition of Armenia, half of what is supposed to be Albania, land or population, represents Armenia, Armenians, and Armenianness. It is this major fact and determinant which, up to the present, has escaped the specialists or been disregarded by them.

In this new Albania, the pronvinces of Artsakh and Utik played a major role. Moreoever, it was to Utik, at Partav, that the Albanian capital was transferred around the start of the sixth century (according to A. Akopian). A winter residence of the Armenian kings in Utik was now designed to serve the same function for the King of Albania. Probably because it was more homogeneous than the tribes living north of Kura, the Armenian element was progressively able to impose its language and culture.

According the the authors this Albania which allegedly had some level of independence did not yet contain Utik or Artsakh. The Albania which included them was the new Albania which had little to do with the other Albania. Again from the authors point of view, when those territories were attached to Albania, Albania was made a province of Persia. You can not cherry pick and take sections from authors to support a position, when those authors reject that same position. They have a different interpretation of what happened, with different dates for the loss of those lands and they are talking about a different Albania than the one you sustained. VartanM (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They may have their opinion that is defferent from the general consensus, but Iranica is a neutral reliable source, and so is Hewsen. The rules allow using tertiary sources. You can see that most articles about Iranian history refer to Iranica. --Grandmaster 07:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing indicating that Albania was not independent before 461 (i.e. throughout most of its history) in the bolded text. But who are "those authors", may I check? If it's Donabédian and Mutafian, then they are indeed worthless because of evident contradiction. I hope here we end. brandспойт 09:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I am not interested in the discussion whether Caucasian Albania was or not independent. But what is a concerning me is the last reverts made by user Brandmeister ([1][2]) and Elsanaturk ([3]) which resulted in the protection of the article. I ask for explanation why the disputed information about the Kurekechay treaty was replaced while it was still discussed? And why the information about the Principalities of Karabakh (in particular their recognition by Russian Empire) was removed, while no one ever contested it? Such revert wars are considered harmful and I call on all users to assume good faith and use this discussion page rather than edit warring. --Vacio (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you should not remove information from the article without consensus on talk, simple as that.--Grandmaster 07:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious information should be removed until there is consensus (not opposite), that has nothing to do when information is moved which which was not disputed. Brandmeister never gave an explanation why he removed such information, while I had added a fact tag weeks ago and immediately after I removed the sentence I started a discussion. --Vacio (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

I'm afraid the Early history section becomes more and more chaotic. It includes too much information unrelated to history of NK, but rather its neighbors (especially Caucasian Albania), interpretations of primary sources and quotes out of context. Perhaps there are users who want to help to improve this section. --Vacio (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at CA is ongoing. Regarding Kurekchay, the articles 4, 5 and 6 confirm the notion of secondary source that Ibrahim's descendants would be the hereditary rulers of the region, so I see no reason to remove it. brandспойт 13:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP rules we should use reliable secondary sources to describe a primary source (in this case the Kurekchay Treaty) otherwise it is regarded as Original Research. If you have reliable sources dealing with the Kurekchay Treaty please quote them on the right place. And please don not try to add in the article disputed information by means of edit war. I am not categorically against mentioning the KT in this article, but the information must come from reliable academic sources directly related to the Kurekchay Treaty (not just a footnote from a translation or the like, where even the name "Treaty of Kurekchay" is not mentioned). --Vacio (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Here we go, Керим Шукюров. "Курекчайский договор: об основных положениях, о результатах претворения в жизнь и ликвидации" ([4]), translated:

According to the article 3 of the Kurekchay treaty, Russia was ought to warrant the hereditary transfer of Ibrahim Khan’s power in the Karabakh khanate. Under such conditions a special decree on the transmission of power in Karabakh to the khan’s son – Mehdigulu khan was issued.

And here are the translated excerpts from the decree in the same secondary source:

A decree of Alexander I on appointing after the death of Ibrahim khan his son Mehdigulu aga... By a special decree we appointed the late Ibrahim khan an independent ruler of Karabakh province, and we guaranteed that all nationals of Karabakh under the subject of empire, the heirs of the late khan will be provided with a right of possessing the Karabakh throne by succession and ruling independently.

brandспойт 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it a joke ? how is this reliable ? Sardur (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. And why it is unreliable? I can go further :) brandспойт 08:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources on treaty have been provided, both primary and secondary. The full text of it is available online, along with the scans. I see no point in discussing this further. Also note that the article about the treaty was nominated by Vacio for deletion, but kept as result. This speaks for itself. --Grandmaster 09:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It most of all shows how things work here. Nothing to be proud of.

Brand, the site is not reliable (to say the least). And that Shukurov is neither neutral nor reliable.

Secondary reliable sources are still missing. Sardur (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources have been provided, and more than once. If you do not want to see them, it cannot be a justification for your edit warring.--Grandmaster 10:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

One revert is not editwarring. All your so-called secondary sources have been refuted; if you don't want to see that either...

Personaly, I'm quite sure there was something in 1805, several reliable sources support that. But was it a treaty? a treaty of Kurekchay? Sardur (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The treaty was signed at Kurekchay river, and therefore it was named after the place of signing. It was a standard practice at the time. And I quoted Bournoutian who mentions the treaty:

Mirza Jamal was thus present during the signing of the Russo-Qarabaghi treaty between Ebrahim khan and Prince Tsitsianov, which made Qarabagh a protectorate of Russia.

George A. Bournoutian. A History of Qarabagh: An Annotated Translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh. Mazda Publishers, 1994. ISBN 1568590113, 9781568590110, p 3.

So the treaty is a fact, confirmed by both primary (see text of treaty and scans) and secondary sources. What is the point in edit warring over this? How could there be a reasonable doubt that the treaty existed if so many sources have been provided? Enough already. Grandmaster 11:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What is difficult to understand? Whether it is a fact or not is not the question, but this quote doesn't talk about the treaty of Kurekchay. So far, your reasonning about the river is nothing but OR.

And that's only the first point, the second being about the exact content of the treaty, which is still not supported by sources. In such a situation, we should really restrict ourselves to what is said in Bournoutian.

Also, you keep on refering to those scans as a "primary source", but Meowy raised issues about them on Talk:Treaty of Kurekchay. And is such a website reliable? who made the scans? who's the webmaster? Sardur (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the full text of treaty in the language of the original. [5] There you can get the entire content of the treaty, in every detail. It comes from a scholarly source, Под стягом России. Сборник архивных документов. М., 1992. С.275-279. The text of the scans is no different from that, which means that there cannot be any doubts of its authenticity. So there you have it. --Grandmaster 14:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you see this is about the treaty of Kurekchai ? Still no secondary source, thus OR. Sardur (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What else is it about, in your opinion? If we rename the article Russo-Karabakhi treaty, as per Bournoutian, will that make you happy? Grandmaster 17:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be a very good start, as this is the only name given by a reliable source so far. Sardur (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources and removal

Hello everyone, as you all know, this is an extremely controversial article. Sourced information which has been here for a long time should not be removed unilaterally. Consensus to remove should be worked out on the talk page and then it can be removed. - Francis Tyers · 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, isn't that line (protectorate, treaty) a new addition added without consensus?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when is consensus needed to remove OR? Sardur (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is needed to establish that it is OR, so far you failed to prove it. --Grandmaster 11:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an amazing view on the burden of proof. Sardur (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added population information in the beginning Aparaj (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That info is not accurate. Historically the population of Karabakh was mixed, it was originally non-Armenian, and gradually Armenized after the Armenian conquest. I don't think it makes sense to add disputable info to the intro. Grandmaster 06:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the mention that NK is de-jure Azerbaijan since the Minsk group confirmed recently that both the interim and final international status of NK is yet to be determined. There is no mention in the suggested Madrid Principles that NK is de-jure part of Azerbaijan. Lumberjak (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

See: [6] Lumberjak (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not mean that NK is not a de-jure part of Azerbaijan. The intro here cannot be changed unilaterally, it is a result of long discussions. Reach consensus at talk before making changes. Grandmaster 04:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are new developments that injected a big dose of clarity into the issue if "NK is a de-jure part of Azerbaijan." It is not. It may become a de-jure part of Az. if NK's interim status is formulated in this way. Please refrain from arbitrary reverts. Lumberjak (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And please refrain from reverting as well. Surely you can understand that this is a touchy subject; there are strict rules on how edits can be made to the articles on this conflict. --Golbez (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That said, it looks like this is a great step towards resolving the conflict, but it is toothless until adopted by Armenia and Azerbaijan; I don't think OSCE Minsk is in the business of forcing compromises on others. The status of the NK peace process has changed; the status of NK, at present, as I read it, has not. --Golbez (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, keep in mind that the NKR does not fill all of Nagorno-Karabakh at this moment. Your statement that the "region is governed by the NKR" is inaccurate. --Golbez (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I may appreciate the interest in the subject, most of this commentary is not really relevant. The interim and final status of the disputed part of NK is undetermined and therefore it cannot be "de-jure part of Azerbaijan." Through the Minsk Group the international community has clarified its position on NK status. It is a disputed region. Lumberjak (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely it's disputed. But at present, zero countries recognize its independence, and the ones that care seem to recognize it as part of Azerbaijan. The status remains unchanged from that of the end of the war. Also, there is no 'final status' yet. --Golbez (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The document talks about "future determination of the final legal status", which means that it could change in the future, if Armenia and Azerbaijan agree on it (the document says that "endorsement of these Basic Principles by Armenia and Azerbaijan will allow the drafting of a comprehensive settlement"). So far the parties to the conflict have not agreed to these principles. The document does not say anything about the present legal status, which means that it has not changed. The region is still recognized as part of Azerbaijan, including by the countries that adopted the declaration. Grandmaster 05:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Some foreign states support "territorial integrity" of Azerbaijan (and any other country)and they do not recognize independence of NK. But that does not mean that they see NK as de-jure part of Az. "Territorial integrity" is an abstract notion, and non-recognition does not mean that that there countries make an explicit judgment as to NK's belonging to Az. All countries except for Turkey and a small number of its allies are simply agnostic regarding NK's status. Non of Minsk group co-chair countries recognize NK as "de-jure Azerbaijan." Lumberjak (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Do they recognize NK as an independent state? If it is not an independent state, then it is legally a part of some other state, right? Grandmaster 06:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily; many countries recognize neither Morocco nor the SADR as the legitimate rulers of Western Sahara, and Antarctica is handled by most countries as wholly unclaimed and unclaimable. So there is still some terra nullius in the world. --Golbez (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The international community so far has not de jure recognized NK as an independent state, indeed, and not even Armenia. But I don't think the reason for this is because they think NK would belong to Azerbaijan, even when some of them they say to recognize territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, but because they think NK would execute its self-determination as a result of peace talks. "The European Union member countries recognize the Azerbaijani territorial integrity, but it does not mean that they are against giving the population of Nagorno Karabakh the right of self-determination", announced International Crisis Group's Europe Program Director Sabine Freizer in an interview to Azerbaijani "Day az"[7]. And indeed also the Madrid Principles predict the "determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding expression of will"[8]. So when Armenia or an other country does not de jure ecognize NK, they only do so because they are afraid that it should counteract the negotiation process. So I think the regions status is always to be described in this context because the present de jure status is not legally binding. --Vacio (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not legally binding? It is legally binding, unless any other legally binding status is agreed on. That's what is meant. Grandmaster 11:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible mass invasion by Azeri goons to be expected? Some media sources in Azerbaijan have been encouraging their readers to edit this article: "the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has posted false information about Azerbaijan and there is gross misrepresentation of the country's territorial integrity. We have repeatedly written about it. We encourage all readers Day.Az visit this Web site and to correct erroneous facts relating to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan". http://www.today.az/news/politics/53954.html Meowy 02:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We'd all appreciate you not labeling people as 'goons'. That said, I always enjoy a good smackdown, and fortunately, IPs from that region are pretty easy to geolocate. An IP block ban would not be out of the realm of possibility if a true attack started. --Golbez (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose "goons" was not the correct word to use. If they do arrive, they will probably be (internet) tough guys intent on "roughing up" this and other articles. Though that partly defines a goon, actual goons work for money but these attackers will be doing it for free. Meowy 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could simply not insult editors, present or future. --Golbez (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Vacio gave a very good reason of why the formula "de jure part of Azerbaijan" is inappropriate. I agree with him. But we may simply say that a small group of countries bother to call Karabakh part of Azerbaijan. NK's international status is undefined, and Golbez is right by pointing to several such cases. Lumberjak (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

nk is not part of azerbaijan de facto or de jure. its interim and permanent status is to be decided by the negotiation process. negotiations make no sense if it was presumed that nk belongs to any of the caucasus states. i think we are coming to a consensus at last. Oceolcspsms (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

the mention that nk is de jure part of az creates a misleading impression that az controls or represents nk in some way. as we know az does none of these things. in other words, any "de-jure" environment in which az would appear to control or represent nk does not exist. we can simply say that nk is region with undecided international legal status and that az cliams that region as its territory. Oceolcspsms (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not correct. NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. This has not changed. There's not a single country in this world that does not recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan. Even Armenia does. And the above account appears to be another incarnation of a person we know very well. I will ask for check. Grandmaster 04:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

According to CU, Lumberjak (talk · contribs) is a sock of the indef banned user Verjakette, see [9]. The sock account is blocked. Grandmaster 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Karabakh is undisputed and internationally reorganized territory of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has been accepted to United Nations and to all other international organizations having NK as its integral part! there is no disputed status. The area de-jure belongs to Azerbaijan and located within the internationally recognized borders! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuja1 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? --Golbez (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I edited the sentence about 'region's disputed status." as i mentioned, the status of NK is not disputed and its internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan. The peace talks rather are around settling the conflict overall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuja1 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the people of Nagorno-Karabakh would disagree that its status is not disputed. --Golbez (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two points to make. 1st NK has both Azerbaijani and Armenian population. According to latest estimates Azeri population living in exile are about 120 thousands which is very close to Armenian population currently living in the region. I am sure Azeri population of the NK will not disagree that the region is disputed. The 2nd, there is an international law that dictates which regions of the world are disputed or not. As i mentioned earlier Azerbaijan has been accepted to all international organizations including UN as having NK its integral part. so International law dictates the region belongs to Azerbaijan. I am sure people living in South Osetia are also disputing their status but international and all countries of the world (except Russia) agree that the region is not disputed and is part of the Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuja1 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"there is an international law that dictates which regions of the world are disputed or not": and which one? The international law issue is much more complex than this. If this is all the knowledge you can display about it, I would suggest you to leave this article. My two cents. Sardur (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And I suggest you be more forgiving and welcoming to people who are willing to come to the talk page and discuss edits, rather than them blanking the article saying "Nagorny Karabakh is AZERBAIJAN" and disappearing. --Golbez (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if someone is justifying a modification of an article "based on international law" and if this basis displays a wrong knowledge and/or understanding of it, I (nobody cares, but I'm a lawyer in International law) can't stand it. This is propaganda, not international law. And as we both know it, there's no place for propaganda on WP. Sardur (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

if international law or internationally recognized documents does not justify territorial integrity of one country or status of regions, then what does??? your credentials on international law certainly does not justify it either!! i am sure many of us here are have recognized credentials and feel free to put them in our status! but that is not a justification to edit the article here. Two arguments are as follows: 1. International organizations such as United Nations, OSCE were created to enforce international law and one of the major aspects of the international law dictates recognition and respect to internationally recognized borders of countries! Azerbaijan was accepted as a member to all those international organizations as having its borders recognized! Meaning every international law recognize and respects territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. All countries of the world recognize Azerbaijan within its borders! Even Armenia has shown respect to international borders of Azerbaijan has not recognized NK's sovereignty! The point is clear! NK and surrounding territories are not disputed region! it is integral part of Azerbaijan. Please try to dispute this by your law credentials or provide any single law or argument to justify the regions status is disputed.

Second point: the formulation of the sentence as "Armenia and Azerbaijan have been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group on the region's disputed status." is completely wrong and distorts the mandate, work and efforts of the OSCE Minsk group. OSCE Minsk process has several objectives (click on it):

1. Providing an appropriate framework for conflict resolution in the way of assuring the negotiation process supported by the Minsk Group;
2. Obtaining conclusion by the Parties of an agreement on the cessation of the armed conflict in order to permit the convening of the Minsk Conference;
3. Promoting the peace process by deploying OSCE multinational peacekeeping forces

Status of NK is only one aspect of the current negotiations. Current negotiations are going around several issues including:

• maintaining cease fire
• withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied territories surrounding NK
• return of IDPs (Internally displaces people) into their homes
• interim and final status of NK
• opening borders and building communication etc..

The point is clear current formulation of sentence does not convey entire meaning of negotiation process. I would propose edit the sentence as: "Armenia and Azerbaijan have been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group on settling the conflict. The current stage the peace talks are around maintaining cease fire, withdrawal of Armenian forces from surrounding regions, return of displaced people and interim and final status of the region" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuja1 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As for point 1: recognising a country doesn't mean ipso facto recognising its borders; there are a lot of examples of that (Nigeria-Cameroon till recently, for instance, or closer to the region, Turkey-Syria).

As for your point 2: a disputed territory is of course an unresolved conflict. The opposite is, needless to say, not true. If your intention was to reflect the current mandate of the Minsk group, it would be better to quote it; things would then be sufficiently clear for any reader.

Sardur (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1. the question is disputed by whom? Armenia? No Armenia has not recognized NK. Any other country? NOT of course, no single country or organization has recognized NK independent status or claimed the territory as disputed. Disputed by 120,000 Armenian population living in NK. Yes, with my respect to their opinion, but there are additional 120,000 Azeri displaced population (of course, numbers are approximate) that does not dispute the region! In addition, unfortunately, at this stage of international relations, opinion of Armenian population living in NK does not guarantee any status to the region. So from international law perspective, the territory is not disputed and it is integral part of the Azerbaijan. I agree it has been occupied but that is topic of a different discussion! Your examples from Turkey-Syria dispute over Hatay has no relations to the NK conflict. At least one country in the world which is Syria is disputing the region of Hatay (which is not the case in NK). Nevertheless, the region is internationally recognized as Turkey and no single map in the world (expect the ones printed in Syria) has it shown as Syrian. 2. I do not want to go off topic too much! As I mentioned earlier and seems that you agree, the current formulation of sentence conveys it as if entire Minsk process is around the status of NK which is not true and I believe should be edited to reflect the situation better. I proposed my version of it above. "Armenia and Azerbaijan have been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group on settling the conflict. The current stage the peace talks are around maintaining cease fire, withdrawal of Armenian forces from surrounding regions, return of displaced people and interim and final status of the region". If you want to edit please go ahead so we can agree of final formulation.--Shuja 01:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretending to discuss an international law issue while resorting to political argumentation can be amazing but is hardly convincing.

As to your proposal: I don't see the need to have the lead in such a way; the lead should remain focused. This point is more elaborated in 2.4. Sardur (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)