Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 3

Some facts by a western look

The following are taken from [Ellen Ray & Bill Schapp, CovertAction, summer 1994, page 36] (Taking into account that our "civilized" friends don't take the "barbarian" turkic/muslim sources into account, we rely on western sources):

"For nearly seven years, a bitter and violent conflict has raged between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabagh, a district of Azerbaijan inhabited by a majority of ethnic Armenians. Contrary to the impression held by many Americans and Western Europeans, in this round of conflict, it is Armenia that has invaded Azerbaijan, Armenia that has occupied a fourth of Azeri territory, and Armenia that has been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations for unlawful aggression.(1) Nonetheless, while editorials in the U.S. and other Western press have deplored the violence on both sides, Armenia is generally depicted as the victim, Azerbaijan as the aggressor, even in news stories.(2) This portrayal, we believe, particularly in the past few years, has stood reality on its head. "

"As the U.S. Committee on Refugees notes "[a]lmost every 'fact' relating to this conflict is in dispute." A few, however, are incontrovertible:

- While Armenia invaded Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan has never invaded Armenian territory.

- Armenian (and some "Karabakh-Armenian") forces currently occupy not just Nagorno-Karabakh, but nearly one-fourth of Azerbaijan.(4)

- One million Azeris, now refugees, fled or were driven from that occupied territory.(5)

- Tens of thousands of Kurds, who have lived for centuries in the region, have also been made refugees. Since 1992, the Armenians have expelled virtually all the Kurds from Armenia,(6) and driven tens of thousands more from the areas of Azerbaijan where they had lived.

(1) Security Council Resolutions 822 (April 30, 1993), 853 (July 29, 1993), 874 (October 14, 1993), and 884 (November 12, 1993).

(2) See, for example, Carey Goldberg, "David and Goliath in the Caucasus," Los Angeles Times, April 21, 1994, p. A1; and Raymond Bonner, "War, Blockade, and Poverty 'Strangling' Armenia," New York Times, April 16, 1994, p. 3.

(4) Alexis Rowell, "U.S. Mercenaries Fight in Azerbaijan," CovertAction, Spring 1994, p. 26.

(5) U.S. Committee for Refugees, Faultlines of Nationality Conflict: Refugees and Displaced Persons From Armenia and Azerbaijan (Washington, D.C.: USCR, March 1994), hereafter USCR Report, also notes some 300,000 displaced Armenians. According to the U.N., in Azerbaijan as of May 1, 1994, there were: 215,000 refugees of Azeri origin from Armenia; 49,000 Turks-Meskhetians from Uzbekistan; 50,000 displaced persons from Nagorno-Karabakh; and 920,000 displaced persons from seven other occupied regions of Azerbaijan. In May, the Azeri government added another 50,000 Azeris.

(6) Kurds made up 1.7% of Armenia"s population. ("You Too, Armenia?" Kurdish Life, No. 9, Winter 1994, published by the Kurdish Library, Brooklyn, N.Y., pp. 1, 2.)"

Cezveci

CIA Factbook suggets

Armenia and Azerbaijan began fighting over the area in 1988; the struggle escalated after both countries attained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. By May 1994, when a cease-fire took hold, Armenian forces held not only Nagorno-Karabakh but also a significant portion of Azerbaijan proper. The economies of both sides have been hurt by their inability to make substantial progress toward a peaceful resolution. Turkey imposed an economic blockade on Armenia and closed the common border because of the Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas.

---

Before we start any problems with above text? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 07:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Categories are temporary, everything is more than likely to move around significantly. History category will probably be in a timeline format. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I want to hear arguments. PLEASE summerise. I do not want to see 150 Kb posts, lets discuss slowly.

Initial assesments

While my views are unimportant regarding the article, I placed comments places which I want you to start discussing the matter. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat’s mediation initiative

Coolcat, thanks for your initiative. In principle, I do not mind you or any other third and neutral party mediating between parties in order to make the final Nagorno-Karabakh page as complete and neutral as possible. However, let me remind you that my earlier appeal to mediation was rejected by Rovoam (btw, in rather rude terms). ([1]). So, if he didn't accept mediation then, I do not see a reason why he would accept mediation now.

Moreover, Rovoam's actions, his personal insults and vandalisms have created totally new circumstances, which convinced me that we cannot achieve any progress if we choose Rovoam as a party to mediation or discussion. My case against Rovoam is still being considered by the ArbCom ([2]) but one thing is already clear: this person completely discredited himself by blatant vandalisms, personal attacks and threats. I do not expect anything positive from a person who vandalized many Azerbaijan-related pages and then said: "Try block my IP address! Try! I will get another one. Plus, I will bring here a hundred friends from all over the world. I will destroy the idea of Wikipedia!" ([3]) And this is just only one example of his numerous outrageous words and deeds...

In short, I do not mind mediation in principle, but I do not accept Rovoam as a party to this mediation. I expect that ArbCom should block him for a long period of time as a punishment for his actions. In fact he was blocked, but then was unblocked to be able to present evidences in his defense (which he did not).

I would very much prefer to discuss the page content development with User:Aramgutang, an Armenian editor in Wikipedia, who unlike Rovoam is very moderate. I also welcome any other editors, whether Armenian, Azeri, pro-Armenian, pro-Azeri or neutral, who would demonstrate good will and intentions to proceed further. However, one important point that needs to be made here is that any subsequent discussion should not be started from scratch. This means that any subsequent discussion should take into consideration and benefit from previous 200-page-long discussions which contain lots of factual material and arguments from the various parties involved. If we do not keep up to this principle, we will get stuck in endless,fruitless and confusing discussions, which would provide excellent grounds for various propaganda pushing. --Tabib 11:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

I picked him because his nick registered in the discussion, I welcome any parties who wants to get involved. I want to make both sides talk to each other and come up with common gorunds. If he learend his leson that vanalising is bad for health he is welcome to return, else I will handle him. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Just wanted to let you know that I would be quite willing to constructively debate the issue with Tabib or anyone else, however I have recently been finding myself very short of time I can allocate for Wikipedia, and I probably won't be able to contribute to this discussion much for at least a week or so. I'm happy to see that the debate is moving in a more organised and constructive fashion now, thanks to Coolcat, and the actual N-K article looks acceptable for Wikipedia, even if far from perfect. --Aramգուտանգ 05:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Aram. I agree with you that the current version although certainly not perfect, is acceptable for both sides. Certainly, it can be enriched with further information. If you have some proposals on additions, editions or changes to the already existing paragraphs and/or formulations, please, share them with us in the talkpage. I will be more than glad to hear from you. --Tabib 11:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Starting from scratch.

Can you spit out already established concensious for me? The archives are a big mess... I prefer this format, also include who suggested the argumnent who supported who was against it. I also want your counterpart to confirm the concensius you suggested so as not to have a later conflict. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, I want to reiterate my earlier argument once again: "Starting from scratch" is out of question. I've spent too much time, efforts and nerves on this page, and starting from scratch would be a disrespect to me and also to other editors, who contributed so far to this discussion. Moreover, discarding all previous discussions would be a big mistake namely for the reasons I explained above (last paragraph). Unfortunately, no consensus was reached and could not be reached between me and Rovoam in previous discussions. But, I believe, eventually certain consensus was reached at least between me and other editors, who supported me in my struggle against Rovoam. Most importantly, we with User:Aramgutang both agree that the article as it is today is "acceptable to both sides", although not perfect). My suggestion to you Coolcat, would be to read through the earlier discussion to better understand the topic and the actions needed to be taken. You may also find it useful to look at the ArbCom evidences againts Rovoam to better understand how the conflict with Rovoam and me along with the rest of the editors started ([4]). --Tabib 11:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

By starting from scratch I mean that you and old parties to forget older hostilities and dont refer back to those. vandalist people ofcourse is a different matter. Is there anything in the archives that needs to be added to the article? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 07:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) I was also asking this to make sure nothing was lost during the constant vandal attacks. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 07:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How to discuss

Please use the folowing color code and indention, this will make it easier for all parties. Each argument should be a seperate category. User:Coolcat/mediat

Please allow me to edit the article based on what we agree here.

I will not add anything on my own. How about either party present their case here? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You will not moderate this discussion, neither any discussions involing Armenians, Turks, Azeris, Greeks, Kurds etc. Your impartiality has been highly questioned by countless numbers of Wikipedians, respect us. Fadix 22:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat is not the only person whose impartiality could be *highly questioned*. Let's hold on to Wikiquette--Tabib 04:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The differences here is that his impartiality is "highly questioned" by many Wikipedians. Only a real mediator having the task to mediate should mediate such entries, and not people that want to dissolve articles. Fadix 14:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will have to agree with fadix on this one. His involvement with related articles particularly where neutrality and accuracy disputes have popped up some due to him, shows he is not suitable. Meok 02:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article should be correct regardless of what we agreed or disagreed

What's wrong with existing (current) version of the article:

• The very first sentence states that Karabakh is the part of Azerbaijan. This is simply misleading and is not true. The status of Karabakh is not yet determined and it is the main subject of negotiation between Armenians and Azeri. As a matter of fact, Karabakh was only part of the Soviet Azerbaijan, but Soviet Azerbaijan no longer exists.

• The historical name is Artsakh (Armenian: Արցախ). This is the Armenian name, not just referred to by Armenians, as incorrectly stated in the article. Other names are "Urtehke" or "Urtehini" (as in Urartianian cuneiform writings); Khachen, Small Suinik, etc., etc. The name Karabakh for the first time is mentioned in XIV century (in the Georgian annals of XIV century "Kartlis Tskhovreba" - Life of Georgians in Gergian).

• The history section is totally incorrect and needs to be re-written completely. Armenians can present impressing number of neutral sources which testify, that Armenians prevailed in region during more than millennia. However, the article incorrectly states that Nagorno-Karabakh was one of the historical parts of Aghbania, or Caucasian Albania. But Strabo (born 63 BC or 64 BC, died ca. 24 AD) mentions Orhistene among the Armenian provinces (as well as Phavneni and Kombiseni). Claudius Ptolemaeus (Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαίος; c. 85 – c. 165) in his "Geography" informs, that "Great Armenia is located from the north to a part of Colchida, Iberia and Albania alone the line, which goes through the river Kir (Kura)" (see: Ptolemaeus Claudius, "Geography", V, XII). Plinius Secundos (23–79 AD, better known as Pliny the Elder) writes, that "the tribe of Albanians settled on the Caucasian mountains, reaches … the river Kir making border of Armenia and Iberia" (see Plinius the Second, "The Natural history ", VI, 39). See, for example, Pliny the Elder, The Natural History (eds. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S., H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A.).

• The article states that the Albanian Church was under Gregorianization influence in the 7th and 8th centuries (during Arabian ruling). This is complete nonsense! The Albanians adapted Christianity due to the activity of St Gregory the Illuminator (just as Armenians), and for this reason they were called Gregorians and they were always very close to the Armenian Church (both Churches were non-Chalcedonian as they both refused to accept teaching of Council of Chalcedon). Contrary to what is stated in the article, Albanian Church broke its relationship with Armenian Church when some Armenians bishops attempted (in 590 AD) to accept Council of Chalcedon... Later (in 704 AD ) similar attempt was made by Albanian bishop Nerses Bakur (688 — 704 AD), but that was not successful either.

• The article about Aghbania, or Caucasian Albania is also incorrect, as it was edited by pro-Azeri users, like User:Tabib. I don't care about pro-Azeri or pro-Armenian point of view, but I would like to avoid historically incorrect statements.

• And yes, it is also true, that there was a time when Artsakh became part of Caucasian Albania. After Armenia was devided between Rome and Iran (in 387 AD.) Artsakh (and also part of Paitakaran) has been attached to Aghbania (which itself became a Persian province). Since then this expanded Albania (known as Arran) came to existence (Persian and Arabian Arran, Georgian Er-Ran), which included the major part of the territory of modern Azerbaijan Republic. However, the area was still rulled by local branch of Parphianian dynasty of Arshakids - the same dynasty, which also rulled in Armenia for centuries.

• The conflict itself is very well described (from the neutral point of view) in the Sovereignty after Empire Self-Determination Movements in the Former Soviet Union. Case Studies: Nagorno-Karabakh. -Publication of the United States Institute of Peace among other conflicts in the former Soviet Union (Osetia, Abhazia, etc.), and it needs to be referrenced as well.

• Please see:
  • • Sovereignty after Empire Self-Determination Movements in the Former Soviet Union. Case Studies: Nagorno-Karabakh. -Publication of the United States Institute of Peace
    • Pliny the Elder, The Natural History (eds. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S., H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A.)

Rovoam 07:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Whew! I've just read through 3 pages of pettiness, because I was trying to find out information about this subject from the wikipedia! I thought wikipedia existed for people like me, who wanted to find out facts! All pettiness aside, the above list by Rovoam is a very good list of the problems that cause one side to have a dispute with this article. I think we should deal with these points one by one and try to find out if either side has any merit.

• 1) Is it misleading to call N-K "part of Azerbaijan"? In terms of international recognition, no. In terms of majority population (culturally), perhaps. In terms of de fact military presence, yes. So the answer appears to be "yes and no". I think the article as it stands now already does a fair job of making all this clear to a neophyte like myself. So I wouldn't recommend any change on this point.

• 2) Everything listed here seems to be covered already in the present article (maybe it was added in since the 2nd April, when he wrote the above, but it's there now).

• 3) Both sides seem to agree that the area was part of Armenia as of 95 BC. Who had it before that, and when, is really the factual history dispute about this page. (I know this is not directly relevant to the other dispute on the ground today). One side alleges that it was populated by Albanian tribes prior to 95 BC. The other side came up with a historical reference that it was Armenian from 600 BC, i.e. about as long as there has been an Armenia. Armenia's indirect predecessor, Urartu, apparently did NOT control the region before that. In fact, I have researched plenty of historical evidence that the Kura-Araxes valley was called Arran before that, and was probably the original homeland of the Medes and Indo-Aryans. I would be very interested to know if anyone can tell us more specifically, what do the Urartean inscriptions say about "Urtehke" and "Urtehini"? Was it used as the name of a neighboring country? Was it a vassal paying tribute to Urartu? Who can tell us?

• 4) On this point, I am inclined to agree with those who find it offensive to speak of "Gregorianization" of the Albanian Church by the Arabs or the Armenian Church, considering that St. Gregory founded both the Albanian and the Armenian Churches in the first place. The term "Gregorianization" and such like should therefore be avoided and rejected on account of its offensive potential. Rovoam's account above of how the Churches split and dyophysitism crept into each Church at various times but never prevailed, seems to be the truth. So by the time the 2 Churches were reunited (evidently from Arab pressure), there was nothing seperating them doctrinally anyway, as both ended up remaining monophysite.

• 5) This should be discussed on the other talk pages for those articles

• 6) Rovoam here concedes that Artsakh was Albanian in 387 AD. But in fairness, I think it has been amply demonstrated that the area was constantly reverting between Armenia and Albania, both before and after that time, probably going all the way to 600 BC.

• 7) Rovoam suggests an additional link he claims is NPOV; I haven't visted it, but as long as it really is NPOV, we may as well include it on the page if it isn't already there.

I'm just a user trying to be impartial, please don't anyone get petty with me if you don't like something I said. But if you find merit in the above suggestions, I suggest they be implemented to resolve the edit dispute to everyone's satisfaction, or at least in such a way that anonymous parties don't keep reverting or vandalizing the page out of frustration. signed, Codex Sinaiticus 20:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom's Final Decision: Tabib vs Rovoam & Baku Ibne/Osmaonoglou/LIGerasimova

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

ArbCom's has finally issued its decision on two-months-long dispute between me and Rovoam, as well as me and Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou/LIGerasimova.

Please see, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Baku_Ibne,_et_al.#Final_decision --Tabib 18:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

---

...

As long as there are national POV pushers in Wikipedia, it is obvious that some will lose their patiences and lose control. If one takes off rovoam abuses and personal attacks, in what regards material informations, he understood better than you what NPOV was all about. And as I see, your POV push at Turkey entry isen't much better. I always thought that you were not the innocent you were trying to picture. But this is I. Fadix 04:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is your personal viewpoint, Fadix. I won't argue with you. --Tabib 12:26, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib. Do you have a counterpart for this article? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer term *partner*. I have a partner for this article - User:Aramgutang. See, [5] & [6] --Tabib 04:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Although I find the term "partner" slightly inappropriate, I concur that me and Tabib have plans to work on the article together. Unfortunately, my academic load has been preventing me from starting the process in the past week or so. I was hoping that I would have the time during this past weekend, but alas I still haven't finished the projects I'm working on. I haven't even had the time to go through, wikify and un-POV the Khojaly genocide article, recently created by an anonymous user. --Aramգուտանգ 05:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A quick googling reveals that the Khojaly genocide article is copied verbatum from [7]. Also, I believe Khojaly tragedy or Khojaly massacre are more appropriate names for the article. --Aramգուտանգ 05:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just moved it to Khojaly massacre.--Tabib 06:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Minute differences in wording

Peace and Greetings to all readers,

• I'm not going to quibble about the minor changes, that mean basically the same thing. I only adopted some of Rovoam's phrasing in an attempt to appease him, so that he might stop vandalising the page. But seeing that didn't work and he refuses to be civilised, go ahead and keep it your way (Tabib). I don't see where the differences amount to a hill of beans as far as POV is concerned. The real differences are what I addressed above on this page in section 9 entitled "The article should be correct regardless of what we agreed..."

Not that it matters, but I confess I don't see what is incorrect about saying "The NKR's sovereign status is not yet recognised by any country in the world." Maybe you were assuming that the English word "yet" implies that it someday will be; however, it does not necessarily imply this. Alternative ways to say the same thing in English would be:

• It still hasn't been recognised
• It hasn't been recognised so far
• It hasn't been recognised as of now
• It hasn't been recognised up until the present
• How about "NKR's sovereign status is not (2005) recognised..."
• All of these variants are correct statements of fact, whether NKR ever is recognised, or never is. None of them imply anything about the future or express any POV regardless. So, keeping the little word "yet" just to humour Rovoam would have been (I think) a harmless concession; but that's all a moot point now, obviously R. is still being childish and unwilling to meet anyone halfway, so he's just lost any credibility or sympathy I might have been willing to give him. Codex Sinaiticus 14:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Codex, I am grateful to you for your involvement in several Azerbaijan and Karabakh-related pages, particularly Caucasian Albania and Artsakh, and I fully share with you the views about Rovoam. However, having a long history of interaction with Rovoam, I can say that this person cannot be stopped by "appeasing". The "yet" word has been discussed yet in the earliest discussions and has been accepted by all including User:Davenbelle, User:Aramgutang and myself as POV (se for ex. Davenbelle's and my comments. Nevertheless, I would actually gladly accept this "yet" word if I knew that Rovoam would stop from his POV pushing, vandalism and trolling. Unfortunately, I know Rovoam too well, and I know that he would not stop on this. The only way to stop this person is firm position by several editors, who would be at least as much persistent as him in fighting his vandalism and trolling.--Tabib 06:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

On User:RaffiKojian’s edit and removal of a paragraph

I formally object User:RaffiKojian’s recent edit [8] in which Raffi removed (commented out) a number of accurate historical facts and introduced some formulations which do not correspond to Wikipedia NPOV standarts.

Moreover, as stated above, this is a *controversial topic* and anyone should read the previous talks and discuss his proposed changes before introducing substantial changes.

Raffi has commented out (virtually deleted) the following paragraph

Despite the fact that the Ottomans were defeated in the course of World War I, Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was recognized in 1919 by the Allies, who recognized Khosrov-bey Sultanov (appointed by the Azerbaijan government) as general-governor of Karabakh. Whereas Azerbaijan commended this decision as a recognition of its rights to the territory, the Armenian side criticized it, arguing that this decision was made because of the Allies' economic interests in the oil fields near Azerbaijan's capital, Baku.

This paragraph is absolutely accurate and neutral and Raffi’s removal of this paragraph is unacceptable.

Before elaborating further on this, I want to inform you and everyone else, that the comment “Possible propaganda” was introduced by User:Coolcat (see, diff link here), who although had good intentions but unfortunately did not have enough knowledge of the issue. I regret that I did not address this erroneous comment then, because I refrained from unilateral un-agreed edits.

Anyway, now I think it is proper time to address the issue of Allies’ de-facto recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan in 1919.

In order to make my arguments more evidently, I will rely mostly on what Armenian sources themselves say about this issue.

Below are excerpts from the Armenian [www.nkrusa.org "NKR Office in Washington, DC"] web-site:

"...On January 15, 1919 the Azerbaijani government "having notified the British command staff" appointed Khosrovbek Sultanov General-Governor of Nagorno Karabakh and simultaneously issued an ultimatum to the Karabakh National Council demanding acceptance of Azerbaijani rule..." (under ‘Karabakh’ this site implies only *Karabakh Armenian* “National Council”, Karabakh Azeris, which constituted the majority in Karabakh at that time, are not included here)

"On February 21, 1919, the [Karabakh Armenian-my note] National Council received a telegram from General Thomson — Commander-in-Chief of the British army in Baku with the demand to recognize the authority of Azerbaijan over Karabakh."

"...On April 23, 1919 British General Shattelvort (subsequently — Commander of British troops in Baku) arrived in Shushi [i.e. Shusha]. During negotiations with Chairman of Karabakh [Armenian] National Council A.Shakhnazarian and Shushi municipal head G.Shakhnazarian Shattelvort stated, — "I warn you that any excess against Azerbaijan is a move against England. We are strong enough to make you obey us" (1). The fifth Congress of Armenians of Karabakh convoked at that time rejected this ultimatum."

"On August 26, 1919, under strong British pressure, the VII Congress of Karabakh concluded a temporal agreement with the Government of Azerbaijan. According to this treaty Nagorno Karabakh would be temporarily within Azerbaijan until the issue of the mountainous part of Karabakh would be settled at the Peace (Paris) Conference(2). The agreement did not change the status of Nagorno Karabakh, which preserved the status of an independent political unit. This agreement became one of the reasons that the League of Nations put the issue of Nagorno Karabakh on the agenda of the Paris Peace Conference(3)."

And here’s another paragraph, which falsely depicts the history in such as way as if the British recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan only because of their oil (whereas it was much more complex than that):

"This time the government of Azerbaijan tried to seize Nagorno Karabakh with the aid of the British. The British soon announced that new state borders could not be established in the Transcaucasus without their consent, which would take place at the Paris Peace Conference. In the meantime, the British worked to make Nagorno Karabakh a part of Azerbaijan. By establishing total control over the Baku oil supply, the British worked to separate the Transcaucasus from Russia once and for all. Their goal was to make Azerbaijan the outpost of the West in South Caucasus and thus end further Sovietization in the region."

The Armenian source above is certainly not a "pro-Azeri" by recognizing these facts. In fact it is evidently pro-Armenian and by its false formulations and interpretations, tries by all means possible to diminish the role of the historical fact that Allies in fact have recognized Karabakh as a de-facto part of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (1918-1920). Btw, this republic was one of the three republics (the other two being Armenian and Georgian Democratic Republics) which emerged following the collapse of the Russian Empire at the end of the World War I. These countries were never recognized de jure but they were recognized de facto by the Supreme Council of the League of Nations.

In short, the removal by User:RaffiKojian of the above mentioned paragraph was not only unexplained, but also unsubstantiated and erroneous. I call him and everyone else, not to introduce unilateral un-agreed and one-sided changes. Bearing in mind that this is a controversial topic, one should first read the talkpage, then make his case, and only after that introduce his edits. This is the only way which could bring to some positive results. I appeal to Raffi and everyone else, lets behave honestly and in a civilized manner and not allow vandals like Rovoam to poison the atmosphere of discussion here. --Tabib 17:38, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Raffi's edits and his usage of the inside page comments (using it virtually as talkpage) was so confusing that only now I noticed the POV paragraph he introduced while removing the initial NPOV one, which I showed above:

Here is this paragraph:

The Armenian General Andranik held this territory quite firmly, and the British convinced him to peacefully leave assuring him of a favorable outcome. He did, and they unilaterally handed it to Azerbaijan . The population at the time of GREATER Karabakh was solidly Armenian.

I do not want to sound impolite, but this is a distortion of historical facts. General Andranik was not "convinced" by the British to "leave" Karabakh, but was actually *demanded* by the British to remove his troops from Karabakh.

Moreover, Raffi either lies or is deeply incompetent over the issue when he says that the population of "GREATER Karabakh" as he puts it, "was solidly Armenian". Population of Karabakh (i.e. with mountainous and lowland parts, what Raffi refers to as "Greater") was always predominantly Azeri, and also population of mountainous Karabakh up to 1923 was predominantly Azeri as well. This issue has been sufficiently discussed before in my discussions/disputes with User:Rovoam and USer:Fadix. Se, for example, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive2#Another_attempt_at_manipulation_with_the_historical_facts, see, On historical demographics of Karabakh (again) --Tabib 18:50, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Which “discussed?” I don't consider the action of dismissing me as another “Armenian editor” or accusing me of fabrication, and then sending me links there and here, to show I am “supporting” Rovoam to discredit me, as something that could be considered as “discussed.” Fadix 03:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

How convenient for you Tabib.

That Nagorno Karabakh was temporarily placed in the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan, there is no doubt was the result of the British wanting to maintain their hands on the oilfield in Baku. Urquhart is enough evidence there.

Besides, can you be glad to show me any documents attesting that Nagorno Karabakh was recognized by the allies as a part of Azerbaijan(actually, it was quite the contrary), and not a temporary jurisdiction until there is a drawing of borders? And besides, when did the League of nations during that time, ever recognized it being part of Azerbaijan, in fact, they even refused to recognize it, did they change their mind later? If so, can you be glad to provide me any documents for that?

As for the temporary decision, those temporary decisions would never have been what they were, if the British were to know what was to happen in the future. Because the British predicted Armenia to contain parts of what was called the Armenian villeyets(Eastern Ottoman), and still the borders of Kurdistan were still not well traced. In fact, even in the Soviet times Karabakh was tried as a Red Kurdistan.

Temporary measures are not final decisions, if they are, please do show us documents attesting to it. What happened was that the British have redrawn from there, and America did not honor its promise to secure an Armenia.

In fact, that is so true, that when Armenia lost all those lands, and the Kemalists comploted with the Bolshevics to place Karabakh in the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan, later the Soviet tried to back peddle, and even Azerbaijan has recognized it as part of Armenia, before the decision was reversed.

When were the Wilsonian map or Sevres Treaty placed in application, giving lands to Armenia? From those proposition, I see in the map that what follow the Lachin corridor is one of the propositions of it being incorporated to Armenia. Explain me Tabib, since according to you, the allies recognized it part of Azerbaijan, how come the Eastern borders were not drawn?

Talking of allied recognition, yeh right.

So Tabib, if the allies recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, the allies recognized many other lands as part of Armenia... and they were unlike Karabakh not temporary decisions, BUT final decisions. If that is not so, please do show me any evidences for the contrary.

The only reason why the Soviet placed Nakhitchevan and Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, was because the Armenians rebelled against the Soviet rule in February 1921, and Armenian managed to be independent for nearly a month, before that, in December 1920, Karabakh was given to Armenia, and this recognized by Narimanov, the commissary of foreign affairs of Azerbaijans revolutionary committee reporting their decision.

In short, if you want to read few manipulations, go read your own manipulations, like your manipulation or/and distortion of statistics by trying to pass Karabakh as Nagorno Karabakh, or many such distortions recycled by ultra nationalist so-called historians close to Aliev dictatorial propaganda machine, and then finding excuses such as “nomadic Azeris.” While the Turks stopped believing in Ataturks Sun theories(at least a good portion of the population), it seems that Azerbaijan is still after national mythologies.

It seems as well, that you are a follower of Ziya Buniatov, that was the head of Azerbaijans Academy of sience, who has manipulated various old works(in German, Russian etc.), deleting words “Armenia” and “Armenians” in his translations.

Oh and, I have just visited the Arran entry, isn't it amazing that each time I visit entries you got involved, I read nonsense and historical manipulations?

Oh and, I expect being answered by intimidations and words like “liar” “another Armenian editor.” Fadix 03:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

My reply.--Tabib 06:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I had no idea the page was about to get suddenly locked, and it did while I was in the middle of playing around with the beginning and ending of the comment indicators. Raffi had commented out the entire provocative sentence and left it as a comment; if you look at the history you can see where he actually wrote a good deal more that was far less neutral, and I tried to put selected parts of it into the body of the actual article text, in order to work with it - then it inadvertently got frozen that way. So I apologize to all for any trouble I may have stirred up without meaning to. That should teach me not to mess with people's comments. Humbly yours, Codex Sinaiticus 03:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Codex, thanks for this message. It is an important note, because some (esp. those who are not involved closely with this entry) may perceive the fact that you edited after Raffi and left his comments intact as implicit support for his edits. So, thanks for bringing clarity to this point.

I agree with you fully that Raffi’s edits were far from being neutral and impartial. However, I would not term the paragraph that he removed (which I showed in my message above) as “provocative”. It is “provocative” only to those who do not want to accept the history as it is, who want to distort by all means possible the fact and deny the fact that Allies did in fact recognize Karabakh as a de-facto part of Azerbaijan. Moreover, this paragraph was there for long period of time (for more than a year -!), i.e. even before I came to Wikipedia. It underwent only minor changes since then, but the factual part of it (i.e. recognition of Karabakh as a de facto part of Azerbaijan by the Allies) remained intact. Therefore, Raffi’s removal of this paragraph and replacing it with a POV is unacceptable. I will insist on restoration of that paragraph and removing Raffi’s POV edits.--Tabib 06:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've been out of town, actually to Karabakh, so I am only now seeing all this. As Codex said, the General Antranig comments were made not in the article itself, but in invisible comments. Interesting that his control was not mentioned in the article properly though. But back to the original statement which WAS visible. I do think the original statement was unacceptable no matter how long it's been there. It starts out, "Despite the fact that the Ottomans were defeated in the course of World War I,"... Why? What does that have to do with anything, especially where the Allies decide to put Karabakh? That should not be in there, I don't see what the point could possibly be except to say that if Karabakh was given in any form, for any period of time, despite the fact that their patron state, Turkey, had lost the war, it clearly must belong to the Azeris. If it is not in there to imply such a thing, then why? Take it out, it is POV as it gets. The other issues are already discussed below. --RaffiKojian 18:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Rovoam has gone beyond the pale and is reverting simply to make some kind of point [9]. Because he is virtually unblockable and rather obsessive, I have protected this article and quite a few others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony's protection, request for restoring the NPOV paragraph

Tony, is there a way for you to restore the initial NPOV paragraph removed by User:RaffiKojian? I have explained my concerns about his edit above. Since the page was protected, I have restored this paragraph simultaneously keeping subsequent helpful edits by User:Codex Sinaiticus under User:Tabib/Nagorno-Karabakh. Please, see if you find my request to put that NPOV version appropriate/possible.

Also, please, look at the Nagorno-Karabakh entry and you'll see that Raffi himself introduced his POV paragraph in such a way which even visually doesn't incorporate itself into the remaining text.

Just for records: Tony has protected a whole bunch of pages, which underwent Rovoam's vandalisms including Caucasian Albania, Artsakh, Azerbaijan, Arran (Azerbaijan), Safavids, Turkey, Urartu. This was definitely a needed action and has my full support.--Tabib 19:08, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

On User:Fadix and his accusations

"...My impression is that despite Fadix’s declaration that he is “done with this entry”, I will have to endure his continuous posts, whether relevant or irrelevant to the subject matter, for quite a long time. So, we will have time for further elaborations if needed.

(from my post dated Mar 12, 2005 [10])

Looks like I was not wrong in my guess. User:Fadix once again advances his ungrounded comments and accusations and definitely is not “done” with this entry.

As I have repeatedly insisted, I do not want to turn the talkpage into a personal discussion forum, any personal notes should be directed to user talkpages. But once again I have to respond to Fadix in order not to allow him to discredit me and convince others in his false accusations. Recently, I responded to User:Fadix in Talk:Safavids where he introduced a POV edit. Please, see Talk:Safavids#User:Fadix_POV_edit_and_groundless_accusation. To this I would only add that Fadix from his very first message attacked me calling me a “hypocrite” ("I find rather hypocritic from your part to tell us all here how you have proved this or that and how you are attacked..." [11]). Certainly, such a start and attitude does not allow for normal discussions to proceed. Then I have sufficiently responded to Fadix's allegations in my posts Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive2#Another_attempt_at_manipulation_with_the_historical_facts, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive2#Serious_concern_about_User:Fadix.92s_latent_.28for_now.29_POV_pushing as well as Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive2#Deja_vue:_Fadix_and_Rovoam. That’s it about the history of my (unpleasant) experience with User:Fadix.

Now coming to his allegations regarding the content:

Fadix writes,

That Nagorno Karabakh was temporarily placed in the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan, there is no doubt was the result of the British wanting to maintain their hands on the oilfield in Baku.

Whether it was a temporary decision and what were the intentions of the Allies, these are secondary details. The fact that matters now is that Karabakh was actually recognized as a de facto part of Azerbaijan by the Allies. And Fadix himself cannot escape from denying this fact. Certainly, this was a temporary decision, pending final solution in Peace Conference, as I have sufficiently demonstrated in my previous message. But I already said that the issue is not about de jure recognition but a de facto recognition. Moreover, I have to repeat again that the three Caucasus republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia themselves were not recognized de jure, only de facto by the Supreme Council of the League of Nations.

Fadix writes,

Besides, can you be glad to show me any documents attesting that Nagorno Karabakh was recognized by the allies as a part of Azerbaijan(actually, it was quite the contrary), and not a temporary jurisdiction until there is a drawing of borders? And besides, when did the League of nations during that time, ever recognized it being part of Azerbaijan, in fact, they even refused to recognize it, did they change their mind later? If so, can you be glad to provide me any documents for that?

Again, we see a deliberate attempt at confusing people. Fadix tries to portray my position as if I was saying that Karabakh was recognized by the Allies as part of Azerbaijan de jure. Here I bring the initial paragraph which was deleted by Raffi again:

Despite the fact that the Ottomans were defeated in the course of World War I, Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was recognized in 1919 by the Allies, who recognized Khosrov-bey Sultanov (appointed by the Azerbaijan government) as general-governor of Karabakh. Whereas Azerbaijan commended this decision as a recognition of its rights to the territory, the Armenian side criticized it, arguing that this decision was made because of the Allies' economic interests in the oil fields near Azerbaijan's capital, Baku.

As you see, it’s talking only about de facto recognition. De jure is not mentioned because even Armenia and Azerbaijan themselves were not recognized de jure. Therefore, Fadix simply plays with words, and argues just for the sake of creating a mess and confusion and discrediting me in your eyes. Subsequently, it would be very easy for certain editors to use this confusion and advance their biased POVs.

Further down in Fadix’s post, we see lots of irrelevant to this talkpage comments like, “As for the temporary decision, those temporary decisions would never have been what they were, if the British were to know what was to happen in the future...” (very interesting comment indeed) or “What happened was that the British have redrawn from there, and America did not honor its promise to secure an Armenia.” (complaining about Allies "betraying" Armenia) or “...if the allies recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, the allies recognized many other lands as part of Armenia... and they were unlike Karabakh not temporary decisions, BUT final decisions.” (how so?..) "..many such distortions recycled by ultra nationalist so-called historians close to Aliev dictatorial propaganda machine..." (does it remind you something?..), "It seems as well, that you are a follower of Ziya Buniatov, that was the head of Azerbaijans Academy of sience, who has manipulated..." (talking about an Azeri historian), "...isn't it amazing that each time I visit entries you got involved, I read nonsense and historical manipulations?" (equalling my contributions to nonsense and manipulations) etc etc.

These comments have no relation to the particular issue in question (i.e. Allies’ de facto recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan) and concern mostly the Armenian-Turkish issues, in which Fadix “specializes”.

In short, I ask User:Fadix once again to stop advancing ungrounded accusations on my address. I am prepared to discuss any question regarding this entry with him provided that he focuses not on personal issues but solely on concrete questions relevant to the Nagorno-Karabakh entry. I would also appreciate very much, if Fadix focuses on one issue in a time and do not try to embrace a wide range of issues. This would avoid confusion and facilitate more effective discussions.--Tabib 06:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib, again, I repeat, can you be glad to show me ever where the allies have ever recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan in ANY drawn border(which is what recognition is all about)? Let me remind you Tabib, that the allies DID RECOGNIZE Armenia(de jure) before it was dissolved, the Eastern bordering was still pending, and Wilson has proposed borders, the Peace conference DID HAPPEN, neither the League of Nations, neither at the Peace conference was Karabakh recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Even Azerbaijan has redrawed its claim over it, before Armenian rebelled from the Bolshevics, as an answer the Bolshevics took it away.

The same thing happened before Azerbaijan and Armenia became independent, because of the Armenian independence movement, the Soviet refused to respect the legal proceedings.

In short, Karabakh was never recognized as part of Azerbaijan, by any treaties from the allies, the eastern zone was still pending, temporary accords until the peace conference are NOT recognition. What is recognition is treaties and bodies such as the Peace conference.

Having said that, the claim that the allies recognized (de facto for temporary doesn't apply, since de facto, there was other propositions recognizing it as part of Armenia as well) Karabakh is simply WRONG, and placing it in the article is simply the sort of lies that Azerbaijani Academia of science has forged, and you as their followers, you're good at propgandizing national myths.

Now coming to the first part, Tabib, my comments about you are not ungrounded, while the positions against me comes generally from the genocide entry, because of national denialists, you had at least one person against your position, in each entries you have obsessionly taken over, besides probably the republic of Azerbaijan. You have edited the Armenian genocide entry, the World War I entry(because of course, it refers to the Armenian tragedy), you've been hijacking the Arran entry, and here I dare any Western Historian specializing to the history of Iran and the East, coming here and telling that your work there is true and not pure national propaganda. You've done the same at the Urartu entry, the same in many other entries. You are very badly placed to call me a POV pusher after everything you did, and you well know, as the reader will realize, that my accusation of you as being hypocrite, was rather dissolved, because I did not say you were a hypocrite, but that I find one of your actions rather hypocritic, which is far from being an attack. But yet, I have been accused from you of being a POV pusher(from the beginning), and you have even used my Armenian background to discredit me, and have even claimed I have fabricated a quote, which I did not fabricate.

Those things are wide open for anyone to read. Oh, and I almost forgot the way you have tried to question my integrity, with your pathetic guilt by association attempt, but sorry, it did fail. Fadix 15:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

De facto doesn't mean temporary

De facto recognition doesn't mean the same as "temporary recognition". It means recognising something because it is already a fait accomplis (justly or unjustly) - as opposed to recognising something because it is lawfully accomplished through due process (de jure).

A helpful historical example is the Norman conquest of England in 1066. William, duke of Normandy, asserted his "right" to rule as King of England based on both arguments, that he claimed were equally valid. He claimed to be king de jure, because the crown had been promised to him by Edward the Confessor. He also claimed to be king de facto, by reason of military conquest. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 17:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Which is what I've been saying. The British had a mandate in Karabakh, and were more interested to redraw their men from there, so they placed Karabakh temporarly in the juridiction of Azerbaijan until the peace conference(the only two reasonable reasons why it was not right away placed under the juriction of Armenia, was because they had to secure their oil interest, and because they could not manage a constant men power to secure it), since during that time, the Americans were discussing to replace the British to secure an Armenia. Wilsons proposition was to end up by the drawing of borders only once the Americans were to replace the British, this never happened. This means, that Karabakh was never recognized by the allies, in any possible way as being a part of Azerbaijan at that time. In fact, the decision of temporary measures was completly at the hand of the British, and there are no evidence what so ever, that it was supported by the rest of the allies, the League of Nations for example has completly refused the inclusion of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, and the allies beside the British plan to redraw, were just waiting, because the most possible scenario was self administration. Fadix 18:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

De facto vs. De jure vs. "temporary jurisdiction"

Most of my comments are addressed to User:Fadix, who apparently hastily overreacted by passing off Codex’s comments as support for his POV. I think it is necessary to bring clarity to certain issues.

Codex wrote,

De facto recognition doesn't mean the same as "temporary recognition".

Right, it doesn’t mean the same. But please, pay attention to the formulation: “Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was recognized in 1919 by the Allies” This is a very accurate and balanced depiction indeed. It talks not about some vague recognition but *de facto ownership*.

Furthermore, Codex wrote,

[De facto] means recognising something because it is already a fait accomplis (justly or unjustly) - as opposed to recognising something because it is lawfully accomplished through due process (de jure).

Again, correct. But this is actually a comparison between de facto and de jure, whereas the real controversy is not on this point but on whether de facto may also mean “temporary”. My argument is that *de facto* may also mean *temporary* in cases when let’s say, some authority/organization adopts temporary decision supporting status quo (e.g. de facto ownership) while simultaneously, deciding to solve the issue in the (near) future. Thus, in our particular case, the Allies recognized that Azerbaijan holds de facto ownership/jurisdiction over Karabakh, they recognized the local general governor Khosrov-bek Sultanov, appointed by the Azerbaijan government and also decided that the final status issue will be solved in the Paris Peace Conference. These are the DRY FACTS. And I can’t understand, how Fadix contrives to deny these facts and manages to confuse you.

I think amidst these word games we get distracted from the essence of the problem. I want to remind everyone that the primary problem I raised was unsubstantiated removal of a paragraph, which was factually correct and rather neutral by User:RaffiKojian and its replacement with a obvious POV and factually inaccurate paragraph. Unfortunately, following Tony’s protection of the page from vandalisms by Rovoam, remained in the page content.

I have already explained in my post above why the paragraph introduced by Raffi was a POV and factually inaccurate. So, this paragraph should be removed in the first place.

As to the initial paragraph, it seems that Fadix himself does not reject the fact that Karabakh was provisionally considered as part of Azerbaijan by the Allies in 1919-1920. It seems that the source of dispute is formulation of the fact rather than the fact itself.

Let’s go step by step:

Fadix prefers the formulation “Nagorno-Karabakh was temporarily placed in the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan”. (at least, that's how he termed this in his post)

I prefer the formulation “Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was recognized in 1919 by the Allies”

Both Fadix and I agree on important issue: the Allies decided that the ultimate status of Karabakh was not determined and was pending final decision in Paris Peace Conference.

We disagree on formulations.

My argument is that de facto is the most correct term, whereas “temporary jurisdiction” is also correct to a certain degree, but also is misleading. Here I agree with Codex, that temporary is not quite the formulation to introduce here.

The problem here is essentially in semantics:

See, if we write, Nagorno-Karabakh was temporarily placed in the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan”, we imply that there was a special decision by the Allies about “placing” Karabakh within Azerbaijan. Whereas everyone, including Fadix, would agree that there was no such decision from the Allies. Allies, simply *recognized* the Azeri government as having de facto control/ownership over the territory. And they also recognized that general governor Khosrov bek Sultanov was the head of the local administration in Karabakh. And this is EXACTLY what the paragraph said when it stated that “Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was recognized in 1919 by the Allies”

Fadix wrote: ... the claim that the allies recognized (de facto for temporary doesn't apply, since de facto, there was other propositions recognizing it as part of Armenia as well) Karabakh is simply WRONG, and placing it in the article is simply the sort of lies that Azerbaijani Academia of science has forged, and you as their followers, you're good at propgandizing national myths.

Fadix, I am not going to respond to your false personal accusations here, but you are simply wrong. It is a fact, that neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan and Georgia were recognized de jure in the Versailles, as I said, these republics were recognized only de facto: a statement by the Supreme Council of the League of Nations on de facto recognition was issued in early 1920.

Also, Fadix probably did not read my posts attentively if he continues to ask:

Tabib, again, I repeat, can you be glad to show me ever where the allies have ever recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan in ANY drawn border(which is what recognition is all about)?

I believe, I have sufficiently addressed this issue by bringing namely Armenian sources which attested that Karabakh was recognized by the Allies as a de facto part of Azerbaijan, and I also clearly stated that this was a *temporary decision* pending final confirmation in Paris Peace Conference. Bringing same questions over and over again does not help the discussion an have a disruptive effect confusing other editors, and forcing me to repeat the same facts and arguments stated before.

Anyway, here's some additional evidence, this time maps:

http://www.hri.org/docs/sevres/map1.html - This is a map of Turkey after Treaty of Sevres (which Turkey never recognized). You can clearly see, that Karabakh area is indicated as part of Azerbaijan. However, most importantly, the map does not contain the border limitations. This makes on think that the borders were not determined de jure but Karabakh was considered as part of Azerbaijan de facto.

http://www.hri.org/docs/sevres/map3.html - Here’s another map concerning Sevres Treaty, which shows the territories “assigned” by President Woodrow Wilson to Armenia (the boundaries clearly exclude Karabakh, although include Nakhichevan)

http://www.atlas-of-conflicts.com/areas/armenia-and-karabakh/maps/armenia-and-turkey.jpg - Here’s another map from Atlas of Conflict web-site. It’s useful but not an academic source.

Also, http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/61_folder/61_articles/61_chronology.html chronology of major events in Azerbaijan in 1918-1920 which also contains a map showing the official borders of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic.

In short, I believe that it is enough to play with words. The facts are there and any attentive reader can make his/her conclusions. I request Tony to remove paragraph by RaffiKojian and restore the paragraph commented out by him.--Tabib 00:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

Tabib: Beneath is the paragraph you want restored, with a couple of amendments I would submit, based on your above conversation. At one point you used the word 'provisionally' - much more apt here than 'temporarily' recognised, so I thought we'd give it a try.

Evidently, from listening to both 'sides', the recognition by the Allies was both provisional AND de facto, so why not spell this out with both terms in the sentence, since each construes a slightly different descriptor?

The second addition I would make is your word-for-word statement above, that you say both you and Fadix agree on: "the Allies decided that the ultimate status of Karabakh was not determined and was pending final decision in Paris Peace Conference" If you agree to this, it might provide some balance if we also spelled that out in the article. So I envisage something like this:

Despite the fact that the Ottomans were defeated in the course of World War I, Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was provisionally recognized in 1919 by the Allies, who recognized Khosrov-bey Sultanov (appointed by the Azerbaijan government) as general-governor of Karabakh. The Allies decided that the ultimate status of Karabakh was not determined and was pending final decision in Paris Peace Conference. Whereas Azerbaijan commended this decision as a recognition of its rights to the territory, the Armenian side criticized it, arguing that this decision was made because of the Allies' economic interests in the oil fields near Azerbaijan's capital, Baku. --Codex Sinaiticus 05:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent Codex! This paragraph is even more NPOV and correct than the one initially I supported (which I did not author by the way). Once again I am grateful to you for your good judgement. This paragraph has my full support.--Tabib 09:03, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib, the Armenian republic of 1919 was recognized DE JURE by the United States of America and the left borders recognized by the Sevres Treaty and the Paris Peace conference, IN TREATIES. Your claim is simply wrong. You show us the Treaty of Sevres and claims that it shows that Karabakh is within Azerbaijan, while it is quite the opposite, since the right sides border was annulled as shown THERE, the annulled border was what was part of the Russian Empire, and the word Armenia extend BEYOND Ottoman Armenia. I Don't see any bordering in the right side that shows that Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan.

The way you present it is simply WRONG. The British had a mandate there, and placing temporary Karabakh in the hand of Azerbaijan, was their sole decision AND NOT the allies, the League of Nations never accepted in ANYWAY, Karabakh as being part of Azerbaijan, be it de facto, de jure or de blabla. Wilsonian Armenia is even clearer there, since a mandate was given to as well secure the region, which clearly show that Karabakh was to NOT be governed by Azerbaijan, and to at the very least get a self governance.

Tabib claims that the Treaty of Sevres was never recognized by Turkey. Oh yeh, like Germany has never recognized the subsequent treaties signed after its defeat, it was the German Reich, or in 1945, it was the third Reich, like any other subsequent French republics before the fifth. Tabib, how well as a master propagandizer you might be, don't adventure in subjects which you ignore, for your own sake. The Ottoman Empire recognized the Western border of Armenia and has signed the Sevres Treaty, on the other hand, the Lausanne Treaty was not signed by Armenia. This is like two people signing a contract to take away your houses, and don't ask for your signature. Do you want me to quote what as a result the president of the League of Nation had to say about those things?

Oh and, there is a differences between the ultimate statue of Karabakh was not determinated, and claimed the allies recognized the de facto... when beside the British, in this decision, no other states being part of the allies took such a decision... in that regard, the closest thing we had of a body recognizing those nations, was the League of Nations, which DID NOT, in anyway recognized it, as part of Azerbaijan. Fadix 15:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Please start again

I've removed a section in which Fadix and Tabib once again engaged in mutual personal attacks, generating more heat than light, on the pretext of discussing the subject of this article.

Please, both of you, consider the aims of this project--to make a better encyclopedia. You must not use this discussion page for the purpose of casting doubt upon one another's good faith--if that is of so much interest to you I suggest you go to RFC or RFAR.

I consider the behavior of both of you to be at present actively detrimental to the project and am close to considering you to be at the point where someone else must take some action. This isn't the case at present. So please, don't let me (and Wikipedia) down. Tone down the rhetoric, show some respect for one another, and discuss the article and not one another.

I am not interested in your self-justifications. Please demonstrate that you can treat one another with respect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony, most of the huge section you deleted was indeed, the same tiresome personal attacks on each other that we can do without. But I did notice some important relevant comments in the following little section, that are worth preserving from Fadix (addressed to Tabib):

...If there are works that claim that Karabakh was part of Armenia 600 BC, it is a position, and should be presented, because not only some Armenian works claim this, but there is as well Western works that claim it so. Call this an successful Armenian propaganda, it does not change the fact that the position exist, and you just can't suppress it by claiming it is not the truth. If you can not accept that, you don't accept working the Wiki way.

And above all, you can not delete informations because you believe they are not true, discussion pages are not about discussing what is true or not,(the mistake I did in the past as well) discussion pages are about discussion other things, like what are the different positions, and if Mr. A, really said B, or C etc.

Codex Sinaiticus 16:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Codex, what Fadix wrote above is so much erroneous that anyone remotely knowledgeable in history of the region can easily refute these claims. I want to stress that, contrary to Fadix’s statement, no Western sources have ever claimed that the Karabakh area was part of Armenia in 600 BC. Even more or less serious Armenian sources do not go that far in their claims. You can learn this out easily by yourself.

Present-day Karabakh area could not have been part of Armenia in 600 BC simply because there was no Armenia at that time. At that time there was Urartu on the territory which would be later called Armenia. Urartu existed until 585 BC and, as I have already said before, Karabakh area was not part of this state. ([12]). Then the area was part of the Median Empire (until 550 BC) and Achaemenid empire (until 330 BC). First Armenian kingdom emerged in the territory of present south-east Turkey (upper Mesopotamia) sometime in 2nd century BC. with the establishment of the Artaxiad dynasty and then gradually expanded and reached its widest borders during Tigrannes II (the Great) (94-54 B.C) (during so called Greater Armenian empire). These are basic historical facts and there can be simply no "different positions" on these facts, as my opponent stated.

Tony, did you see why you should not have deleted my answer to Tabib, since he still repeat terms such as erroneous, when in m,y answer, I try to explain to Tabib what is NPOV.

Tabib, shall I accuse you of lying here(like you accuse others)? No Western source? You have deleted a link to a Western document, in which it was written that Karabakh was part of the first Armenian Kingdom, in the 6st century BC(and here is what I mean by 600 BC). And besides, there are very ancient maps presenting historic Armenia well beyond Tigran Empire, in which Karabakh is presented as part of Armenia. A wide collection of photocopies of such maps are presented in Galichians recent work published last year: “Historic Maps of Armenia.” There are as well, many historic maps of Urartu, in which Karabakh is incorporated not as part of Albania, but Urartu... while the Phrygian colonies started colonising it, and assuming that the Phrygian colonies theory makes sense. I have in my collection, various historic works, and I don't see specifically Karabakh incorporated as Albania.

So your claim that there are no sources or Western positions claiming what I present here is simply and obviously wrong. While I don't give a thing of wherever or not Karabakh was in fact part of Armenia, it is your way of deletion and selective informations I have against. Karabakh could have been colonised by Martians for all I care. Fadix 21:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, the difference between us is that, whereas I focus on facts and claims arguing in favor or against a particular statement, you choose to focus on personalities accusing me in “doing this and that in this/that entry” without actually bringing evidence in support of your allegations (e.g. diff links or references). Also, I ask you once again, to concentrate on one issue at a time and not get distracted to various topics. As you know, Tony has created Nagorno-Karabakh/Temp. It would be much more effective for us to move forward, if you would simply introduce the changes you suggest to the entry there so that we could discuss it point-by-point.--Tabib 14:46, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

---

(snip)

Tabib, I wouldn't be so hasty in declaring it to be a "historical fact" from which there can be no deviation, that Armenia "never existed" until the 2nd C. BC. We are not a society of cadres you may be accustomed to, we just don't say things like 'there can be no diferent positions'... Especially when the different positions are literally, carved in stone:[[13]]

respectfully, Codex Sinaiticus 21:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

In the same line, according to the Tsovk cuneiform texts by the Urartian King Sardur II, his army expended as far as Urtekini (Artsakh). Fadix 00:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Urartu and Armenia: clarifications and elaborations

Codex, I want to clarify what I said once again: I did not say “Armenia never existed until 2nd c. BC”, I said “there was no Armenia [in 600 BC]” and that “the first Armenian kingdom was formed in 2nd c. BC”. I also argued that Karabakh was not part of Urartu neither in 600 BC, nor in 6th century BC. The factual accuracy of these facts are indisputable and only these facts directly relate to the subject matter of this talkpage.. Because, they clearly show that the factual accuracy of Fadix’s statements like ‘Karabakh [area] was part of Armenia in 600 BC [or 6th century]’ (which stirred up this whole new discussions) is highly questionable, to put it mildly.

Now, as to the the question of “different positions being carved in stone”. Unfortunately, the history of the region is so complex that for a person who doesn’t know the details and peculiarities, it’s very easy to be confused and misled. I want to undeline that I did not want to refer to those details in my earlier post, since these are not directly relevant to N-K entry, but *I actually expected* that there may arise this question of ‘Armenia’ and Behistun. So, if this question is raised, it needs further elaboration.

The key here is that Armenia, which is an exonym (Armenians themselves call their country ‘Hayastan’ and themselves ‘Hayk’) derives its name from Urartu. The Behistun inscriptions really included the name “Armenia” (or rather, “Armina”, to be more correct). But, however strange it may seem at first, this ‘Armina’ mentioned in Behistun inscriptions actually referred to Urartu and not to *Armenia* in its ethnic or political meaning. Thus, the trilingual Behistun inscription (521 BC) referred to what you named “Armenia” as ‘Armina’ in Old Persian and ‘Harminu’ in Elamite, AND as ‘Urashtu’ (Urartu) in the Babylonian version. Being the first recorded mention of this name (Armina, Harminu --> Armenia), the Behistun inscription has perpetuated the equation of Urartu and Armenia for the posteriority.

So, as you see Codex, the “Armenia” mentioned in Behistun inscriptions is not quite the same Armenia that came into being later in 2nd century BC.

At the end, I would like to briefly restate that contrary to repeated claims, Karabakh area was never part of the ancient Urartu kingdom. All claims to the contrary are constructed based the cuneiform inscription found near Khojaly (N-K), which evidences that king Sardur II’s troops reached Urtekhini (possibly, the Urartian name for Artsakh). However, there is no evidence that this territory was secured under Urartu, because of its geographical distance and also because of constant wars between Urartu and Assyrians. During my previous communication with Rovoam, I have briefly addressed Urartu issue ([14]) and have posted two maps of Urartu from independent web-sources, which clearly showed that Urartu’s borders did not include Karabakh area. Now I am posting yet another map, this time from an Armenian web-site ([15], very nice web-site, btw), which once again clearly shows the borders of Urartu and clarifies once again whether these borders included Karabakh area. --Tabib 14:46, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

There are clear weakness in your logic Tabib, according to Tabib, the history of the region is complex when there is evidences and references from one side, and it is an indisputable factual information, when it is his selective belief.

Sorry, this is not how it works Tabib, that Urartu had its army as far as Karabakh is written on stone. This like it or not, there can be interpretations and reinterpretations, but there ARE maps showing that Karabakh has already been a part of the Urartu Empire, more so, when the Albanian and Armenian term to refer to it, most probably derives from the Urartian term.

The history of the region in BC, is not something that can be called indisputable, even physic theories like the Super String, or interpretations of Quantum mechanic are not called indisputable, yet alone history of few thousands of years ago. Your wanting to play with Armenian history, here won't give much result, but only show that you have some purposes, here, given that you have manipulated the term Azerbaijan, Arran, and have deleted any references to the Persian province in one of the entries, as to suggest that Azerbaijan is older than it actually is, while trying to negate and dissolve Armenian history in the region. Good going Tabib with your “exonym” attempt, which BTW is only the type of things published in Turkish and Azeris literature that you try to sell to others. Armenians must have been aliens probably from the planet “Alien” and they were probably alien in that planet too. Tabib, has yet to explain, how come to inscriptions term has mysteriously been modified, to call both Urartians AND those having taken their places, DIFFERENTLY, and this by the Greeks themselves. Tabib has yet to explain, why Armenian is classified as a Thraco-Phrygian subfamily by many scholars, and was a century ago classified as Persian... and why it contains a slight agglutinative tendency, making it distinct to any other indo-European languages? Tabib has yet to explain, why those structural agglutinativness directly suggest a CLEAR Uratian influence, and how come Armenians had countless of gods DIRECTLY finding their origins from Urartian gods, as wells as words and names. Having said all this, it is more likely, that the Urartians finally adopted the language of conquerers that came to the region 10 century BC, as Herodotus say the Armenians were “Φρυγω + ̑ν ἄποικοι,” which clearly show that when referring to Armenians, they knew they were distinct from the previous Urartian language. Stephanus of Byzantium is more clear: “Αρμἑνιοι τὸ μἑν γἑνōϚ ἑκ ΦρυγίαϚ καὶ τη+̂+̨ ϕωνη+̂+̨ πολλὰ ϕρυγίζουσιν.” Which basically means that Armenians were the people in the region(Anatolia) who basically adopted Phrygian and Aryan languages. Which explains why Armenian do have slight agglutinative tendency in its shell(hearth of a language), it is probably because Urartians did adopted the language of the conquerers. But most of all, this clearly indicate, that Armenia, was Armenia, and Armenians were Armenians for the Greeks, regardless of what nationalist Azeris and Turkish historians claim.

You can find the Greek references from the work: “The Ancient History of the Near East: From the Earliest Times to the Battle of Salamis” by H. R. Hall; Methuen, 1913, that I just finished reading. And I can provide countless other works here. The fact of the matter is that Armenians were in the region, and inhabitated it, before Urartu has fallen, and was soon after restituted from ashes, to form Armenia, the Armenia the Greeks were referring to.

Tabib, the term Armenia was in fact derived from the word Urartu, but there are no evidences that there was a continual modification as to suggest they were talking about Urartu, since the Greeks renamed it in their inscriptions AFTER the kingdom of Urartu has fallen.

Did you ever heard archeology worked on language modifications and structures, do you know how specialists know how from language modifications, one can know when and where a people were?

The reason why Armenian has been mistaken for Persian, was because Armenians were influenced by the language soon during the formation, and the only way this could be explained, would be if Armenians were there before the Persian Empire colonized the region, and this AFTER, that the Phrygian colonies immigrated. Which means that Armenia in the inscriptions, was in fact about the Armenians, like it or not. This of course is not what the Azerbaijani Academia of science would propagandize, like Turkish diplomats such as Kamuran Gurun, trying to do everything to show that Armenians in fact never existed(ironically, some such historians use the Phrygian theory, but by ignoring that an important section of what was Phrygia is now IN the republic of Turkey)

I just picked one among many encyclopedias I have, the French Larousse, and like others, it traces the history of Armenia to VII BC as a population that later took power after the fall of Urartu. It proposes both theories, one from Asia minor and the other from Thrace. In any cases, yes! An Armenia existed, and YES, it did exist 6 century BC, when the Urartu has fallen, and there are evidences, in stone, that it actually has fallen, so any new terms which were derived from it, could NOT in anyway be about the same Urartu, but for Armenia.

Claim what you want, but you can find hardly any Western historian, that would backup your theories about Armenia.

As for Karabakh, I repeat, there are VARIOUS locations for Urartu, during the Assyrian invasions, and we have no concrete and anything called undisputed evidences, that makes it sure, that Karabakh was not part of what was called Armenia in those times, when borders were repeatedly modified from wars to wars.

Oh and another note I forgot, the allies never recognized after World War I, Karabakh as being a part of Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan already accepted the transfer of Karabakh to Armenia, before the Bolshevics reversed the decision. Those things SHOULD be in the article, as well as the fact that during the Soviet time, Karabakh was already tried as Red Kurdistan... and also the fact that there are countries that still today don't want to give their position as if Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan, but still uses the term disputed. Fadix 17:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

My reply--Tabib 15:41, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

---

(highly important discourse resumes)

For records: here’s the section removed by Tony: [16].

Tony, although I do not think my defensive/reactive stance in personal discussions with Fadix (arguing, “I did not do what I am being accused in doing”) could be equaled to aggressive/pro-active attitude by Fadix (e.g. “You (i.e. Tabib) did this and that in this/that entry”), I will gladly avoid further discussions on this issue. I want to remind you and all that I myself repeatedly called for not turning this talkpage into a forum for personal discussions. However, I also agree that by allowing myself to get dragged into personal discussions with Fadix, I also inadvertently contributed to the increasing tension. As I pointed out in my (now) deleted post, the only reason why I replied to these accusations was my concern that some neutral editors may be deceived by these irrelevant and false accusations and I can be discredited in their eyes. (“Each time Fadix makes a new accusation, he makes me to respond to him in order to defend myself from getting discredited in the eyes of other editors.”). (well, and I think I eventually did get discredited to a certain degree simply by involving myself in this dispute). I believe, from now on, I do not have to “justify” myself in the eyes of neutral editors, because, hopefully, you will simply disregard all irrelevant personal accusations on my address that may appear on this talkpage. --Tabib 20:50, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

People are free to read the record, I have nothing to add here. Fadix 21:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Since there seems to be quite a lot of pressure to edit this article, I'm unprotecting it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I have restored the NPOV formulation based on suggested paragraph by Codex [17]. But, I ask you and any other admin who may watch this discussion, to continue to keep an eye on this entry and, if necessary, to protect it again.--Tabib 13:05, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Protecting again--and working copy set up

As Rovoam seems to want the article protected on what he thinks of as "Tabib's version" I've done that and created a working copy of the article at Nagorno-Karabakh/Temp.

The rules for the working copy are slightly different from editing a normal article. Basically you should regard it as a sandbox. Don't worry if someone vandalizes it or whatever, just pick a starting version from the history and edit it however you like. Use it for trying out and demonstrating ideas. If there is reasonable support for an edit, ask an administrator to perform it on the main article.

Use this history link to select a version of the working article to start with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Moving ahead...

Fadix, amidst these long and wordy messages, you still choose to focus on personalities (be it Tabib or “nationalist Turkish and Azeri historians”) and make allegations without actually bringing any single tangible reference when it comes to your arguments or any diff links when you accuse me in “propagandizing” and “manipulations” in some entry.

Once again I do ask you to leave personal remarks aside and to focus solely on subject matter of this entry (N-K content). Personal accusations and irrelevant comments distract this discussion even further, prolong the talkpage and make it even more confusing and harder to read and to analyze. This is not in my interest, and should not be in yours or anybody’s interest either if your intentions are good. I also do ask you not to *distort* my words and not to demand improper “explanations” from me regarding irrelevant things. For example, I did not say or even imply “The history of the region in BC, is not something that can be called indisputable”, and also, I am not “playing with Armenian history” and above all, I do not have to “explain” (?..) “why Armenian is classified as a Thraco-Phrygian subfamily by many scholars..”, at least because, it has nothing to do with the page content we’re dealing with here. I also ask you to stop your defamatory comments about Azeri and Turkish historians (“...Azerbaijani Academia of science would propagandize” “nationalist Azeris and Turkish historians”, “...type of things published in Turkish and Azeris literature that you try to sell to others.” etc etc. in just one last message of yours…). I want to warn you that such statements can be construed as personal attacks, indirectly and implicitly directed against me.

I have substantially addressed Urartu issue and have also posted maps, from neutral and even from Armenian sources, showing that Urartu’s borders did not include Karabakh area. Urartu’s troops reaching Artsakh is not the same as Artsakh being part of Urartu. Just read a bit about history of Urartu and you would see that after Sardur II (whose troops did reach Artsakh but did not stay there) Urartu was invaded by Assyrians and ever since it was on the fall getting smaller and smaller. Moreover, you cannot claim that Urartu was an *Armenian* state. It is certainly a part of ancient history of modern Armenia (because of the same geography) and also, ancient Armenians have inherited a lot from the Urartians both culturally and perhaps racially. However, these were completely two different ethnic-linguistic groups.

I think, the whole problem here when it comes to Urartu and its borders is that Urartu and Urartians are the same for contemporary Armenians as Caucasian Albania and Albanians for contemporary Azeris. Calling Urartu an “Armenian state” would be same as calling Caucasian Albania as an “Azeri state”. In the past, Fadix has also accused me in POV edits in Urartu entry. You can see my edit and make your judgment [18].

I am really tired of these whole pointless and ungrateful discussions. Fadix, in my last message addressed to you, I have already asked you to use working copy set up by Tony (Nagorno-Karabakh/Temp) to introduce the changes you suggest to the entry so that we could discuss it point-by point. I believe this is the only way we can get rid of such counterproductive discussions and move forward. Hope you treat my suggestion positively.--Tabib 15:39, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib, you've wasted a good deal of your answer telling me how I am attacking you..., while I did nothing such.

It is true that Azeris and Turkish nationalist historians did manipulate references, and I have given two names(perhaps, do you want examples of such manipulations?), one, the president of the Azeris Academia of science, and another, an ex Turkish diplomat. Azeris nationalist forgeries of translation of works deletion referring to the Armenians has well been documented, and you have used one such cases, by claiming that the Behistan inscriptions have nothing to do with the actual Armenians but more about Urartu.

While I did write two Greek references, showing how a none-sense was what you have claimed, you have repeated the same claim, it appears that you did not knew whom was the first Greek references. Herodotus, is considered to be the first historian in history, he lived in the period of the Behistan inscriptions, and even a little before. While referring to the Armenians, he clearly differentiate them as being those that adopted the “Aryan” languages of the Phrygian conquerers. Methuen, in the above referred book published in 1913, writes using Herodotus as reference : “For the Armenian language was said to be closely connected with Phrygian, an Aryan language, connected both with Greek and with Slav, which was first brought into Asia Minor by the Phrygians or Bebrykes from Thrace about the tenth century B.C.” p. 335

While the Greeks updated their informations of the new nation formed from the ashes of the Urartu Empire, the term in old Babylonian to describe the new Armenia was still Urartu. And here, there are various works making that distinction, including the book by Findling, Howard and Thacjeray, “The History of Turkey.” Greenwood Press, 2001 on page 27, on that page, the writings of Herodotus, about the “Armenians” whom were distinguished from the Urartian Empire that has just fallen at that time, and just later Armenia was as a Persian province before being considered as one of the considered countries as referred in the Behistan inscriptions. And here, those Armenians, are the present day Armenians, and not the Urartu you claim. Beside, in the same work I have referred above(the one published in 1913), using ancient Greek references: “The Armenians are Anatolians who adopted the Aryan language of the Phrygian conquerors.” And this is what, the ancient Greeks considered when referring to Armenia, and change in term for the new power in the land just after the fall of Urartu.

So, in about the 6st Century BC, the Phrygian languages was finally adopted by the group on that region, to replace the Urartian language, that was not dominant anymore for quite some time, and that time, Armenia was Armenia, as supported by various Greek and Persian inscriptions, including by the world first historian. So, your comparison between Caucasian Albania and Urartu doesn't make sense. When Caucasian Albania has fallen, the Turkish tribes were still not on the region, while I propose you to read a little about the Phrygians and their colonies on the region, since Urartu was a multiple cultural Empire, and Phrygians conquered the region and were living among Urartians for about a thousand BC. And this, you can find in various works, and I can cite them here, including old works of over half century and even older.

You ask people to judge by referring to your edit, any Western ancient history historian would say that your: “After the disappearance of Urartu as a political entity, the Armenians dominated the ancient highlands, absorbing portions of the previous Urartian culture in the process.” Is totally misleading. Armenians did not replace the Urartians, in fact, the Armenians as an identity recorded in history did only emerge, when the remaining tribes of the Urartu have reconstituted it as a new nation, in which the dominant language was another one. So claiming Armenians replaced Urartu, and absorbed the Urartian culture is wrong... because Armenian was what become of the various tribs, including the Tribus of Nairi, the Hayus Aza etc. A better way to see this, let me give an example, imagine that an Empire emerge, and the group who has the power over others, at the end, after conquests and wars, and emigrations, end up being the minority over the various other groups, and finally a merging happens to form a new identity... those people lived together for about 500 years, the exchanges of cultures happened back then, when the Armenia was finally formed, it was Armenia, after that time, you can not claim they have absorbed the Urartian culture, since this process was old of 500 years or so... they already shared the same culture.

In other writings, the same is said about the Kurds, but not all of them(example, the Zazas, when in the past, many believed them to be Armenians)... this is why Armenians consider the history of Urartu as part of their history, and there are still mythological stories among some Kurdish tribes, but not for the Turks, your edition to that entry was simply wrong.

Here another map.

http://idcs0100.lib.iup.edu/WestCivI/urartu.htm

As you can see, Karabakh is considered IN Urartu by this map. Fadix 22:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, of all the historical maps of ancient Urartu available on the books and over the internet, is this the best thing you could find? You really believe that this circular line drawn by some person on a contemporary map in his personal web-site proves your allegations?.. I have posted three maps from serious sources, one of them even from an Armenian (!) source, I can bring even MORE maps, which illustrate the boundaries of Urartu and none of them includes Karabakh area and other areas shown in your “map” (i.e. half of Georgia, half of Azerbaijan, extending beyond Tabriz in the south and up to Dagestan in the north-!).

By the way, even the source that you bring in confirms the previous info I provided by writing that “The Urartian population was related to the Hurrians... It developed as a typical Anatolian culture...” AND “They disappeared from history somewhat mysteriously in the 6th century B.C. The area then became the homeland of the Armenians.” This is exactly in line with my edit in Urartu which you labeled “misleading”: “After the disappearance of Urartu as a political entity, the Armenians dominated the ancient highlands, absorbing portions of the previous Urartian culture in the process”. Same process although much later and in a longer historial period took place with regard to the Caucasian Albanians when they lost their statehood, then identity and were absorbed by Turkic-speaking forefathers of modern Azeris and partly by the Armenians (in Artsakh). This is the factual history Fadix that you cannot simply ignore.

Now, once again, I ask you for once again to stop such personal attacks whether through direct defamatory comments against me and my national background and or indirectly, in the form of “Azeris and Turkish nationalist historians”. Behistun inscriptions has nothing to do with “Azeris nationalist forgeries” and this is NOT a place for discussion of various claims as to the forgeries by some historians, be it Azeri or Armenian or Turk or whatever.

I also ask other editors to express their viewpoint on this conduct, because I feel that I cannot continue discussions with Fadix, if he persists to focus on personalities rather than on the issue itself. I do not want to engage in a conflict and I do not want to go through this lengthy dispute resolution process once again in order to solve similar problems that I have encountered before. For the third time, I invite Fadix to leave personal remarks and fruitless and lengthy postings aside and make a concrete step forward by introducing the changes he prefers to the working copy (Nagorno-Karabakh/Temp). Thus, we would at least have a general idea of what Fadix wants to be introduced to the entry and how we can best integrate his proposed edits bearing in mind factual accuracy and NPOV concerns.--Tabib 15:36, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib, your post is empty, and does not treat in anyway the points I have raised.

Talking about nationalist Turkish and Azeris historians forgery is not personal attacks, unless you can't differentiate yourself from such so-called historians, but if this is the cases, I am not the one to be blamed. And please stop your accusations, you continue filling your posts by claiming I am attacking you, if you don't have much to say, that is OK, don't try to embellish your posts with such accusations.

Having said that, yes, the Behistun inscriptions has nothing to do with Azeris nationalist inscriptions, but what does have to do with it, is the wrong and erroneous interpretation of it, as to claim that the Armenia referred in it has to do with the Urartians and not the Armenians.

There are various mistakes in your writings, like mistaking Caucasian Albania which was more a geographical identification, finding its origin by a name that Armenians gave to it, to name the 26 tribes living there, Armenians were already living there. You suppose that “Albanian” was a national identification, when it was considered by the Persians, Armenians and Greeks, as a land which was inhabitated by over 20 different groups.(including by Strabo)

Besides, Strabo, did include Karabakh as part of Armenia,(which BTW, it's etymology is Armenian, there is nothing such as an Albanian etymology at that time, because up that time, there was no distinct Albanian language, even when the Kingdom was formed) which was recognized as a distinct group, and in the same time, covering a part of Caucasian Albania, which clearly indicate that Albania was a designated land, and not one group. It is like talking about Anatolia.

This is why, Caucasian Albania to Azerbaijan, AND, Urartu to Armenia, is comparing apples with oranges, and besides, recent very serious works have even questioned, the hypotheses that the Urartian Empire was in fact a kind of ethnicity. One conclusion of such a study has been published in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Vol. A, 1995: “Urartian Material Culture as a State Assemblage: An Anomaly in the Archaeology of Empire.” by Paul Zimansky, Department of Archaeology Boston University. He writes regarding the groups living there: “...there were Alarodians, Karduchoi, Khalybes, Khaldaioi, Armenians, Taokhoi, Scythians, and Persians in the area.”

In that regard, serious excavation of Urartian sites, has been very difficult in Turkey, and the Turkish policy of trying to wash Armenian presence from the region has made such serious research extremely difficult.

Besides, as Diakonoff indicate in his work: "Hurro-Urartian Borrowings in Old Armenian". Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1985. Having this groundbraking comparaison in mind, if one was to study old Armenian, he could very well mistake it for an Hurro-Urartian language, the differentiation happened with a clear indo-European influence in the region before and finally after the fall of the Urartu Empire, and the various groups being freed from the Urartian system.

The agglutinative tendency, and some terms, have even left Starostin being fooled into believing that there were some sort of connections between Armenian and Sumerian.

In short, Urartu was an Empire, and Armenia as a new “country” emerging within that Empire. Imagine one day the Kurds get their country from Eastern Turkey, one can not claim that they just appeared absorbing the Turkish culture, since they are part of Turkeys culture.

Later, in AD, Albania was used as a satellite State of Armenia, Albanian identity as a nation was created partly by the Armenians, it was an Armenian that invented the Albanian alphabet, Albanian religious culture was highly influenced from Armenian. In fact, the only thing we have to study Albanian language are Armenian manuscript texts studied by Armenian and Georgian scholars. Yet, the language family has not been well established, because there are texts writing in old Armenian, and other texts written in a language which was kind of a mixture, and even with some Georgian terms.

When the Turks arrived there, the culture known as Caucasian Albanian, that formed as an identity, really in AD, were a minority there, with the Arab conquest, and the Armenians somehow managed to resist.

So, you can not claim Albanians were one of the ancestors of the Azeris, unless you consider ethnicity more than a social construct. Since when the Turks arrived, in Nagorno Karabakh, most of its habitants were Armenian speaking.

As for the Urartian map. Tabib, I fail to understand your persistence here, there has been evidences that Urartian settlements even reached the Caspian Sea under the reign of Sardur II, during which, there was no Caucasian Albania(Caucasian Albania appeared long after, and did not appear even when the Armenian identity was formed), and you persist on that. I also don't understand how you can deny such a thing, when the Armenian and Albanian term for that land derives from the Urartian term. Fadix 18:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, in my “empty” post, as you referred to it, I made once again a concrete suggestion to you to stop discussing personalities and to introduce the changes you deem appropriate to the working copy. You apparently chose to ignore this positive suggestion, which makes me question the feasibility of further discussions with you. By refusing to use the working copy to introduce the changes you want to make to the entry, you hamper this discussions to move forward and do not allow third-party editors to visually see your proposed edits and appraise them in terms of NPOV and factual accuracy considering the discussions on the talkpage.

I am not going to argue with you just for the sake of arguing. This Urartu discussion, mixed with your persistent and unrelated attacks to your much hated “Turkish and Azeri historians”, has already received more coverage than it was needed, and I believe, both you and I have substantially presented our views. Therefore, it is time for the third party editors to make their judgment both on the substance of the discussions as well as the users’ conduct. --Tabib 19:55, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib, Tabib, Tabib... I did not reject your suggestion, I have answered your distortions, which is different. I generally do not answer something that I have nothing against.

Another note, I did refer to nationalist historians, and not historians, if you want to be respected by me, do not manipulate what I say and put words in my mouth, this is not a nice thing to do. So claiming that I talk about “Azeris and Turkish historians” is simply distortion, and I do hate when someone does that.

And again, your answer is empty, in which you make a big deal of what you perceive as personal attack. I will make this clear for you, I do not refuse to work on the working version, I merely answered your manipulation regarding Urartian and Armenian history, and I documented it. If you don't want to discuss about such things, you should not have dragged us in such a discussion. Fadix 21:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• Let's see substantive changes in the working copy. I don't have any problem with what it says now (particularly since I wrote it myself!) and have seen nothing that would make me want to alter it, arising from the last 2 days of discussion between Tabib and Fadix about whether there is any connection between Armini and Armenia. (Although I think that there is should be quite obvious, the population of Urartu was apparently already speaking Armenian by this time...) Generally, though, Behistun should probably be a debate for another webpage... --Codex Sinaiticus 21:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Codex, Strabo, one of the only sources of informations for the period of Albania and Armenia, placed Karabakh as part of Armenia.

http://www.karabakh.org/?id=3032&item=5

This Azeris nationalist website, which is laughable at best, tries even to twist Strabo words, and suggest them to be contradictions. Only those that don't read more about what Strabo considered Caucasian Albania to be will claim it to be contradiction, unless their goal is to purposely manipulate and mislead. Strabo considered Caucasian Albania, as being a land, which constituted 26 tribes having their own rulers. In fact, Caucasian Albania was more a geographical area. It is like claiming that since Eastern Turkey is in Anatolia it is not in Turkey.

To relativise things, this same Azeris website write: “It's quite possible, that during the invasive wars of II c BC the expansionist aspirations of the Armenian rulers spread for a short period of time, to the territories between the Kura and the Araz rivers, including Karabakh.”

There is more, Caucasian Albanians as an ethnicity are not recognized by various specialists considered the best in the field. The Azerbaijani nationalist “specialist” to answer those skepticism has written a rather laughable work titled: “Le problème de l'ethnos albano-caucasien” in Cahiers du monde russe, 31/2-3 Regards sur l'anthropologie soviétique, 1990, I propose you to find and read it.

Even more, is the fact that the Caucasian Albanian etymology of the word to design the region is Armenian, as well as to name the region of Nagorno Karabakh, derived from Urartian, and that the only informations regarding their languages comes from Armenian manuscripts, and the only writing is written by Armenian alphabets, and like this was not enough, to complicate things, one of those tribes living in the region Albania, were Hellens, Greek coins were found... where are the Albanians the Azeris talk about?

So I fail to see how Karabakh could be called primarily as Caucasian Albania, when Albania was more of a land, a territory, and that Strabo himself for the same period, has considered it as well to be part of Armenia. Both Albania and Armenia in II century BC emerged as Kingdoms, in one cases, a King ruled the others, in the second cases, as a national identity... and Strabo places the region in Armenia, and in the land called Albania(Armenian etymology).

As for the Urartians, the question remains, while there are evidences of their Colonial presences as far as the Caspian Sea, I have hard time understanding Tabibs claim, that Karabakh has never been part of Urartu. Fadix 03:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"Pot calling kettle black?"

Fadix, you just now wrote:

• So I fail to see how Karabakh could be called primarily as Caucasian Albania, when Albania was more of a land, a territory.[...] Both Albania and Armenia in II century BC emerged as Kingdoms, in one cases, a King ruled the others, in the second cases, as a national identity...

Now directly above that, you described "Urartu" as a multicultural "Empire", because it was really composed of numerous ethnicities, of whom the Armenian element were one.

It could similarly be said that "Albania" was a multicultural "Empire" on the same grounds, since it too was composed of numerous ethnicities [at least some of whom were surely related to Turks...]

The rise of the Armenian element to dominate within Urartu ( with more Phrygian cousins immigrating as well ) may even be directly compared to the rise of the Turkish element to dominate within Albania, a few centuries later (again, with more cousins immigrating)...

I think Tabib meant to show that he understands this, when he wrote:

Calling Urartu an “Armenian state” would be same as calling Caucasian Albania as an “Azeri state”.

To me, the evidence looks pretty good that the Armenian elements began to dominate the region of Urartu as early as 6th c. BC; also, that the Turkic elements began to dominate the region of Albania as early as 100 AD; but neither side seems to want to credit the other with having come to prominence quite so early as this... Both sides seem to want to minimize the historical existence of the other...

Another question: if the Armenians trace their ancestry to Tegaramah, wouldn't this make them originally Turks themselves?

Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 09:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Codex, speculations can not be presented as historical facts. While Urartu was a multi-cultural Kingdom, it had an official language, and system. While Albania had over 20 tribes, and there are no evidences what so ever that there was any official languages. You can not speculate.

While Armenian presence is recorded as far as 7 century BC, and their language recorded as coming from Thrace-Phrygia, in ancient texts, any link between Azeris and Albanians is entirely speculative and is based on no non-Azeris materials.

You claim that the Turkic elements have dominated the place in 100 AD.

Codex, I have the “An Ethnological Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires” by Olson, Brigance and Pappas. Greenwood, 1994.

It refers rightly to the Armenian term “Aluank” which is the only attached to any found Albanian text. This is what it say: “According to the ancient geographer Strabo, Caucasian Albania was divided into twenty-six different tribes and languages, ...” There is no any characterization of Albania as being anything other than a geographical area, in which 26 tribes were living, having each their own kings, even when the Kingdom of Albania was formed, it was still considered nothing more than geographical, and not a nation, since Strabo, places Karabakh as being part of Armenia AND the land of Albania. In this work, I see nowhere anything about Turks being dominant in the area in 100 AD, neither in the references I have read.

Another work, “Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World” by Ben Fowkes, another work I have at hand, places the Turkish invasion to the tenth century, referring to Goldens work, and he find this invasion as being responsible of the destruction of Caucasian Albania.

The authors also write: “No text in Caucasian Albanian has survived. 19 Hence any attempt to link ancient Albania with modern Azerbaijan must remain pure speculation, though these speculations played an important part in the Azerbaijani nation-building process from the 1960s onwards.”

Here, another work, this one by Fredericj Starr: “The Legacy of History in russia and the New States of Eurasia.”

The author writes: “Only in the eleventh century, with the influx of the Oghuz Turkic tribes under the Seljuk dynasty, did Azerbaijan acquire a significant proportion of Turkic-speaking inhabitants. The original population began to be fused with the immigrants, and gradually the Persian language was replaced by a Turkic dialect that evolved into a distinct Azeri Turkish language.”

Oh and, the Armenians don't place themselves, as much as I am aware of, to Togaramah. Fadix 17:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well, according to the article Armenia I learned that they do trace themselves to Togarmah. Have you read that, or consider it erroneous to state that they do?

As for the Oghuz, the name would suggest that they are Sakas, Scyths, and Ashkenaz, right? Is that the inference I am supposed to get from History of Azerbaijan? Maybe so, well if true that would make them brothers - Togarmah and Ashkenaz. [I meant to give the date 191 AD instead of 100, also taken from that article.] --Codex Sinaiticus 02:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought the entry was about history and not mythologies regarding Noah, and his Sons. In that regard, the Albanians had even their Noah descents founding the Caucasian Albania land, inspired from Haiks story. Besides, Togarmah was an old testament term, and the misleading character with the Turks, is nothing surprising as any other such Biblical terms. I am an agnostic, so I expect Wikipedia to not become a myth whole.

“Atlas of the Bible” by L. H. Grollenberg, Joyce M. H. Reid, H. H. Rowley; Nelson, 1956

“Beth- togarmah, city or region which sold horses and mules to Tyre, Ezk 27:14; according to Ezk 38:6, sit. in the N; associated with Gomer, as in Gn 10:3 = 1 Ch 1:6 (Togarmah); ment. in Hittite texts.”

“Geographical Companion to the Bible” by Denis A. Baly; McGraw-Hill, 1963

“Beth- togarmah. Unknown.”

“Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric” by Stephen D. O'Leary; Oxford University Press, 1998

“Finally, Beth- togarmah, or Togarmah, is identified with the Cossacks of Southern Russia. Lindsey views this as significant since the Cossacks have historically been noted for their horsemanship, and Ezekiel refers specifically to the destruction of the horses of the invading army of the northern kingdom. "Today they [the Cossacks] are reported to have several divisions of cavalry. It is believed by some military men that cavalry will actually be used in the invasion of the Middle East just as Ezekiel and other prophets literally predicted."”

“The Old Testament: In the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia” by Theophilus G. Pinches; Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1908

“714 B.C. saw the continuance of the war with Ararat and its allies, and seems to have resulted in its becoming an Assyrian province. In 713 expeditions were made, among other places, to west Media and Cilicia. In 712 B.C. he found himself obliged to proceed against Tarḫunazi of Meliddu, who, driven from his capital by the Assyrians, shut himself up in Tilgarimme, which had been identified with the Biblical Togarmah. This city, having been conquered, was repeopled with the nomad Sutî 2 and placed under Assyrian rule.”

“Rand McNally Bible Atlas” by Emil G. Kraeling; Rand McNally, 1956

“TOGARMAH. Tegarama in Hittite inscriptions, Tilgarimmu in Assyrian texts. City and principality in E. Cappadocia.”

“The Sermons, Epistles and Apocalypses of Israel's Prophets: From the Beginning of the Assyrian Period to the End of the Maccabean Struggle” by Charles Foster Kent; C. Scribner's Sons, 1910

“Togarmah is probably an Armenian name. Paras is very probably the Parsua of the Assyrian inscriptions, and Gomer has been very plausibly identified with a Cimmerian people near the Black Sea, designated on the inscriptions of Asshurbanipal, by the name! Gumur. Hence the wild barbarian host which Ezekiel here pictures represent in his thought the entire heathen world, and their overthrow marks the establishment of Jehovah's authority over the whole world to its uttermost bounds.”

“A History of Israel: From the Exodus to the Fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.C. Vol. 1” by Theodore H. Robinson; Clarendon Press, 1932

“...where Togarmah, in northern Syria, is named as a place from which the Israelites obtained their horses.”

I have various other examples of quotes. Togarmah, has been said to be nearly everything. Wikipedia can not be build on such speculative and Biblical references.

As for the History of Azerbaijan, call me what you want, that entry is a nationalistic whole with mythologies taken as facts. I will address that issue later, it is late right now, and I need some sleep. Fadix 04:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is about including (not suppressing) every POV held by a significant school of thought - making sure it is clearly labelled as a POV. As you may know, the traditions of Ham, Shem and Japheth, that are practically universal everywhere between Somalia and the Caucasus, were also unchallenged up to about 150 years ago. Around that time agnostics came up with a new school of thought that today is called "scriptural minimalism". This means going to the opposite extreme, and stating categorically and authoritatively as if conclusively 'proven', that anything mentioned as historical in scriptures is automatically untrue. The lengths they go to just to prove alternate versions of history obliges them to ignore most other extra-biblical historians as well. The problem this creates for wikipedia is not just that they come up with alternate theories, but that within the last 150 years (before wikipedia) they have often been actively engaged in SUPPRESSING or even KEEPING FROM VIEW any evidence that might lend credence to scriptural accounts, including the rich body of traditions that everyone in the middle east has cherished since time immemorial regarding their own origins. In the above-mentioned swath of territory, you find groups of all colors and religions and language families, tracing themselves to Noah's sons and grandsons. There are those who trace themselves to Ham, others to Shem, and still others to Japheth. Now, as an agnostic you may well come up with your own explanations for why they do this, but I will resist any attempt to wipe such traditions totally clean from the record. Labelling them as 'mythologies' is also POV. We are talking about claiming descent from an eponymous ancestor - not fire-breathing dragons hatched from an egg or anything.

Now, you state that Togarmah is an "Old Testament" term, and that is correct. But as your own sources stated, and as you should know, there was an ancient entity there known in Hittite as Tegarama (Assyrian Til-Garimmu). If anyone in the area would have observed and recorded traditions surviving connecting with various peoples at that time, it could have been the Armenians or the Kurds; so I feel it is essential not to summarily dismiss or brush off these local traditions. If Armenian historiographers in the year 200 AD recorded a legend that Haik was a son of Togarmah, for instance, that is precisely the kind of thing I would think highly significant.

Fadix, Note I am not accusing you personally of suppressing anything; in fact you just added some valuable quotes to the record that I may even be able to make some use of in my own research! Thanks! Codex Sinaiticus 13:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Look dude, this entry is about Karabakh, a piece of land, a disputed territory... It is not about going 6000 BC. This would be Tabib goal to go as far as one can go, just to say: “Looky, no Armenian back then.” We don't even know if Togarmah was a word for the Hittites, as you've seen from the references, there are bunches that say many stuff. For the article to be NPOV, we must stick on things, that positions are clearly defined, and more you move in history, less certainty there is, and more theories you will find, including weird theories from national scholars, that will go as far as claiming Adam and Eve as their owns.

That Armenians believed to be from some guy called Togarmah, are religious beliefs, they might have a place in an Armenian religion entry, but I fail to see why it should have a place in the history of a place called Karabakh. Fadix 15:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• I know, I'm not suggesting mentioning anything about Togarmah/Tegarama in this entry on Karabakh. I only brought it up here to make a point, that these traditions of earliest origins by both Armenians and Azeris, ironically, has them coming from two brothers. Now it does seem like two brothers who are squabbling and each is trying to deny the other ever existed. Codex Sinaiticus 17:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Request to Codex and to the admins

Above, in his response to Codex Fadix wrote: “…This would be Tabib goal to go as far as one can go, just to say: “Looky, no Armenian back then.”

Interestingly, in one of the previous messages Fadix, when falsely accusing me in “putting words on [his] mouth” wrote, “…if you want to be respected by me, do not manipulate what I say and put words in my mouth, this is not a nice thing to do.” [19]

As I said earlier, I will try to ignore as much as I can personal attacks and provocative statements by Fadix aimed at discrediting me, and I expect that you will ignore such comments as well.

Codex, you had very good point on Togarmah, and I agree that certainly such mythological information even if their historical accuracy cannot be established, should be mentioned in various WP entries, including Armenia. But one thing I would like to ask you, is to try NOT to get *dragged* into long and unrelated disputes. This whole Togarmah discussion had nothing to do with N-K entry and as I said many times before, I am against unnecessarily dumping this talkpage with various personal and irrelevant discussions and eventually making it even more confusing and harder to read and to analyze. In normal discussion environment this Togarmah issue would not require that much prolonged discussions, but unfortunately there is no normal discussion environment and therefore, we should be very careful in not getting distracted, and try to be as much concrete and focused on the entry content as possible, because, I believe this is the only way we can discern true and good intentions from the false ones and prevent unnecessary personal conflicts.

At the end, I want to inform you about recent vandalisms by Rovoam this time in Nakhichevan, Karabakh, Kura-Araxes culture and large changes and POV edits in Azerbaijanis. I ask admins to keep thes pages under control and if necessary to protect them too. If he wants to play, we can play by his rules, no problem.--Tabib 13:37, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib, there is a distinction between putting words in the mouth of someone, and reporting what is observed. There are hardly any articles like Karabakh, or those you got involved in. I have full access to http://www.questia.com/ and other libraries, I have full access to sciencedirect, and various other servers giving me access to abstracts, and their full texts. You come up with claims presented as facts, that are not found in other documents or works, other than few nationalist Azeris historians that write about it, and few authors that use them as references. But like this was not enough, you present them as facts and not as claims, without even indicating that the claim is probably as credible as Santa.

Your behavior of extensively getting involved in Karabakh and delete and relativise Armenian presence from there is all much telling. More much telling is the Katchin dynasty allusion. Do you even know what Katchin means? K[h]tchin means in Armenian, “of the cross”... it is the dynasty of the Cross, an Armenia “satellite” Dynasty of Albania.

Oh and, one has to read to see that you're the one getting always personal, while I write and develop, you answer on how I have attacked you. BTW, how many more requests you'll make to administrators everytime someone disagree with you? Fadix 15:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

It's been protected for long enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

And again. --Golbez 08:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Romans

A totally uncontroversial change that needs to be made. The link to Romans in the Origins section needs to be disambiguated. [[ancient Rome|Romans]] should be sufficient. 04:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Time LAG!!

The editors on the subject should bear in mind that while Armenia has been on the map for 2000 years, the Republic of Azerbaijan is a politically defined sovereign entity for less then 20 years. Azerbaijani Turcs can therefor not be regarded as decisive desisionmakers or fact-establishers , here.--我愛你 2 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)

Housekeeping: "Nagorny(y) Karabagh"

I was expecting to be able to edit this article; since I'm not, I'm entrusting the following small item to someone who can. Someone wrote up a stub this morning reading:

Nagorny Karabagh is the correct name of the region often called Nagorno-Karabagh. The word "nagorny" is a Russian adiective and means "mountainous". "Karabagh" (Turkish for "black garden") is a masculine noun in Russian, so the form of the adiective should be masculine "nagorny". "Nagorno" is an adverb, used in the Russian expression "Nagorno-karabashkaya Avtonomnaya Oblast'", the "Mountainous-karabaghian autonomous oblast'", so it should only be used in an adiective context, as "Nagorno-karabaghian"

and, in a spirit of neatness and accessibility of information (the actual subject matter itself, I couldn't care less about, nor the controversy), I was going to insert it, tighter and better Englished, somewhere in this article, as a sort of note on (strictly) proper usage, in the spirit in which it was written. To the original writer of the item, I point out that the redirect I created at his page is helpful to getting his point across, since people who use "Nagorno-" would never go to an article "Nagorny K"; if inserted here, it gives his grammatical point (which by the way I can confirm on my own) much greater visibility. — Bill 9 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

While Nagorny Karabakh is the correct form in Russian, Nagorno Karabakh is the most common English name used to refer to the region (173,000 Google hits vs. 23,500 hits). The adjective adverb business can be described in a name/etymology/nomenclature paragraph, if necessary. --Aramգուտանգ 9 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

Yes, that was my idea; not to change the article: on the contrary — I redirected that name here. Anyhoo, if someone thinks it's worthwhile they'll take care of it. Bill 9 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Self-Determination: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Karabagh

If the scholarly community is to recognize Armenia's and Azerbaijan's declarations of independence from the Soviet Union under the right of self-determination, then why do some Azerbaijani apologists refuse to recognize the declared independence of Karabagh under that very same right of self-determination? In other words, if Azerbaijan itself secedes from the Soviet Union, then what ground does it have to stand on in denying the secession of Karabagh? Brute force? A double standard enforced by western oil interests? -- James, 7/29/2005

Then every region can declare independence and it should be accepted by all countries!!!! if we concider such situation then number of world countries rise to a tousand in few years, azerbaijan and other soviet republics gained independence because they were recognized by other countries, and also the process of soviet break down was a natural way in the end of an impire break down, in other hand there r differences between independence and occupation, Karabakh is not independent, it is occupied by armenian troops, not by Karabakh people, is armenia allowed to invade and occupy other countries. Karabakh can't do any thing without armenia, and armenia ca't do any thing without Russian help. armenia has only 3 million people but azerbaijan has more than 8 million population, why azerbaijan can't take its territories back from armenia? because russia helps armenia in many ways.

Defense of Self-Determination

The recognition of other countries is an arbitrary, silly and insurmountable threshold for independence, and one that would directly nullify self-determination if allowed to stand. If a nation, people or sizeable ethnic group declares its independence from some larger political entity, who is to say that some other nation, power or group of nations should veto it? Here in the United States, for example, we celebrate July 4th as our national holiday, the day we DECLARED our independence -- not the day France recognized our independence, nor the day Cornwallis surrendered, nor the day that Great Britain agreed to U.S. independence -- we agree that the DECLARATION of Independence is the legal marking point of our independence. This is a crucial instance of the universal right of self-determination: independence is decided by the very people who seek it. Any ensuing struggle through war, diplomacy, finance, or international law is only the means by which to secure, protect and/or nurture an independence that already exists, ipso facto, by declaration. Any peoples who declare themselves free are free unless and until they give up that claim.

Some other points:

• What's wrong with having thousands of countries in the world? If that's how people want to exercise their freedom, then so be it. That said, I don't think rigorous self-determination would cause the number of countries to rise into the thousands, because it takes considerable grievances for any population to decide that it is time to seek independence, and then to carry out a change in government. Such a task usually involves struggle of some kind, be it military or political or social, struggle often so daunting as to deter frivolous social movements.
• You mention the collapse of the Soviet Union as being a "natural" political change at the end of the empire. To be sure, it was a relatively peaceful transition, but natural? Who's to say the developments of world history are "natural"? I'd come right back and say that every historical event is determined by free people exercising their free will.
• I re-state my earlier point: the independence of the former Soviet Republics, like Azerbaijan and Armenia, first and foremost rests on the principle of self-determination. This principle also applies to the Artsakh Armenians of Karabakh. The secondary, practical steps towards independence *on the ground* might involve warfare, economic conflict, appeals to international bodies, international recognition, etc., but this is not what makes the independence. Independence, by definition, does not take into account what other parties might think.

Yes, the right of self-determination is universal.

• To say that Karabakh is occupied by Armenian troops and not native Artsakh Armenians is simply and demonstrably false. From beginning to end, the Karabakh War (which needs a separate article) was an internal struggle for independence wherein the Artsakh Armenian side was aided sporadically by neighboring Armenia, and Azerbaijan itself was armed and financed to a much larger extent by Turkey and other nations. Let's be clear here and elsewhere on this page: the war was fought between the Artsakh Armenian people, securing their independence, and the much larger and more powerful Azerbaijan, which sought to crush that independence. Armenia's involvement needs to be viewed alongside the involvement of all the indirect third parties to the conflict: Armenia, Turkey, Russia, Georgia, Israel, the U.S., the U.K. and other Western powers.
• It is difficult to keep up an image of Armenia as an invading country when Azerbaijan had and has a much greater population, a larger military, and an even more powerful ally in Turkey. From another point of view, in fact, Azerbaijan was the invader of the autonomous Karabakh Republic -- and Armenia was actually the liberator!
• What about Cyprus? How much does Turkey care about international law and foreign recognition for Turkish Cyprus?

-- Posted by James, 8/31/2005

Self-determination?!!!!

• The recognistion of other countries is not important!, ok ok...but I think that at least one country (except armenia) should recognize this FREEDOM(!!!), if it was their right. There r about 200 countries in the world, and I wondered why there is not at least one liberator country to recognize Artsakh ,but armenia!!

• Armenia is the liberator!!!, I'll agree if you can explain "Why Armenia occupied about 25% of azerbaijani territory other than Artsakh, the cities and villages with pure azeri population,and the lands that are not artsakh lands?" and why Armenia pushes most of armenian azeri population? (who lived in armenia & were Armenia citizens although they were azeri ethnically)and why Artsakh Dashnaks (a racist party of armenians)killed azeri womed and children, if You name this liberation, I can prove that Hitler is the greatest liberator of the history.

• Democracy & federalism are suitable ways to have "freedom" and "power of union" together. Separatism and war or occupation....do you thing these horrible things r better than union?

• According to your sweet explaination about "Free will" , me & my friends decided to declare independence in our houses, and rule ourselves. I think there is no limitation for independence declaration, and even a small population can be "Free" and independent. then we can have millions of countries in world. you mentioned that "I's good to have Thousands of countries in world" then it will be very very good to have millions of them.

• Why You Don't give Porto-rico its its independence back? or for guam or other nations??? and now you are telling me the story of self-determination?

What's wrong with having thousands of countries in the world?!!! Hmmmm, it's very good for more pawerful countries to control the world , a world with tousands of countries is easier to control by U.S. than an united one. --Posted by Hamed 00:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Puerto Rico and Guam should be independent, I agree. -- James

Is wikipedia a haven for propaganda?

Dear readers,

All topics in Wikipedia encyclopedia regarding Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh are bombarded with Azeri propaganda. If you would like to learn anything about Armeian history or Armenians, please use other sources, not Wikipedia. The reason for this is simple, there is an anti-Armenian hysteria in present day Azerbaijan and Wikipedia is a heaven for them to try to change anything Armenian to reflect their hateful point of view.

Dear anti-propaganda!!!!!

If u have a reasonable idea, Wikipedia is a very good place to talk about your ideas, any body can explain his opinions, and Wikipedia doesn't have a racistic filter...Wiki doesn't filter neither Azeris nor Armenians. IF u think here is a heaven for propaganda, then we should consider your opinions as propaganda, because u r now in Wiki!!! :) You can easily say that all other ideas are false, but u should prove ur ideas first. it's a heaven for u, and it's good, but when another idea wants to grow in this cyberspace, it is not good condition for u.

Treaty of Kars link in "See Also" gives background on closed Turkish-Armenian border. look at the borders between armenia and Azerbaijan in map ,given in this link.

Couldn't find the map you mention. -- James

The entire article has been erased

• Someone seems to have deleted the entire article. ~pure inuyasha

• I have returned the article to it's form before it was erased but i will be looking out incase it happens again.