Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 5

Who deleted external links

These are only links remaining. I am wandering who deleted all the links. Why the link to such an neutral soruce the Council of Europe is deleted. I will go on and reinstate the Council of Europe link. Francis where are you. When Azerbaijanis do something on the web page they are excluded or accused of vandalism? Who is the vandal that did this? If I don't get responses in one or two days, I will go on and make changes to the web page on Nagorno Karabakh based on this note and my notes below. I would wish that Francis does it. But it seems that he is committed to do only pro-armenian things. Then it means that I have to this. No other optino. --Eagle of the Caucasus 19:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Regions and territories: Nagorno-Karabakh from the BBC
• Artsakh.com – an Azeri site about Nagorno-Karabakh
• Official site of the 'NKR Ministry of Foreign Affairs'

Hi, sorry that was me. This link was obviously removed as a mistake, I will re-add it.

Council of Europe - report on Nagorno Karabakh

Did you read my response to your comment below? PS. Thankyou for providing a reference for your recent addition. - FrancisTyers 20:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Hi, I've added the verify tag as this article is in sore need of references. I think good solid references and removing unsourced material could help in resolving the dispute here. If no-one objects I will add {{fact}} tags to parts that I think are most in need of sourcing. - FrancisTyers 19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

Can someone give a brief explanation (or point by point explanation) of why this article is disputed? - FrancisTyers 15:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Basically Armenians are the major ethnic group and want the area to be offically under Armenian control. The land was designated as part of Azerbaijan at the break up of the Soviet Union despite the Armenian majority. Armenians are the current military presence and the Azeris want them out. 65.29.40.28 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)anon

There are several legitimate reasons

1. Nagorno Karabagh is self-proclaimed regime

2. People of Armenian origin who are in this regime of killed aroudn 25,000 Azerbaijanis

3. The region extends beyond the Nagorno-Karabagh as the regime occupied around 20 percent of Azerbiajani territories - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/aj.html

4. "The actions taken by the government of Armenia in the context of the conflict over Nagorno - Karabakh are inconsistent with the territorial integrity and national sovereignty principles of the Helsinki Final Act. Armenia supports Nagorno - Karabakh separatists in Azerbaijan both militarily and financially. Nagorno - Karabakh forces, assisted by units of the Armenian armed forces, currently occupy the Nagorno - Karabakh region and surrounding areas in Azerbaijan. This violation and the restoration of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan have been taken up by the OSCE."

William J. Clinton

President of the United States of America, Presidential Determination, 1998. - zerbaijan.com

5. The person who claims to be the President of Nagorno-Karabakh is not elected with the particiption of at elast 30 percent of the original Azerbaijani population of Nagorno-Karabagh who have been subject to ethnic cleansing by Armenians

6. The Nagorno Karabagh is internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan. http://www.un.int/azerbaijan/

7. Nagorno-Karbagh has historically belonged to Azerbaijani and the number of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabagh had increased only after the occupation of Azerbijan by Czar Russia in 1820s. After this time Csar Russia has brought and settled around 200,000 Armenians from Turkey and Iran in Nagorno Karabagh and other territories of Azerbaijan to estbalish a loyal region for itself. http://www.zerbaijan.com/azeri/svante_cornell.html by by Svante Cornell - Harvard University

Hope this is helpful. In the light of the preceding information and in the light of the fact that the sources of information in Nagorno Karabagh page is 90 percent Armenian origin, I suggest you fundamentally reconsider the web page and information in it.

Also please do look at whom you grant the administratorship on conflicting issues. One of the Wikipedia administrators on Nagrono-Karabakh includes Mikkalai, an armenian fundamentalist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roman azer (talk • contribs) 28 December 2005.

Hi, to start off with, please don't make personal attacks. This information is very useful, thankyou. Regarding point 7, could you find a source that isn't from azerbaijan.com ? I will take a look at the page later today and see if I can fit in your UN and CIA sources. - FrancisTyers 10:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Second thing, could you go through the article (in one edit preferably) and add {{fact}} tags to the parts you think are disputed and unsourced? - FrancisTyers 10:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are some neutral sources

1- PACE (the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) report on real nature and causes of Nagorno Karabakh conflict

• PACE (the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) adopted a report on the Karabakh conflict which considers that parts of Azerbaijan's territory are still occupied by Armenian forces and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region
• The Committee considered the occupation of territory by another COE state a "grave violation"
• It calls for compliance with the 1993 UN Security Council resolutions calling for the withdrawal of occupying forces from the Nagorno-Karabakh surrounding districts
• PACE also called on the OSCE Minsk Group, sponsoring talks between the two countries, to expedite a formal agreement

Source: Council of Europe / the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10364.htm

2 - On the history of Nagorno Karabagh - Council of Europe / the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe - go to the History page http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10364.htm

3 - History of Nagorno Karabagh - United Nations Comission on Human Rights - http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.1999.79.Add.1.En?Opendocument

4- Excerpt from the United Nations Comission on Human Rights regarding the Nagorno Karabakh conflict - the source is the same as above

While the conflict concerns and is concentrated on territory falling within the internationally-recognized borders of Azerbaijan, it also has an unmistakable external dimension which has the effect of "internationalizing" it. It is generally accepted that the Karabakh Armenian cause has received considerable economic and military support from Armenia and the ethnic Armenian diaspora. / Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh (New York, 1994), pp. 67-73; S. Neil MacFarlane and Larry Minear, The Politics of Humanitarian Action: The Case of Nagorno-Karabakh, Providence, Rhode Island, Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies, 1997, pp. 28-30 and 41./ For this reason, analyses of the conflict tend to describe the conflict as one between the Government of Azerbaijan and "Armenian forces", the latter, deliberately ambiguous, term referring to the Karabakh Armenian forces and their wider membership, which may include citizens of Armenia, mercenaries and members of the armed forces of Armenia. / See, in particular, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, Seven Years of Conflict, pp. 29-30 and 90-104./

5 - A brief history of Nargorno Karbakh - nothing says that it belonged to Armenia. Rather it states that Karbagh belonged to Caucasus Albania, who were predecessors of current Azerbijanis.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/n/nagornok1.asp

Hope this helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roman azer (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 December 2005.

Inaccurate information

There’s some inaccurate information in the latest edits of the article. For instance:

On February 20, 1988, Armenian deputies to the National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh voted to unify that region with Armenia. Although Armenia did not formally respond, this act triggered an Azerbaijani massacre of more than 100 Armenians in the city of Sumgait, just north of Baku.

This is not accurate. In late January – early February first groups of Azeri refugees started to arrive to Azerbaijan from Armenia. On 22 February there was a clash between Azeris from Agdam and Armenians from Askeran on the bridge that connected those areas. Two Azeris were killed. On 27 February Deputy attorney-general of the USSR Katusev announced by Azeri TV that two Azeris were killed in Karabakh. This triggered riots in Sumgait. I can prove all this by references, but they are mostly in Russian. We may need a Russian speaking editor to verify the facts. Also the number of 100 Armenians killed is not correct, the official death toll was 32, of them 26 Armenians and 6 Azeris. And information in the last 3 paragraphs of this section is inconsistent and sometimes repetitive. Grandmaster 06:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? I got the text from the LOC and they have proven to be accurate so far. - FrancisTyers 10:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, just read that they are in Russian, if you could post the urls I will take a look at them. - FrancisTyers 10:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are some links to the information, available in Russian.

Black Garden by Thomas de Waal

BBC Russian: Chronology of the conflict

Gorbachev’s website about refugees from Armenia

Gorbachev’s website about official number of the dead in Sumgait

Interview with KGB officers, who were heading the department that dealt ethnic problems in the USSR Grandmaster 13:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Grandmaster 13:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've adjusted the text to take into account what the Gorbachev Foundation states regarding the number of dead, hopefully presenting it in an NPOV fashion. I will take a look at the other stuff later. If you could provide me with links in English that would be great, but otherwise I'll soldier on :) - FrancisTyers 14:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. I just don’t understand where LOC took their figures from. You’ll find the same figure in the interview of KGB officers and de Waal’s book. That was the figure, officially announced by the soviet prosecutors, basically it can be found in any source that is not connected with Armenians, who try to exaggerate it. As for the Russian texts, unfortunately a lot of the information about the conflict is in Russian, because it started within the USSR, when both countries were provinces of the big country. Most of them were not translated to English, and western sources are often very inaccurate. As I said, first victims of the conflict were 2 Azeris, killed near the village of Askeran. LOC documents don’t reflect this fact, just like many others. De Waal’s book is available in English at Amazon.com, but it is costly, maybe you can borrow it from some library, he’s more accurate with his facts than LOC. Grandmaster 19:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not discriminate sources like you do. I'd consider Yuri Rost a more credible source than de Waal. Yuri Rost was there during the entire process of negotiation and his entire account of the period can be found in his book: 'Armenian tragedy: an eye-witness account of human conflict and natural disaster in Armenia and Azerbaijan' London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1990. Yuri Rost present many cases of distortions in the media and how the Sumgait tragedy victims were placed at low figure. Mark R. Beissinger, in a more recent book, published in the Cambridge University Press, (Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State, Cambridge University Press, 2002), covers Sumgait event, I suggest you to read it, and you'll see that the high figures presented are not inventions from sources close to Armenians but concorde with what as observed there. In fact de Waals, a friend of Thomas Goltz, would be considered a source more close to Azeris than those I provide as close to Armenians. Rachel Denber, in her book (The Soviet Nationality Reader: The Disintegration in Context,Westview Press, 1992) present the two azeris killed as rumors presented from a Baku Radio. She too, present the cases, just more than what is reported 'officialy'. Inside Gorbachev's Kremlin by Michele A. Berdy, Dobrochna Dyrcz-Freeman, Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, Yegor Ligachev, Marian Schwartz; Pantheon Books, 1993, a book which should have presented the 'provocations' you suggest, doesn't report anything, and present the tragedy just more than only in the 30' victims. In all those works, I don't see a two sided ethnic cleaning reported, or a provocation. I thought maybe Encyclopedia of Modern Ethnic Conflicts by Joseph R. Rudolph Jr.; Greenwood Press, 2003, had any mentions, I've checked, and that is what they say. p. 208. In February 1988, protestors numbering in the hundreds of thousands took over the Armenian capital of Erevan to demand the area’s transfer to Armenia. Violence quickly followed, most notoriously in bloody anti-Armenian riots occurring in Sumgait, Azerbaijan, at the end of the month. Anatoly Chernyaev (My Six Years with Gorbachev: Notes from a Diary, Pennsylvania State University Press 2000), report the rumors of the students of the military academy fainting when they saw the results of the progroms in Sumgait. Also, Gorbachev asking to not present any figures of casulaties but just to say that the guilty ones will be brought to justice. I can present various other references, just to show you that you can not present two cases equaly when there is a clear disproprtion of publication. Regards. Fad (ix) 20:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sources are speculations of people, who were not directly involved in investigation of the events. The number of 32 dead, of which 26 were Armenians, was provided by Soviet authorities. You can find that information on Gorbachev Foundation website as well. The same figure is given in COE report. As for two Azeris killed near Askeran being a rumor from Baku Radio, there’s an interview with KGB officers, who were chiefs of the department 3 of Soviet KGB that dealt with national problems in USSR. These people are very well informed about the history of the conflict, maybe even better than anybody else. They describe in their interview among other things the events near Askeran that resulted in death of two young Azeris. Then deputy prosecutor general of the USSR announced by TV the nationality of those killed, and this triggered riots in Sumgait, which resulted in death of 32 people. By that time there was a large number of Azeri refugees from Armenia in Sumgait, which can also be proven by various sources. That was the sequence of events. Best regards, Grandmaster 08:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You should read wikipedias policy. You can not discriminate sources. Yuri Rost and Anatoly Chernyaev would be considered as very close ones. The later even includes in his work, Gorbachev words saying to not give any number of victims and about the rumors of students of the military academy fainting when they saw the results of the progroms in Sumgait. Also, the sources also covers the Soviet innaction and how after the event washing their hands and trying to minimize the event. Fad (ix) 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It’s not a discrimination of sources. The fact is that neither Rost, nor Chernyayev were involved in investigation of events in Sumgait. So I wonder how Rost counted the dead and what methodology he used for that purpose. Chernyayev is wrong when he says that Gorbachev ordered to not give any number of victims, because the number was officially announced. You can find it on Gorbachev Foundation website as well. So when somebody says that the real number is different, it raises a question about where the different number comes from. We know the official figures, but accuracy of any other figures needs to be proved. Basically the article only says that “the official investigation reported 32 deaths - 6 Azerbaijanis and 26 Armenians”, which is true, because those were the numbers officially provided. As for the clash near Askeran, it was described by a number of reliable sources, including COE, and top KGB officers, who cannot be accused of being close friends of Thomas Goltz or telling the stories heard from Baku radio. If Chernyayev omits this event in his memoirs about perestroika, it doesn’t mean it never happened, it only means that he was not well informed about the details of the conflict. Grandmaster 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you are claiming that it is not a discrimination of sources, but yet you are telling me why they should not be taken in account. Before you judge those works, I suggest you to read them. They do not only claim so, they actually quote. Also, I will just remind you that the uncompleat official names of Armenian victims for the first three days amounted 30, from the list, the ages of persons, their names etc, which alone is more than 26 Armenian deaths. The soviet authorities have ended the investigation abrutly because of the Azeris authorities refusal to continue with any sort of investigations, while during the death ceremonies well, well over 30 deaths were identified and cried for. What do you say that we replace Khojali, Azeris authorities current official number of victims with those of Helzinki Watch? In fact, you have no problem that those said 'official' figures ranging from 100 to 200 are entirly excluded from the article, and while you have edited the other article, I haven't seen you using the same standards there than here. Another note, you can not justify edits by claiming the sources are in Russian, you must autentificate a translation if it is not a translation comming from a peer reviewed work (not self-published), to authentificate it, you can find Russsian speakers, I do not understand Russian, so as many here. Fad (ix) 21:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Fadix. If you would like to provide any other number of victims, it’s OK, I don’t have any problems with that, you just need to show where it’s taken from. LOC file doesn’t say where they took the number of over 100 from. The article actually doesn’t say that there aren’t any other numbers, it just says that the official death toll was 32. At least we know where this number comes from. The same with Khojaly, it says “the official death toll is 613”, you can trust or distrust the source, but you know where the number comes from. Basically Helsinki Watch number of victims in Khojaly does not contradict the official number. The report says that “More than 200 civilians were killed in the attack, the largest massacre to date in the conflict”, and then the footnote says that “There are no exact figures for the number of Azeri civilians killed because Karabakh Armenian forces gained control of the area after the massacre. While it is widely accepted that 200 hundred Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died”. So according to HW the number could be even higher than the one provided by the Azerbaijani authorities.

As for the Russian sources, they are maybe even more important than the ones in English, because the conflict started within the USSR, and all the official documentation and many evidences are in Russian, which is understandable, because it was the official language at the time. You cannot completely ignore them and rely only on Western scholars, some of whom never even traveled to the region. And also I did not base my edit (I made only 1 major edit so far) only on a Russian source, the quote is from COE report, they’ve been dealing with resolution of the conflict for quite a while now. Grandmaster 07:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have not said Russian sources were nore important, they should of course be included, what I said is that you can not edit whatever you want by telling us that the Russians say this and that and that the majority of sources are in Russian. I don't understand Russian, and many of us don't too, I want verification, from an official translation published in a reputable publisher or official websites. That is the only thing I was asking. Sorry if that appeared as if I was trying to justify the Russian figures non-exclusion, when it was not my purpouses.

Comming the Khojali, you did not understand my point. My point was not only about Helzinki watch figures but the previous Azeris official figures too. Like the first one of 100 death, published in the COVCAS Bulletin, March 5, 1992. The later Helzinki Watch published figures were of 181. Later, the Azeris official figures of 167 non-combatants. But you seem to not have any problem excluding all those estimates, even if they were called official too; I would consider this double standard. You seem to accept figures that place Armenian casulties at very low figures, and Azeris to highest. You place something to give an impression of double sided crime for Sumgait, but you have no problem with the exclusion of Washington's worries about the Azeris side lunching an attack just before the event, something more reported and included in sources than your add-ons for Sumgait. That was my entire point. Fad (ix)

As I said before, I’ve never made an edit based on a Russian language source. My edit was based on COE report, and the Russian source was only an additional support for the information contained in the above report. As for translations, I’m afraid we will have to find a way to do them, if that would be required, perhaps with assistance of Russian speakers of wiki community, who can verify the accuracy of translation.

As for Khojaly, I never heard about other figures you are talking about, sorry. I know only those that could be found in the reports of HW and Memorial and officially announced in Azerbaijan. Speaking of HW, they place the number of the Armenians killed in Sumgait at 32 in their report titled “Seven years of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh”, which is still inaccurate, because they present all the dead as Armenians, while 6 of them actually were Azeris. But still their number is not over 100, as LOC file claims it to be. Grandmaster 20:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, even Thomas de Waal's book doesn't portray the Sumgait massacre as a two sided clash. For example, in the second chapter (devoted to Sumgait), he explains the 6 dead azeris by self-defense by some Armenians: "Some Armenians resisted, which explains, apparently, six dead azeris" (Некоторые армяне оказывали сопротивление, чем и объясняются, по-видимому, шесть убитых азербайджанцев).

The chapter describes in graphic detail how Azeris first gathered in the central square, then started going through streets and attacking Armenians in organized fashion ("three waves").

He also suggests that the massacre could have been pre-planned. Here are some excerpts:

"Many pogromists, by the way, had sharpened pieces of metal rods and cut pieces of pipes taken from factories, clearly prepared beforehand. This is just one of details letting one to conclude that the explosion of violence was, possibly, preplanned, at least in general features." (Многие погромщики, впрочем, имели при себе - вынесенные с заводов заточенные куски арматуры и обрезки труб, явно заготовленные загодя. Это лишь одна из деталей, позволяющая предположить, что взрыв насилия был, возможно, заранее спланирован, по крайне мере, в общих чертах.)

"Some Armenian witnesses of the pogroms say that they saw with their own eyes, among the demonstrators on the Lenin square, Party [i.e Communist Party] leaders of Sumgait, who demanded the local Armenian population to leave the city. And someone among Armenians even states that members of the municipal government were in the mob of the pogromists. Many of them, stated in Armenian sources, received oral instructions and lists of names and addresses of Armenians and had self-made weapons." (Некоторые армяне-очевидцы погромов говорят, что они своими глазами видели среди участников митинга на площади Ленина партийных руководителей Сумгаита, которые призывали местное армянское население покинуть город. А кое-кто из армян даже утверждает, что представители городской власти мелькали в толпе погромщиков. Многие из них, утверждается в армянских источниках, получили устные инструкции и списки с именами и адресами армян и были вооружены самодельным оружием).

Here is more: "On May 10, 1988, the municipal committee of Communist Party in Sugmait accused the leadership and workers of the Azeri pipe factory in the fact that 'during all days of the difficult situation, the factory was producing axes, knives, and other objects which could have been used by hooliganish elements'" Newspaper "Sugmait Communits, May 13, 1988, reprinted in the book "Sumgait tragedy in eyewitness testimonies." (10 мая 1988 года Сумгаитский горком партии осудил руководство и рабочих азербайджанского трубопрокатного завода за то, что "в течение всех дней сложной ситуации, в цехах завода осуществлялось производство топоров, ножей и прочих предметов, которые могли быть использованы хулиганствующими элементами". Сообщение в газете: "Коммунист Сумгаита" от 13 мая 1988 г. Перепечатано в кн. "Сумгаитская трагедия в свидетельствах очевидцев".)

About the non existence of official investigation: "Probably the biggest mistake of the Soviet leadership in connection with the Sumgait events was the fact that no official investigation was conducted, which apparently both Armenians and Azeris asked for." (Вероятно, крупнейшая ошибка советского руководства в связи с сумгаитскими событиями заключалась в том, что не было проведено официальное расследование, к чему, собственно, призывала как армянская, так и азербайджанская сторона.) TigranTheGreat 19:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

http://news8.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/in_depth/newsid_4651000/4651717.stm

I don’t know if it is a result of inaccurate translation or not, but de Waal probably meant that the investigation was not public, because he further says that more than 80 people were tried and sentenced, which means that there was an official investigation. Also of note that one of the most active pogromists in Sumgait was an ethnic Armenian Eduard Gregorian. De Waal thinks that he was just a thug without a nationality. Also he confirms the following number of the dead:

Было убито от 26 до 29 сумгаитских армян, сотни были ранены.

About 26 to 29 Sumgait Armenians were killed, hundreds were injured.

Another interesting section is where he describes the refugees from Armenia, who arrived to Azerbaijan before the riots in Sumgait. Grandmaster 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've checked the English version of the book, this is what is writen: Perhaps the biggest failing of the Soviet leadership over Sumgait was that it did not allow an official investigation into the violence, something that both Armenians and Azerbaijanis called for. (p. 41) Fad (ix) 01:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

About de Waal meaning "public investigation," maybe you are right, or maybe he meant that those convicted (who he says were very small part of pogromists) were tried without any serious investigation, which you and me know was not unheard of in Soviet Union. Or maybe he is mistaken. See, you can go crazy when you start doing original research:) That's why these things are left to experts.

Also, maybe it's not important, but if mentioning of Gregorian's ethnicity is important, I guess this is important too--he was half-Armenian (mother Russian, in de Waal's book).

He does say that 26-29 Armenians were killed, but he could have meant only those in morgue. Later he talks about a publication in Armenia adding 3 families to the list of dead, and adds "apparently, these were victims who died later, or bodies that didn't end up in Baku morgue." (по-видимому, это были жертвы бесчинств, скончавшиеся позднее или тела, не попавшие в бакинский морг.) He seems to accept the possibility that the victims were more than the official number.--TigranTheGreat 22:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Here’s another quote from the same book by de Waal:

Dissemination and repetition of false statistics hinders adequate understanding of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

This, of course, is inherent in any wars and propaganda campaigns that accompany them – same as humanitarian disasters, when initial information about casualties are much higher, than the real number of the victims. In our case the problem was aggravated by the traditions of the region, where the authorities were never held responsible for the information they disseminated and which until 1991 was a part of Soviet Union, a country, where information was constantly kept a secret.

For instance, some Armenians believed that thousands of the bodies were concealed after pogroms in Sumgait in 1988. In January 1990 the rumor was spread in Azerbaijan that the bodies of victims of intervention of Soviet troops to Baku were dropped from helicopters into the Caspian Sea. Fortunately, when the final lists of the dead were compiled, both allegations were proved to be wrong.

Адекватному пониманию армяно-азербайджанского конфликта мешает распространение и повторение ложной статистики.

Это, разумеется, присуще всем войнам и сопровождающим их пропагандистским кампаниям - равно как и гуманитарным катастрофам, при которых первоначальные данные о людских потерях оказываются много выше, чем число реальных жертв. В нашем случае проблема была усложнена традициями региона, в котором власти никогда не несли ответственность за распространяемую ими информацию и который вплоть до 1991 года был частью Советского Союза, страны, где информация постоянно утаивалась.

Кое-кто из армян, например, считал, что сотни трупов были спрятаны после сумгаитских погромов 1988 года. В январе 1990 года в Азербайджане распространялись слухи, будто трупы жертв интервенции советских войск в Баку сбрасывались в Каспийское море с вертолетов. К счастью, когда были составлены окончательные списки погибших, выяснилось, что оба обвинения были ложными.

http://news8.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/in_depth/newsid_4685000/4685287.stm

Grandmaster 07:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, about the Agdam clashes of February 24th, de Waal says that one Azeri was killed by an Azeri cop: "Russian writer Alex. Vasilevskiy, who visitted NK in the end of April 1988, writes that he spoke with Ali Hajiev's (one of the victims) brother Arif Hajiev, who said that his brother classhed with an azeri cop, and the latter shot him." (Русский писатель Александр Василевский, посетивший Нагорный Карабах в конце апреля 1988 г., пишет, что он беседовал с братом Али Гаджиева Арифом Гаджиевым, который рассказал, что его брат повздорил с азербайджанским милиционером, и тот выстрелил в него в упор.)

According to another source, the azeri cop killed him by an accident.

http://news8.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/in_depth/newsid_4640000/4640183.stm

TigranTheGreat 19:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also from the same section:

Одного из них, двадцатитрехлетнего Али Хаджиева, по всей вероятности, убил местный милиционер - либо случайно, либо в ходе стычки. Другой, шестнадцатилетний Бахтияр Гулиев, был, по-видимому, убит выстрелом из охотничьего ружья кем-то из армян. Если это так, то Гулиев стал первой жертвой межэтнического насилия в армяно-азербайджанском конфликте.

One of them, 23-year old Ali Hajiyev, was most likely killed by a local policeman, accidentally or as result of a confrontation. The other, 16-year old Bakhtiyar Guliyev was apparently shot from a hunting rifle by some Armenian. If it is so, Guliyev became the first victim of ethnic violence in Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

Заместитель председателя КГБ Филипп Бобков .. пишет, что Бахтияр Гулиев был застрелен армянином.

Deputy chief of KGB Philip Bobkov wrote in his book that Bakhtiyar Guliyev was shot by an Armenian. Grandmaster 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to translate the russian text as accurately as I could, but Grandmaster and other Russian speakers are welcome to correct any mistakes they find :)

Also, the KGB official's in the interview provided by Grandmaster say that the 2 people were killed after Azeris tried to break into the houses of Armenians. They don't say that the 2 victims were Azeris, just "not Armenians."

Obviously, if they were not Armenians, they were Azeris. Grandmaster 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Could they be Russians? There were Russian trainees. The mob was stoning them. (Пригнали бронетранспортеры, ребят из учебки, которая готовила солдат для отправки в Афганистан. Бедные ребята! В них бросали камнями, но они сдерживали натиск.).[1]--TigranTheGreat 21:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

When the demonstrations in Stepanakert became a routine, suddenly a crowd of Azeris from Agdam moved there to protest separation of Karabakh from Azerbaijan. We immediately realized that there was going to be a trouble. We decided to meet the crowd on the bridge and stop it by all means. Otherwise nobody knows what this all would have resulted with. We brought armored troop-carriers, and students from the military school that was training the soldiers for the war in Afghanistan. Poor kids! Stones were thrown at them, but they stood firm. A crowd of Armenians gathered on the other bank. And then some hotheads decided to wade through the river. Some of them managed to do that, and they even tried to seize an Armenian house. That’s when shots were fired, and two people were killed.

— Когда митинги в Степанакерте стали обыденным делом, в этот городок из Агдама вдруг пошла толпа азербайджанцев, чтобы выразить свой протест против отделения Карабаха. Мы сразу поняли: быть беде. Решили встретить толпу на мосту и любыми путями остановить. Иначе неизвестно, чем бы все это кончилось. Пригнали бронетранспортеры, ребят из учебки, которая готовила солдат для отправки в Афганистан. Бедные ребята! В них бросали камнями, но они сдерживали натиск. Со стороны Степанакерта тоже толпа армян собралась. И тут какие-то горячие головы задумали переправиться через речку вброд. Некоторым это удалось, и они даже попытались захватить один армянский дом. Тут-то и раздались выстрелы, два человека погибли.

It’s clear from the text that those killed were Azeris. Grandmaster 07:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in the last pages of de Waal's book. Pretty intriguing stuff.--TigranTheGreat 19:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This pdf file from the link to the Council of Europe website provided by Roman azer might be helpful. Grandmaster 07:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I made an amendment to the article, using the text of COE report: The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference. I provided the reference within the article. Grandmaster 08:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Be careful to not present Wikipedia as the author of the position. Sources suggest and do not present things as facts. Fad (ix) 20:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If there’s a reference, it’s clear where information is taken from. Also, I don’t think you can call COE a pro-Azeri source. Grandmaster 08:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I meant. You can not say "this, this and that happened" even if you present a sources, but rather "according to him, him and him..." In this cases, in published works the event is discribed much more one sided and worst than the few sources you select. And don't forget I was not the one implying 'pro-Azerbaijaness' of the sources, but rather you claiming that what you presented is the records acomming from sources not close to Armenians, which is certainly not true, if one read works written about those events. Fad (ix) 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

region vs enclave

I wonder what the hell happened with the entry, which was more encyclopedic than it is now. The history of the region and the conflict are taking the entire space, and now this is simply growing on. The next step was to talk about other stuff, but still, nothing is said, about the people living there, the institutions etc., beside enclave, protectorate etc., are all different terms compared to just 'region.' A region of Azerbaijan is simply misleading, given that it was called an authomous oblask and protectorate of Azerbaijan, an enclave. That was made clear, and accepted including by Tabib during the discussions in the archive that were something like a hundred page. It is disrespectable to ignore the history of the talk page and going on editing whatever one wants without previous discussions on the talk page. And by this, I am talking for both sides. Even if I disagreed with Tabib very strongly, at least the guy was writting and making his mind on the talk page. If that thing still grow and grow, I will be creating an entry called Nagorni-Karabakh conflict and dump the entire thing there, something which should have been done from the beggining. Fad (ix) 03:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there would be no problem in splitting the conflict details out to another article. Be Bold! :) - FrancisTyers 04:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry dude, I'm not touching another politically heated subject for the time being. Fad (ix) 20:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

serious questions on history of Karabakh

"After the 8th century, Albania diminished in size, and came to exist only as the Khachin principality in Artsakh."
It is absolutely absurd. I don't see the source of this sentence. Albania transerred itself to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis who are their predecessors. They owe the same right to what Albanians owned including Karabakh. Almost 90 percent of Albanians became Azerbaijanis. Small number gradually Armenianized under the pressure and assimiliation of the Armenian church as the Albanian church was cancelled by the Arab khilaphate. The reason for that was that Arabs were suspicious that the Albanian church cooperates with Byzantine against Arabs. This false information was taken to the Arab khilaphate by the Armenian church, as historians claim, in order to regain the control of all Albanian churches and ease the Armenianization of Albanians.

Hundred of sentences, historical and current facts about the region and events are wrong. I would suggest that we complete change the Nagorno-Karabakh page based on the Council of Europe report to the extent we can and then limit any change untill the conflict is resolved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.175.186 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 January 2006.

OK, maybe you should be able to explain this then. http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Y-paper.pdf regards. Fad (ix) 18:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

- There is nothing surprising to explain. It just shows that my predecessors, Albanians and your predecessors, Armenians might have a kinship. If you carefully read the article it never states or says that Azerbaijanis and Armenians have kinship. It just says that they might be closer to each other and since you live together for two hundred years it is quite possible that you would develop such a relationship.

- Also if you go and listen to the view of your ultr-fundamentalist Armenian church all people are relatives to each other and come from one father and mother, Adam and Havva, which is questionable as well, since I don't think I have anything with armenians.

- Second statistical likelihood or probability that Armenians and Azerbaijanis might have relationship, does not mean that there is 100 percent or even 50 percent probability of relationship. We all know problems with statistical applications and statistical significance. in such empirical studies there are questions about the data presicion, manipulation of data by authors, problems with statistical modeling, reverse relationship from cause to effect and vice versa, probelms with calculation, problems with DNA test, how people who were subject to DNA tests are chosen and so forth. As far as I got the selection of subjects weren't random, which is a big flaw for any empirical study. So I would like to request you, Fad, not to go into deep discussion with me on econometrics and statistics.

- Third if you have been to the region, then you would also see now the face and bodywise differences between Azerbaijanis and Armenians. Azerbijanis are more white, more European, with more beatufil face, while Armenians have long noses, dark skin, more hairy, and uglier on average as well. This all I hope would answer to your question on possible kinship between Azerbaijanis and Armenians.

- Fourth the article is written by a Georgian, Armenian and pseudo Azerbiajni, but I couldn't verify the presence of such a person at the Ministy of Health in Azerbaijan. This article if undertaken, is also nothng more than the order of the destructive and opportunist, manipulative, ultra nationalist Armenian diaspora in US or Europe.

-Fifth 200 or more years of living in neighborhood imposed by Russians is more than enough to develop the weak relationship that the research you refer to might have found. Many Azerijanis have married to Armenians nowadays and indeed we have just right now over 30,000 Armenian brides in Azerbaijan who serve as faithful wives and mothers. This is another source why the research you refer to might indicate a possible, yet weak relationship between Azerbaijanis and Armenians.

- So the study you refer to does not prove or indicate that Armenians might also be predecessors of Albanians. Its Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis who are remnants of Albania and Albanians who for the most part ceased to exist thanks to the cooperation of the Armenian church with Arabs.

- Please next time when you put a note or words, indicate your Armenian nationality as well. Then it would help people to know whose notes they are reading. I learned it only after visiting your web site. Regards,--71.195.182.195 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Including the number 100 for Sumgait victims.

I realize that Grandmaster, FrancisTyers, and Fadix have been discussing this earlier, but I decided to post this comment at the end of the talk page instead of burying in the middle to make it easier to find.

I restored a statement that had been added by FrancisTyers and later deleted by Grandmaster, namely, that LOC (Library of Congress) states that over 100 Armenians were killed.

Grandmaster, you said earlier that the LOC report should not be included since it does not cite its source for the number. In Wikipedia, we can't exclude a reputable source just because it does not cite a source. It is not our job to determine whether a fact mentioned in a source is correct or not. This is prohibited under the "no original research" rule. As long as the source is reputable (and LOC is), we don't care how exactly it got its facts. All we need to do is verify that the fact is mentioned in the source--we don't verify any further. This is also mandated by the rule that the "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" ([2]). We just report that the fact is mentioned in a source and cite the source. In this case, the facts are that the official number is 32, but LOC says 100. The above policies are perfectly explained in the following exceprt from Wikipedia guidelines:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources....

It is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the no original research and verifiability policies are so important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

We need to remember, we are not historians, we don't compare, investigate, analyze and dismiss various sources to come up with the truth. This kind of analysis is left for the expert. An encyclopedia is not a historical book, we only report (in a fair, balanced manner) what other researchers say. Secondary sources (such as a research done by LOC) sometimes can be more reliable than a primary source (KGB report)--perhaps the KGB officials want to minimize the numbers and therefore their culpability in not stopping them, perhaps they are too close to events and are biased--we don't know, these are not questions that we should try to answer, these are things left for researchers. This too is explained in Wikipedia guidelines:

Historical events are difficult to verify. We must rely on people's memories, recorded accounts, and physical evidence to reconstruct it. Evidence and factual accounts contemporary with the events are valuable because there are fewer steps separating them from reality. On the other hand, their authors are more likely to have been involved in the events, and therefore to have a particular point of view. Indeed, the evaluation and judicious use of primary sources is a major part of the craft of history.

However, bear in mind that it is not the job of Wikipedians to do original research. We report what reliable publications publish. We do not investigate whether they are right or wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

And LOC is a reputable organization--it's one of the largest libraries in the world, with scores of researchers, scholars, historians and other experts available at its disposal. The report on Azerbaijan and Karabakh is followed by a long list biblography containing books, articles, and reports (check here). The Acknowledgment section states that the information was based on research of data provided by "numerous organizations and inviduals:"

The authors are indebted to numerous individuals and organizations who gave their time, research materials, and expertise on affairs in the nations of the Transcaucasus to provide data, perspective, and material support for this volume. The collection of accurate and current information was assisted greatly by the contributions of Professor Stephen Jones of Mount Holyoke College, Dee Ann Holisky and Betty Blair of Azerbaijan International, and Joseph Masih of the Armenian Assembly of America. The authors acknowledge the generosity of individuals and public and private agencies including Azerbaijan International, the Embassy of Azerbaijan, and the White House Photo Office, who allowed their photographs to be used in this study.

http://countrystudies.us/azerbaijan/1.htm --TigranTheGreat 15:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you included the LOC number, you need to provide a correct reference to each source within the article, because it appears now that all the information is taken from COE file, as the footnote leads to it. I used to trust LOC, but not anymore, because their report on Karabakh issue is very inaccurate and it is absolutely impossible to understand where their numbers were taken from. A reliable research normally cites its sources for each number or event described, but that is not the case with LOC file. Grandmaster 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Grandmaster. I just realized that I left the reference to COE at the end. I have been here only for a few months and I guess I am still unfamiliar with some of the cool tricks available at Wikipedia :) I will see how notes are done elsewhere in the article and correct the mistake.

I understand what you mean about reliability of LOC but I don't think we should dismiss a famous and reputable institution as unreliable just because it didn't provide in-text citations, especially when it provides extensive bibliography and states that it relied on thorough research. De Waal for example provides citations on some facts, but not on others, and some of the facts I found disputable and had no idea where he got it. But that is not the job for editors of Wikipedia--when readers read the articles, they can decide for themselves how much weight to give to each source, and how to do their own research even further--maybe they can contact the LOC and ask (or check some of the books in the extensive bibliography). Fact checks are their business, ours is only verifications that the fact appears in the reputable source. Also, keep in mind that even De Waal's article suggests that there may have been bodies of Armenians that didn't make up to the morgue--the 26 number is the official number of the bodies of the morgue.--TigranTheGreat 21:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Tigran the great. Tigran wasn't great if you know the history. He was of short as indicated by some Armenian historical sources. All the things subscribed to him is also nothing more than the Armenian myth. So pls, do a favor to everybody and be more accurate. [posted by anonymous user 64.167.141.155 on 05:40, January 11, 2006, exposed by --TigranTheGreat 11:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)]

Here is the earlier and amusing version of the post made by the above anon. user (64.167.141.155): "Tigran wasn't great if you know the history. He was too small and micro soft. And indeed he was a gay to be more correct as indicated by some Armenian historical sources. So pls, do a favor to everybody and do not use this tigran the smallest nickname." This user later decided to modify his post out of embarrassment.

A few clear facts now. The fact that Tigran II Artashesyan (95-55 BC) was truly a great emperor is indisputable and reflected in the titles ascribed to him in sources and works throughout history as well as on contemporary coins. It is equally indisputable that you are here merely to provoke and distrupt the discussions. What you must be clear on is that you are violating Wikipedia rules of conduct and your access will be banned if you continue such disruptive conduct.--TigranTheGreat 11:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack by 64.167.141.155 (talk · contribs) removed. - FrancisTyers 20:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

There are too many pictures on this web page and most of them have nothing to do with Karabakh. The picture of the so called and terrorist president, Gukasyan. I think it should be deleted from the web page as he is self claimed head of the unrecognized territory and the legitimacy of entire elections and his presidency is none. At least 30 percent of the Nagorno Karabakh population did not participate in elections due to the ethnic cleansing by armenians and armenian terrorists. Then there is the issue of international observation. None of the respectable internaitonal organizations observed this elections as it is nothing more than puppet elections and internationally not recognized.

The picture of the tigan the great. First of all this tigran has nothing to do with Nagorno Karbakh. he has a relationship only only to armenia. Second, how he was a great that his "empire" which is also nothing more than the product of the armenian imagination, for which armenains have worldwide popularity, ceased to exist in less than 30 years. :-)))))))) Only so far could the armenian 'imagination' go in their effort to find eveything in the world and subscirbe it to armenians.

Therefore I suggest that we delete these pictures from the web site and they are not related to the subject, or wrong and do nothing but distract readers. Roman_Azer, Pensylvania —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.167.141.155 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 January 2006.

Third the picture iindicated as monastr or church is a historical Albanian church acclaimed by armenians. So I suggest we put there an explanatory note indicating the origin of this church.

I agree with these suggestions. But I suggest that we keep the picture of gukasyan, but refer to him as the leader of the Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh. There is also the leader of the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno karabakh. Why we don't add his picture there as well.

His picture can be found here. http://www.ans.az/images/n4220.jpg Otherwise the picture creates unbalanced position. Alban-Azerbaijan --Alban-Azerbaijan 09:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As I already posted below, I am against including Nizami Bahmanov's picture on the page. It will be a misleading addition. There is no Azeri community in Karabakh, including the picture on the page is like including the picture of the leader of an organization representing Western Armenians on the article about Turkey. It will be misleading and violate the Wikipedia rules of Undue Weight, portraying Karabakh as an area of shared Azeri/Armenian power (like Cyprus), which is not true. As Fadix stated, Ghukasyan is the president of NKR, he is treated as the leader of NKR by Armenia and by every organization dealing with Karabakh--they are not dealing with Bahmanov. Sure, he is not recognized as a president of *independent* Karabakh, but the fact that Karabakh's independence is not recognized is already mentioned. No reason to stuff that POV through pictures.

I will conclude by adding Fadix' good reasons against the inclusion of the picture. Nizami Bahmanov is not the one that recieves international loans, but Karabakh government. The US finance Karabakh independently from Armenia or Azerbaijan, and the government there is elected democratically. Also, keep in mind something, Wikipedia does not tell what the truth is, but what is said about a subject. Fad (ix) 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As for Gandzasar, it is known as an Armenian and not an Albanian church. It was built in 1200's by the well known Armenian princely family Hasan-Jalalyan, who later lead an Armenian resistance in the area against Turks (in 1700's). The Armenian names of the Armenian builders of the monastery are inscribed on the very stones of the building and are known. Also, Albanians had long been assimilated by 1200's, and it could not possibly be an Albanian church. A good source on the monastery is Yakobson A. L., "From History of Medieval Armenian culture (Gandzasar Monastery 13th c.)", in book "Studies of Cultural Histories of the Peoples of the Orient." Moscow, Leningrad, 1960 (available in Russian).--TigranTheGreat 05:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I already posted about President Ghukasyan's picture. As for Tigran The Great's picture, it is relevant since the article mentions that he built a city in Artsakh. Also, according to Azeri version, he conquered Artsakh, so it's relevant even according to the Azeri POV (in reality, the evidence suggests that it was part of Armenia by the time Tigran became king). --TigranTheGreat 05:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To fed ix and tigran, both armenians, now listen to me. your so called, self declared "president' is nothing more than a puppet president. He is not elected by the participation of Azerbaijanis and other evicted from Nagorno Karabakh ethnic minorities. The elections weren't obeserved by any credible international organization. Therefore including the picture of Bahmanov is as meaningful as the picture of the puppet president 'gukasyan'. He is nothing more than the leader of the armenian community of Nagorno Karabakh and I again call Francis to duty by protecting my inclusion of the picture of the Azerbaijani community leader, Nizami Bahmanov, to the web page. I will do it later on. --Eagle of the Caucasus 06:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please try and be civil when contributing. As far as I am aware, this Gukasyan guy is president of an unrecognised state. I'm fairly convinced that Wikipedia supports naming presidents as presidents regardless of if they were labelled democratically or not, so your point that the elections were not observed and did not allow Azerbaijanis to participate is irrelevant. I'm not sure about this Nizami Bahmanov, how notable is he? If you can provide some sources that show how he is a notable individual in relation to Karabakh then I don't see any problem with including a picture, providing there is some text in the article that describes who he is. At the moment, he is not mentioned at all in the article. - FrancisTyers 12:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason I am against the inclusion is because it's misleading. There is no Azeri community in NKR right now, it's like including the leader of Turkish Armenians on the page of Turkey. Or, say former Armenian inhabitants of Nakhijevan region (another formerly Armenian area now in Azeri control) make a group, elect a leader, and we put his picture on the article about Nakhijevan as "the leader of Nakhijevan Armenian community." NKR is not an area of shared Azeri/Armenian power with joint leadership (one from Gukasyan, the other from Bahmanov), and including both pictures would create that impression.--TigranTheGreat 02:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Francis, there is no difference in terms of international staturs between gukasyan who claims to be a pupper president and Nizami Bahmanov who is recognized as the leader of the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno Karabakh and participates in all Minsk Groups meetings and etc. I will provide more inofrmaion on him later on. Additionally as you point out, if for Wikipedia the democratic elections is not important to claim for the status of the president, I don't think that Wikipedia will be against of a person who is called just leader of the Azerbaijani community. There is no difference as far as I get. Please, let me know if you see anything different.

Also I will place the map in the post-Soviet section which is describing the results of the armenian occupation and agression of Azerbaijan. This will serve just a good balance to all the pro-Armenian pcitures in the web-page. --Eagle of the Caucasus 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between Ghukasyan and Bahmanov--international organizations deal with him when sending humanitarian aid to Karabakh, he is referred to as president (whether with or without quotations marks) of "unrecognized NKR," not as a leader of Karabakh Armenian community. The reality is that he was democratically elected by the current population. The Armenian population didn't participate in the election of Azeri president, doesn't mean the latter is the leader of the "Azeri community." By the way, even if Azeris voted, they were 25% of the population, so Gukasyan would still be elected. It's not the case that Azeris werent allowed to vote, they didn't want to because they didn't want to legitimize his presidency in case he was elected. He is not a puppet, he ws not appointed by Armenia, he was elected by local Armenians. The "Northern Cyprus'" president is mentioned on that article, we will include NKR's president on this article. --TigranTheGreat 02:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Plus, if there are human rights or any other problems in NKR, it's Gukasyan who is being held responsible by international entities. Like it or not, he is treated as the person de facto responsible for the area.--TigranTheGreat 08:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tigran I assume your imagination really does not have any limits, which is usually beyond the science. The web page starts with the fact that the puppet "NKR", its puppet 'gov't' strutcures, puppet reps including gukasyan are not recognized by any state and international organization in the world. How a person who is not recognized by any international organization can be held responsible for human rights violations. Indeed there are credible facts, one being the US State Department, that the occupied Azerbaijani territories including the territoriy of "NKR" are used for drug and human trafficking. See the US State Department fact sheet on Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh problem http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2909.htm .

It clearly states "More than 30,000 people were killed in the fighting from 1992 to 1994. In May 1992, Armenian and Karabakhi forces seized Susha (the historical, Azerbaijani-populated capital of Nagorno-Karabakh) and Lachin (thereby linking Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia). By October 1993, Armenian and Karabakhi forces had succeeded in occupying almost all of Nagorno-Karabakh, Lachin, and large areas in southwestern Azerbaijan. As Armenian and Karabakhi forces advanced, hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijani refugees fled to other parts of Azerbaijan. In 1993, the UN Security Council adopted resolutions calling for the cessation of hostilities, unimpeded access for international humanitarian relief efforts, and the eventual deployment of a peacekeeping force in the region. The UN also called for immediate withdrawal of all ethnic Armenian forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Fighting continued, however, until May 1994 when Russia brokered a cease-fire." This is also in line with the picture I placed in the web page. Francis for your information.

On drug trafficking and puppet "NKR" role ni drug trafficking is mentioned in the US State department report. See the Azerbaijani and Armenia sections. http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/1999/925.htm . Who is responsible for that, not to mention the killing of thousands of civil Azerbaijanis. Rest assured, tigran, that all your puppet friends occupying Azerbaijni lands will be found and persecuted as Azerbaijnai citizens involved in terrorism. Guess who will come on the top. your puppet gukasayn. tigran, would you also tell me who is the father of gukasyan. bests--Eagle of the Caucasus 19:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tigran I assume your imagination really does not have any limits, which is usually beyond the science. (By Eagle)

Eagle, that's precisely the kind of thing that you are not allowed to assume on Wikipedia, based on rules of assuming good faith on the part of others. I will be glad to help you learn more on the rules of conduct as we go along.

You can be held responsible for what's going on under your jurisdiction, if you are the de facto authority there, even when you are not recognized. We know that other states don't recognize Gukasyan as de jure president, but he is the de facto authority there. Even the COE report that Azeris love so much refers to NKR's authorities as de facto authorities. They don't refer them as "leader of Armenian community." Now, Bahimov is not even de facto leader of Azeri community in NK, as there is no NK community there. The characterization is purely self-proclaimed.

I am not sure what you are trying to say in your copy-pastes from the State Dep't, but the page states that NKR's alleged drug trafficking is an Azeri accusation only. In fact according to the page drug trafficking in Azerbaijan is worse than in Armenia--Armenia is a "potential route," while Azerbaijan is already located on a transit route, with increasing level of trafficking. At any point, this is irrelevant--if there was trafficking in NKR, the local authorities would be blamed.

By the way, about your labels of "puppet" government, the irony is that many believe that it is the Armenian government that is subject to NKR and not the other way round. This of course is exaggeration, but NKR's authorities are pretty tough when it comes to holding on to their positions, even if it differs from Armenia. In fact on several occasions Armenia accepted a peace plan, while NKR rejected, and that was the end of the story. So, as many observers correctly note, NKR is by all means a de facto independent state.

The rest of your reply is irrelevant propaganda and personal attacks, about which you have been warned before.--TigranTheGreat 01:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

FrancisTyers, thank you for removing an irrelevant and illegal (as copyright violation) text posted by the anonymous user 64.167.141.155. I am considering removing the rest of his inflammatory, racist, and irrelevant comments from the talk page (perhaps other than the comment on Gandzasar, which is the only one of his contributions here that's even remotely intelligent). I think simply ignoring them is not enough, as they are potential minefields whenever future visitors see them and start a protracted useless bickerings provoked by this user. I and others I know have deleted similar abuses from talk pages before, but considering the nature of this article and presence of Azeri users, I don't want to make unilateral changes to the page. I hope Grandmaster and other Azeri users will agree, as the last thing we need on this already emotionally charged topic is prolonged fights. After all this user even tried to impersonate an Azeri editor (Roman_Azeri), and he claims to be Georgian which I am sure is another futile attempt to provoke an inter-ethnic bickering.

Unless there are objections from FrancisTyers or others, I am prepared to remove the offensive posts by this user. Thank you. --TigranTheGreat 08:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, I understand your concerns, but please note that some of your notes not so benevolent as well. They are biased, unjust, and most of them anti-azerbaijani. The distinction between offensive of the user that you refer to and your aggressive and one-sided notes are only a differece in perceptions. As an armenian you feel and accept those words in that way, as an Azerbaijani I feel the one-sided and wrong information on the actual Nagorno-Karabakh web page of Wikipedia offensive and racist, unilaterally supporting the Armenian side. Therefore, I reject and am against your doing anything to any notes added by Azerbaijanis. If there will be any cleaning, that should first of all start from the actual Wikipedia web page on Nagorno karabakh. Then I am would support deleting the 'offensive' words that you refer to from the talk page.

Please, show more tolerance. I know that you come from Armenia and it is a monoethnic society with Yezidi Kurds being the largest, which account to 30,000 people. This can be an indicator of the tolerenace of majority of Armenians towards other nations and ethnic groups. But note that Azeraijan has over 100 ethnic groups and Russians, Lezgis, account more than 100,000. Meskheti turks are around 50,000, Talysh around 30,000 -40,000, Tats around 20,000, Jewish around 10,000 and Armenians around 30,000 excluding the Armenian occupied territories of Azerbaijan etc.

Alban-Azerbaijan--Alban-Azerbaijan 09:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Alban, using the talk page for irrelevant information violates wikipedia rules. That's what user 64.167.141.155 did by makign posts about about ASALA, or the denial of the Armenian Genocide. Writing hate speech on Talk page is also against Wikipedia rules, which, again, 64.167.141.155 did routinely (such as in "You are scared, you are a liar, you are robber, you are an armenian." 19:00, 11 January 2006 64.167.141.155).

Bias on talk pages is allowed--we are all biased. Tell me where have I used a talk page for off topic propaganda. Tell me where I have used hate speech. And I will consider deleting them.

Who said the anonymous user was Azeri? Do you know him personally? And why would you want to leave hate speech on a talk page? It's against the interests of everyone serious about editting the wikipedia, be he Azeri or Armenia.

Editting the article to comply with NPOV standards will take a long time. Why wait till then to delete obviously hateful speech that obviously violates the rules and obviously hinders the very editting process by creating a poisonous atmosphere?--TigranTheGreat 11:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, be tolerant to what? Hate speech? Irrelevant distractions? Wikipedia isn't, why should we, the editors? You shouldn't be tolerant to such violations either.

Also, please refrain making off-topic generalized accusations against other ethnic groups--that is offensive and unacceptable on Wikipedia Talk pages. Armenia's and Azerbaijan's demographics (outside Karabakh), and generalized accusations as to which nation is more intolerant, have absolutely no place here. I see you are a new user, but you need to assume good faith on the part of other editors. It's even plainly noted in the very top of this page. --TigranTheGreat 19:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have archived some of the discussion and removed the personal attack. I'd like to point out that Talk pages are for discussing Wikipedia articles and not politics. I know the two can get confused, especially with political subjects, but just think before you post "Which part of the article am I discussing here"? Thanks guys and keep up the good work :) - FrancisTyers 20:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the alert and impartial administratorship, FrancisTyers:) --TigranTheGreat 12:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Seriously Biased Points

• Pictures - I am still wandering who has put those pictures and who is in charge of that. The Alban-Azerbaijan has made a good suggestion. If nobody is against I will put Nizami Bahmanov's picture in the web page and refer to him as the Leader of the Azerbaijani community. I will change Gujasyan's title to the leader of the Armenian community as well. He is self declared and not legitimate, therefore it is nothing more than funny to note him as 'president of the Nagorno Karabakh'. Therefore I will go on and include the picture of the leader of the Azerbaijani community in the web page. Francis, I hope this time you will be positive to this suggestion as so far you have been open only to Armenian suggestions.

• Neutrality of Francis - Francis I see that you try to be neutral, but so far you have done nothing but what Armenians wanted. Almost 90 percent of what is said in the web site is of pro-armenian. I would like to see you more neutral. I don't know who is in charge of this web page and who does the editing. Because several times even minor and factual information that I included in the web site with source provided is removed. And I don't know who did it. Can we limit the changes in this web site to one person, preferably a neutral one.

• Footnotes- almost all footnnotes used in the web page are either excessivly or slightly biased. The one that refers to the Library of Congress states " The Soviet Union created the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region within Azerbaijan in 1924, when over 94 percent of the region's population was Armenian. (The term Nagorno-Karabakh originates from the Russian for "mountainous Karabakh.") As the Azerbaijani population grew, the Karabakh Armenians chafed under discriminatory rule, and by 1960 hostilities had begun between the two populations of the region."

First of all where did this people found the 94 percent of the population were Armenian. At that time there wasn't any reliable population census. Many villages located in mountains were isolated and unreachable. How and who could carry out those population census that gives the figure of 94 percent. This source is definitaley screwed and written and dissiminated by the Armenian diaspora in US. I am hundred percent sure about this. At a time when almost the entire region has never seen an engine car, some pro-armenian people cliam that the area had 94 percent Armenian population. This is what the Armenian imagination is? So funny, so unrealistic, such a big lie. Therefore UI sggest we remove that footnote and anything that it refers to.

• Links - Out of fourteen linnks, only 3 are neutral or pro-Azerbaijani. Almost all of them unilaterally pro-Armenian or prepared with the order of the Armenian diaspora. Two of these three sites are already marked as the Azerbaijani sites, but interestingly none of the Armenian made sites are marked as Armenian sites. So questionable and strange? Why? Is Wikipedia also sold to the fundamentalist Armenian diaspora?

I will go on and mark those that are Armenian made as Armenian sites. These sites are

• Regions and territories: Nagorno-Karabakh from the BBC
• Official site of the 'NKR Ministry of Foreign Affairs'
• Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the United States
• Karabakh Entry of Armeniapedia.org - Armenian site on Nagorno-Karabakh
• Special Karabakh on Caucaz.com, Weekly Online about South Caucasus
• Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Briefing
• Nagorno-Karabakh Searching for a Solution: Key points, by Patricia Carley, Publication of the United States Intitute of Peace (USIP)
• Sovereignty after Empire Self-Determination Movements in the Former Soviet Union. Case Studies: Nagorno-Karabakh. By Galina Starovoytova, Publication of the USIP
• Nagorno-Karabakh - GlobalSecurity.org
• Nagorno-Karabakh Paper Money

• See also - In this section I don't know what are these links for. There definitaly should be a link to Azerbaijan as Nagorno Karabakh is and will be an indispensible and internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijanis lived there for thousdands of years and their children will live and rule these lands again.

• in the section with 'amnthem and so forth so called attributes of the puppet regime' the note under the Azerbaijan's map reads "Map of the region. (Orange area indicates Armenian-controlled territory)" It indeed should read the Armenian occupied territories of Azerbaijan. I will go and change it or I would like to ask Francis to correct it. This would be fair and better.

• From origins to 1917 - The page reads "Also, near the village of Tsovk, an inscription of Sardur II, King of Urartu (763-734 BC), was found, proving that his troops penetrated as far as that land, that the inscription referred to as "Urtekhini"." I don't know where this village is, second just one inscription does not prove anything. Many historical inscriptions were moved and placed in Nagorno Karabakh after the occupation masquareded as historical Armenian monuments to prove that this lands were Armenian. This thing I believe is also nothing more that the part of this work.

"In the 7th and 8th centuries, the region was invaded by Arabs, who pillaged it and converted a portion of the population to Islam. Under the Arabs, the Albanian church was subordinated to the Armenian Church, resulting in the local Albanian population gradually becoming more like Armenians in terms of religion, culture, and language. After the 8th century, Albania diminished in size, and came to exist only as the Khachin principality in Artsakh." This statement is nothing more than the Armenian myth again. The Albanian church was eliminated by direct efforts of the Armenian church and its cooperation with Arabs. It was the Armenian cnhurch which took the message to Arabs about Albanian church's cooperation with Byzantine. The Armenian church did this to acquire the possessions of the Albanian church and reclaim its territory. But it oculd achive its purpose only partially as majority of Albanians became transformed themseleves into the Azerbaijani identity and accepted Islam, but only small and isolated Albanian communities became Armenian under the assimilation policies of the Armenian church. This is the truth and history.

In the light of this facts, I again call to reword this sentence. Please also let me know the soruce of this sentence and I will come up with my source. It seems that whatever armenians could put into this web page, they managed to put it there with friendly approach of adminstrators and direct participation of ultra-nationalist Armenians and peopel from monoethnic Armenia.

• "that created a Ganje-Karabakh province (beglarbekdom, bəylərbəyliyi); and in the mid-18th century, the Karabakh khanate was formed. " We need to indicate the Azerbaijani origins of Ak-Goyunlu and Kara goyunlu as well as Safavids as ordinary visitors of the web site likely will have any idea who are these entities and I am note sure if they will have time to chech all the links given. Therefore I suggest that we indicate the Azerbaijani origins of the Karabakh khanate, Ak-koyunlu, Kara-koyunlu and Safavid dynasty.

Also words of 'Safavid dynasty of Iran' is grossly wrong. When the Safavid dynasty is formed its name was Safavids and it was an Azerbaijani state. Its Iranianization happened gradually and only after the 17th century. We again see the hands of armenians here as they want to show that the area belonged to Iran, not to Azerbaijanis. So funny and again the Armenian imagination is at work.

This is all so far, but I am looking forward to radical changes on this web page. Otherwise, it is no different than the web page of the ultra-nationalist Armenian diaspora organizations such as AAA and others including dashnakstyun. --Eagle of the Caucasus 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your very extensive criticism of the article as it stands. Regarding so far you have done nothing but what Armenians wanted, I haven't been intending to do this, if you would like to highlight specific incidences on my Talk page or in an email I would be happy to evaluate my actions. You have a lot of interesting points, but stuff like At that time there wasn't any reliable population census. really needs to have a source? Can you provide one?

You'll note that the LOC text is sourced, and as far as I am aware is attributed. This is the Wikipedia way of doing things. I've removed most of the external links, with an exception of the BBC link, the two Azeri sites and the official NKR links, most people see the BBC as a fairly neutral source, if you disagree you'll have to provide a very good case.

Again, with the footnotes, please feel free to add more neutral sources. For one, I'm surprised there is no coverage of Human rights issues in NKR [3]. I think you'd be hard pushed to call the US state department, the BBC and the LOC bastions of Armenian propaganda, thats dealing more with conspiracy theories than facts. I welcome your well sourced edits :) As a further note, if there is a statement that you disagree with that isn't sourced, feel free to add a {{fact}} tag so that participants know that they need to find a source. - FrancisTyers 18:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has been build from the over a hundred pages of discussion, from many concessions from both sides. Nizami Bahmanov is not the one that recieves international loans, but Karabakh government. The US finance Karabakh independently from Armenia or Azerbaijan, and the government there is elected democratically. Also, keep in mind something, Wikipedia does not tell what the truth is, but what is said about a subject. As for the rest of what you brought, those issues have been covered here. Fad (ix) 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Eagle, you see the article as 90% pro-Armenian, I actually see it as at least 50% Azeri propaganda. If you want to change the article, you will need to provide evidence published in reputable sources, which is the guideline for Wikipedia. Your accusations against the Armenian editors and the Armenian Diaspora (!?) being "fundamentalist ultranationalist," perpetrators of "lies," and agents of "dashnaktsutyun" are not appreciated and make no constructive contribution. I could point out the fact that much of what you say (and what appears on the article) is a result of falsifications generated by notorious Azeri historians such as Zia Buniatov, whose distortions of the history of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Iran are well known among many scholars worldwide. However I refrain from making such accusations and focus on facts, sources, and evidence, and you need to do that too. You need to do the same. Your attempts to make extensive changes will be met with fierce resistance demanding strict adherence to Wikipedia rules, which require you to back-up your claims with reputable sources. So far, your complaints about the article are not supported in the mainstream scholarship and are Azeri point of view. Namely:

• There is no evidence that Albanians are direct descendants of Azeris. Albanians were assimilated to Armenians and Iranians before Turkic tribes entered the area in 11th-18th c. Culturally, Azeris descent from these tribes.
• There is no evidence that Karabakh was originally part of the Albanian kingdom. All archeological, linguistic, and documentary evidence points to the contrary--that it was part of Armenia.
• Albanians started assimilating with Armenians long before 7th-9th centuries. After Iran abolished the kingdom in 5th century, it became a merely geographic region ruled by native Armenian Arranshahik family.
• Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu were Turkmen and not Azeri. There were no Azeris in those times, there were only Turkic tribes, some of which became ancestors of modern Azeris, whose other ancestors were later Turkic tribes. Just because Gauls of the 1st c. BC were (Partly) descendants of the French doesn't mean there were French living in Gaul in the Roman times.
• As clearly shown in Moses Kaghankatvantsi's works, Albanians requested to be under the control of the Armenian church.

Other points of yours:

• Francis has been extremely neutral, as commended by other users on this talk page, including a recent post by a European. He deleted personal attacks both by Armenians and Azeris. You notice the latter and ignore the former. That tells me that you are severely non-neutral.
• The map shows Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Karabakh, therefore it is the map of the region, and not just Azerbaijan.
• I am against you including Nizami Bahmanov's picture on the page, and I will edit and/or dispute it. Fadix provided many good reasons, and I will add a few. There is no Azeri community in Karabakh, including it on the page is like including the picture of the leader of an organization representing Western Armenians on the article about Turkey. It will be misleading and violate the Wikipedia rules of Undue Weight, portraying Karabakh as an area of shared Azeri/Armenian power (like Cyprus), which is not true. As Fadix stated, Ghukasyan is the president of NKR, he is treated as the leader of NKR by Armenia and by every organization dealing with Karabakh--they are not dealing with Bahmanov. Sure, he is not recognized as a president of *independent* Karabakh, but the fact that Karabakh's independence is not recognized is already mentioned. No reason to stuff that POV through pictures.--TigranTheGreat 04:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Population of Nagorno Karabakh

The population of the Nagorno Karabakh appears to be 95 percent ethnic Armenian and the course is given as the nkrusa.org (the section with puppet anthem, puppet funny flag). This is the web site of the armenian puppet regime's puppet office in USA.

The true information should refer to the pre-occupation and ethnic cleansing period. As WIkipedia puts it, "The population at that time (before the ethnic cleansing) was mainly Armenian (76%) and Azeri (23%), with Russian and Kurdish minorities." This is at least close to truth, yet questionable as the source is again armenian. Therefore I propose that Francis chnages that information as well. If nobody is against, I will go and change that. Thanks. I can't find a single accurate thing on this web page. It is as though the armenian prepared the enitre web page. I don't know somebody please tell me that Wikipedia is not owned by the fundamentalist, ultra-nationalist armenian diaspora in US or Europe. --Eagle of the Caucasus 03:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The figures reflect the actual demographics currently in place, and Wikipedia should and does reflect the current state of affairs. The article already lists that there were population transfers, including ethnic cleansing against hundreds of thousands of Armenians living in Azerbaijan in late 80's. Of course if we were to choose an artibrary point in past for demographics, we could choose the 95% Armenian population before the ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan in 1920's-70's. Or the massacre of Armenians in Shusi in 1918 or 1905. Or the massacres of Armenians by Turkic invadors in 14th-18th centuries.--TigranTheGreat 04:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

With information referring to the 95 percent armenian population in Nagorno Karabakh it seems that the puppet fundamnetlist armenian regime in Nagorno Karabakgh establishes building blocs of the future Azerbaijaniless territory through the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis. At least thanks for showing your real face. The monoethnic armenia where the hater to others and other nations is norm, tries to create a monoethnic puppet entity nearby at the expense of Azerbaijan. Belive in me ultra nationalist and fundamentalist armenians. You will never see that day. Never, ever. --Eagle of the Caucasus 18:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, those statistics exist, and are wiedly accepted... and this is what matters for Wikipedia. Fad (ix) 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Eagle, once again, the Talk page is not the place to make insults against Armenians, vent your anger against them, or make political statements. I believe that the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia should be the historical border along the river Kur, which I am confident will be the case in the future. But if I choose to express that belief, I will go to political forums. Here we discuss the article and necessary edits.--TigranTheGreat 04:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course fad and tigran. These statistics can exist only in the imagination of ultra-nationalist and fundamentalist armenians and the terrorist armenian church. I am sure they have a very good collection of statistical books indicating the population of Karabakh written on 1990 papers, but processed to give the impression of the 19th century papers. Of course, only stupids and children, and politicians who are sold to the destructive and terrorist armenian diaspora can believe in your statistics. I would suggest you and your diaspora to look for compensations in other places, not in Azerbaijani or Turksihh soils. Because instead of soil, they will get a big big big big slap and .

compliments

I would just like to compliment for what seems an integer and solid attempt to cover the conflict in an objective and factual manner. I have come across much emotionally strained and therefore unreasonable debate as well as outright propaganda from both sides since I became engaged with Azerbaijan, and am happy to have found this source. I strongly consider to add your page as the definite source on the conflict on my otherwise 'happy' Dutch link page on Azerbaijan, azerbeidzjan.startkabel.nl. What I would like to know, however, is who the moderators of this page are, and what their background and reasons for doing all this are. Frank van Schagen, Amsterdam, jasnostj@yahoo.com --84.246.5.82 11:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
PS Just one remark: Despite the extensiveness of the information, I do see some points where the uneducated reader would fall short of understanding, for example in reference to Azerbaijani presidents. The addition 'president of the Rep. of Azerbaijan from ... to ...' to their surnames would clear that out.

External Links

FrancisTyers, it seems that a number of useful external links were unnecessarily removed (which you recognized yourself by adding the COE link back:) ). I examined the link to Staravoytova's analysis on the USIP page (http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks19/chap3_19.html) and I see no reason why it should be removed. External links are used to point to extra useful information related to the article. This particular report is published by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) which is a reputable US federal entity (created by Congress, here is their information page [4]). The page provides useful in depth analysis of the issues of self-determination vs. territorial integrity, which is a vital issue for this article. Staravoytova is neither Armenian nor Azeri--she is a renowned Russian human rights activist. I am sure many Azeris consider her pro-Armenian, I personally consider the CEO report favoring the Azeri view (aftel all, COE favors the POV of territorial integrity, which by default favors the Azeri side), plus it seems the Azeri users here have requested to base the entire article on the COE report, which tells me at least they regard it as favoring their POV. But, COE is still non-Armenian, non-Azeri institution, it is reputable, and I don't think it should be removed just because I disagree with its views. Similarly just because the Azeri users disagree with something in Staravoytova's article does not mean the link should be removed. Unless it can be proven that she was acting as an agent of Armenians, there is no reason to remove it. I actually read it, and it is quite balanced and informative. I haven't had time to examine the other removed links, but I think their removal should be reconsidered as well.--TigranTheGreat 09:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Starovoytova has always been pro-Armenian and never made a secret of it. This is accepted even by her former colleagues in democratic bloc in Soviet parliament, for example Yuri Afanasyev, who said in a documentary about her that she took an Armenian side in the conflict when it began. This article in a Russian newspaper by an Armenian journalist also very well illustrates this:

In 1988, when the movement for separation of Karabakh from Azerbaijan started in Yerevan and Stepanakert, Starovoytova was considered there the most loyal and staunch supporter of this idea. While being the member of Soviet parliament (she was elected a deputy to Soviet parliament from Armenia, by the way - Grandmaster), she was also elected to Armenian parliament.

Время MN, Москва

АНУШ ЛЕВОНЯН

СИЛЫ, КОТОРЫЕ УБИЛИ СТАРОВОЙТОВУ, ДЕЙСТВУЮТ НЕ ТОЛЬКО В РОССИИ, НО И В АРМЕНИИ

Трагическая весть об убийстве Галины Старовойтовой вызвала в Армении едва ли не более сильный резонанс, нежели даже в самой России. С 1988 года, когда в Ереване и Степанакерте началось движение за выход Карабаха из состава Азербайджана, Старовойтову считали здесь самым верным и последовательным сторонником реализации этой идеи. Уже будучи депутатом Верховного Совета бывшего Союза, она была избрана также в армянский парламент. А когда военный комендант Еревана генерал Альберт Макашов в конце 1988 года лично арестовал всех членов комитета "Карабах", Старовойтова развернула в парламенте и печати действенную компанию по их освобождению.

The link to Starovoytova's article should be removed or it should be described as a source, presenting Armenian point of view.

Grandmaster 11:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, she is Russian, and her article is published by a major US government entity (USIP). She is popular among Armenians because some of her own views happen to agree with those of Armenians, not because Armenians influenced her, or that she has some cultural tie with Armenia. She didn't even speak Armenian or live in Armenia. Just like some of the views expressed in Atkinson's report (on which the CEO report is based) happen to agree with the Azeri view. She was a liberal Russian human rights activist who supported rights of the persecuted against the Soviet imperial policies--she supported the Chechens, she was popular among the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Belarus, and the the leaders of these countries mourned her death just like Armenia did. It was in this capacity as a general human rights activist that she got elected to the Soviet Parliament from Soviet Armenia--not as a citizen of an independent Armenia. She hadn't lived there, she hadn't been influenced by the Armenian environment, she had no cultural connection with Armenia, she was total stranger there--she just saw a persecuted minority in USSR and decided to defend their rights (just as those of other groups) to the Soviet government. At that time there was no Armenian or Azeri citizenship--there was just one Soviet citizenship, anyone could go anywhere and try to get elected to the Soviet Parliament. Her membership in the Soviet Parliament ended with the collapse of USSR, and so did whatever political connection she had with Armenia. Her being a member of the non-independent Armenian parliament was a symbolic gesture of gratitude by Armenia--just like if Azerbaijan gave an honorary citizenship to CoE's Atkinson. She couldn't actively serve in the Armenian Parliament, she wouldn't even understand what was going on there as she did not speak the language. She never represented, or served in independent Armenia. At the time her article was published (1998), she had long been a member in Russian parliament and an activist in Russian politics.

The way the issue of Karabakh is framed, it is impossible for anyone talking about it to be neutral--it's a "Yes or No" case. If someone says that Azerbaijan's territorial integrity should be honored (as Atkinson's CoE report), it will agree with the Azeri POV. If you say that more factors (such as self-determination) should be included in the equation, Azeris will accuse that person of being pro-Armenian. As it happens, there are those who happen to agree with one view, and those who agree with the other--we can't exclude them because we would exclude everyone. You provide articles saying that Starovoitova was pro-Armenian, I can provide articles in the Armenian and non-Armenian media viewing Atkinson's views as pro-Azeri. For example, Russian mediator Kazimirov accused the his report of being the most "single-mindedly pro-Azeri" of all European reports (http://www.azg.am/?lang=EN&num=2004121801). Even de Waal says that "the document currently views the dispute as it is seen in Baku" (and he also confirms that "Kazimirov said the draft gave a very selective history of the conflict and said it was clearly biased in favour of Azerbaijan and therefore harmful to the prospects of peaceful resolution" (http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=88). I can repost how many times Azeri users here praised the CoE report and called for it to serve as the basis of this article, which tells me that they view it as supporting their views. Yet, I don't think it should be excluded or branded as a POV link--it is adopted by a reputable institution (COE), much like Starovoitova's article. USIP didn't see her as an Armenian propagandist, it viewed her as authoritative enough to publish her article. Here is USIP's president's foreword on choosing her:

A major objective of the United States Institute of Peace is to host fellows in its Jennings Randolph Program who have the background and experience to help bridge the gap between the theory of change and conflict in the international realm and the demands of governmental policymaking. Galina Starovoitova, a fellow during 1993–94, certainly met this objective.

In this important work, Starovoitova, a trained ethnographer, examines the prominent self-determination movements in the former Soviet Union and arrives at some tentative criteria that could be used to assess their legitimacy. The need for such criteria, she argues, is apparent. In contrast to futurists' visions of the "global village," where national loyalties and borders erode under the forces of globalization and decentralization, Starovoitova points to the resurgence of nationalism in the post–Cold War era, particularly on the Eurasian continent.

Starovoitova came to the Institute soon after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when serious challenges to the integrity of Soviet successor states seemed a daily occurrence. Her experience as a Soviet legislator and a Russian government official leads her to reflect on the criteria for assessing the claims of "identity" and other groups to the right of self-determination and to propose criteria cautiously, lest they promote a chaotic explosion of new micro-states. [5]

By the way, there are things in her article that I didn't like--she says for example that Armenia should relinquish claims of unification with Karabakh, or that Russian mercenaries fought along with Armenians. Yet she gives an important analysis of the issue of self-determination, which is a crucial issue not only for this article, but also is recognized as such by USIP, according to which "The United States Institute of Peace has made the self-determination issue an important focus in its programs and publications, because so many disputes around the world arise from self-determination claims". Therefore this link is an important resource for anyone visiting this page.

What Wikipedia frowns upon are links to clearly propagandist POV pushing websites. USIP is a respectable site that can hardly be called a place of Armenian propaganda. Of course we could dissect every author for his past views and brand them as POV, or we can trust the judgment of the reputable organizations that publish and adopt the articles. This goes along the way of Wikipedia policy of avoiding original research and trusting the research already done by a respectable insititute.--TigranTheGreat 23:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on, you know very well that Starovoytova was an Armenian lobbyist from the beginning of the conflict. Not only was she the member of Armenian parliament, she was also elected to Soviet parliament from Armenia to promote interests of Armenia. It’s a known fact. And the fact that her article was published by USIP doesn’t make it unbiased, such institutions publish from time to time researches, representing Azeri or Armenian point of view. As for COE report, if you can prove the link between COE and Azerbaijan, we can reconsider inclusion of that file too. I still think that Starovoytova's article should be removed or should be described as a source, presenting Armenian point of view. Grandmaster 08:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with characterization of Staravoitova as a lobbyist for Armenian interests. Terms like "Armenian lobbyist," "elected to promote Armenian interests," or "representing Armenian POV" contain a hidden meaning suggesting a causality that I am not sure we can prove. What we need to ask is what causes what, and if we can prove it. The terms I mentioned suggest that she expressed "pro-Armenian" views because she was influenced by Armenians (say, by having lived among Armenians) or paid by them. I think it was the other way around--she didn't defend the rights of Armenians because she was elected from Armenia, but she *chose* to go to Armenia (where she didn't even live) and get elected because her *own* views (about rights of persecuted peoples in USSR) happened to agree with some of the views of Armenians. And she stopped "representing" Armenia as a deputy the moment Armenia became independent. A useful example is Human Rights Watch. HRW blames the Armenian side for the Khojalu massacre, which agrees with the Azeri POV and disagrees with the Armenian POV. The reason is not because HRW is being paid by Baku, but HRW has its own mission of fighting human right violations, and its own views of who should be blamed, and in this case they happen to agree with the Azeri POV. And in Starovoitova's case too, we are talking about a renowned human rights activist probably in the same league as Sakharov.

When we talk about proving a link between Azerbaijan and Atkinson, "link" is a loaded word. If we mean that Azerbaijan influenced/bribed/otherwise affected Atkinson, we have no proof. But we have no proof that Armenia influenced/bribed/affected Staravoitova. On the other hand, if by link we mean that Staravoitova agreed with some of Armenians' views, the same was admitted by the various invidivuals I mentioned earlier about Atkinson, who happened to choose Baku's side.

The mission statement of USIP (which I partially posted) doesn't create the impression that it is a soapbox of pro-Azeri and pro-Armenian propaganda. Their goal is to choose people "who have the background and experience to help bridge the gap between the theory of change and conflict in the international realm and the demands of governmental policymaking." In other words they want experts to analyze an important issue. It is this kind of test that makes a difference between a propaganda forum and a serious reputable source.--TigranTheGreat 09:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It’s not a simple coincidence of views on a certain subject, she was lobbying Armenians interests any way she could. There’s plenty of proof for that. Here’s some more information about how Starovoytova lobbied Armenian interests in the conflict. This is also written by an Armenian journalist. Funny, he also says that she did not lobby for Armenia, but then gives a very comprehensive summary of her pro-Armenian activities. Most of all I was impressed by this:

There are more than 10 known cases when Starovoytova together with Shelov-Covedyayev (another Armenian lobbyist - Grandmaster), chairman of the committee for pardon at the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of Russian Federation, achieved reversal of death penalty sentences for Armenians, convicted by Russian courts in 1989 – 1991 for the killings of Azeris.

- известно более 10 случаев, когда Г.Старовойтова совместно с председателем комиссии по помилованию при Председателе Верховного Совета Российской Федерации Ф.Шеловым - Коведяевым, добилась отмены смертных приговоров в отношении армян осужденных российскими судами в 1989-1991гг за убийства азербайджанцев;

Looks like killing of Azeris wasn’t such a big crime for her. Needless to say, nobody ever heard about her similar activities with regard to convicted Azeris. If this is not lobbying, then what do you call it? There are many other interesting facts in this article. For example, her role in prevention of investigation of illegal supply of $1 bln worth weapons to Armenia from Russia.

Grandmaster 10:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, did she help overturn any other death sentences (for people other than Armenians)? Because I'm fairly sure that most human rights activists would oppose the death sentence, so her helping to overturn a death sentence wouldn't be that strange, regardless of the context. - FrancisTyers 10:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That’s the problem here. As far as I know, she’s not known as a person, who fought for elimination of death penalty. And she did nothing to overturn death penalties for Azeris, who committed similar crimes, so why did she have so much interest in this issue? But the most important thing is her activity to prevent investigation of illegal weapon supplies to Armenia, which really shows her bias. As is known, Russian general Lev Rokhlin insisted on investigation of these supplies before he was killed, but she strongly opposed Rokhlin on this issue. And of course the fact that she was elected to Soviet parliament in Armenia, in addition to being a member of Armenian parliament, speaks for itself. When you represent a certain territory, you commit to promote its interests, so that was her choice of a side in the conflict. And her article is nothing but an ode to separation of Karabakh from Azerbaijan. We can keep that link, but we should add a note that this document represents an Armenian view of the problem and certainly is not an impartial research of the conflict. But the best way of selecting links in my opinion is giving each side one link to represent its point of view, and the rest should be the links to information from unbiased sources. Grandmaster 13:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that it is best to have mostly neutral links and then a couple of slightly less neutral links presenting the conflict from either side. It would be nice to steer clear of any blatantly POV links. - FrancisTyers 13:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. So now we need to decide whether we should delete the link to Starovoytova or introduce her as a representative of Armenian POV. Grandmaster 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Francis meant that Starovoitova's article was blatantly POV link. Of course he can correct me if I am in denial:) I think we shouldn't rush and should think abit more about this. You and me have had some positive editting experience here that I think should serve as a model of editting discussions between Armenians and Azeris on this page. I don't want to see either side ending up feeling like his view was treated unfairly. Maybe we should see what others have to say about this too. It's predictable what Armenians and Azeris will conclude, but it will be useful to reading their arguments. I will buzz Fadix, feel free to ask any Azeri or non-Azeri serious editors for feedback.--TigranTheGreat 13:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that wasn't my intention, see right at the end of the page for my suggestions on labelling the link. I agree with the positive editing experience. Its great to find an article where for the most part people are (in the words of some anonymous user) "tackling the problem with the cutting edge tools of Constructive Criticism and Reasoned Debate" :) - FrancisTyers 12:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I will try to cumulatively address the points raised by Grandmaster and Francis here.

Grandmaster, lobbying is a loaded word that can have different meanings in different contexts for different readers (and ambiguity is the worst enemy of neutrality). "Lobbying for Armenians" can mean "she worked and/or was paid by Armenians," which is not the case, definitely not at the time her article was written. This is explained by the Armenian journalist mentioned by you, who explains why she didn't "lobby for Armenians," -- her political position in defending Armenians' rights (the author is talking about 1988-91) "was strengthened by her position as a scientist-researcher. A deeper analysis of her point of view on the issue of the right of self-determination was made in her scientific works." ([6]). She was a leading expert on ethnic issues in USSR, she believed ethnic groups have the right of self-determination, and therefore she happened to agree with Armenians and defended their rights. In other words, the source of her views are not Armenians, it's her own research.

Of course by lobbying we could mean advancing views that agree with the views of one side. Then I ask you--when Atkinson stood in front of the CoE panel, presented the report which contains pro-Azeri views (as confirmed even by non-Armenians that I quoted), and says "I think you should adopt it," wasn't he lobbying the Azeri POV?

Now, if Starovoitova's USIP report was written when she represented Armenians in Soviet Parliament (88-91), I would agree with its exclusion. I agree with you, when you represent a group, you commit yourself to defending their interests. But few points on this. As the Armenian article states, she had been asked by Tatars and Estonians to be elected from their regions too. She chose Armenia because, as she explained later, the human rights situation there was worse (political arrests etc.). This tells me two things--a) other ethnic groups saw her as the defender of their rights, and b) she chose to temporarily commit herself to Armenian interests for objective reasons, and not because she lived in Armenia or had cultural connection or was paid by them. The main point is that the "commitment" ended in 1991 (actually before the actual war started). When the article was written, she had long been un-committed, serving as a member of Russian Parliament for 7 years.

I understand that the article says she has helped Armenians on several occasions. This doesn't mean she hasn't defended the rights of others--she is a major human rights activist. Keep in mind that the Armenian article is about what she has done for Armenians--it's not a summary of all her activities, clearly it wouldn't include her defense of other nationalities. In fact, she has helped other groups and is considered a defender of small nations. Here is an RFE report on how leaders in various former Soviet republics mourned her death--we got Estonia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, in fact she is being called "friend of all small nations":

RUSSIA'S NEIGHBORS MOURN STAROVOITOVA...

In Belarus, opposition politicians, such as Lyavon Barshchevski, deputy chairman of the Belarusian Popular Front, said the murder of State Duma deputy Galina Starovoitova marked the end of a romantic period of hopes for Russian democracy. Anatol Lyabedzka, a member of Belarus's 13th Supreme Soviet, suggested that "Russia is seriously ill, "much more seriously than we have been thinking," adding that Belarus should keep away from "the sick." Ukrainian Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk expressed shock "at the irreparable loss," while Lithuania's parliament adopted a statement characterizing the death as a "blow to Russia's democracy and a sign showing that violent and terrorist forces are becoming active" in Russia. Estonian Parliament member Igor Grazin said the bullet aimed at Starovoitova also hit Estonia, since she was a friend of all small nations. And the Armenian parliament observed a one-minute silence on 23 November in memory of Starovoitova, who had supported the 1988 movement for Karabakh's unification with Armenia. http://www.rferl.org/newsline/1998/11/1-RUS/rus-251198.asp

Your previous Russian website at [7] says that she defended the Chechens (a Muslim minority like the Azeris by the way), plus she was the Russian president's advisor on ethnic issues. All of this indicates that she in general defended the rights of persecuted minorities as an expert on minorities and as a human rights activist.

So perhaps she defended the right of Armenian prisoners accused of killing Azeris, but doesn't mean she didn't defend other prisoners. In fact the above tells me she probably did, but the article is focused Armenians. Also, we don't know the circumstances surrounding the accusations--perhaps there were mitigating circumstances warranting the overturning of the death penalty, perhaps she saw violations of the rights of the prisoners which rendered the results untrustworthy--if the Russian government overturned those sentences, there must have been a reason. The point is we don't know these things, and right now I don't have time to research further into these issues, but I am pretty sure alot can be found. That is why doing original research trying to dissect the background of the authors is messy--it's a never ending process, you find stuff supporting one side but then there is stuff supporting another story, and you don't really get the complete picture. It's much neater to trust the judgment of a reputable institution that has chosen to publish a source.

Also, about helping the Armenian prisoners--keep in mind she did it during the time when she "represented" Armenia in the Soviet parliament, and as you say, was committed to Armenian interests. So one might expect that in those times, she would spend more time defending her constituents. This commitment, was long gone when her article was written.

In connection with the investigation of the $1 billion Russian military aid to Armenia, as the article says, not only her, but Rizhkov (former Soviet Prime Minister) and other members of the parliament opposed the investigation, which was brought by general Rikhlev who, as the article says, is a known lobbyist for Azerbaijan. I say the Russian legislators didn't want to deal with Azeri propaganda sneaking to Russian politics, and ended the initiative. She certainly didn't work for Armenians at that time (this was after 1991).

By the way, just to demonstrate her impeccable reputation as a highly esteemed expert and activist on human rights, the US State Department has a fellowship on human rights named after her. This is from the State Dep' website:

The Galina Starovoitvoa Fellowship on Human rights and Conflict Resolution is awarded to prominent scholars and policy makers from the Russian Federation who seek to advance human rights and conflict resolution. Starovoitova, one of the Soviet Union's leading specialists on ethnicity, served in the Congress of the Peoples' Deputies from 1989-1991. http://exchanges.state.gov/education/2002remarks/100202.htm

So when you say that we should state that her report is not a result of impartial research, I don't think the State Department would award a Human Rights Fellowship named after her, just as I don't think United States Institute of Peace would publish her report, if she was "blatantly pro-Armenian," or if her research was flawed. Also note that neither the State Department nor the USIP say anything about her being pro-Armenian or even mention her representing Armenia in 1989-91. This tells me that these two major entities didn't consider her pro-Armenian, nor they found her being elected from Armenia relevant, for the reasons I mentioned above. So perhaps when she says in her report that "there is impressive evidence that Armenians have dominated Karabakh," maybe that's because that's what the evidence suggests, and she sees it as a scientist, not because she is pro-Armenian. Similarly, when she has helped Armenians on various occasions, perhaps that's because these occasions warranted a defense of human rights violations, and not that she works for Armenians.

Now, the reason I have a problem with this issue of links is this. There are hard-core POV links (like zerbaijan.com and cilcia.com), and there are soft-core POV links--which is pretty much the rest of them--they belong to third parties, but one way or the other support one of the sides--some favor the concept of territorial integrity (CoE report), others favor self-determination (Staravoitova). We Armenians feel it's unfair when the soft-core "pro-Armenian" side is excluded, and right now the issue of self-determination is severely under-represented to the general public. I know many Azeris don't like Starovoitova, but many Armenians were angered by Aktinson's CoE report. And you read non-Armeinains calling it "agreeing with Baku's view" and "being the most pro-Azeri of all CoE reports," and "giving selective history of the conflict." And by the way, the second USIP article that I added, in the end it concludes that Azerbaijan's territorial integrity should take precedence, which by default is pro-Azeri view.

Ideally, I don't think we should include POV explanations after links that come from reputable sites as opposed to clearly POV sites--it's messy, you open a whole can of worms. But, if you want to include an explanation, I think it's only fair to add one after the CoE report as well, something like "Observers consider the views expressed in this report to favor the Azeri side." Similarly, a NPOV explanation after Starovoitova's link would be "Solutions proposed in the article favor the Armenian side." I don't think saying "her research is not impartial" is NPOV since we dont' know that, and her being a leading expert and beign chosen by a reputable institution speaks against it. Also, I don't think saying "she represents the Armenian view" is NPOV either, since "represents" is another loaded word and may suggest "the source of her views are Armenians," which is non-provable and, to me, the sources of her views is she and her expertise.

I want to take a moment and summarize the points that have been raised so far, just to make it easier to reach a solution:

• We both agree that was elected from Soviet Armenia in 1988-91
• We agree that some of her views agree with those of Armenians.

Our dispute has been on the following:

• I don't think there is proof that she worked for Armenians, or was influenced by them, at the time of the report.
• The source of her views are not Armenians, but herself--they happen to agree with those of Armenians.
• She has defended the rights of Armenians and other nationalities because she was a human rights activist, not because she was pro-Armenian.

--TigranTheGreat 13:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

There are two facts that you can’t deny. 1. She represented Armenia as a deputy in Soviet parliament (in other words, she worked for Armenia). 2. She was a member of Armenian parliament. So now you try to prove that she was an impartial researcher, who did not favor one of the sides in the conflict, but sorry, that’s far from being truth. Of course it’s not just a coincidence that her views 100% reflected those of Armenian side. How can anyone represent one of the sides in the conflict and be neutral at the same time? Her article speaks for itself, no surprises there; it supports separation of Karabakh from Azerbaijan. We still can keep it, but it should not be represented as a neutral source, and there should be one for balance. Grandmaster 17:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with the first half, and I put that down as a point that we both agree upon--she was elected from Soviet Armenia to USSR Legislature and served there in 1988-91. If the article was written during this time, I would agree that it might represent the views of her constituency. However this committment was temporary and, when the article was written, she hadn't "worked for" Armenians for 7 years (she was in Russian Duma).

I also agree that the article speaks for itself. I think that's why a neutral adminstrator and an avid defender of the Azeri POV (Tabib) agreed that it should stay, the former considering it "quite balanced." I do agree that her solution agrees with the Armenian side, just as Atkinson's (and the 2nd USIP article's) solution agrees with the Azeri side. I think technically speaking there are no neutral sources--they will agree with one side or the other, but I think there are partisan and non-partisan sites, and Francis' division of the links seems accurate. Her biographies on the two non-partisan sites (state.gov and usip) don't say she is pro-Armenian, they say she is an expert. I think her views agreeing with the Armenian POV come from her expertise, and she had them way before she temporarily "worked" for Armenians in 1988-91.--TigranTheGreat 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

So you mean to say that as soon as she left Soviet and Armenian parliaments, she completely changed her views on Nagorno-Karabakh issue? Then how do you explain that when she was a member of Russian parliament, she did her best to prevent investigation of illegal transfer of weapons from Russia to Armenia? How neutral is that, especially considering the fact that this military support considerably helped Armenia in Karabakh war, and that Armenia protested investigation, while Azerbaijan insisted on it? Are you going to say that that was another coincidence? Then why her views never coincidently matched those of Azerbaijan and always reflected Armenian POV? I think what we should do is just to move her article to the section of views from Armenian perspective, and that’s it. Grandmaster 12:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because the article is published by the USIP, a non-partisan organisation. The link clearly states who wrote the article, and a page can be made if you think it is so important. There are two links from the USIP, both offering different perspectives, which is not surprising, considering the USIP is a non-partisan organisation. - FrancisTyers 13:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If I get you right, you say that since USIP is a non-partisan site, then the opinions published there are non-partisan as well, even if they are those of a former member of Armenian parliament and representative of Armenia in a Soviet parliament? Again, I don’t mind inclusion of this article, we should reflect all existing opinions here, I just think that we should not present them as opinions of neutral people, if they are not. Anyway, I leave the final decision up to you, we’ve been discussing this too long. Regards, Grandmaster 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page, the reponse was a bit lengthy for this already bloated section ;) - FrancisTyers 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, what I mean is that her views were the same before, during, and after her being elected from Armenia (1988-91), and they are based on her research and experise, and not influence by Armenians. It wasn't just her but many Russian parlamentarians, including former Premier, who opposed the investigation of weaponry sales which was introduced by a pro-Azeri lobbyist Russian general. The article is balanced, as been noted by prior editors. The conclusion just happens to agree with Armenian POV, since she has always been for self-determination of small nations, again before, during, and after her serving a deputy from Armenia (by the way, she only represented one district from Soviet Armenia). The fact that it's published in a non-partisan site, coupled with the test that the site employs in including articles (I quoted them) tells me that they didn't regard the article to be result of Armenian propaganda, but that of a research where conclusions side with the Armenian POV.--TigranTheGreat 02:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I just examined and added another removed external link back (Nagorno-Karabakh Searching for a Solution: Key points, by Patricia Carley, Publication of the United States Intitute of Peace (USIP), for the very same reasons mentioned above. It's from the same organization (USIP) which is neutral. The article provides much useful and well balanced information. I think Eagle of the Caucasia should realize that information cannot be removed simply because he dislikes it.--TigranTheGreat 09:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll direct you at Wikipedia:External links. We should really minimise on the amount of external links if possible, if not their POV should be explained. The external links page is quite good actually. - FrancisTyers 11:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I checked that page before making the edits (as I always do whenever I sense a Wikipedia policy may be involved--I try to adhere to those). I understand that "excessive links should be avoided as they dwarf the article," as the policy says, but I don't think the number of links deleted were even close to dwarfing a long article like this. I checked some of the featured articles (which are supposed to be the perfect ones). The Australia article has 11 external links, South Africa has 17, tiny Hong Kong has 20! Bhutan (another small country) has 13. By the way, Azerbaijan has 15. I think for an article with complex issues and rich history such as NK, 3 links--two for POV and one from BBC, is abit too little. As the policy page says, "adding a certain number of external links is of valuable service to our readers"--it's a very useful resource for anyone who will want to learn more about the important issues involving the article's content. Some of the featured articles that I mentioned divide long lists of links into subsections, which could be done here and which is recommended by the policy page: "If an article has a large number of external links, it may be helpful to use subheaders to classify them" (External_links). I think this suggests that "large" (but not "excessive") number of links may be appropriate for certain articles. It seems that the complexity of this article clearly warrants it.

I agree that POV links should be explained, and they already are on the page (the nkr.org and artsakh.com links). The policy page states this about "links dedicated to one POV"--which mainly are sites with clear propaganda agenda. USIP can hardly be called a site "dedicated" to the Armenian POV, and as I explained to Grandmaster, the fact that a reputable entity such as USIP found Starovoitova authoritative enough to publish her article shows that they didnt' see it as an Armenian propaganda piece--but a well analyzed study of the issues. --TigranTheGreat 23:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Those articles are likely to be much bigger for a start. I'm not saying we shouldn't have more links necessarily, I just think that adding blatantly POV links is not necessarily when I'm sure there is a wealth of reasonably neutral links from both sides. I don't see a point of having two links to [8] for example, or dead links, I don't think that the [9] link provides an example of brilliant prose that would be substantially better than the Wikipedia page. The [10] link was broken. For [11] ditto the flashpoints link. I was probably too bold with the edit box in removing the USIP and COE reports, and possibly the [12] link. Although, ideally there would be one link to the USIP report, not two. Note also that we have a number of footnotes which also give external links, I'm not sure if we should duplicate stuff in the External links that can be found there. Basically a lot of links is fine if they are good links, for the most part the ones I removed weren't ;) - FrancisTyers 09:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's ok to be bold, in fact Wiki policies demand that we act boldly;) If we are to have only one USIP article, I think it's best to keep Starovoitova's report since it contains something that's not repeated in other links--analysis of self-determination issue, which I think is underrepresented--most people don't even know what it's about. The second USIP article I added repeats many of the stuff found in the other soft-core pro-Azeri links including CoE--mainly that Azerbaijan's borders should remain the same, and therefore adds less to the NK article than Starovoitova's link. Also, I don't think Starovoitoval's article should be characterized as "blatantly" POV--again, I don't think USIP would publish a propaganda piece.

By the way, you mentioned about not having more than one armenopedia link. It seems both links to armenopedia are deleted. Does anyone feel like an article on tourist attractions is POV?--TigranTheGreat 13:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, by way of compromise between you and Grandmaster, I think there are two options: 1. Someone makes an article on Starovoitova (I think we have enough info ;) and then we link to that article. 2. We give a short explanation after the link as to her standing. e.g. We don't state outright that this is "Armenian POV", but we say something like "by blah Starovoitova, who was a representative for Armenians blah". My personal preference is for 1 as it can potentially give the reader more information regarding her POV. Regarding armenopedia, I didn't even read the article. I think the url could be seen as POV in itself. I do think it would be nice to have some information relating to travel and siteseeing or tourism on the page though! Does the armenopedia use GFDL? If this is the case we could summarise their article in ours. If not, it would be good to have a travel link, although one from a (this will sound crazy) more neutral source. I appreciate your patience, personally I think that the current link is no problem, but I'm sure you can imagine the uproar of having a link to armenopedia and not one to azeriopedia. PS. I read the article now and it sounds like a nice place, maybe I'll visit one day. Going back to the other point, I don't think its necessarily bad to have two USIP links, my previous reasoning is that it would be better if there were just one link to the USIP which gave a list of their articles about Karabakh, if this doesn't exist, two links is fine. - FrancisTyers 12:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In my earlier edit I made a proposal (and I explained why I find "represented" a non-NPOV/unverifiable/inaccurate word). In case it was overlooked, I will repeat it here:

Ideally, I don't think we should include POV explanations after links that come from reputable sites as opposed to clearly POV sites--it's messy, you open a whole can of worms. But, if you want to include an explanation, I think it's only fair to add one after the CoE report as well, something like "Observers consider the views expressed in this report to favor the Azeri side." Similarly, a NPOV explanation after Starovoitova's link would be "Solutions proposed in the article favor the Armenian side." I don't think saying "her research is not impartial" is NPOV since we dont' know that, and her being a leading expert and beign chosen by a reputable institution speaks against it. Also, I don't think saying "she represents the Armenian view" is NPOV either, since "represents" is another loaded word and may suggest "the source of her views are Armenians," which is non-provable and, to me, the sources of her views is she and her expertise.--TigranTheGreat 13:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there is an article on Staravoitova on Wikipedia though it's quite short. It doesn't say that she is pro-Armenian. I am just concerned that we haven't adequately researched what she has specifically done for other ethnicities, so the research so far is skewed, and if we put all that stuff in the article about, it will portray her unnecessarily pro-Armenian when in fact she is considered a defender of "small nations" in general. Her biographies on USIP and US State Department sites said nothing about her being pro-Armenian, I am not sure why a Wiki article should do the opposite.--TigranTheGreat 13:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oof, that wasn't what I was suggesting. I wasn't saying that she represented an Armenian point of view, I was trying to say that she represented Armenians, individual Armenian people (of course this may be wrong), I was trying to state something about her work (which can be sourced), not about her opinions (which can't as reliably). This would not be an observers consider thing. Besides, my first proposal was better. ;) (that was before the edit conflict). Replying to what you said now, we certainly shouldn't say that she represents an Armenian POV, but we should give a link to her article, that way people can read up on her. I propose a moratorium on notes that say "this represents x POV" next to external links. If there is a note it should just say something about the hosters, editors, etc. - FrancisTyers 13:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree--adding notes next to external links is messy, subjective, and one can go forever adding stuff to "make it more neutral"--they will become articles on their own. What matters is the editor/publisher--whether it's reputable and neutral--in this case USIP is. And needless to say, an article on Starovoitova,just as any article in Wikipedia, will need to be neutral.

By the way, here is something very interesting and useful for this discussion. I researched the history of who added the link on Starovoitova, and it appears that its inclusion was made after a compromise between an azeri user (Tabib) and a moderator named Davenbell. It appears the link was first added on April 13 by an anonymous user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=12251885&oldid=12247381, 09:51, April 13, 2005 64.136.26.225

Then Tabib complained that the links were just used as tools to provke him and were "nothing special:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=12789351&oldid=12780271, 04:32, April 25, 2005 Tabib (RV provocative edit by previously banned user Rovoam. Other editors: pls, help me in dealing with this person, as you did before. There's nothing special about these links, he's just provoking me)

Then moderator Davenbell read the article, found it balanced, and re-added:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=12790105&oldid=12789351, 11:13, April 25, 2005 Davenbelle (Tabib, I just read the NK section of this and thought it a balanced article; please keep it in the article)

Tabib agreed to keep it and added the second USIP link, which he saw as "more objective," and to me it's more pro-Azeri:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=12792091&oldid=12790105, 11:42, April 25, 2005 Tabib (Dave, ok,let's keep this, I also added another more objective article also by USIP. But, I think we should avoid overwhelming external links section, & prevent any kind of trolling & sneaky vandalism)

Now, I have read the archives, and Davenbell is quite neutral administrator. Tabib, on the other hand, is known among veteran editors of this page as fiercely pro-Azeri and actually pretty much a major POV pusher (at some point he got people believe that "Karabakh not being a historical part of Armenia is an *undisputed* axiom" and managed to put that sentence in many articles). The fact that he agreed to keep the link, after Davenbell read and saw it as neutral, is I think enough good reason to keep it and steer away from unnecessary POV labels.--TigranTheGreat 14:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, what does Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry have to do with NK, to be included in External Links? I believe External Links need to be about the subject matter of the article--in this case NK, not the general area. It's like including Armenia's official cite. Now Francis may correct me, but I think we don't duplicate sources in References and External Links--the Foreign Ministry is listed in the References.--TigranTheGreat 09:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Human.az

This site is unviewable for people who don't have Macromedia Flash installed (that includes me). As a result of that this link should not be included. See Wikipedia:External links. I would certainly not be opposed to including information with regard to human rights. e.g. [13] [14] etc. - FrancisTyers 02:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Redux

Ok, I was in the kitchen making soup and I had an idea that I hope will satisfy both parties. If you feel that it doesn't, feel free to revert me. - FrancisTyers 15:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This sounds very accurate to me, Francis, and this is precisely the kind of division that Wiki policies on External links encourage. I think there are no neutral views on this issue--by default you are either for inclusion of Karabakh in Azerbaijan or for self-determination. I think it is indisputable which sites are non-partisan or partisan, and that's what matters.--TigranTheGreat 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Map

Francis, the map added by Eagle of Caucasia is copyrighted with "All Rights Reserved," which is printed in the lower left hand corner of the image (check out the large version at http://www.mfa.gov.az/img/map_eng.gif). The image description page on Wikipedia has a free use tag added by Eagle of Caucasia, but there is nothing on the official site indicating that permission is granted to use it. As such, the picture is a copyright violation and needs to be deleted.--TigranTheGreat 04:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, this is a probable Copyright violation, I have put it up for the commons deletion process here. - FrancisTyers 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Should the image keep being potrayed on the article page while the deletion request is being processed?--TigranTheGreat 08:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. - FrancisTyers 02:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)