Talk:History of Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Protected

This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please note that protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. When editors have reached consensus on how to move forward, place a requet for unprotection at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Khosrov bey Sultanov

This is the information Tigran and Eupator try to suppress. Khosrov bey Sultanov was appointed by the Azerbaijani government as the governor-general of Karabakh. He was recognized in this capacity by the British command, who represented the Allies in the region. The text of the Circular by colonel D. I. Shuttleworth of the British Command can be found on the website of the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

The English Command declares to the entire population of the counties of Shusha, Zangezur, Jebrail, and Jevanshir that:

1. the government of Azerbaijan, by its decision of January 15, 1919, has appointed Dr.Sultanov as governor-general. He enjoys the cooperation of the English command;

7. with this communique the English Command wishes to emphasize that in order for the Governor-Genera! to fulfill the obligations placed on him, including preservation of law and order in the governor-generalship, all regulations and directives issued by the Governor-General and his bureaus must be enacted without opposition, and the English Command lends its full support to all legally adopted measures.

According to the rules, “If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account”.

If we have a look at the sources which have biases at cross purposes (i.e. Azerbaijani and Armenian ones), we’ll see that they all agree that Sultanov was appointed by the Azerbaijani government and was recognized in this capacity by the British:

Armenian source:

On January 15, 1919 the Azerbaijani government with "the knowledge of the English command" appointed Khosrovebek Sultanov governor-general of Nagorno-Karabagh, simultaneously laying an ultimatum to the Karabaghian National Council to recognize the power of Azerbaijan. [1]

Azeri source:

In order to solve these problems Khosrov bey Sultanov was appointed to the newly created general-governor's position in January 1919. Three aides from the Azeri and three from the Armenian sides assisted the governor in his work. The general-governor-administered territories included the Shusha, Zangezur, Jevanshir and the Jebrayil districts. The Armenian authorities hurried to protest against this decision of the Azerbaijanian government and having evaluated it as «violation of the territorial rights of Armenia» appealed to the commander-in-chief of the Allied forces in the Caucasus general Thompson. But Thompson, who arrived in the Caucasus in November 1918 and had already got acquainted with the situation, recognized the legitimate rights of the Azerbaijanian government with regard to its internal affairs and also recognized the authority of the Karabakh's general-governor. [2] Grandmaster 07:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Before debunking GM's distortions, it's important to note that these very events are currently subject to dispute resolution on the Nagorno Karabakh page. Instead of waiting for the end of mediation, GM decided to put in his POV version of events, clearly to start an edit war.

Now, back to contents of GM's distortions. Despite his claims, me and Eupator have precisely included the very facts that his sources (i.e. the British circular) mentions--i.e. the appointment of Khosrov. The circular--i.e. the primary document in this case, states nothing about "recognizing de-facto ownership" or "reaffirming" such ownership. It's a mere practical decision by the British to keep one individual in charge of NK and stop the fight, while the rest of the Allies decide the issue in Paris Conference. There was no official recognition of anything or anyone (which is a word with legal/diplomatic connotations). And there couldn't be, because at the time Azerbaijan wasn't recognized neither de-jure nor de-facto.

Furthermore, GM is trying to suppress the sentence "The Allies decided that the ultimate status of Karabakh was not determined, and it was pending final decision in Paris Peace Conference." This is reflected in reputable sources:

The League of Nations and the leading world powers recognized the disputed status of Nagorno Karabagh. The League of Nations neither recognized the sovereignty of the Azerbaijan Republic over Karabagh nor accepted the Azerbaijan Republic as its member-state.

http://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf --TigranTheGreat 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean to say that Sultanov was not appointed by the Azerbaijnai government? Even Armenian sources don't dispute that. British supported that decision, as is obviuos from the primary source. Grandmaster 09:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I said no such thing--I am saying that the British support/appointment is no official recognition of "de-facto" or any other "recognition." You are trying to search for a legal significance from a purely practical, temporary decision so just install someone so the fighting stops--until it is decided upon who the land should belong to.--TigranTheGreat 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Meliks

Quote from Raffi, who says exactly the same as Mirza Adigezal bey:

Из пяти господствовавших в Карабахе меликских домов лишь правители Хачена были местными жителями, а остальные, как мы видели и увидим далее, были переселенцами из других мест. [3] Grandmaster 11:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. But Raffi says nothing about Kachen rulers claiming descendance from Albanian kings, so that part will need to be attributed to the Mirza guy. I still don't think a publication of the Azeri Academy of sciences is the best source, but for now I will agree to its use.--TigranTheGreat 13:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There's an English translation of this book by George Bournoutian from the same edition by the Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences. Russian translation is made by the Russian scholar Leviatov from the original, kept in Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences. This book is considered one of the most important primary sources on the history of Karabakh. Grandmaster 10:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Could someone work on the grammar for this article please? With all the time spent debating the history of karabakh, you would think there would be time to fix grammatical errors. With all due respect of course.

You do know you can fix the errors? Nareklm 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason for the tag

The article is poorly sourced. Most references are to the website of Armenian separatists and some book published in Yerevan, which clearly contradict the rule that the sources should have no bias. Grandmaster 04:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific as to what issues you're exactly disputing? --Mardavich 06:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The article (1918-1920) is based exclusively on primary sources. The cores primary sources are really published in 1992 in Yerevan. Article is made with the maximal care. If someone has others primary sources, to it nothing prevents to insert them into article.Sfrandzi 16:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The references number 1-5, 7-9, 16, 17, 24,25 27, 33, 38-53, 57-63, 67-68, 70-71, 75-77 are armenian sources, which are not reliable, as Armania is a part of the conflict in question. Considering some links that do not work, it is more than 50% of article, especially the part about ancient history of Armania is fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.71.185.151 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugly article

This article needs to be compressed in length and needs a proper, concise introduction on the region and its history. The 1918-1920 section is so long that I doubt anyone would would to even look at it. Its been on my to do list, but consider compacting Karabakh's history like so: History of Nagorno-Karabakh (1822-1917), History of Nagorno-Karabakh (1918-1923), History of Nagorno-Karabakh (1923-1991), etc. This article shouldn't include more than two paragraphs on each section.--MarshallBagramyan 21:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is extremely bad, it needs a thorough clean-up. Most facts are not verifiable from reliable sources. We can split it up as well, but before doing that we need to check the article and remove POV stuff, and see what's left after that. Grandmaster 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Udis

The town of Nij always had Armenian population who lived side by side with their Udi neighbors – both Greek Orthodox Udis and the “Armenian” Udis (Հայ Ուտիներ) who belonged to the Armenian Apostolic Church. Not surprisingly, one of the most prominent leaders of the Armenian liberation movement and a freedom fighter – Sargis Kukunian – was born in Nij. In 1890, Kukunian led the first armed expedition into Turkish Armenia.

native utis from the village of Nij Utik was a province of Caucasian Albania. The people of Utik are known today as udis. Nij is the largest existing settlement of udis. This is not an original research, but verifiable info. [4]

Raffi says:

Мелик-Бегларяны — коренные утийцы, из села Ниж. Какие обстоятельства принудили их оставить родину, перебраться в Карабах и поселиться в гаваре Гюлистан, — об этом история умалчивает. Известно только, что первый переселенец, которого тюрки называли «Кара-юзбаши» («Черный сотник»), а армяне — «Черный Абов», был человеком не простым:** на своей родине он имел состояние и правил народом. [5]

Melik Beglaryans were native utis from the village of Nij. The history does not reveal which circumstances forced them to leave their motherland, move to Karabakh and settle in Gulistan region. It is only known that the first migrant, who was called Kara yuzbashi by the Turks and Black Abov by the Armenians was not an ordinary person - he was a wealthy man and ruled the people in his motherland.

So please do not delete verifiable info. Grandmaster 11:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Utik was a province of Armenia (the 12th province, to be exact). It's people were Armenians. "Utiytsi" could mean Armenians from Utik. Your translation is biased. Please do not assume facts.--TigranTheGreat 18:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please cite your sources about population of Utik and Nij. And how my translation is biased? Provide yours then. Grandmaster 05:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please site yours. I already provided it.--TigranTheGreat 17:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. And you provided no sources whatsoever. Grandmaster 05:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster and Tigran, your continuous arguments have led this article to be closed. I say we discuss our issues with this article below. -- Clevelander 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You provided no sources saying that Beglaryan was ethnic udi. The russian translation isn't clear whether it's "ethnic" or "from Utik." --TigranTheGreat 15:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Raffi they were native utis from the village of Nij. That's what the current version says with attribution of info to Raffi. Utik was named after the utis/udis, who composed the population of the area, and was one of the provinces of Albania, which was at times occupied by Armenia. But that's a different issue. Grandmaster 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming that everyone in Nij was udi. Without the Armenian original of Raffi's text, we cannot decide in favor of one possible meaning of the word "utiytsi" against another.

By the way, here is my translation (differences in bold):

Melik Beglaryans had their roots going back to Utik, and were from the village of Nij. The history does not reveal which circumstances forced them to leave their birthland, move to Karabakh and settle in Gulistan region. It is only known that the first migrant, who was called Kara yuzbashi by the Turks and Black Abov by the Armenians was not an ordinary person - he was a wealthy man and ruled the people in his motherland. --TigranTheGreat 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Udi-speakers in present-day Azerbaijan are located in the rayons of Qabala and Oguz. None to my knowledge live in the area of the former Utik region, which had an eastern frontier that was defined by the Kura River. Seeing as how Qabala and Oguz are located beyond the Kura, then the assertion that the Melik Beglaryans were Udis and not Armenians makes no sense geographically. Therefore, I believe that Tigran's translation is probably more accurate. -- Clevelander 20:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We won't know for sure without the Armenian original of Raffi. So I say until then, just leave out the Uti/Utik part. The Russian word "Utiytsi" can go either way. GM "tweaked" the translation here and there, which I believe moved the whole meaning away from Raffi's original meaning. E.g. he eliminated the comma between "Utiytsi" and "from Nij," whereas I think the comma seems to separate melik's birthplace--Nij, from his ancestral home--Utik. He chose "native Udi" for "korennoy Utiytsi,"--whereas simple etymology makes it clear that "native," from latin "natio," (birth), has more to do with birthplace, while "korennoy" uses the Russian word for "root"--implying ancestral roots. Similarly, he chose "motherland" for "rodina," while "rodina" uses the Russian root word "rod" for "birth"--i.e. someone's birthland/homeland (which can be different from ancestral land).

Ironically, the source here is Armenian historian Ulubabyan quoting Raffi (the one used in the article)--and I have Ulubabyan's book who states that while all the Meliks had moved in from outside of Karabakh, they all originated from Karabakh's Armenian Aranshahik dynasty--i.e. Karabakh was their ancestral land.--TigranTheGreat 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My translation: Коренные утийцы = native utis. Коренной is translated as native, aboriginal, indigenous. Родина = fatherland. Check Russian dictionaries. No need to invent the wheel. This is the link to the best electronic Russian dictionary: [6] I don’t understand how it does not make sense geographically, if they were from the village of Nij, which to this day is populated by udis. Uti does not necessarily mean that they were from Utik, a province named after Utis, as udis lived in most of the territory of Azerbaijan before the Arab conquest. Native uti means just that – native uti (or udi). Grandmaster 16:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my point was that wouldn't make sense if he lived in Utik geographically because the Udis never lived in that region. But if what you say is true and the text indicates that he lived near Shirvan in a village known as Nij, then he most likely was a Udi. Still, the assertion that the Udis came from Utik makes very little geographic sense (despite the similarity in names). --

You live in Ohio, so most likely you are Ango-Saxon (I am just using your logic).

I'm sorry, but the United States is much more different than the South Caucasus. First of all, there isn't one predominate ethnic group in the country, it's a mix, a melting pot. If you must know, though, most Ohioans claim German ancestry (and this is because of its history). The South Caucasus are different because the region was home to numerous civilizations and nation-states. Utik could not have been populated by Udis because most Udis have historically lived beyond the former region's borders. Aside from this, there is no source that confirms that the Udis were from Utik. -- Clevelander 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree about population of Utik. Now, are you saying that, unlike in the US, no single town in South Causacus has had mixed population? If the answer is no, then we can't conclude MB's ethnicity based on where he lived. And "most likely" doesn't cut it, since otherwise you would be "most likely" German.--TigranTheGreat 08:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't doubt that there are mixed populations within the area (there certainly are). I was saying that there were points in history where areas in the South Caucasus were purely made of nation-states. I believe that the Udi-habited areas were this way at one point. In contrast, the United States has always been a diverse community. This was the case even before the American Revolution - there were English, Dutch, Germans, Scots-Irish, French, Africans, Natives etc. In fact, the largest city in the United States (New York City) was founded by the Dutch as "New Amsterdam." -- Clevelander 12:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about 14-18th cc. Do you believe after all the invasions and migrations, no other ethnicity lived along with Udis?--TigranTheGreat 13:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I never doubted that there were. I'm saying that originally that the Udis did not come from Utik. -- Clevelander 17:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if what GM says is true, the current version makes perfect sense. GM thinks Udis originated from Utik.--TigranTheGreat 22:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear up a confusion that I noticed. I don't think Raffi is saying that MB lived in Utik. I believe he could be saying that MB was originally from Utik, albeit he lived in Nij. We won't know for sure without Raffi's original Armenian text, and we shouldn't make guesses just because our source isn't good.--TigranTheGreat 23:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Utik had udi population and was named so after udis or utis, one of the Albanian tribes. It is kind of a common knowledge. Udis did not live only in Utik, they populated most of the territory of Caucasian Albania and were the largest and most influential tribe out of 26. So yes, they lived in Utik and other parts of Caucasian Albania and live in Nij to this day. You can see that udis lived in Ganja and Karabakh even in 17th century, Armenian sources attest to that:

Some man from the tribe of alvans, who are now called udis, from the alvanian town of Gandzak, went to the holy monastery of Gandzasar, where the residence of alvanian catholicos is located, and became a disciple of Catholicos Ovannes.

Zachariah Kanakertsi. Chronicles.

Некий человек из племени алван, которых ныне зовут удинами, из алванского города Гандзака, отправился в Святую обитель Гандзасара, где находится престол алванского католикоса, и стал учеником католикоса Ованнеса.

Закарий Канакерци. Хроника. [7]

But again, Utik has nothing to do with Melik Beglaryan. He was from Nij in Shirvan, which had and still has Udi population, so uti/udi is ethnicity and not reference to Utik. So interpreting Raffi’s words “native udis” as “natives to Utik” is wrong. Utik is not mentioned in the source. Grandmaster 16:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt that "Utik was populated by Udis" is a common knowledge, considering the existence of variety of views on the issue. One Udi in Gandzak in 17th c doesn't mean it was choke full of Udis. As to whether Raffi mentions Udis or someone from Utik, it is not clear from the translated source, and we can't assume "Udis" unless we have the Armenian original. He could be "from Nij" (living in Nij), but at the same time "originating from Utik" (i.e. he, or his ancestors were born there). I am from Los Angeles, but I am native of Armenia.--TigranTheGreat 04:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He was an uti from an udi village of Nij in Shirvan, and not from Utik. It’s quite obvious that he cannot refer to Utik, as Nij is not located in Utik. Raffi calls him a “native uti” from the village of Nij. Utik is never ever mentioned. I only suggest to provide an accurate quote from Raffi. Your current edit says: “Melik-Beglaryans of Gulistan were native to Utik”. Raffi does not use the word “Utik”, he uses the word “utiytsi”, i.e. utis. Therefore I replace your edit with an accurate translation of the source, please don’t change the wording of the original. Grandmaster 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How did we even get into discussing Utik in the first place if it has little to no relevance to our discussion? -- Clevelander 11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tigran interpreted the text to say that meliks of Gulistan were from Utik, while the text never mentions the region. I only provided a direct quote from the source, and I think it should remain that way. I don’t think the issue is worth of such prolonged dispute, let’s just accurately quote the source. Grandmaster 11:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He uses the word "utiytsi," which means "from Utik by origin." He could have lived in Nij, but have been from Utik by origin. Therefore, I corrected your translation. Please do not change the wording of original.--TigranTheGreat 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, your quote from Zachariah calls udis "Udini." Raffi uses completely different word in RUssian--utiytsi. Clearly they are different.--TigranTheGreat 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If he was from Nij, he was an udi. Simple. The village still has udi population. Utiyets means Utian, uti. The text does not mention Utik. Please do not distort the source. Grandmaster 07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The text doesn't mention utis either. We never assume ethnicity based on one's city of residence, especially in turbulent Caucasus. If you don't want the mention of Utik, we can exclude that whole utik/uti part altogether.--TigranTheGreat 09:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolving major problems

I think that we need to re-evaluate this article. To me the most pressing issues seem to be like it needs a major clean-up and that it needs to be de-POVed if necessary. However, I have not really had much experience with this article and I'm sure that there are other more detailed issues as well. Our goal here is to highlight the problems that need to be fixed and then using User:Clevelander/History of Nagorno-Karabakh the necessary changes will be made. So, let's get down to it. What are the exact issues? -- Clevelander 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Clevelander. This article is really in a bad shape. I’m going to be away for a while and will be unable to contribute on a regular basis. But I think we may need to move article back to the version that existed before the anon added all this info which is mostly supported by dubious sources. Then we can check the info that we removed and add back those parts that are verifiable from reliable sources. Alternatively, we can keep it as it is and check the facts section by section. The current dispute between me and Tigran is with regard to ethnic origins of one of the meliks of Karabakh. I provided above a translation from the Armenian source, Raffi, where he says that meliks of Gulistan were utis (udis) and hailed from the village of Nij in Shirvan. That village even nowadays is known as the largest udi settlement in the Caucasus. You can do your own research on Nij and udis. To prevent objections of Tigran I provided a direct quote from Raffi. I think no one can object to the current wording, it attributes the information to Raffi. The info about meliks can also be verified from a Muslim source, Mirza Adigezal bey, who says the same thing as Raffi. Out of 5 meliks 4 were not natives to Karabakh and migrated there from other regions of Caucasus at different times. I will contribute more actively to resolution of this issue when I’m back. Grandmaster 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Where does Raffi mention Shirvan? Also, see above for my other comments regarding this dispute. -- Clevelander 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't. He only mentions Nij. Shirvan is mentioned by the Mirza dude.--TigranTheGreat 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he mentions Nij, which is in Shirvan and populated by udis, and Mirza Adigezal says that he was form Shirvan. Both sources agree that he was from Shirvan. Grandmaster 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The following quotes from Cornell and Walker are verifiable. And they do not contradict the Muslim sources--the Muslims simply do not mention the autonomy (for obvious reasions). Please do not remove verifiable information:

Cornell, p. 4:

In the fourteenth century, a local Armenian leadership emerged, and the Safavid Empire granted a form of autonomy to Karabakh. This arrangement lasted for almost four centuries, and a small number of influential families emerged in Karabakh, leading to conflicts of power among them.

Walker, page 40. During his time he supported the claims of Shah Tahmasp (who had fled to the Armenian wilds around Mount Ararat) against those of the Afghan invaders. An alliance was drawn up, under which David recognised the suzerainty of Persia, but was himself supreme commander in the Caucasus, with the Muslim khans subject to his orders. The value of this treaty was proved during Turkish invasions of 1723–4 and 1727.

Walker, Page 396,

Karabagh with its four Armenian principalities, achieved a wide degree of autonomy, and repelled Turkish armies on several occasions in the 1720s, notably at Ganja (or Gandsak) and Halitsor.

--TigranTheGreat 11:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Mirza Adigezal bey:

Меликам Хамсе (Хамсе — по-арабски ,пятерица’. Так называли пять меликов Карабага.) было дано повеление о том, чтобы они сбросили с шеи знати и простонародья цепи покорности гянджинским ханам и считали бы себя свободными от них и всякие свои прошения и требования направляли бы непосредственно на имя властелина (Надир-шаха).

The meliks were ordered to lose the chains of submission to Ganja khans, etc. Which means that they were subordinate to Ganja khans before.

Bakikhanov says the same, meliks were subordinate to Ganja khans before Nadir shah changed that :

Каджары — это племя Джалаирских тюрок из числа тех 200 тысяч семейств, которые были переселены Хулагу-ханом (внуком Чингиз-хана) в Персию. В Ma'acup-u султанийе (истории Каджаров) 98 сказано: Сартак — один из влиятельных людей этого племени, был наставником Аргун-хана и правителем Хорасана и Табаристана. Он имел сына по имени Каджар, от которого и пошло это племя. Часть каджаров некогда переселилась в Анатолию и Сирию. Эмир Теймур (Тамерлан) переселил 50 тысяч семейств каджаров в Кавказский край и поселил их в Эриване, Гандже и Карабаге, где они в течение времени еще более умножились. Многие из этих каджаров при сефевидских шахах были государственными деятелями и управляли Армениею и Ширваном. Это от них произошли эриванские и ганджинские ханы, из которых последние, по имени Зияд оглы, раньше были владыками земель от Худаферинского моста до деревни Шулавер, что выше Красного моста в Грузии. Когда Надир-шах добивался в Мугани персидского престола, то ганджинские ханы, преданные дому Сефевидов, воспротивились его желанию. Однако он, утвердившись на престоле, ограничился только ослаблением их власти, переселив многих из Карабага в Хорасан. Меликов же Бергушадского и Хамсинских подчинил [173] главному правителю Азербайджана. Жителей магалов Карахского из числа переселенных Хулагу-ханом и Борчалинского, поселенных на границах Грузии шах Аббасом I, Надир поручил грузинскому валию и таким образом под властью ханов ганджинских остались только окрестности города Ганджи.

Mirza Jamal Javanshir:

О ПОДДАНСТВЕ, ДРЕВНИХ ОБЫЧАЯХ И ПОРЯДКАХ КАРАБАГСКОГО ВИЛАЙЕТА

Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку. Хотя и до правления покойного Надир шаха среди илатов Джеваншира, Отузики, Баргушата и пр. имелись мелкие ханы, но и все они были подвластны елизаветпольскому беглярбеку. Даже и после того как Надир шах завоевал Тифлисский, Ганджинский, Эриванский, Нахичеванский и Карабагский вилайеты, у жителей и войск Рума, Карабагский вилайет в течение короткого времени оставался под властью елизаветтпосльского беглярбека, а иногда подчинялся азербайджанскому сардару. Среди илатов и в магалах также были ханы и мелики, которые исполняли государственную службу по поручению азербайджанского сардара. Такое положение существовало до 1160 мусульманского года, соотвествующего 1743 христианскому году, когда был убит Надир шах.

We cannot ignore all the above authoritative sources in favor of modern and biased researchers such as Walker. Grandmaster 11:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the last source clearly states that at the times of Safavids meliks were subordinate to Ganja khans. So the current version clearly contradicts available sources. Grandmaster 11:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How? We are saying that they were subordinate to Ganja.--TigranTheGreat 11:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your current edit:

While initially subordinate to Persia's Ganja khanate (ruled by Ziyad-oglu Qajars), the Armenian meliks were granted a wide degree of autonomy by the Safavid Persia over Upper Karabakh, maintaining control over the region for four centuries,[14]. In the early 18th century, Persia's Nadir shah took Karabakh out of control of Ganja khans in punishment for their support of Safavids, and placed the region directly under his own control. At the same time, the Armenian meliks were granted supreme command over Caucasus, including over Muslim khans, in return for the meliks' victories over the invading Ottoman Turks in 1720's.

The sources don’t support the statement that meliks had autonomy, on the contrary, they say that under Safavids the region was subordinate to Ganja khans. And supreme command over Caucasus is a fairy tale, supported by no other source except Walker, which is well known for its pro-Armenian bias. To have those statements in the article you need more than one authoritative source to support them. Grandmaster 11:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can a region be both autonomus and subordinate to another power? Cornell supports the autonomy.

The fact that that David Bek established a virtually independent principalitly in the early 1700's is a well known fact. There is no rule about using more than one authoritative source. --TigranTheGreat 11:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The rules recommend to use more than one source to support the claims. And why should we take Cornell over 3 authoritative sources? I will apply for mediation as we are getting nowhere. Grandmaster 12:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

1) because he is your favorite source, 2) because he is pro-Azeri, 3) because the 3 other sources are not authoritative (they are biased Muslims), 4) because the 3 sources are published in baku, by Azeri ultranationalist historians (such as buniatov). I have agreed to their inclusing, if we include other sources as well. Both Cornell and Walker state that they are autonomous.

And by the way, we are not taking Cornell and walker over 3 other sources--we are including them all. A region can be both autonomous and subordinate.--TigranTheGreat 12:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked Francis to mediate, I hope he would be so kind as to help us resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 12:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see what is the dispute to mediate. We are saying both--that it was autonomous, and that it was subordinate. What's the problem?--TigranTheGreat 12:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This claim is simply ridiculous:

At the same time, the Armenian meliks were granted supreme command over Caucasus, including over Muslim khans, in return for the meliks' victories over the invading Ottoman Turks in 1720's

As if meliks could rule all the Muslims khans and Georgian kings without the knowledge of the latter. How come no Muslim chronicle mentions these "supreme rulers"? Grandmaster 12:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A region can be both autonomous and subordinate, however I've checked the reference and don't see where it discusses that. Could you give the quotation, in case I missed it. - Francis Tyers · 12:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"At the same time, the Armenian meliks were granted supreme command over Caucasus, including over Muslim khans, in return for the meliks' victories over the invading Ottoman Turks in 1720's. " -- can we get the quotation that supports this from the book. I'm unable to access it easily. - Francis Tyers · 12:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are quotes both from Cornell, and Walker:

Cornell, p. 4:

In the fourteenth century, a local Armenian leadership emerged, and the Safavid Empire granted a form of autonomy to Karabakh. This arrangement lasted for almost four centuries, and a small number of influential families emerged in Karabakh, leading to conflicts of power among them.

Walker, page 40. During his time he supported the claims of Shah Tahmasp (who had fled to the Armenian wilds around Mount Ararat) against those of the Afghan invaders. An alliance was drawn up, under which David recognised the suzerainty of Persia, but was himself supreme commander in the Caucasus, with the Muslim khans subject to his orders. The value of this treaty was proved during Turkish invasions of 1723–4 and 1727.

Walker, Page 396,

Karabagh with its four Armenian principalities, achieved a wide degree of autonomy, and repelled Turkish armies on several occasions in the 1720s, notably at Ganja (or Gandsak) and Halitsor.

Both books have been discussed extensively on the NK talk page during our prior dispute.

Christopher Walker, "Armenia--survival of a nation," London, 1990.

Cornell's work (which is quite pro-Azeri) is here: http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/1999_NK_Book.pdf

--TigranTheGreat 12:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and David Bek in one of the quotes above was the most powerful Armenian melik at the time.--TigranTheGreat 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can provide a translation of my quotes from the above 3 Muslim chronicles, they all say that Armenian meliks of Karabakh were subordinated to the khans of Ganja until Nadir shah punished rulers of Ganja for their support of rival Safavid dynasty and took Karabakh out of their control and subordinated meliks to the ruler of Iranian Azerbaijan province (or directly to himself according to Mirza Adigezal). Grandmaster 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As for Walker, he is known for his extreme pro-Armenian bias, which is mentioned by none other than Cornell, to whom Tigran refers. Grandmaster 12:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and we are saying all that. But we are not limitted only to what the 3 Muslims say. They were first subordinate to Ganja, while autonomous. Then, Nadir subordinated the Muslims to them, while subordinating the Armenians to himself directly. Clearly, no single source is going to state ALL the events--some skip some, others skip others. Here, we combine them all.--TigranTheGreat 12:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Walker's views are your own. Cornell is pro-Azeri. the Muslims are clearly pro-Muslim. The chronicles are published in Baku by Zia Buniatov (ultranationalist Azeri historian). We are using them all.--TigranTheGreat 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good references. I don't see a problem with the following:

While initially subordinate to Persia's Ganja khanate (ruled by Ziyad-oglu Qajars), the Armenian meliks were granted autonomy by the Safavid Persia over Upper Karabakh, maintaining control over the region for four centuries,

Note: removed "wide degree" as sources conflict, and they both agree on "autonomy". - Francis Tyers · 13:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Meliks were autonomous in the management of their respective constituencies (tax collection and etc) and religion but subordinate to the Khans (Gandja and then Karabakh) in their foreign policy and defence. I guess if this can be diffirentiated, we are ok. --Ulvi I. 13:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am against this new user's participation here. He is clearly biased, and just appeared here to exacerbate the dispute.--TigranTheGreat 13:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no conflict between sources. "Autonomy" and "wide autonomy" are consistent. we are using one to supplement the other.--TigranTheGreat 13:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They aren't consistent. One is more autonomy than the other — would you agree that "narrow autonomy" is the same as "autonomy" without adjectives? - Francis Tyers · 13:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but I would agree that "autonomy" is inclusive of "narrow autonomy." Just like "animal" and "cow" are consistent. " I ate a cow" doesn't contradict "I ate an animal"--TigranTheGreat 13:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the sources conflict. One says simply "autonomy" and one says "wide autonomy". We should go with the thing that is the same in both... which is just "autonomy". - Francis Tyers · 13:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And can we undo this Ulvi dude's edits here and in Shusha? Sounds like a Tabib clone.

How have you been by the way, Francis?--TigranTheGreat 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Has Tabib been editing this article recently? I'm not sure we can undo without a confirmed sock check. - Francis Tyers · 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically graduated my degree and am working in London while I wait to apply for a PhD in February. :) - Francis Tyers · 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ulvi has a history of getting involved in disputes and making them worse. Here is a plea by admin Sarah requesting that he remove himself from another dispute involving GM [8].

And I must say, Sara Ewart's evidence of Ulvi's sockpuppetry is pretty good.--TigranTheGreat 13:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to undo his edits here and on Shushi.--TigranTheGreat 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. How was romania?--TigranTheGreat 13:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a slightly shortened translation of the quote from Mirza Jamal Javanshir, a contemporary Muslim historian:

Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку. Хотя и до правления покойного Надир шаха среди илатов Джеваншира, Отузики, Баргушата и пр. имелись мелкие ханы, но и все они были подвластны елизаветпольскому беглярбеку. Даже и после того как Надир шах завоевал Тифлисский, Ганджинский, Эриванский, Нахичеванский и Карабагский вилайеты, у жителей и войск Рума, Карабагский вилайет в течение короткого времени оставался под властью елизаветтпосльского беглярбека, а иногда подчинялся азербайджанскому сардару. Среди илатов и в магалах также были ханы и мелики, которые исполняли государственную службу по поручению азербайджанского сардара. Такое положение существовало до 1160 мусульманского года, соответствующего 1743 христианскому году, когда был убит Надир шах.

During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja. Even though before the reign of the late Nadir shah there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. Even after Nadir shah conquered Tiflis, Ganja, Erivan and Karabakh provinces from the people and army of Rome (Turkey), Karabagh province for a short time remained under the authority of Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey, and sometimes was subordinate to the sardar (governor) of Azerbaijan. Such situation existed until 1743, when Nadir shah was killed.

As you can see, it says nothing about autonomy. Neither do the other 2. It is strange that Muslims knew nothing about that. Grandmaster 13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They knew, they just didn't like to talk about about it. They were biased in favor of Muslims. No single source will contain a complete picture of events. We use them all to fill the blanks.--TigranTheGreat 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I cite 3 authoritative sources saying a certain thing, you cite only one unreliable source. If something really happened, it should have been noted in more than one source. The rules recommend to check multiple sources. Grandmaster 13:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Autonomy is noted in more than one source--Cornell and Walker. You find cornell authoritative. I find Walker authoritative. I also find your Muslim sources unreliable--they were biased, and they are published in Baku, editted by Zia Buniatov. I only agreed to their usage if we would use other sources as well--in this case Walker etc.--TigranTheGreat 13:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis, we bored you as usual? You should have known better before getting involved in yet another mediation between me and GM;)--TigranTheGreat 13:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just went to lunch, give me a few minutes to catch up :) - Francis Tyers · 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's for sure :) Tigran, only Bakikhanov was translated by Buniatov, and no one ever complained about that particular work. Others were translated by other people (not Azeri). Mirza Jamal was transalated by Russian A. Berje, and Mirza Adigezal bey by Russian Leviatov. They all say the same thing, so we have no reason to think that something is wrong with Bakikhanov’s translation. He says the same as the other 2. Cornell and Walker don’t say the same thing, Walker claims that Armenian meliks had a supreme command over the whole Caucasus (!), which is really fantastic and should be verified from a reliable source. It is unbelievable that Muslim chronicles knew nothing about their “supreme rulers”. Neither do Georgians, btw. Grandmaster 14:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, this is what Cornell says about Walker: Armenian or pro-Armenian sources such as Christopher Walker, on the other hand, argue that the Azeris (which he terms Tatars) provoked the fighting, leading to a strong Armenian response and eventually what he terms ‘the victory of the Armenians’. Grandmaster 14:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cornell is pro-Azeri and obviously will call Walker pro-Armenian. As for your Muslim chronicles, they are published in Baku, by the Azer. Academy of Sciences. Two of the authors are definitely Turkic, all three are Muslims--they are biased, and obviously they wouldn't mention a Christial ruler.--TigranTheGreat 14:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we have some sources that mention it, and some sources that don't. I suggest we compromise. Personally, I think that Cornell and Walker are reasonable sources (albeit with their own biases). GM, can you come up with a formulation that includes both points of view? - Francis Tyers · 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the current version does already incorporate all points of views (Muslims, Cornell, Walker). It mentions that NK was suburdinate to Ganja. It also mentions that it remained so until the Nadir guy ended it. I specifically formulated it as a compromise.

By the way, David Bek (one of the meliks) was indeed placed in command of Armenian and surrounding Muslim territories. In early 1700's Turks were trying to conquer Caucasus. Armenians were the only ones who successfully reppelled their attacks (in syunik and Artsakh). Shah Tahmasp (Nadir's predecessor) recognized it, and placed David Bek (the leader of resistance) in charge of both Muslims and Armenians, and it proved even more useful--Turks were thrown out of Caucasus altogether. David Bek was even granted the right to make his own money. This is mentioned in the book by Stepanos Shahumyan, an eyewitness who is the best primary source for the anti-Ottoman campaign. He quotes Shah Tahmasp's order, which in turn is quoted by Bagrat Ulubabyan, who is the leading authority on Karabakh in Armenia, and the editor of the Armenian book (by Raffi) which has been used by Grandmaster in this article. --TigranTheGreat 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I just looked through the 3 Muslim sources, and there is another reason why they do not talk about Davit Bek (in addition to bias). Their stories start after Caucasus was liberated from Ottoman Turks--i.e. Davit Bek had been named supreme commander of Caucasus before their stories start. These sources primaly deal with the 2nd half of the 18th century--at that time, Armenian Meliks had weakened. In other words, different sources deal with different time periods, so we use them all to complement each other.

By the way, one of the authors, Mirza Jivanshir, was the vezir (deputy) of Karabakh's Panah khan, who was a sworn enemy of Armenian meliks. So, the pro-Muslim bias is even more obvious. If we are using the Muslim chronicles, it's only fair to use Walker.--TigranTheGreat 02:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don’t mind using Cornell and Walker, if we use them throughout this and other articles. I would like to remind everyone that both Cornell and Walker stated that NK was left by the Soviets within Azerbaijan, and it was Tigran who rejected references to those 2 sources. I don’t think we should use the sources selectively, i.e. only when they suit a certain purpose. As for the Muslim sources that I quoted, whatever is known about the history of Karabakh khanate is based on them. Like them or not, there are no alternatives. All the scholars, Azeri, Armenian and international, refer to them, as far as I know an Armenian scholar Burnatian even translated Adigezal bey into English and published his book in the US. So I really would like to see a better scholarly source than the 2 cited by Tigran to say that Armenian meliks had an autonomy, while being at the same time subordinated to the rulers of Ganja. And the statement of Walker that meliks had a supreme command over the whole Caucasus is nothing but a fairy tale and requires a better sourcing. I mean it is absolutely impossible that minor feudals of Karabakh could be in charge of all Muslim and Georgian rulers, one pro-Armenian source is not enough to have that statement included. Grandmaster 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, both Mirza Adigezal and Mirza Jamal were viziers to Karabakh khans and therefore had a through knowledge of the region and are considered highly valuable and unique historical sources. They were not anti-Armenian, as ethnic nationalism did not exist at the time. In fact, Adigezal bey was a very close friend of ethnic Armenian general Madatov, which he describes in his book. So calling him anti-Armenian is not accurate. Grandmaster 06:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it is worth noting here that leaving something out (for example of the Muslim sources) does not mean that it contradicts. Now then, I really can't see where your dispute is, we have two sources that discuss this, Cornell, and Walker. Walker is pro-Armenian, granted -- so we shouldn't just take him blindly at his word. But Cornell isn't clearly pro-Armenian and he says almost the same thing (that it was granted "a form of" autonomy). Now, two scholarly sources is quite enough for something to be included -- if we can find more, all the better, but it isn't necessary. GM, if you can find sources that clearly state the region was either not autonomous (this is kind of difficult to find a source with !x), or was under a different kind of autonomy etc. then that would be great. But we're not going to just throw away two sources. Personally, I think that "left in Azerbaijan" is fine, but we can leave that to the other article. It would be nice if we could be consistent across articles, but that would be a hell of a lot of work, and not something I'm willing to take on. Perhaps an Armenian-Azerbaijani co-operation board is in order for this to happen (like the Greek-Turkish co-operation board). - Francis Tyers · 09:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As GM omitted, Walker also states "NK was joined with Azerbaijan." I hightly doubt he would use it. We can use sources selectively, if we use the pure facts and leave out their POVs. "left in" or "annexed to" is POV. "so and so was placed under command of so and so" is a statement of fact. Unless we say Walker lies, which would be odd, considering he is a reputable historian, we can use facts mentioned by them.

Muslim fundamentalism and religios hatred was rampant in the 18th century. There is no surprise that Muslim authors (who served the enemies of meliks) were biased.

Finally, the Muslims discuss the Karabakh khanate. All this stuff happened before karabakh Khanate. And yes, tiny number of Armenians did defeat Turks and rule over much of Caucasus, just as "tiny" Armenians defeated Azerbaijan in 1990's.--TigranTheGreat 09:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bakikhanov was not a fundamentalist Muslim, quite the contrary, he was a poet who wrote an ode to Pushkin’s death and was against religious zealotry. And if Adigezal bey hated Christians, how come he was dear friends with Armenian Madatov and served as a Russian official? You are not well familiar with who those people were. From Adigezal bey:

Меликам Хамсе (Хамсе — по-арабски ,пятерица’. Так называли пять меликов Карабага.) было дано повеление о том, чтобы они сбросили с шеи знати и простонародья цепи покорности гянджинским ханам и считали бы себя свободными от них и всякие свои прошения и требования направляли бы непосредственно на имя властелина (Надир-шаха).

The meliks were ordered (by Nadir-shah, the ruler of Persia) to remove from the necks of nobility and common people the chains of submission to Ganja khans, consider themselves free of them and direct all their requests and claims immediately to sovereign (Nadir-shah).

Which means that they were subordinate to Ganja khans before and had no autonomy before Nadir shah removed them from authority of Ganja khans.

Also some quotes from Tigran from the discussions we had at NK article: [9]

Who is Cornell that we should rely on his opinion of historical events? He is not a historian.

Neither Cornell nor COE are authoritative when it comes to history.

Just because Cornell is published doesn't mean he is an authority in history. Dr. Phil is published too, doesn't make him a historian.

Looks like Tigran changed his opinion about Cornell, which means we can use Cornell as a historical source from now on. Grandmaster 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that they were "under submission" does not necessarily mean that they didn't have a "form of autonomy". - Francis Tyers · 12:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let’s combine the sources into one, something like:

Subordinate to Persia's Ganja khanate (ruled by Ziyad-oglu Qajars), the Armenian meliks were granted a certain degree of autonomy by the Safavid Persia over Upper Karabakh. In the early 18th century, Persia's Nadir shah took Karabakh out of control of Ganja khans in punishment for their support of Safavids, and placed the region directly under his own control.

This should be referenced to a person whom Tigran considers to be incompetent in history. But I think we should have no problem using Cornell as a historical source further on. Grandmaster 12:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise. - Francis Tyers · 12:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But I object to inclusion of the following line:

At the same time, the Armenian meliks were granted supreme command over Caucasus, including over Muslim khans, in return for the meliks' victories over the invading Ottoman Turks in 1720's.

This comes from only one source (Walker), which is not reliable. The rules recommend to cross-reference extraordinary statements from various sources. Grandmaster 12:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What are the sources which are supporting this assertion. I think "supreme command" probably needs to be toned down, but if we have the sources... - Francis Tyers · 12:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the quote provided by Tigran:

Walker, page 40. During his time he supported the claims of Shah Tahmasp (who had fled to the Armenian wilds around Mount Ararat) against those of the Afghan invaders. An alliance was drawn up, under which David recognised the suzerainty of Persia, but was himself supreme commander in the Caucasus, with the Muslim khans subject to his orders. The value of this treaty was proved during Turkish invasions of 1723–4 and 1727.

Tigran's other source, Cornell calls Walker a pro-Armenian researcher. We cannot use such a person as a sole evidence. Grandmaster 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if Tigran finds another source we can include it. - Francis Tyers · 13:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Walker's assertion should be enough. Walker is a reputable historian. If we are including assertions by Muslims, Walker is a fair game. Up to this point, GM has followed the logic that "if a fact is verifiable, then it's ok to mention," and I have respected that. No need to create a new rule (about something to be mentioned in 2 sources for inclusion). If you want to phrase "supreme command" differently, I am open to suggestions, but the basic fact that he was in charge of Muslims as well must be mentioned.

By the way, abit about how meliks became in supreme command. It's all historical facts. In the early 1700's, Turks invaded Iran. Local Muslim Shia khans were scared to death. Only Armenians were able to defeat the Turks. Karabakh meliks allied themsleves with princes of Syunik etc. The Shah was impressed and put them in charge of the resistance. Muslims were subordinated to them too, which they didn't mind, considering the Turkish threat. Meliks were even given the right to mint their own money. --TigranTheGreat 03:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice fairy tale, but we need authoritative sources to support that. I remind you that your other source Cornell considers Walker to be pro-Armenian and not an impartial researcher. So the reference to Walker cannot be included. Check Bakikhanov, who’s one of the main sources on the history of South Caucasus, he describes the reign of Nadir shah and his military campaigns in much detail, but says nothing about Armenian meliks. At the same time, Georgian rulers are often mentioned, so if Bakikhanov had a prejudice against Christians, it would have affected Georgians as well, wouldn’t it? Grandmaster 06:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He can be included, as he is a reputable historian, regardless of his bias. Just because Bakikhanov doesn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You think Walker just made it up? I don't. Find some sources that dispute it, or we must include it (albeit after being rephrased) -- two sources is enough. And I can understand your frustration, that sometimes Tigran accepts these sources and sometimes doesn't, but for the moment that isn't my problem. If you want to start some kind of project or noticeboard for Caucasus issues in order to come up with a set of sources that can be agreed with, go ahead. But it sounds like a lengthy prospect to me. - Francis Tyers · 08:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that it was kind of a wishful thinking of Walker. I mean, he’s the only source claiming that Karabakh meliks (very minor feudals) were made supreme commanders over the whole Caucasus, which is really an extraordinary claim that requires better evidence. I think that if that indeed was the case, the Muslim people would have known about it and Muslim chronicles would have mentioned it, but none of the three that I quoted knows anything about it. One cannot say that it was because of the Muslim bias because they have no problem mentioning Georgian conquests, etc. So as you said above, if Tigran can provide another source to support Walker, I think that we can include that. In any case, Tigran has a very selective approach to quoting sources, he rejected Walker when he said that NK was left within Azerbaijan, and rejected Cornell claiming that Cornell cannot be used as a historical source, but now he quotes the same Cornell as a reference for the History of Karabakh. I don’t think that it is a fair play, and I don’t think that such approach can help resolve the disputes. We should agree that we include only the facts on which more that one reliable source agrees. We had some sort of a deal with Clevelander about sources on Nakhichevan, which helped resolve many of the problems. It may work here as well. Grandmaster 11:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We can (and probably should) change the wording of "supreme commanders". Tigran accepts this. I would love another source, but Walker is reputable so should probably go in. Try and make a formulation that includes both points of view. Perhaps something like "according to Walker, Armenian meliks had command ..., however this is not mentioned in other texts of histories of the region, for example in Bakikhanov, foo, bar." - Francis Tyers · 11:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis, you noticed GM's "frustration" with my choice of sources. I am quite frustrated with his application of double standard, which has reached its highest level in this dispute. Cornell has been his favorite source throughout Wikipedia, and now it's my source? He has relied on both Walker and Cornell before, and now he wants to preclude it just because he doesn't like what they say? He has been adamant about copying quotes verbatim, and now he doesn't like the wording of the sources? Come on.

About my choice of sources--the reasonable rules to be followed are these:

1. If a reputable source mentions a fact, and others don't deny it, we mention it. (the whole "standard of inclusion on Wiki is verifiability" rule).
2. If sources conflict, we present different sides as positions (with "according to etc.")
3. If a source has POV, we either neutralize it, or present it as POV, along with other POV's.

Here, we have 3 unconflicted facts--autonomy, that it was wide, and that Armenians were placed in command over Muslims. I haven't asked the "according to" part to be attached to GM's Muslims sources, so there is no need to attach it to Walker's fact. Beyond this, I will agree to different wording (which is more than GM has agreed to in the past). If you want to tone down "supreme commanders" and "whole of Caucasus" part, we can say "they were placed in command of Armenian principalities and surrounding Muslim khannates." But the basic facts should be included. This shouldn't even be a dispute. The dispute on Shushi has some merit--this one doesn't.--TigranTheGreat 10:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First of, you yourself previously rejected Cornel as a source on the history of Karabakh, now you refer to him as a source on the same History of Karabakh. You rejected Walker as a source when he said that NK was left within Azerbaijan, now you refer to him as a sole source for a highly dubious statement. You use a double standard rejecting sources when they don’t support your position and referring to the same sources when they do. This is not acceptable. We cannot include the statement that meliks of Karabakh were in charge of the Muslim khans, because no other source supports this statement and it contradicts the Muslim sources, which all say that meliks were subordinate to the khans of Ganja. You should find something better than Walker. Grandmaster 10:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We can include it, because it is sourced. Now GM, please start suggesting alternative wordings if you are unhappy with the current ones. The absurd thing is that you would be guilty of the same double standards if you rejected them! To be honest I think you are both guilty on this front, and I would like to see a centralised discussion of reliable sources for NK related articles. On the other hand, seeing pigs fly would be pretty neat too :) - Francis Tyers · 12:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don’t remember myself completely rejecting the source and then using it as a sole reference for my edits. This is what Tigran does here. On Nakhichevan page we had some sort of an agreement with Clevelander, according to which we included only the information supported by more than one reliable source. I think it should work here as well. I think I proposed a reasonable compromise with Cornel, the first source, but the second statement included by Tigran is problematic, as it contradicts the 3 historical sources provided by me. My sources say that meliks were subordinate to Muslim khans, while Tigran’s source, well known for his pro-Armenian bias, claims that meliks had a supreme command over the Muslim rulers of the region. We cannot reject 3 historical sources in favor of one modern unreliable one. So I suggest completely rejecting the reference to Walker, as it is not supported by any other source. Grandmaster 12:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. Muslims and Walker talk about different eras. First, NK was under Muslim control. Then it controlled the Muslims. Nothing surprising. The 3 Muslim sources are baised too, so no need to take them as 3 independent sources. If we use the Muslims, we use Walker. IF you don't want the "supreme" and "all of CAusasus," we can drop those.

Now, francis, are you again being neutral just for the sake of being neutral? Where have I been guilty of double standard?--TigranTheGreat 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good solution: While initially subordinate to Persia's Ganja khanate (ruled by Ziyad-oglu Qajars) (Muslim source), the Armenian meliks were granted a wide degree of autonomy by the Safavid Persia over Upper Karabakh (Cornell + Walker + Allen (Fadix' source) + Raffi), maintaining control over the region for four centuries (Cornell). In the early 18th century, Persia's Nadir shah took Karabakh out of control of Ganja khans in punishment for their support of Safavids (Muslim source), and placed the region directly under his own control (Muslim source). At the same time, the Armenian meliks were placed in command over the Armenian principalities of Caucasus (Walker) and surrounding Muslim khannates (Walker), in return for their victories over the invading Ottoman Turks in 1720's (Walker). --TigranTheGreat 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, GM's Muslim sources conflict. Below he has chosen the one that says NK was subordinated to Iranian Azerbaijan (i.e. the ruler of Tabriz). The other Muslim source, Mirza Adigezal bey, states that Nadir Shah subordinated NK directly to himself:

Меликам Хамсе (Хамсе — по-арабски ,пятерица’. Так называли пять меликов Карабага.) было дано повеление о том, чтобы они сбросили с шеи знати и простонародья цепи покорности гянджинским ханам и считали бы себя свободными от них и всякие свои прошения и требования направляли бы непосредственно на имя властелина (Надир-шаха).

So, no contradiction with Walker. They were subject to Nadir, and they themselves ruled the khans.--TigranTheGreat 08:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've attached citation notes, could you replace them with the citations you propose to use? - Francis Tyers · 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis, who are you talking to? I replaced the citation notes with the authors of the sources I used. The quotations of these authors have been provided further above.--TigranTheGreat 19:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Usually we do that when sources are in contradiction. In this case, we have none, so I see no reason adding "accordings." We would have to do it all over the place, which would be cluttery and annoying--TigranTheGreat 19:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that the Muslim sources and Walker do not contradict? - Francis Tyers · 11:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* Francis.. That's been exactly my point repeated by me over and over since you came here. Yes, they were first subject to Ganja. Then the shah promoted them, subordinating them directly to himself, while putting them in charge of Muslims. Then after the shah died, the Muslims got the upper hand again.

By the way, I am not saying that the Meliks ruled all of Caucasus. Neither does Walker. Just Armenian provinces and surrounding muslims.--TigranTheGreat 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Section for Grandmaster

My sources say that meliks were subordinate to Muslim khans, while Tigran’s source, well known for his pro-Armenian bias, claims that meliks had a supreme command over the Muslim rulers of the region.

Please give quotations and citations for "meliks were subordinate to Muslim khans". Thanks. Btw, no-one else respond here. - Francis Tyers · 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here goes:

Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку. Хотя и до правления покойного Надир шаха среди илатов Джеваншира, Отузики, Баргушата и пр. имелись мелкие ханы, но и все они были подвластны елизаветпольскому беглярбеку. Даже и после того как Надир шах завоевал Тифлисский, Ганджинский, Эриванский, Нахичеванский и Карабагский вилайеты, у жителей и войск Рума, Карабагский вилайет в течение короткого времени оставался под властью елизаветтпосльского беглярбека, а иногда подчинялся азербайджанскому сардару. Среди илатов и в магалах также были ханы и мелики, которые исполняли государственную службу по поручению азербайджанского сардара. Такое положение существовало до 1160 мусульманского года, соответствующего 1743 христианскому году, когда был убит Надир шах.

During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja. Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. Even after Nadir shah conquered Tiflis, Ganja, Erivan and Karabakh provinces from the people and army of Rome (Turkey), Karabagh province for a short time remained under the authority of Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey, and sometimes was subordinate to the sardar (governor) of Azerbaijan. There were also khans and meliks among the ilats and in mahals, who performed state duties by the orders of the sardar of Azerbaijan. Such situation existed until 1743, when Nadir shah was killed.

Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. The History of Karabakh. Grandmaster 08:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What happened after the Shah was killed? - Francis Tyers · 08:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

By that time the khans of Ganja lost Karabakh, as it was subordinated according to some sources to the governor of Iranian Azerbaijan, or the others to the Shah himself. When Nadir shah was killed, the central authority in Persia became very weak, and all the khanates became independent, fighting with each other for power. Panah-Ali declared himself a khan of Karabakh and was officially affirmed by the farman of Adil shah, who became shah for a short period of time, but was soon killed. The rest is well known. Tigran’s source deals with the time before Nadir-shahs reign. According to him, one of Safavid rulers placed Karabakh meliks in charge of the whole Caucasus. This contradicts the sources that I quoted. Grandmaster 10:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So we should probably describe both options, can you come up with an NPOV description that includes both points of view? - Francis Tyers · 11:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can say that “according to some Armenian sources one of Karabakh meliks David bey was appointed by Persian shah Tahmasp II the head of the Armenian principalities of Karabakh and nearby Muslim khans, but this information contradicts the Muslim historical accounts” or something like that. Grandmaster 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More like: "According to some historians (Sources here), the Karabakh meliks Persian Shah Tahmasp II the head of the Armenian principalities of Karabakh and Muslim khans. However, according to Muslim historical accounts, [fill this in...]" - Francis Tyers · 11:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Then it should be something like this: According to Walker (Sources here), the Persian Shah Tahmasp II placed a Karabakh melik by the name of David bey the head of the Armenian principalities of Karabakh and Muslim khans. However, this information is not supported by both Muslim and Armenian historical accounts. Grandmaster 10:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That is becoming a waste of time

Is Grandmaster really denying the Meliks autonomy over mountainous Karabakh? Francis, how many sources you want? Here one.

These Qarabagh Armenians are a particularly fine type, renowned throughout the Caucasus, and indeed in Russia, for their military qualities. Until the middle of the eighteenth century they maintained their independence under their own Meliks, who took part in the Trancasian Campaign of Peter the Great (1722). (New Political Boundaries in the Caucasus by W. E. D. Allen, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 69, No. 5 (May, 1927), p.436)

If you want any other sources, request them. Fad (ix) 18:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that the autonomy is disputed. We have Cornell and Walker who both say a similar thing. The dispute revolves around the "supreme command" over the "whole Caucasus", and I would be grateful if you would provide alternative and additional sources for that. Thanks for the reference though, we can add that in. - Francis Tyers · 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Some GM-Tigran action.

Again, the previous statements are confirmed by multiple sources, while the last line is supported by only 1 source, which is not the most authoritative one. The claims of that source are really incredible. I refer you to the rules:

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people. [10] Grandmaster 08:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It says "should," so it's not mandatory. And it's not exceptional--it's not like they conquered the Muslim khans, they merely were placed in command. Third, Armenian historians state the same. Fourth, the 3 sources talking about Ganja are Muslim, so it really counts as one source (same POV). If we use that, we can use Walker.--TigranTheGreat 08:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The rules require using multiple sources, not just one. Find another reference in addition to Walker. Grandmaster 08:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no such requirement.--TigranTheGreat 08:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, etc. Grandmaster 10:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I read you first time, and there is no requirement in that sentence. Neither is the claim exceptional. I could say the Ganja subordination claim is exceptional--neither pro-Azeri Cornell, nor Allen (who talks about meliks' independence) say anything about it.--TigranTheGreat 21:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a requirement there. You should provide multiple sources. I provided 3 sources for my “exceptional claim”. You provided only one. Grandmaster 07:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Should" doesn't mean a requirement. Your 3 sources have the same POV, so they don't count as 3 independent sources. And there is nothing exceptional about the claim. By the way, you thought that even the autonomy was exceptional. I think your perception of what counts as exceptional is here affected by your prejudices.

By the way, here is a excerpt from the book by Bagrat Ulubabyan, one of the leading authorities on history of Artsakh:

"... Shah Tahmasp II, who was getting ready for a new war with Ottoman Turks, cordially received the Armenian delegation, and with a special order announced Davit Bek as the head of the Armenan provinces and nearby khans ("I placed you as a prince and a head of our princes that are near you" (a quote from 18th c. Armenian witness Stepanos Shahumyan--TigranTheGreat)), and authorized him to mint money."

Bagrat Ulubabyan, Narrative (of Armenian History), p. 481, Yerevan 1991.

By the way, BU is the editor of the very edition of Raffi's book that you used as a source here (http://www.armenianhouse.org/raffi/also-ru/ulubabyan.html). So, you must have found him credible too.--TigranTheGreat 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I never referred to Ulubabian, only to the original source that he translated. If you refer to translation, it does not mean that you regard the translator an authoritative historical source. For example, I referred to Bakikhanov, but not Buniatov, the translator. As for my 3 sources having the same POV, it is not so. The fact that they were Muslim does not mean that they had some extreme POV, i.e. religious, ethnic, etc. In fact, they were not anti-Christian, as all 3 were the officers of the Russian (Christian) army and took part in the military campaign against Persia. They wrote their historical works by the request of the Russian authorities, who wanted to know the history of the lands they had just conquered. It does not make those sources anti-Christian, does it? Plus, they have no problem mentioning such facts as Muslims of Kazakh being subordinated to Georgian rulers (Christian), so why should they want to omit the facts of subordination of other Muslims to Armenian meliks? Azeri nationalism did not exist at the time, and in fact the rulers of Karabakh had very cordial relations with some of the Armenian meliks, such as melik Shahnazar. Ibrahim khan even married his daughter, so if he was anti-Armenian, he would not have done so, would he? He fought some of the Armenian meliks, who did not want to subordinate to him, same as he fought with the neighboring Muslim rulers, with the purposes of expansion of his state, but not for any religious purpose. Plus, he was the one who accepted Russian suzerainty, which also speaks for itself. In any case, the statements of modern Armenian and pro-Armenian historians such as Walker and Ulubabian should not be given the same weight as the historical accounts of 19th century. Grandmaster 07:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Shahnazar was a traitor, so the Turkic khan liked him but hated the rest of Armenians. He accepted Russian rule because he had no choice, not out of love. He was the boss of the Muslim authors, so they can't be taken as unbiased. Azeri nationalism didn't exist because Azeri nation didn't exist, but Muslim/tribal Turkic "natioalism" (i.e. sense of belonging) did exist, and at least two authors here are Turcik. I am not saying they hate Christians, but they are Turkic Muslims, so they have pro-Muslim bias. I don't know why they mentioned Georgia, maybe they like Georgians more than Armenians, we don't ask these questions on Wiki, we report what sources state.--TigranTheGreat 19:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that the 19th century Armenian source Raffi also does not support what Walker says:

Узнав об этом, персидский шах Тахмасп щедро вознаградил Давид-бека, пожаловав ему многие привилегии. Он послал беку знамя, великолепного коня и подтвердил шахским фирманом его наследственное право на подвластные ему земли, он дал ему также право чеканить монеты с собственным именем. Но внезапная смерть не позволила герою воспользоваться плодами своих побед... [11]

Raffi says that Persian shah Tahmasp granted the Armenian melik David bey a number of privileges, i.e. shah sent him a banner, a horse and confirmed his hereditary rights to his lands by shahs firman (decree), and granted him the right to mint his own coin, but the melik was never able to use his privileges because of his untimely death. Nothing about the neighboring Muslim rulers being subordinated to the Armenian meliks. So, Armenian and Muslim sources of 19th century don’t support the claims of Walker. Also note that Raffi was an Armenian nationalist, who would not fail to mention anything of this kind, as he tended to blow the prominence of Karabakh meliks out of any proportion. Grandmaster 07:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes he would fail. He was a busy man and couldn't be expected to include every detail. Again, just because someone doesn't mention fact A, doesn't mean he negates it.--TigranTheGreat 01:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Tigran here, not mentioning something is not the same as negating it. - Francis Tyers · 12:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but we need to evaluate and cross-reference the facts from reliable sources. I think we can attribute that information to Walker, but we should not present it as a fact, and we should mention that Armenian and Muslim sources of 19th century don’t support Walker’s version of events. Grandmaster 12:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand why he can't just find another source for it. - Francis Tyers · 12:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Who says I can't? There just is no need to. Walker is a reputable source. Ulubabyan states the same. It's not like I demand GM to present multiple sources on every fact I don't like.--TigranTheGreat 10:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I say you can't, because otherwise you would, in order to have shut us up. If something is so true, it should be easy to find multiple sources for it. - Francis Tyers · 10:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless I find no reason to spend hours in the library for an unjustified demand. I am not here to shut up GM, there are rules and its his job to abide them. I have assumed I have no need to shut you up, as I have assumed you are not taking sides. If you are, that's a different matter.

By the way, in response to GM, no, we don't check facts, that's against Original Research. That's precisely what I explained to him a year ago, when he was trying to eliminate the Library of Congress source from NK page just because "we couldn't check the facts." If we have a source, we report what it says. If there is contradiction, we report different POV's. Here, there is none.--TigranTheGreat 20:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So, we could report that NK was "left" in Azerbaijan, as there are sources that state that? And of course I'm not taking sides. - Francis Tyers · 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure we could. But then we would also add that it was Joined to Azerbaijan, annexed to, ceded to, awarded to, as these are all words used in the sources covered on the NK talk page. Now, since using all these words makes no sense (i.e. we have contradiction), we choose a neutral wording--"be." Plus, these words are interchangebly used interpretational phrases (reflecting the POV of the author) describing the same fact--that NK was disputed, and then somehow now Azerbaijan has it. Here, we do not have a contradiction, and we do not have an interpretational statement, but a factual one--Meliks were placed in control of Muslim Khans.

The anology with "left" would be if Walker said "Muslims became slaves of Meliks," GM didn't like it, and I said "fine, let's change the interpretational wording but reflect the same fact--that Muslims were under control of Armenians." In this case, I am open to wordings (I knocked out "supreme" and "whole of Caucasus"). But I want the basic fact to be reflected--Armenians ruled Muslims. IF you propose a different wording, I will listen. But we can't knock out the basic fact just because GM doens't like it.--TigranTheGreat 20:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not much of a fact if you can't find more than one source to support it. - Francis Tyers · 08:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The rules require providing multiple sources for exceptional claims. Since Walker’s claim is not supported by major sources on the history of the region, you need to cross-reference the fact from other reliable sources. Grandmaster 07:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Find something that says that Muslims were in charge of Armenians. - Francis Tyers · 08:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja. Even though there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others before the reign of the late Nadir shah, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. Even after Nadir shah conquered Tiflis, Ganja, Erivan and Karabakh provinces from the people and army of Rome (Turkey), Karabagh province for a short time remained under the authority of Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey, and sometimes was subordinate to the sardar (governor) of Azerbaijan. There were also khans and meliks among the ilats and in mahals, who performed state duties by the orders of the sardar of Azerbaijan. Such situation existed until 1743, when Nadir shah was killed.

Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. The History of Karabakh.

Plus we have other sources that say the same. Grandmaster 08:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and afterwards they were placed in charge of the Muslims. As Walker states.--TigranTheGreat 09:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• START YEAR -- END YEAR (Armenian meliks in control).
• START YEAR -- 1743 (Muslim Beylerbey in control).

Please fill in the dates. - Francis Tyers · 09:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote: Such situation existed until 1743, when Nadir shah was killed. According to Walker, Nadir shah placed an Armenian melik David bey in charge of Muslim khans while Nadir shah himself was alive. This clearly contradicts the above source. I mean, obviously, Nadir shah could not have appointed anybody after he was dead. In fact, the sources refer to the last Safavid ruler Tahmasp, to whom Nadir served as a general, and later took his place as the ruler. So it was not after 1743. Grandmaster 11:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Before Safavids Karabakh was part of Mongol state, Kara-Koyunlu and Ak-Koyunlu states, and after Safavids came to power in early 1500, Karabakh was part of Ganja beylerbeydom. So:

* Early 1500s -- 1743 (Muslim Beylerbey in control). Grandmaster 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The 2 other Muslim sources clearly state that Nadir subordinated Armenians directly to himself. So, the 3rd source either contradicts them, or is talking about a different situation that existed until 1743. So:

Ganja: unknown - 1720's Meliks: 1720's-1750's (when Panah khan got to Karabakh).--TigranTheGreat 01:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There’s no real contradiction. This source talks about Nadir’s times: Even after Nadir shah conquered Tiflis, Ganja, Erivan and Karabakh provinces from the people and army of Rome (Turkey), Karabagh province for a short time remained under the authority of Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey, and sometimes was subordinate to the sardar (governor) of Azerbaijan. Bakikhanov also says that Nadir subordinated meliks to the governor of Iranian Azerbaijan. Adigezal bey says that Nadir subordinated them directly to himself, so there’s a contradiction with regard to who meliks were subordinate to after they were taken from the authority of Ganja khans, but it is not really a big issue. All the sources agree that Nadir punished Ganja khans by reducing their lands, so for a brief period of time meliks were subordinate to someone else, i.e. had more or less autonomy, because the ruler of Tabriz and Persian king were too far and too busy to deal with their affairs. This situation existed until the death of Nadir shah, soon after that Panah-Ali became khan of Karabakh. Also, sources clearly state that meliks were subordinate to Ganja beylerbeys/khans during the reign of Safavids, i.e. since the times when first Safavid king Ismail I conquered the whole Transcaucasia, eliminated there all local states like Shirvanshahs and created beylerbeydoms instead. Grandmaster 06:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So, we have:

• 1500s -- 1743 (Muslim Beylerbey in control).
• 1720s -- 1750s (Armenian meliks in control).

I guess we just mention both, and do "according to...". This is a reasonable compromise until more sources can be found (on either side). - Francis Tyers · 08:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To be precise:

• 1500s -- 1736 (Ganja Beylerbey in control).
• 1736 -- 1750s (Karabakh subordinated either to the governor of Iranian Azerbaijan or Nadir shah himself. During this period meliks could have had a greater autonomy). This is verifiable info. Grandmaster 08:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't use 1500's, the start date is unclear. And the Turks invaded Transcaucasia in the 20's, and it continued till 30's. It was during the 20's when Armenian-Persian allience was made. So, we can say under safavids, Meliks were subordinate to Ganja, had wide autonomy, in control of Karabakh. Then, early 1700's, they rule Khans. Nadir takes them off Ganja and subordinates to himself. The "Azerbaijan" part is in conflit with the other Muslim sources and should be left out.--TigranTheGreat 23:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement about Muslim khans being subordinate to Armenian meliks is not supported by any reliable source and cannot be included as a fact, only as an opinion of Walker. Also, 2 Muslim sources say that Nadir shah subordinated meliks to sardar of Iranian Azerbaijan, and one says that he subordinated them to himself. Both versions should be included, they all come from reliable sources. with regard to beylerbeys, see the article in Iranica: [12] Grandmaster 12:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Walker is reliable. So we shall include it as fact.--TigranTheGreat 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not. And it is not supported by any other source. Grandmaster 05:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Another source to support that Karabakh was ruled by the khans of Ganja. The article about Ganja by C. Edmund Bosworth from encyclopedia Iranica:

The Safavids left Arran to local Turkish khans, so that we find Ganja in 961-62/1554 governed by Shahverdi Soltan Ziad-oglu Qajar (whose family came to govern Qarabag in southern Arran) when Shah Tahmasb I passed through it on his return from campaigning against the Georgians (Röhrborn, p. 4). [13]

Now there re 4 sources to support that info. Grandmaster 05:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your source is not talking about NK.--TigranTheGreat 06:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it talks about Karabakh in general, which comprises both Upper and Lower Karabakh. Grandmaster 06:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fadix

Your latest edit:

In that Summer, the reconstituted Mustavat party of nationalists invited the Turkish forces of Nuri Pasha, young brother of Enver and the commander of the Army of Islam, to attack Karabakh, which resulted with the death of 20% of its population, various sources claims that a policy of genocide was implemented in captured Armenian villages.

Please provide your sources to support these claims. Who are those “various sources”? Great Soviet encyclopedia also states that up to 20% of Karabakh’s population died, [14] but it does not relate it to Nuri pasha, but rather to “bourgeois nationalists” Musavat and Dashnaks, who according to GSE initiated intercommoned violence. Grandmaster 08:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A.N. Yamskov provides 20%, Nuri was the commander of the Turkish forces, A. N. Yamskov also call it an instored policy of genocide against the Armenian population. Karabekir, which was the companion of arm of Ataturk was sent there later. The campaigns against Karabakh continued up until August 1920. While Karabekir army was there in Karabakh, he claimed that the existance of Armenia was a ‘curse for the Turks’ and must be ‘crushed’, ‘finished off’, ‘trampled down’, ‘ruinated’, ‘expire under the heel of the Turk’, ‘annihilate.’ (see his own memoir) Most of the casualty was definitely caused by the Turkish forces attack supported by the Musavat. Those were not vengeances for March, this is not supported by any credible data. The policy of crushing Armenia, which Karabekir considered Karabakh to be part of, was implemented prior, during and after the March event, which by its scope is a dot in a paragraph. When the Turkish forces attacked Baku, they never at once ever presented the March attack as justification, they rather presented the Erzerum attack and Armenians attempt to regain it as justification and retaliation, the Germans weren’t even aware of such a justification. The Turkish army, stopped attacking Karabakh only in August 1920, after that Azerbaijan had not only fallen in the hand of the Bolshevics, but that the Bolshevics attempted to get Karabakh, and that the Turks were guaranteed that Karabakh will not end being part of an Armenia, they even were assured that Armenia will be vanished in the upcoming months. Fad (ix) 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, your description of the March event, the sources only support the numbers not your version of the event, Smith, which you sourced in the past, in his paper depict another story. Fad (ix) 19:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Smith says that Septemeber was revenge for March, I can provide a quote. Also, Yamskov appears to be using GSE as a source, but provides different explanation for the figure. Grandmaster 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about March, the paper I have which written by him, gives another picture of the event, and he is the only author you have presented who specifically describes what happened. As for revenge, the Germans were there, not once in the report have they claimed it was revenge. General Paraquin describes Tartars preparations for the upcomming Turkish army, which has destroyed Armenian villages to villages everywhere they have gone and now they were moving to Baku, this had absolutly nothing, nothing to do with March event, this could have been the cases for the Tartars who profited of the Turkish army backup, but the event by its whole was a continuation of the Turkish army policy to destroy every single Armenian villages and towns they passed by. Ihsan himself in his prior excurtions has claimed to have not left a single Armenian in the zones he had controled. Do you really think that Alexandripole destruction, Turkish army purge in Nakhichevan, in the heartland of Russian Armenia etc., had any connection with the March event, that was a dot in a paragraph. Fad (ix) 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have 3 sources to support the statement that September was revenge for March. It is more than enough. And don’t forget, Turkish Army of Islam consisted mostly of Caucasus Muslims, Turks were mostly the officers. It was that endless circle of violence, which continues to this day, when every violent event causes similar reaction. Grandmaster 20:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And I have official German records which reports the Turkish army crossing from Alexandripol to Baku and destroying anything Armenian they could, preceding, during and after March, and claiming vengence for Erzerum to justify Nuri three days off while Armenians were being massacred in Baku. This has nothing to do with action and reaction. Three sources are not enough to dismiss other sources and present it as truth. Fad (ix) 22:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We cannot dismiss sources just like that. Armenian gangs commited massacres not only in Baku, but all over the Baku gubernia. They completely destroyed Shamakhi, Kuba, Geychay and many other towns, killing thousands of people. It was done under the pretext of establishig the Soviet power, but for some reason Shaumian was sending Dashnaks to establish Soviet power. So it was the Dashnaks who commited first mass killing in Transcaucasia after the Russian revolution, and not Turks. Grandmaster 13:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This is total BS, from 1915 to 1921, over 40% of the World Armenian population perished, from 1918 to 1921, the Turkish army crossed the border, destroying Alexandriopole and moving to East, which is documented and considered as official history. Otto von Lossow, Major General, German Military attaché has reported this even back to his first report dating in 1918, regarding the plan of "the total extermination of the Armenians in Transcaucasia also" (German Foreign Ministry Archives. A. A. Türkei 183/51, A20698, May 15, 1918. His first report.) Another one, "Talàt's government party wants to destroy all Armenians, not only in Turkey, but also outside Turkey."(Deutsches Zentralarchiv (Potsdam) Bestand Reichskanzlei No. 2458/9, Blatt 202, June 3, 1918 report, p. 2.) Halil, the Uncle of Enver, has been released from Prison and sent to Nakhichevan, Karabakh, and the army moved to Baku, by the Kemalists, profiting to continue what they have started. Your so-called second-grade history doesn’t match with German records. True most of those having committed the atrocities in the East were Tartars, not to wonder, since the the major Ittihadist Pan-Turanist intellectuals were Tartars, and many of the criminals released from prison in the East or dragged in the ‘special organization’ were Tartars.

Your trash about the Dashnaks, is the crap you find in Turko-Azeris historiography, which could find as utility not better than being used as toilette paper. What the Turkish army has done in Karabakh with the help of Tartars would make of your March event as amateurish, Karabekir, in his campagn in Karabakh requested the final and total destruction of Armenia, as written in his memoirs, he dragged members of the special organization in the savage Army. Also, remind you that it were not the Dashnaks who recreated the Savage Division, the Savage division was an Azeris-Tartar Division, which has disarmed Russian soldiers and butchered them to the last, even Smith report this. It was also members of this savage division attempting to create it, who have in March the situation in which the Bolshevics have decided to dismantle the local unofficial Azeris army in Baku, which led to the April massacres.

So, dismissing the sources you say? No, dismissing it as absolute truth? Yeh, this is specifically what I am doing. Fad (ix) 17:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

March massacre in Baku is very well documented. Now as for Alexandropol, it fell to Turks in the middle of April, after the March days. So indeed, Massacre of Azerbaijanis in March was the first large-scale massacre in Transcaucasia, which led to others. And again, we have a number of sources, stating that September events were a retaliation for March days, and since it is a verifiable info it should be in the article. Also, once again I recommend you to watch your civility. Grandmaster 06:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

March event to refer to the related deaths of Azeris civilian, is March only by its name, those happened in April 1-3, as stated by Smith. If you really believe that the entire arsenal of the Kemalist army crossed the frontier because of what happened in March, your conspirationist theories reach nearly psychosis. The major offensive which ended up with the capture of Armenia, started with the Febuary so-called counter offensive. This was a reported continuation, and there are various dozens of works which relate to it. While the supposed documented event which you discuss about, from all those who you have cited, only Smith has specifically written about it, and the paper I have does not discribe the event in any way you try to picture it. March was not a large-scale massacre, even smith does not use the word massacre for his up to 12,000, but rather the word perished. And again, the only official investigation wasn't even the quarter of that. The first large scale massacre in Transcaucasia is the butchery in Alexandriopole, with an official investigation which was counting the numbers of victims in the tens of thousands (the last count was of 60,000 killed), and the investigation never even completed. When you start talking about the March event as the first large scale massacre you are only convincing yourself. There is no even comparaison taking Karabakh alone. Fad (ix) 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Smith refers to March events as a massacre in his article for Sakharov center, and he calls September events revenge for March. It is not my original research, it is verifiable info. Whatever happened anywhere else was after the March days, and is not relevant to this particular event. I never said that Turkish army crossed the border because of March events in Baku, I just included info provided by 3 reliable sources. Grandmaster 08:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Smith: Neither Rasulzade (Resulzade M. E. Das Problem Aserbeidschan. Berlin, 1938), nor A.Balayev (Азербайджанское национал-демократическое движение. С. 18-19) mention the massacre of Armenians by Azerbaijanis in September 1918. On the contrary, the recent works by Ronald Suny don’t mention the massacre of Azerbaijanis by Armenians in March 1918, (see Suny R. G. The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and Successor States. New York; Oxford, 1998. P. 99-100; The Revolution in Transcaucasia // Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1917-1921 / Eds. E. Acton, V. Cherniaev and W. Rosenberg. Bloomington, 1997. P. 725). As you can see, Smith calls those events a massacre. Grandmaster 08:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Here’s another source, #4.

In March 1918 a showdown over the Soviet's demands for the disarming of Muslim troops ended with a two-day-long rampage through Muslim neighborhoods by Armenian soldiers allied with the Soviet, during which the soldiers set fire to a large part of the city and killed thousands. In September, Azerbaijanis exacted revenge.

Benjamin Lieberman. Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe. ISBN-10 1566636469

So as you can see, we have 4 sources now, saying that it was a revenge. Grandmaster 10:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rasulzade is not a credible source, neither is Balayev, I doubt a comparaison between an US academic (Suny), with an Azeris statesman(Rasulzade), or an Azeris nationalist scholar (Balayev) could be made. But here again Smith did so. Suny exclusion of March event was because his cited events were specific and had a purposes of being cited, which again, it seems Smith did not consider. I doubt anyone beside him had ever made a comparison with an nationalist statesman and nationalist scholar with a reputable US academic. And, like I have mentioned in the past, with references in support of my statement, not only Suny excluded March and referred to September.

You want to present this as vengeances and present that version as truth, fine. But do not use two different standards for two different events. Here quoting from Smith.

These tensions broke into open conflict in January 1918. Under the authority of both the anti-Bolshevic ‘Transcaucasus Commissariat’ at Tiflis and the Muslim National Committee at Ganja, Muslim forces disarmed Russian soldiers at Lenkoran and Shamkor, killing over 1000 in the later skirmish. (Anatomy of a Rumour: Murder Scandal, the Musavat Party and Narratives of the Russian Revolution in Baku, 1917-20 by Michael G. Smith, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), p.226)

Smith provides the figure compromising the Bolshevic army which walked to Baku. 6000 Bolshevics and 4000 Dashnaks. He also provides the figures according to the Bolshevics, of 10,000 Muslim counter revolutionary. He presents the fight between the Dashnaks and the Muslim forces which lead to the civil disaster according to the Bolshevics. The date provided is 1 and 3 April, not March. The civil casualties and victims are not recorded in March.

Smith presents the massacre of over a 1000 Russian soldiers by the Azeris, as what initiated the walk to Baku according to the Russians. A vengeance according to the Russians, September Armenian massacre, a vengeance according to the Azeris. Vengeance is an intention, the act is the actual killing. So, stop using double standards, I should therefore add that the March event was a vengeance of the killing of over a thousand Russian soldiers.

Smith does not compare, he just states a fact that certain people prefer not mention certain aspects of events. Also, Bolsheviks did not march to Baku, they were located there from the beginning, i.e. after the collapse of the Russian empire military garrisons in Baku were heavily influenced by Bolshevism. Events in Shamkhor had nothing to do with it, Bolsheviks were established in Baku long before that, and disarming of the Russian military returning from the Turkish front was the order of Transcaucasian commissariat. Russian troops refused to hand their arms to local forces, and it resulted in fighting and casualties from both sides. According to the Smith’ article at the Sakharov center website, March events took place between 30 March – 3 April 1918. Also, the motives of September events are mentioned almost in every source that describes them, I don’t think there is an adequate number of the references for the motives of March massacre of Azerbaijanis in Baku. Grandmaster 06:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. First of all, I was referring to the march in the streets, second of all, so Shamkhor had nothing to do with it, the massacres of January had nothing to do with March, even thought as even mentioned by Smith, it was the justification given by the Russians? But what happened in September had everything to do with March? It is quite amazing that Nuri justified his decision by referring to Erzerum NOT March. As for your crap about casulties from both sides, I see in Smith paper the killing of Russian soldiers after disarming them, I don't see any mention of anything else. When it is perpetrated by Tartars, it becomes both sides. Quite a double standard don't you think so? As for the reported massacres, the peer reviewed paper by Smith, clearly place the dates to 1 AND 3 April for the civilian casulties. The March even unlike what you want to suggest does not limit to that, but the Bolshevics decisions to dismentel the local army, initiated in March 30. The fight that sparked between the Dashnaks and the Muslim militia was After March 30. Again, again and again, venegence is an attached intention, you can not present an intention as an ultimate truth. The Russians decision according to Bolshevic materials followed the massacres of over a thousand Russian soldiers. But we can not claim as being ultimate truth that the March event was a vengence. Fad (ix) 07:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me a quote from Smith that supports your statement that March events were revenge for something. I provided you 4 quotes from different sources, stating that September was revenge for March, it is a verifiable fact, unlike your attempts to connect March events with something else. Grandmaster 08:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I already did this in the past, you are only amnesic of references that doesn’t satisfy you.

But, I will quote again.

…, Muslim forces disarmed Russian soldiers at Lenkoran and Shamkor, killing over 1000 in the later skirmish. Here was concrete proof that, in the words of the Bolshevik Commissar, Alesha Dzhaparidze, Muslim forces were ‘closing a counterrevolutionary circle around’ Baku, advancing eastward from the Caucasus front, threatening from the North Caucasus and Dagestan, from Ganja and Shemakha, from Mugan and Lenkoran. The Bolsheviks had turned the ubiquitous rumours of Muslim insurrection into their own focused rallying-cry for defense of the revolution.

The basic elements were now in place for the infamous and contentious ‘March Events’, when Russian Bolshevik and Armenian Dashnak troops vied with armed Muslim units for the control of the Streets of Baku. For the Bolsheviks, the March Events began with a rumour on 30 March that the officers and soldiers of the Savage Division aboard the streamer, Evelina, were conspiring to lead a rebellion in Baku and were preparing to set off for Lenkoran to gather more forces. p. 226-227

Intentions can not be ‘facts’, there are also various sources that the Dashnaks exactions were vengeance for the genocide, Tartars being considered as Turks. You can not present something as fact only because you source it. March events were initiated by rumours, and also by the massacre of Russian soldiers, according to sources, but I do not request this to be presented as truth. Fad (ix) 17:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your quote does not say that March events were motivated by the events in Shamkhor. The 4 sources that I quoted explicitly state that September was revenge for March, and info sourced from multiple sources should stay in the article. Grandmaster 17:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you read the above carefully. Read it once more. Revenge is an intention, while the majority of works describing the September event doesn't mention any such things. Nuri mentions Erzerum NOT March. 4 sources are not enough to present something as truth. The problem here is that you still don't understand that we present positions and not what the truth is. As for the quote from Smith. I bolded what you say does not exist in that text, I don'T believe I have anything new to add there. Fad (ix) 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

4 sources are not enough to present something as truth? Look at what Tigran does, he presents as truth something that is supported by only one and not reliable source (Walker), why can’t we include something that is supported by so many sources? I don’t include my personal interpretations, I’m only a messenger, and the info that I included can be found in many sources, including Smith, to whom you refer. I see no reason why it should not be included. Grandmaster 19:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not enough, as for Tigran bring that with him, I have no idea of what you are talking about. What I am saying is nothing new, read the NPOV policy, it makes it clear. Fad (ix) 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

But again, Fadix, it’s not my personal opinion. You can see that multiple sources say so. If 4 sources are not enough, then how many do you need? The standards of this particular article are not so high, most of info in it is copied from Armenian websites such as nkr.am, or is based on a single dubious reference. In contrast, the info provided by me can be cross-referenced from multiple third-party sources and therefore is reliable. Grandmaster 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We are turning in circle. By the time, you should have learned that positions are presented on Wikipedia. You have provided 4 sources and present this not only as a majority position but as truth, which Wikipedia does not establish. Most of the works relating to the September massacre present the event as a measure initiated by Nuri to persue his rutless policy against the Armenian population, and NOT as a vengence for something which happened months ago. The one here supressing a position is not me but you. Fad (ix) 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the sources agree on the motives for September. I'm sure that if I'll dig more I'll find more sources saying the same, but 4 independent sources are more than enough. Grandmaster 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop this broken record, agreeing on motives is not enough to present a position as truth. Zundel, Irving, Rudolf, Faurisson, Rassinier etc. all agree that the Holocaust is a myth, does it make it enough to present the Holocaust as a myth? Please adhere to Wikipedia policies and stop wasting my time, I have better things to do than trying to teach you things which by now you should know and adhere to. I can bring here for every sources you provide at least 3 sources regarding Nuri and his purges, in which it is said that the motives are Pan-Turanist in nature. Do you see me reverting the article on the Sun and claiming that the center of the Sun is freezing cold because it happens that an Italian physicist support that thesis? Fad (ix) 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting to the version that matches with your point of view

Stop removing referenced information and vandalizing the page Grandmaster. The only reason you edit is because an Armenian user has edited the page, which I guess you hate to see. Look at the edits you made. You keep deleting referenced information and adding wrong words to the article. It shows that your not even reading what you are reverting if you did you would not revert to wrong words or even take out referenced information. ROOB323 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me which wrong words I added. Please be specific. Grandmaster 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I split the article to more sections and linked it to the existing articles, why this was reverted? There are more or less balanced existing articles, if we incorporate certain parts of them into this one and link this article to larger separate articles, it may be less of sloppy mess that it is now and become shorter as well. Grandmaster 13:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the difference and you will see what I mean. By the way I don't have any problems splitting the article to more sections. ROOB323 06:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Explain what you mean then, and be specific please. Grandmaster 06:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected again

I've full protected this page, which was previously semi-protected, because of edit-warring. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version (see also The Wrong Version), just a measure to end the ongoing dispruption caused by this senseless POV-pushing. Try working out a compromise version at Talk:History of Nagorno-Karabakh/Sandbox. Picaroon 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page level down to semi-protection, in hopes that you guys have realized how silly your fighting was. Consider yourselves on 1RR, and consider that your only warning. Make constructive contributions instead, and make no additions of information that do not cite a source. Picaroon 21:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Referenced information

Grandmaster you really need to stop removing referenced information and accusing me of reverting back. Those references that are there are as good as your that you keep moving and adding yours. At least don't accuse people with something that you are doing the same thing with blindly reverting. ROOB323 08:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove anything properly referenced. You did. The information with reference to Walker does not come from a reliable source and contradicts all other sources, including Armenian ones. It was discussed in much detail above. Grandmaster 08:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What part of "no more reverting" is not getting through to you two? I don't care how wrong, libelous, unsourced and nationalistic the version I unprotected is. Work from there. I will treat any more full reversions as disruption - all removals and additions should be piecemeal and explained on this talk page and in the edit summary. We are here to write an encyclopedia, last I checked. Picaroon 20:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason revert was done from ROOB323's to Grandmaster's version was because of previously held extensive discussions about the history of NK and many related disputes. One such claim is put forward by a pro-Armenian researcher, Christopher Walker, who in his book claimed that from 1722 till 1728 an "Armenian" melik, David Bek, was given some supreme command in the Caucasus by the ruler of Iran, Shah Tahmasb Safavid (Tahmasib), who was of Azerbaijani origin. To begin with, contemporary historians, authors of local "Karabakh-nameh" (Book/History of Karabakh) are clear that most of the meliks were not Armenian in origin, but Caucasian Albanian (mostly Udin) and were not even from Karabakh, but different parts of the Caucasus.

Second, all those meliks were appointed and vassals of Iranian shah's, specifically, the Safavid, Afshar and Qajar ruling dynasties, all of whom were Azerbaijani.

Thirdly, Mr. Walker never provides any citations and references to his claims, which are simply unsupported by independent scholars and any archival documents, in fact. Indeed, in that same paragraph on page 40, Mr. Walker states that: "During his time he [David Bek] supported the claims of Shah Tahmasp (who had fled to the Armenian wilds around Mount Ararat) against those of the Afghan invaders. An alliance was drawn up, under which David recognised the suzerainty of Persia.... The value of this treaty was proved during Turkish invasions of 1723–4 and 1727." The problem is that, as stated before, this so-called "treaty" has no name, no date, no reference and is nowhere to be found in Iranian, Russian, Azerbaijani or Armenian archives. It simply does not exist!

And it makes zero sense -- why would, for example, a proud and fairly powerful Georgian king, with an army of probably about 100,000 soldiers, recognize an authority of a small principality ruler, whose army was at most 10,000 and used to mountains, not plains where all large cities and roads were? Or why would any of the Azerbaijani khans and beylarbey's, such as the powerful Ganja-Karabakh beylarbey Ziyadli, or khans of Baku, Shirvan, Kuba, Talish, Erevan, Naxcivan, recognize a supreme command of a small-time Christian, whose noble and military ranks was lower than theirs (a melik was under a khan, who in turn was under a beylarbey, in the military and political structure of the time)? Moreover, why in the world would a fiercely Muslim shah, Tahmasib, give a supreme command of Muslim armies to a Christian -- who allied himself with invading Russians, such as was the case with Peter the Great's advance? Indeed, mount Ararat area, as all of present-day Armenia, had a MAJORITY Muslim population at the time, with Muslim (Azerbaijani) khans ruling it -- and why would they allow a Christian David Bek come all the way from Karabakh to Ararat to be given command of them? Even against a Muslim rival, the Ottoman Empmire, which controlled Azerbaijan (including Karabakh) then, why give a command to some Christian subject of lower rank over Muslim subjects of higher rank and larger armies? And how would the proud Qizilbash and other Azerbaijani military feel being "led" by a Christian? Same Qizilbash, who just a decade later, when Panah khan Javanshir led a small number of his Otuz-iki tribe back to their native homeland of Karabakh in 1747, easily defeated all dissenting Christians of Karabakh and founded the new and independent Karabakh khanate. But most important, the "treaty" Mr. Walker refers to, does not exist.

Secondly, this paragraph put forward by ROOB323 and some others, is entirely POV, unscholarly and unsubstantiated: "According to a hypothesis which has been put forward by the Azerbaijan scientists, Artsakh belonged not to Greater Armenia, and the Caucasian Albania, or passed from one country to another. But Strabo and authors of 1-2 centuries - Claudius Ptolemaeus and Pliny the Elder unanimously approve, that border between Greater Armenia and Caucasian Albania is river Cyrus (Kura). Authoritative encyclopedias on antiquity also name Kura southern border of Albania Strabo, Ptolemy and Pliny write that at this time, the border between Albania and the Kingdom of Greater Armenia was through the river Kura. At the same time Strabo writes that the river of Kura flows through Albania. However the frontier along the Kura was repeatedly overrun, to the advantage sometimes of the Albanians, sometimes of the Armenians. "

To begin with, the FACT that Karabakh was part of Caucasian Albania and not Armenia, and that Kura (Cyrus) river flowed THROUGH Caucasian Albania, and was not a border river with Armenia, and that Artsakh (Karabakh) was part of Caucasian Albania, is acknowledged by many ancient, medieval and modern sources, from Great Soviet Encyclopedia and Columbia Encyclopedia to even Armenian scholars, as well as, which is more important, the local ancient historians, such as Movses Dasxuranci and Moisey Kalankatuyski (Kagankatvatsi, Kalankatly), who are two collective authors of 7th-10th centuries. Likewise, with "Father of Armenian History", Movses of Khorene (Khorenatsi), writes the same.

They state, that the borders of Caucasian Albania are as follows: on the south going along Araxes, on the North - Derbend, on the East - Caspian sea and West -- Khnarakert castle (which is in present-day Qazakh region of Azerbaijan, near Georgia and Armenia). Of course the info from Dasxuranci/Kagankatvatsi is reliable, as they (he) are Albanian historians. But they do repeat that almost verbatim from Armenian historian Movses of Khorene. I can easily produce quotes in Russian and my translation into English.

Moreover, the ROOB323's wording refers to Strabo, but the ancient geographer clearly wrote that Kura: "the Cyrus [flows] through Iberia and Albania" (in 11.1.5), and again:

"Parts of the country are surrounded by the Caucasian Mountains; for branches of these mountains, as I said before,1 project towards the south; they are fruitful, comprise the whole of Iberia, and border on both Armenia and Colchis. In the middle is a plain intersected by rivers, the largest being the Cyrus. This river has its beginning in Armenia, flows immediately into the plain above-mentioned, receives both the Aragus, which flows from the Caucasus, and other streams, and empties through a narrow valley into Albania; and between the valley and Armenia it flows in great volume through plains that have exceedingly good pasture, receives still more rivers, among which are the Alazonius, Sandobanes, Rhoetaces, and Chanes, all navigable, and empties into the Caspian Sea. It was formerly called Corus." (11.3.2).

And again: "IV. The Albanians are more inclined to the shepherd's life than the Iberians and closer akin to the nomadic people, except that they are not ferocious; and for this reason they are only moderately warlike. They live between the Iberians and the Caspian Sea, their country bordering on the sea towards the east and on the country of the Iberians towards the west. Of the remaining sides the northern is protected by the Caucasian Mountains (for these mountains lie above the plains, though their parts next to the sea are generally called Ceraunian), whereas the southern side is formed by Armenia, which stretches alongside it; and much of Armenia consists of plains, though much of it is mountainous, like Cambysene, where the Armenians border on both the Iberians and the Albanians.

[2] The Cyrus, which flows through Albania, and the other rivers by which it is supplied, contribute to the excellent qualities of the land; and yet they thrust back the sea, for the silt, being carried forward in great quantities, fills the channel, and consequently even the adjacent isles are joined to the mainland and form shoals that are uneven and difficult to avoid; and their unevenness is made worse by the backwash of the flood tides." (11.4.1, 11.4.2)

And another relevant passage on attempts of Roman conquests, which against Albania have failed: "[4] The inhabitants of this country [C.Albania] are unusually handsome and large. And they are frank in their dealings, and not mercenary;5 for they do not in general use coined money, nor do they know any number greater than one hundred, but carry on business by means of barter, and otherwise live an easy-going life. They are also unacquainted with accurate measures and weights, and they take no forethought for war or government or farming. But still they fight both on foot and on horseback, both in light armour and in full armour,6 like the Armenians.7

[5] They [C.Albania] send forth a greater army than that of the Iberians; for they equip sixty thousand infantry and twenty-two thousand8 horsemen, the number with which they risked their all against Pompey. Against outsiders the nomads join with the Albanians in war, just as they do with the Iberians, and for the same reasons; and besides, they often attack the people, and consequently prevent them from farming. The Albanians use javelins and bows; and they wear breastplates and large oblong shields, and helmets made of the skins of wild animals, similar to those worn by the Iberians. To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared. The pass from Iberia into Albania leads through Cambysene, a waterless and rugged country, to the Alazonius River. Both the people and their dogs are surpassingly fond of hunting, engaging in it not so much because of their skill in it as because of their love for it." (11.4.4, 11.4.5)

Meanwhile, Armenia after the downfall of ethnically Persian king of Armenia, Tigranes II Great, has become once again a vassal state under the influence of both Rome and Parthia. Meanwhile, C.Albania retained its independence, even if somewhat nominal. Since Strabo never says that Artsakh was conquered by Tigranes -- which would not have mattered anyway, as his relevant conquests lasted only 15 years (85-69 BC), with total empire lasting less than 30 years (95-65BC) -- and Armenia was a vassal state, ruled even in the I century AD by (see below) various non-Armenian kings, it was simply in no position to hold any Albanian territories, such as Artsakh -- read again Strabo about the size, strength and determination of the Albanian army and the fact that it got help from nomads from the north. Of course Albanian historians MK and MD and Armenian Movses of Khorene have a lot of anecdotal evidence, but when all of them coincide on the fact that Albania's southern border went on Araxes and Western on Khnarakert, it is not anecdotal. MK/MD book has many more references showing what size was C.Albania and that Artsakh was very much part of it.

Armenian kings in I c. AD:

1. Ariobarzan (Atropatenan/Median) A.D. 2‑4 2. Artavazd IV (Atropatenan/Median) 4‑6 3. Tigran V (Jewish) 6‑14 3a. Erato (Tigran IV, again, first ruled 8 B.C.‑5 A.D.) 14‑15 4. Vonon (Parthian) 16‑17 5. Artashes III or Zeno (Roman) 18‑34 6. Arshak I (Parthian) 34‑35 7. Mithridates (Georgian) 35‑37 and 47‑51 8. Hradamizd (Georgian) 51‑53

All of this, along with other points, warrant the revert made. --AdilBaguirov 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon9288, you write in the edit summary of your revert: "(No. The only way to make process on this contentious article is to start from the arbitrary version I unprotected it at, and this is that version. Plus, reverting to a version with typos is just silly)". I agree about the typo's -- albeit they are present in both versions -- but the first part is not factual, per above. The version of the page you reverted to, is contentious and is causing problems, as it is partly (re: Artsakh to Armenia) unsubstantiated, and partly (re: Walker ref) at odds with a greater number of more authoritative sources. If I or someone else, provide authoritative, fully-cited and verifiable facts for their re-writers, then, per Wikipedia rules, those edits are superior to the present-version and should be honored, even if further discussions are going on.

Here are additional historical sources that are of interest and should be incorporated into the article:

"In the first century A.D. the region now occupied by Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was part of the province of Artsakh, which belonged to Caucasian Albania. Feudal relations developed in the third through fifth centuries, and Christianity began to spread. In the early eighth century the Arabs conquered Artsakh, as well as all of Albania, and Islam penetrated the area. (Until that time Gregorianism had flourished among the Christian population.) Artsakh was part of the Albanian kindgdom in the ninth and tenth centuries. In the mid-11th century it was invaded by the Seljuk Turks…. In the 1230's, Artsakh was conquered by the Mongols, and from that time most of its territory was called Karabakh."

Source: Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, 1973, "NKAO, Historial Survey".

The Russian Imperial historian and ethnographer, V.L.Velichko, wrote: "Especially interesting is also the question of Caucasian Albania, or, in Armenian, Aghvank. This country, which incorporated contemporary Elizavetpol' Guberniia, as well as part of Tiflis [Guberniia] and Daghestan, was populated by nations of non-Armenian ancestry.... Until the beginning of XIX century a separate Aghvan or Gandzasar Catolicosat existed, which competed with the Echmiadzin [Armenian Catholicosat].... Currently, the Christians who were before of Aghvan Catholicosat, are considered Armenians, and after mixing with them [assimilating], adopted their character." (p. 66). Velichko later continues: "An exception were the inhabitants of Karabakh (Albania or Aghvania), incorrectly (in relation to history) called Armenians, who professed the Armenian-Gregorian faith, but were descendants of [Caucasian] Mountaneer and Turkic tribes, and who had gone through the process of Armenianization only three to four centuries earlier." (p.154)

Source: V.L. Velichko, "Caucasus: Russian affairs and interethnic questions." St.Petersburg, 1904, pp. 66, 154. IN RUSSIAN: Vasilii L'vovich Velichko "Kavkaz. Russkoe delo i mezhduplemennie voprosi."

One of the most authoritative Armenian scholars, Ronald Grigor Suny described in his book "Looking Toward Ararat" (London, 1986, p.82) the borders of Arshakuni (Arsacid) Armenian kingdom (52 A.D.-428 A.D.), which was a Roman and Persian vassal, as reaching their most Northern point to the west of Gokchai (Sevan) lake whilst occupying only two thirds of present day Zangezur to the east.

Another Armenian author M. Belakian writes that mountaneous Karabakh was part of the Albania rather than Arshakuni Armenian kingdom until at least IV century A.D. --AdilBaguirov 04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I readded links to existing detailed articles. I think there's no need to repeat what is already been described in more detail and better English and with use of reliable sources in other articles. I think this article needs to be cleaned up and made compliant with those articles. Grandmaster 07:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The copyrighted text and pictures added by Patriot77 can be found here [15]. Clear violation of wiki rules. VartanM 21:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Armenian nobleman Aran"?

Whoever invented this, please, provide reference to precise page of the translation of Movses Kalankatuaci. No claim was known to be made by him that "Armenian nobleman Aran established principality there", no references in only English translation by an expert scholar CJF Dowsett. Atabek 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is a disaster. Indeed, Movses never calls him Armenian, it is OR. Also, Aran was a legendary figure, not a real person, so he could not be Armenian, Albanian or whatever, because he did not exist in real life. --Grandmaster 06:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two references already, and it says "according to the 5th century tradition" anyway so why do you mind... -- Davo88 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Both the ancient Armenian author according to name of Aran the grandee of the Armenian king, the descendant of Sisak (the legendary ancestor and eponym inhabitants of Armenian area Sisakan, i.e. Siunik) and which in turn was the descendant - of Hayk (the legendary ancestor and eponym all Armenians). On this background to specify specially, that Aran was the Armenian, for authors obviously senselessly. Sfrandzi (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)