Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

First line

I suggest the following revision of the first line:

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. After the end of World War I the region fell under the occupation of British forces, who provisionally affirmed Khosrov Bey Sultanov, appointed by the government of Azerbaijan Republic, as governor-general of Karabakh, pending final decision by the Paris Peace Conference.

Grandmaster 09:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. - FrancisTyers · 10:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But why? The above information is factually accurate and can be verified from a great number of sources. Grandmaster 10:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is only tangentially relevant, and not sufficiently relevant for the lead. - FrancisTyers · 10:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, it is more relevant than the addition, proposed by Tigran. Grandmaster 10:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. That the region was disputed is relevant, how the region was disputed is a matter for the article. - FrancisTyers · 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But it says that it was a source of dispute, and we need also to mention that by the time Bolsheviks took the region over it was under Azerbaijani administration. It is important information. Grandmaster 11:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in the lead it isn't. - FrancisTyers · 11:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't under Azeri administration. The administration had been rejected by Armenians. If we mention the governor, we should mention that de-facto, Armenians established an independent government over NK without Azeri control. And the non-recognition of Azeri claims over disputed areas.--TigranTheGreat 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

GM, Tigran is right... The reality of a De-Jure Azeri administration over NK before 1920 can never be considered factual since Azerbaijan's own administration was not considered De-Jure until it was recognized as such by the British (actually, even you specify that the British appointed Khosrov Bey PENDING confimation at the Paris peace treaty, so the latter would have actually confirmed the De-Jure status of Azerbaijan's governor)... Until then, only De-Facto status can be discussed, and even you won't contend the fact that Armenians maintained factual control over the territory of NK even after 1920...HyeProfile 16:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The region was under the Azeri administration (many sources, including Armenian ones, use the word jurisdiction), even Armenian and pro-Armenian sources say so. I provided so many quotes from various sources, I think there can be no doubt about that. Armenians agreed to that, it is also verifiable info. And Azerbaijani government had a de-facto control over the whole region, by the time Soviets took the region over the Azeri forces put down the Armenian revolt in Karabakh, and Shusha and other major settlements were under the firm Azeri control. Red Army met no resistance from the Azerbaijani army, because most of the military forces of ADR were dispatched to Karabakh. When Soviets occupied Azerbaijan, they replaced the Azeri army with Red Army forces, but Karabakh still remained within Azerbaijan SSR.

I think my above suggestion accurately describes the situation. I did not use the word “jurisdiction” like Hovannisian and other sources did, I chose more neutral wording to make it acceptable for everyone. Grandmaster 05:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

GM, I like your subjective quoting of Hovannisian... Is it just me or do I remember his adding the all-important "provisional" right before "jurisdiction"... "Provisional juristiction" implies in itself that Azerbaijan had gained control of the region only temporarily, which clearly also suggests that there was a non-negligeable Armenian resistance to it's control after the act (we can safely state that there was resistance prior to the act because of the need to gain provisional jurisdiction, and I'm sure even you won't contend that fact)... Hence, on a strict factual basis, it becomes obvious that the region remained contended de-facto if not even de-jure (in reality, Armenians never really lost de-fact control of the region despite being defeated in Shoushi, but I'll spare myself the fruitless sparing with you GM)!!! HyeProfile 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at what I suggested once again:

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. After the end of World War I the region fell under the occupation of British forces, who provisionally affirmed Khosrov Bey Sultanov, appointed by the government of Azerbaijan Republic, as governor-general of Karabakh, pending final decision by the Paris Peace Conference.

I did not forget to include the word “provisional”, my version is factually accurate. It mentions that Sultanov was appointed provisionally, pending final decision on the status of the region by the Paris Peace Conference. But the final decision was made by Bolsheviks, who took the region over before Paris Conference got to consider the status of the region. Soviets left NK within Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And there are many sources that do not use the word "jurisdiction," most notably the very British circular itself (to which GM has referred to before). So, we cannot use the wording of 1-2 sources (which are interpretational wordings) and ignore the wordings of other sources. We need to stick to facts--there was a mere appointment of an Azeri governor. And we can't use that in the intro (since we would have to also state that the appointment was rejected by Armenians, and all the other facts countering that appointment). The circular merely stated the British support the provisional appointment of an Azeri governor--there was nothing about "jurisdiction," "recognition of de-facto ownership" or any other legal meaning that Azeris have tried infer from it. It was a mere practical decision to appoint someone so the fighting would stop, without any diplomatic meaning. There could be none, since Azerbaijan was not even recognized de-facto at the time (and hence could not have even a de-facto recognition over NK). The British decision is precisely the kind of double-faced solution that I was talking about before--the kind of decisions that big powers have imposed over the region, with each side interpreting it in its own way.

In sum, Azerbaijan didn't establish any jurisdiction over NK--either de-facto or de-jure. As many sources (including pro-Azeri ones) have stated, Armenians established an independent government in NK, who rejected the appointment of the Azeri governor. While *some* Armenians later *temporarily* agreed to the appointment, the rest kept refusing any Azeri jurisdiction. And those who had agreed, did so only briefly, as in spring of 1920 *all* Armenians of NK declared union with Armenia. For several months, Armenia actually controlled NK (again, as stated in sources). In August, while the Armenian REpublic agreed to a temporary ceasefire, with temporary Bolshevik occupation of NK, the *local* Armenians kept rejecting Azeri jurisdiction. All this was going on, when in November 1920, Bolsheviks "handed" NK to Armenia. And all this while, the Allies recognized the disputed status of the lands, and while recognizing Armenia de-jure, did not do so with respect to Azerbaijan.

In sum, as many sources have demonstrated, throughout the period, while local Armenians had de-facto control of NK, Azerbaijan had neither de-facto nor de-jure control over NK, all the way till 1920. Now, we could state in the intro that Armenians established and maintaned independent government in the region, later declaring union with Armenia. But I am willing to compromise and leave that detail to the main text of the article.--TigranTheGreat 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The British circular was rejected as a source by yourself, and now you refer to it. You should decide whether you accept the source or you don’t. Once again, Azeri governor was not rejected by the NK Armenians, quite the contrary, they agreed to his appointment and agreed that they would be granted cultural autonomy within Azerbaijan and the region would be part of Azerbaijan pending the final decision at the Paris Peace Conference. Plus, Azerbaijan had a de-facto control over the region as well, Azerbaijani forces suppressed the Dashnak revolts in the area. Think for yourself, if NK was part of Armenia, then why Bolsheviks occupied the region, when they occupied Azerbaijan? Armenia was sovietisized later, but NK was part of Soviet Azerbaijan before that, and Narimanov’s telegram said that old borders were annulled. Bolsheviks simply reaffirmed the decision by British. Here’s another source, in fact quite sympathetic to Armenians:

Karabagh first became part of modern Azerbaijan because temporarily occupying British troops turned Armenian forces under the partisan leader Andranik away from Karabagh in 1918. Promising fair treatment at the Paris peace conference, the British instead assigned the region to Azerbaijan, a decision the Bolsheviks would later uphold. For the Armenians the historical lessons are clear: Andranik... [was] duped.

Stuart Kaufman. Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. ISBN: 0801487366

Grandmaster 06:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The British circular comes from the same MFA website that has been extensively used by you here. The circular itself has been relied upon by you, so we can refer to it: [1]. The circular says nothing about "jurisdiction" or "reinforcement of ownership"--any such statements are interpretational, not factual, and therefore cannot be used in the article. Once again, the Azeri governor was rejected by Armenians, who had established an independent government in NK, and later declared union with Armenia. Azerbaijan was never able to suppress the Armenian resistance in NK, in fact on April 1920, the Azeri army was completely thrown out of Karabakh, without ever having any de-facto control over NK.

The reason Bolsheviks occupied Karabakh was not because it belonged to Azerbaijan (it didn't), but because they wanted to weaken Armenia in order to make it easier for Bolsheviks to establish their rule in Armenia. I don't know where you got that new "source," I haven't checked it so I don't know how reliable or accurate it is, but considering that the British circular mentioned nothing about Azeri jurisdiction, it is the author's POV interpretation. And it runs counter to facts in many other sources, which clearly state that there was no de-facto recognized Azeri goverment (and this there could not be de-facto Azeri ownership of Karabakh), that Armenians didn't accept the Azeri governor, and that Armenians controlled NK, establishing their government and declaring union with Armenia. These facts are stated even in pro-Azeri sources (such as Cornell), so we can't say that NK was part of Azerbaijan before Soviets.--TigranTheGreat 03:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The remaining parts of Azerbaijan which belongs to Armenians like Shamkir, Samukh and Agstafa should also be liberated from Azerbaijan and added to NK. -- Axxn

LOL

Hey guys, has anyone seen the Signpost recently, specifically the "in the news" section?

In anticipation of Wikimania, GQ put out "Who Edited My Cheese?", a list of five "topics likely to start a Wiki-brawl", including MySpace, 2006 World Cup, Scientology, Cheese, and Nagorno-Karabakh.

(from the website) Nagorno-Karabakh: "It's a portion of the South Caucasus which should be part of Azerbaijan but is effectively unruled or de facto independent. The arguments are about stuff like whether the Azerbaijani coat of arms should be included on the page or not. They're trying to work towards a compromise."

Congratulations guys... :p —Khoikhoi 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Damn, they are all watching us.--TigranTheGreat 03:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the subtle hopelessness: "They are trying to work towards a compromise". Most people would say "They are working towards a compromise" but we aren't, we're still trying to. --Golbez 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Good point. This is the most fun I have had on this page.--TigranTheGreat 03:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, we are making headlines. Or at least get mentioned somewhere. First step to the international fame! Grandmaster 04:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

HAHA :))) - FrancisTyers · 08:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This article really does get attention

[2]--Eupator 11:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, now that you all got your 15 minutes of fame, can we get back to the task at hand!?!HyeProfile 23:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Azeris and Armenians: Go to your languages' versions of this page! Improve them, translate all that German into Armenian, expand the Azeri version and turn those red links blue! Just don't waste electrons on the English version when your own languages' pages are so sadly lacking! Wareq 09:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hah, I agree, the pages on their Wikipedias really suck. - FrancisTyers · 09:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does not suck. Those are new and improving wikis and it is not appropriate to compare it with the English version. Furthermore, where de hell one would think that they get the right to tell others what to edit, where to work and where not? Be careful before attacking others. --72.60.179.223 00:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, calm down. —Khoikhoi 00:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

72.60.179.223- Dude, the Armenian page has about three times more text in German than in Armenian, and the Azeri page is shorter than the English page's INTERNATIONAL STATUS section. Start in your own backyard (unless there aren't any keyboards in your alphabet).Wareq

Wareq dude, first of all what is the relevance of wikipedias in other languages to this discussion? Second, you have not answered the question that where the hell do you get the right to tell people what to do? If they choose to edit English instead of their language, who the hell are you to object? --72.60.179.223 09:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Continuation

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918, $y$. When the Bolsheviks took over the region in 1920, they initially $x$ to Armenia, and then x to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

	$x$	$y$
a	placed under control of	remaining disputed until the arrival of Bolsheviks.
b	recognized as part of	remaining disputed for the next two years
c	granted to	remaining disputed until Bolsheviks took over the region
d	awarded to
e	transferred to
f	decided that NK should belong
g	passed a resolution in favor of
h	handed to
i	allotted to
j	allocated to
k	bestowed to/upon

Solution

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918, remaining disputed for the next two years. When the Bolsheviks took over the region in 1920, they initially transferred to Armenia, and then transferred to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

We should go with x-e and y-b. - FrancisTyers · 08:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How about the Azeri governor, appointed by the British? Why should we mention "remained disputed" and omit this episode? I think "y" is not required at all. The first line is OK without it, but if we expand it, then we should mention the governor as well. Grandmaster 08:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No. You can talk about that in the body. - FrancisTyers · 08:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not x-e. It has a hidden meaning of "NK belonged to Azerbaijan before." Any other choice except e, f, or g.--TigranTheGreat 00:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to have to live with this fictitious "hidden meaning", just like Grandmaster is going to have to live with the region being disputed. Transferred quite rightly means "To make over the possession or legal title of; convey.". Considering it is only you, and a few other contributors who seem to be struck by this, I don't think it will be a big loss. - FrancisTyers · 08:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, we can always try asking other (non-involved, non-extremist) people what they think of it. Not a vote, but just like an RfC without the complicated filing stuff. - FrancisTyers · 08:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Holy christ, this is still going on? I thought there was an agreement! The mediation is done. Francis has mediated. Now Francis should choose. Mediation is also leadership. --Golbez 09:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that we can add any wording you guys deem necessary, but it will not resolve the issue. New editors would still challenge the accuracy of that wording and everything would start all over again. So it is better to find a compromise solution, acceptable for both sides, otherwise we would just be postponing the solution of the dispute. Grandmaster 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a compromise solution, if you've got a better idea I'd like to hear it, but I seem to remember that all your suggestions were refused by the other side. Not to mention that all the other sides suggestions were refused by you. Having a suggestion refused by both sides is about as close to agreement as we're going to get I suspect. In fact, when impartial observers attempted to make suggestions, those were refused too. - FrancisTyers · 20:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the hidden meening behind "transfered" is too strong to convey a NPOV... It's a long way from x-b since "recognize" is the most netural verb in this case, as it makes no allusions to any previous occupancy or possession... I'd vote for x-b, and so would a lot of others... Let's put it to a vote like Francis suggested!!!HyeProfile 17:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't, and I never suggested a vote. - FrancisTyers · 18:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis, there is nothing fictitious about the hidden meaning. Actually, it's not even hidden. The applicable definition of transfer is "to pass from one place, person, or thing to another." Your definition is not applicable since it talks about legal-title--real estate, a car, not a political unit. As such, the meaning is going to be there. Who are we trying to fool?

There is a reason why GM strongly agreed with the version "transfer"--to him, that means it belonged to Azerbaijan. So, who are we trying to fool, GM? Are we trying to let each side infer a meaning most favorable to his POV? That's not the right way to go about mediation. If we are making a compromise, we have to be clear what we are sacrificing, and what the sacrifices mean. Ironically, the people of the region have too often been imposed ambigious "solutions" to "fool each side" into believing he got the best deal. It's only temporary success, and that approach has never worked. I know what transfer is, GM knows what transfer is, so let's not pretend it means something that it doesn't.

As to who will have to live with what--maybe I will agree to live with not mentioning that NK had independent Armenian government, if GM agrees to live with not mentioning some Azeri guy's appointment. "NK being disputed" is the middle ground, so all can live with it.--TigranTheGreat 01:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, would it not be better to use the words "allocated" and "included" in the section? The quote says that the region was disputed for several years (1918-Sovietization of the republics) until the Soviet Union invaded both countries. Neither country was able to full gain control of the region and even if they did, their borders were not even recognized (this is what I understand from the quote). So, now that the USSR came in and decided who would have what (not just in the NK but other regions too) would it not seem more reasonable to say that it originally "decided to allocate (allot) the region to Armenia" but the decision was thus reversed and instead, "in 1921, the region was included as a part of the Azerbaijan SSR"? Transfer gives up off the feeling that the region belonged to someone prior to Sovietization and that the USSR took it from one republic, decided to transfer it to the other, then reveresed it and again "transferred" it to another country (there's a connontation of which makes it sound like there was a 3rd party to the dispute; for example, if it was a part of Georgia, the region was transferred to Armenia and later to Azerbaijan). You cannot transfer something out of a country and then annul the order and then use the word transfer if it belonged to one of the countries in the first place.--MarshallBagramyan 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We cannot use the words like “allocated” and “included”, as it clearly contradicts all historical documents. The region was under the provisional administration of Azerbaijani government, pending final resolution at the Paris Peace Conference, but because of Soviet occupation of the region Paris conference never considered the NK issue. When Bolsheviks took the region over, they eventually decided to leave NK within Azerbaijan. Therefore it is OK to use the word "transferred", though the most appropriate would be to say that NK was left within Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Armenians and Azeris will never agree on this, ever. No, it would not be more accurate to say that. Prior to 1923 or so, whenever the NKAO was established, there is no accurate way to say what the status of Nagorno-Karabakh was, because no one agrees. When every party involved in the mediation accepts this, then mediation will be successful. All we can do is state the simple facts, then say what each side says. We cannot pick one side over the other, period. The simplest of facts must be stated. We must not make any assumptions or presumptions over anything about Nagorno-Karabakh prior to the establishment of the NKAO - to say it was "left" within Azerbaijan is not acceptable. That is what this horrendous discussion has attempted to do, and I am downright angry it's still going on. --Golbez 05:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So let's simply state that "... the region remained disputed for the next two year." and that "When the bolsheviks took over, they initially decided to include the NK within Armenia's jurisdiction, and then decided to include it withing Azerbaijan's jurisdiction, much to the displeasure of the Armenians in the region." This is factually accurate and states the contentious issue very clearly... We could include the fact that the British assigned it to Azerbaijan in interim to the actual Paris treaty, but that isn't relevant since the bolsheviks took over the region and tends to take away from the NPOV... my two cents HyeProfile 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We could assign the value "included within jurisdition of ....." to x, as it has been suggested before. We can't use "decided to" because 1) it would use one phrasing for Armenia and another to Azerbaijan, and 2) it wasn't just "decided to" hand NK to Armenia, it was actually "handed" to Armenia, as stated in Stalin's, Orjonikidze's, and Narimanov's telegrams. So, it was given/handed/included within jurisdiction of first Armenia, then Azerbaijan. And as decided before, we can't use "reversed" since, besides being redundant, we can't be sure if the decision was reversed, or a *new* decision was later made to give it to Azerbaijan. And, as Marshall stated, "transfer" presupposes that Bolsheviks took it from someone and gave it to someone else (yes, Francis is says that readers would pick definition #2 of the word, but we all know that before getting to #2, they will pick #1, which is precisely why GM wants to use the word so strongly).--TigranTheGreat 03:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I already explained why the words like “included”, “granted”, “given”, etc are not acceptable. The original Kavburo resolution said that NK was to be left within Azerbaijan SSR, and so do many other sources. I think the only other solution that allowed no interpretations as to whom the region belonged or did not belong before was the one that said:

When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially decided that Nagorno-Karabakh should belong to Armenia, this decision was reversed and it was decided that it should belong to Azerbaijan.

This version was rejected without any serious consideration. But I’m also OK with the version that uses the word “transferred”. Stalin and Orjonikidze used that word to describe the situation. Grandmaster 06:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There was never a reversal. It was a newly made, arbitrary and politically motivated decision. There is no document stating that the previous decision was invalid or something of that sort, a new decision was made overriding the previous one by the occupying Bolshevik regime.--Eupator 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

GM, you must surely understand that in order to find a truely neutral statement, we must use neutral words, and any terms that have inherent conotations of prior ownership/right/associativity are inacceptable in this context (this goes both ways, and the Armenian lobby seams to be respecting that, so why can't you)... You say that "words like “included”, “granted”, “given”, etc are not acceptable" on grounds of neutrality, but you yourself propose an even less neutral words ("transfered" or "decision was reversed") instead... This is getting ridiculous to the point of frustration...

But on a positive note, based on your latest suggestion, at least you agree that x & y CAN BE both identical without sacrificing neutrality. Now can you agree to a neutral but fully-descriptive "was handed to"??? It goes straight to the point and says that the decisions was not only taken, but it was also enforced (at the Bolshevik governance level at least)... And as for different interpretations, it goes both ways since the same verb is used for both... However, I must still stress that "without consulting the people of NK" should be added somewhere in there, thus drawing away from the delicacies of the wording and emphasizing the contentious issue... I'm leaning more and more on opposing any statement that doesn't contain that statement... HyeProfile 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, if it would be more suitable for you, let’s replace “reversed” with “changed”, as Francis suggested. As for handed, granted, etc, you see, we have the original Kavburo resolution that said NK was to be left within Azerbaijan. We also have other sources saying the same thing. So we cannot ignore those and go with certain interpretation of Soviets decision. That’s why I think that my above suggestion is the best way out of situation. Also, there’s no need to add an extra line about decisions being made without consulting the people of NK, it is quite obvious from the context that the Soviets never cared about peoples' opinions. Grandmaster 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be obvious to you GM, but not to the reader who'll be reading this article (we can't assume that the reader knows anything about Soviet politics)... Since GM agrees that the people of NK weren't consulted, and since including such a statement clearly draws aways from the delecacies or connotations of the terms we use and emphasizes the problematics of the situation, then we should include it in the statement!!! I would tend to agree with replacing the transition verb by a compromising "handed to" IF "without consulting the people of NK" is added somewhere in that sentence... We definately cannot use "changed" since it has the same effect as "reversed" which inplies direct reference to the prior decision, and the actual resolution had nothing to do with the prior decision to hand the territories to Armenia. Eupator said it best: "There was never a reversal. It was a newly made, arbitrary and politically motivated decision.")HyeProfile

As it has already been explained (by me, Francis, and Golbez, among others), Kavburo's resolution is just one source, and we can't ignore the rest of the sources and pick this one. There were other words used as well--annexed to, ceded to, awarded to, handed to etc. So, as Golbez stated, we need to stick to facts. The facts clearly show that NK was given to Azerbaijan, since previously it belonged to Armenia (as it had been handed to Armenia). "Recognized as part of" would be most neutral, but I compromised for "handed to." As to "changed," it has the same problems as "reversed" and is unacceptable--there was a new decision made, 8 months later, not a "change" of prior decision. Also, the fact that Soviets didn't care about NK's people's opinion actually works in favor of including the line proposed by HyeProfile--since it shows the illegality of NK's annexation to Azerbaijan.--TigranTheGreat 02:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. You say that we cannot ignore other sources and pick one, and then suggest to pick “handed” and thus ignore sources that say NK was left within Azerbaijan. As for legality or illegality of decisions, we don’t make any judgments on that, we just report the facts. Declaration of Narimanov on transfer of Azeri territories to Armenia was illegal too, revolutionary committee had no right to make such decisions, and its authorities were highly dubious. But it’s a different story, which we are not going to discuss at the moment. I think the best way out of the situation is to exclude the line in question from the intro and provide more detailed description in the main text of the article. Otherwise I’m ok with the word “transferred”. Grandmaster 05:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Transfered" is inacceptable and uncompromising as it is a far-from-neutral word that implies both de facto & de jure control after the fact, which was certainly not the case as Tigran proved above with more than a couple refereneces. If you don't agree to this fact GM, then your position is obviously biased, and I believe you should step away from this discussion to help reach a consensus and for the sake of moving forward...

I agree with Tigran's argument that "recognized as part of" is the most neutral statement in terms of connotations of prior ownership, but I'm also willing to compromise for "handed to" which is more of an executive term. vs the more passive "recognized"... Everyone except GM agrees on this compromising solution and it is becoming very frustrating to waste any more precious wiki space discussing this further...

This is what i suggest as a compromise:

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918, remaining disputed for the next two years. When the Bolsheviks took over the region in 1920, they initially handed the region to Armenia, and then decided to hand it to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923 without consulting the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Can we now turn the page and move on to debating the next paragraph for the next month or two??? HyeProfile 15:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to prior comments--using "handed to" as opposed to "left in" doesn't exclude other sources for the following reason. While Grandmaster insisted on the use of "left in" just because some sources use the term, I favor "recognized as part of" or "handed to" not because they are mentioned in sources (since, as always, I don't believe relying on one source to the exclusion of others), but because those terms stick to undisputed facts, as opposed to "left in" or "transferred" which implies the disputed claim of NK being part of Azerbaijan before 1920. The verbs supported by my side are most factual and closer to the neutral middle (in the spectre of various verbs used in sources) than "transferred" or "left in." The undisputed facts here are--that the region remained disputed throughout the period, that it was first "handed to" (a term used in Stalin's telegram--translation of Russian "peredacha") Armenia, and then it somehow ended up in Azerbaijan. These are the undisputed facts--and Golbez makes a good point (which unfortunately is being ignored here)--we are never going to agree on the other "disputed" facts (who owned NK before 1920), so we should only stick to the undisputed facts, without giving preference to the either side.

As to the illegality of NK's transfer to Azerbaijan--sure, let's stick with facts, as GM says--and let's mention that the transfer occured against the wishes of NK's population, and let the readers judge if it was illegal or not.

By the way, Walker, the source used by GM for the term "remained Azerbaijani" or "left in Azerbaijan," also uses other terms with respect to NK's handover to Azerbaijan (just as many other sources provided by me did)--proving once again that terms like "left in," "included," "handed to" have been used interchangably in literature. In particular, Walker uses terms like "included in," "designated as part of," and "joined to" Azerbaijan:

Mountainous Karabagh was, in contradiction to the wishes of its people, in 1921 designated part of Soviet Azerbaijan, to which it was joined in 1923. Walker p 396

[In 1921] Democratic arguments favoured the union of Karabagh with Armenia; but regional arguments favoured the region’s inclusion in Azerbaijan. Walker p. 395

And where Walker uses "remain in Azerbaijan" (p 395), he is quoting (as clearly seen from footnote 13) Libaridian's book, which is far from Armenian POV (and in fact contains numerous erroneous pro-Azeri characterizations) and which has been heavily relied upon by Grandmaster.

And by the way, Walker himself confirms the undisputed fact that the region remained disputed throughout the period:

Both regions [Nakhichevan and Karabakh] had been, along with Zangezur, ‘disputed territories’ between Armenia and Azerbaijan throughout much of the time of the independent republics of 1918-20. Walker p 394 --TigranTheGreat 03:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I explained many times before, we cannot distort the primary source (the Kavburo resolution) to say that NK was handed, granted, etc to Azerbaijan. The resolution clearly says that NK was to be left in Azerbaijan, part of which it was before the Soviet takeover. In addition to the primary source we have many secondary sources (including Armenian and pro-Armenian ones) that say the same thing. The same Walker to whom Tigran refers and which is very anti-Turkish and anti Azeri source, says that NK was left in Azerbaijan, and moreover, it confirms that “Mountainous Karabagh with its large Armenian majority remained Azerbaijani throughout the pre-Soviet and Soviet period”. Now why should we ignore all those primary and secondary sources and go with the interpretation that is preferable to the Armenian side of the dispute? Of course, we cannot do that. Also, the word “transferred” was not suggested by me, it was a compromise proposal by the mediator. I agreed to it, you don't. If we cannot agree on compromise wording, the only other way could be removing the disputed line from the intro altogether and providing a more detailed description of the dispute in the main text. I suggested this also many times before. Grandmaster 11:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I had something long and profanity-ridden here but I retract it. If Francis wants me, he can drop a note on my talk page. But til then, I see no reason to dedicate any time to this worthless discussion. You people have been arguing over two words in a single sentence for over a month - even though, ultimately, it is irrelevant, as no one knows what happened in Nagorno-Karabakh before 1923. Period. Anyone who states differently should be discarded from mediation as a hopeless POV warrior. You people should stop trying to figure out what verbs to use and just state facts, no verbiage but "is" and "was". Madre de dios. I personally don't understand how Francis remains sane.

Fuck the sources. Pick a neutral geographic source, rather than a political or legislative one. Get into the political/legislative specifics later, but if I'm not mistaken, this sentence is for the intro? "After the Bolsheviks took over, they struggled to find a place for Nagorno-Karabakh/they struggled with the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh/whatever. From X to X, it was part of Armenia, then from X on it was part of Azerbaijan. Prior to X, its political status was uncertain." If this or any variant of this gets used, I want a medal. This is what happens when I stay up til 7am, people. --Golbez 11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, Golbez. I actually feel the same, but we need to find some wording that would please everyone or simply give up any attempts to fit the dispute into 2 short lines. The thing is that it is not so easy to agree on those X to X as well. Grandmaster 11:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Then give up. A month over this is a hopeless waste of time. Everyone cannot be pleased - simply try to offend the least. And I wasn't aware there was any disagreement on the dates, just the verbs that occurred on those dates. I'm saying remove the verbs. State the facts. And if we even don't know what dates it was moved or transferred or given or gifted or whatever the hell verb you want to use, then don't mention it. Mention, simply, that the history of Nagorno-Karabakh before 1923 is vague, complex, and challenged by several sides. And move on. --Golbez 11:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest saying in the intro that NKAO was established in 1923 and that’s it. Let's make it as simple as possible. Grandmaster 05:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Th.. tha... that's what we have now... --Golbez 06:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't. The current version uses the word "incorporated", which started this prolonged dispute. I suggest to change it to "established". Grandmaster 06:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite possible to resolve disputes, if both sides simply stick to the facts that can be verified from more than one reliable source and show some good will. Nakhichevan is a good example of that, the disputes have been for the most part resolved and the article looks quite good now. Grandmaster 06:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If we use the version prior to all this controversy--"NK was incorporated as NKAO in 1923," it will be fine. As it has been discussed extensively, "established" is incorrect since the region wasn't established in 1923, but existed long before. As to sticking to facts--that can be done too. We have pure facts that everyone agrees to, including pro-Azeri sources--that NK was disputed throughout 1918-20, that it was recognized as part of/handed to Armenia at some point, then as part of/handed to Azerbaijan at a later point. The rest of the quarrel (whether it was left in Azerbaijan or annexed to it etc) are disputed interpretations favoring one side and should be left out.--TigranTheGreat 07:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NKAO did not exist prior to 1923, so it is correct to say that it was established that year. And it was not incorporated in Azerbaijan, as I explained many times. There's no official document of incorporation of NKAO into Azerbaijan, the Kavburo resolution says NK was to be left within Az.SSR. So the word "incorporated" should be replaced with the word "established", and the intro will be fine and factually accurate. Grandmaster 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

When a region in the United States decides to become a city, with a city government and a school system or whatever, it incorporates. It becomes a city. This means it can (in most circumstances) no longer be annexed by other cities. Cities can usually only annex *unincorporated land*. THAT is the definition of incorporation I've been using. Do you understand this one? I'm not saying we should use it - I'm just asking, GM, if you understand the terminology I'm using, because up til now I don't think you have. --Golbez 08:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You know perfectly well, Golbez, that the word “incorporated” has another meaning as well, i.e. “included”. So the use of this word implies that NK was included in Azerbaijan by the Soviets, which is not neutral statement. You can insist that you attach only a certain meaning to the word, but you know that the readers could construe it different way. So in this case we should use the word that has only a certain meaning. Grandmaster 09:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You misconstrue my remarks. I did not say I want you to use incorporated, nor that it has only one meaning - I was just making sure you understood what I meant by it. I realized that I don't think you've once acknowledged that, and therefore we had one definition beating the other definition around wiht a rotten fish, without anyone caring about what people meant. --Golbez 10:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I understand that the word “incorporated” has other meanings as well, if that’s what you are asking about. I just explained why this word is not acceptable in the intro. Grandmaster 11:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, since "incorporated" is unacceptable to you because you don't like one meaning (though the other meaning is applicable), we shall not use "transfer" since its one meaning (actually the main one) assumes NK was taken from azerbaijan and given to Armenia. Which obviously is not neutral. --TigranTheGreat 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Azeri language incorporated

After meeting with a group of Azeri-speaking journalists, we discussed the origins of the name, and incorporated the Azeri definitions into the description of the name.--Brad Patrick 19:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you around, Brad. However, that flat contradicts the cited source. Then again, the original version didn't match the source either, so I'll remove it. That does, unfortunately, leave that section unsourced. --Golbez 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, the source removed by you (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/3658938.stm) says The word Karabakh has Turkic and Persian roots and means "black garden. The COE document says essentially the same: The name Nagorno-Karabakh is a relatively recent combination of the Russian word Nagorno, meaning mountainous, and the Turkic-Persian word Karabakh, meaning black garden [3]. We got that much sourced and we should use that. And since when do we use "discussions with Azeri journalists" as a source? --TigranTheGreat 22:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if Brad hadn't made that change, the source didn't match the text - saying it's of turkic-persian roots does not necessarily mean 'kara' is turkic and 'bagh' is persian. I would agree that Brad's Azeri friends are blinded by POV, but that doesn't change the fact that the source didn't match either version. If we put the source back, get rid of the splitting of the word into kara and bagh. --Golbez 23:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, let's do that. Better to have a shorter sourced info than an unsourced (and POV) one.--TigranTheGreat 23:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This still hasn't been reverted... I mean, come on!!! Kara & Bagh originate from Azeri??? We're dealing with Guerillas here!!! HyeProfile 16:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kara and bagh are indeed Azeri words. Kara is a Turkic word meaning black, bagh is a word of Persian origin that entered Azeri language and it means garden. Both words exist in Azeri language and Karabagh means Black Garden in Azeri. Grandmaster 06:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then from that same logic, "bigot" should also become an Azeri word since I'm sure it would be useful within the language...

GM, I'm amused by the ease at which you neglect the obvious facts while pretending to use factual arguments that are completely out of context!!! Your lack of integrity astounds me... HyeProfile 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know if you are familiar with wiki rules or not, but they require to comment on content and not on the contributor. Please bear that in mind in the future. You might wish to check this out: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As for your comment, just open any Azerbaijani language dictionary and look for the word “garden”, and see what you get. All languages have borrowed words, Azerbaijani is not exception. Grandmaster 05:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's true GM, Armenian is no exception with its large vocabulary of words that have Iranic origin, but the statement: The word Karabakh has Turkic and Persian roots and means "black garden. is still correct is it not? Kara is Turkic, Bagh is Iranic. It's just an explanation of the etymology, doesn't mean that garden is not bagh in the Azeri language, it's just a loanword. --Eupator 14:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind that statement, it is factually accurate. I just responded to the statements by some that the word is not of Azeri origin. It is, as both parts of the name exist in Azeri language and that's the reason for that combination of words to exist. Grandmaster 10:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is moot. OK, so 'bagh' is an Azeri word. That does not mean it has Azeri roots. It means the Azeri 'bagh' and the part of 'Karabakh' have the same root. Furthermore, we have a source that is correctly cited. All of this is moot unless you can find a source that says bagh originated in Azeri, not Persian or Turkic. --Golbez 10:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I said that I don't mind the current wording. I just commented on statements by some users above. The word Karabagh is of Azeri origin, as both parts of it exist in Azeri language, even though the word bagh is not of Turkic origin and is a loanword from Persian. But the combination of the two exists only because both words exist in the same language. Anyway, I see no point in arguing over this. Grandmaster 10:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If we go historic way. word "bagh" was azeri (in a time most poeple in south azerbaijan and some in North azerbaijan were speaking persian or another indo-aryan language like syth or kurdish)and word "kara" from Turkic root came to azeri language after turk immigration in 800 or 1000 or 1400 years ago. azeris words are combination of Turkic and Farsi origin (and now farsi has 60% Parsi and 40% Arabic)

How long...

...has this article been locked and what's keeping it from being unlocked? -- Clevelander 11:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is still unresolved. The article says that NK was incorporated into Az.SSR, which is a false statement. My question to Golbez. Why do you insist on the word "incorporated" being used? And why can't we replace it with the word "established"? Grandmaster 11:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And misconceptions like this are part of why it remains locked. I mean, hell, I just said, TWICE: "I'm not saying we should use it" and "I did not say I want you to use incorporated". Mainly because I don't care anymore. But hey, say whatever. This style of debate ain't getting things unlocked any time soon. In the meantime, the version I crafted remains up there - with the word 'incorporated.' I get my version solidly kept, and I get to yell at people for being annoying curmudgeons - sounds like I'm the winner here. --Golbez 17:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Because "incorporated" is not a false statement, as admitted by you. It merely has more than one definition, one of which you don't like. Golbez' definition is more applicable to the intro, since it says "NK was incorporated as NKAO," and not "NK was incorporated in Azerbaijan."

"NKAO was established" can't be used since it creates a disconnect between the "region" (the topic of the lead) and "AO."--it throws in the NKAO out of blue. And it omits the prior immediate history of the "establishment" which is important, and which is why we need the "handed to X, then B" version.--TigranTheGreat 12:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The intro should say: The Soviet Union established the predominantly Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923. This is factually accurate, NKAO was indeed established in 1923, and no one can deny it. We cannot include any POV interpretations in the article, including the intro. All the historical details should be provided in the main text. The current POV version of the intro is not acceptable. Grandmaster 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Noone can deny that NK was incorporated as NKAO either. Or that NK was first handed to Armenia, then Azerbaijan. And that it was disputed throughout the 1918-20 period. The "Established" version creates disconnect between NK and the AO, and omits "how" it came to be established. Therefore its unacceptable.--TigranTheGreat 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what's wrong with the word "incorporated?" -- Clevelander 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Even better question is why we have to fight that word for two months. Maybe GM can answer this time.--TigranTheGreat 23:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The word “incorporated” is absolutely inaccurate to describe the situation and is POV. I already explained so many times on this talk page why it is inaccurate, but I’ll do it once again. NK was part of Azerbaijan before the Soviet invasion, as you confirmed yourself. British affirmed Khosrow bey Sultanov, appointed by the government of Azerbaijan, as the governor of Karabakh, pending final decision by the Paris Peace Conference. ADR had a firm control over the region, including its capital Shusha, especially after Azerbaijan put down a dashnak revolt in the region. So by the time of Bolshevik invasion Karabakh was part of Azerbaijan. When Bolsheviks took the region over, they passed the following resolution:

Proceeding from the necessity of national piece among Muslims and Armenians and of the economic ties between upper (mountainous) and lower Karabakh, of its permanent ties with Azerbaijan, mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR, receiving wide regional autonomy with the administrative center in Shusha, which is to be included in the autonomous region.

As you can see from the above, they left NK within Azerbaijan, and did not “incorporate” it. If you can show me any resolution of Soviets on incorporation of NK into Azerbaijan, we can use that word, but since this resolution uses the words “NK to remain within Az.SSR”, we cannot include in the intro any POV interpretations of this document. Plus, in addition to this primary source, we have many secondary sources, even pro-Armenian ones, such as Walker, saying the same thing. Please see more quotes here: User:Grandmaster/Karabakh. I see no reason why should we ignore all those sources and go with the Armenian interpretation of the history of the region. Grandmaster 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Now please explain to me what is wrong with the word "established". Was NKAO not established in 1923? Then what is this argument about? Let's include this simple fact in the article withoit any POV interpretations and move on. Grandmaster 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what do you guys think about this? It's a compromise. Would this work?:

When the Soviet Union incorporated the South Caucasus into its borders, the predominantly Armenian region was established as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923. -- Clevelander 11:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it sound OK: “the region was established as NKAO”? Maybe it would sound better as “predominantly Armenian NKAO was established in Az.SSR”? Grandmaster 11:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was established as the NKAO (that's a fact) and it was within the Azerbaijan SSR (another fact). In any case, I think we should stick with my suggested version as it uses both the terms "incorporated" and "established." I'm interested in reading what Golbez thinks of my suggestion. -- Clevelander 11:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A little wordy. How about, "When the Soviet Union expanded in to the South Caucases, it organized/established/incorporated/fooed the predominantly Armenian region as the NKAO within the Azerbaijani SSR." I don't like the first sentence, though. --Golbez 22:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander's suggestion has merit, but GM opposes that as well... Why am I not surprised!?! GM, an AUTONOMOUS OBLAST, by definition (it's obvious to everyone but you) is INDEPENDANT of any other SSR's governing body but is included within the borders of an SSR simply for the sake of governance... Get that into your head... It was incorporated WITHIN Azerbaijan, not INTO Azerbaijan... Jeeeez!!!

Golbez & Francis, I seriously suggest we take GM out of this mediation for the sake of moving forward... He consistently refuses to drop his extremely POV attitude and repeatedly insists on misleading the spirit of the article by objecting to anything that doesn't convey a pro-Azeri POV... HyeProfile 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the only way that we can move forward is to take out all of the partisan contributors from the equation. - FrancisTyers · 16:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

...which is almost impossible to do. How can you not allow certain editors to contribute to an article? Again, I say we just use my version and be done with it. We all have lives, it's time we get on with them. -- Clevelander 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration, which I previously endorsed for GM and Adil. --Golbez 22:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Why haven't we taken this to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration yet? -- Clevelander 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I did not object to Clevelander's proposal, I just suggested to improve its wording, which sounds a bit awkward to me. In general, I'm OK with it. Second, I suggested arbitration long time ago, but I was told that they don't deal with content disputes. Has it changed yet? Grandmaster 06:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This wasn't a content dispute, it was constant and unrepetant POV pushing, which is within ArbCom's purvey, as it makes it impossible to work on an article. --Golbez 10:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You yourself said that it was a content dispute when I wanted to submit this case to Arbcom. The issue would have been resolved long ago if we had done that back then. I don’t mind if we submit this issue to them now. Maybe they can help to resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 10:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also remember you said that we could not submit this issue to Arbcom unless it passed thru the stage of formal mediation, and you refused to support my submission of this case to formal mediation. Correct me if I’m wrong here. Grandmaster 10:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Back then, it was a content dispute. Then you and Adil went wild with inserting false, blatantly POV statements. And clearly, I don't think it should go to Arbcom - but as I said, I would endorse it if it did. I still think things can be worked out. And of course, in the meantime, my version remains. --Golbez 10:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is still a content dispute, and it was not me who rejected the last proposal by Francis. If you think "incorporated" is neutral and "established" is not, it is just your POV. If you really wanted to help reach a compromise, you would come up with some new ideas, instead of trying to place blame with one of the sides to the dispute. Grandmaster 11:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You still think I care about that. And that is precisely why this goes on. And I have been trying to come up with new ideas; scroll up for a proposal I made that doesn't include "incorporated". But hey, if you want to argue for the sake of arguing, go ahead - it just keeps 'incorporated' there longer. --Golbez 11:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to say that your version of Clevelander's proposal is fine: When the Soviet Union expanded in to the South Caucases, it established the predominantly Armenian region as the NKAO within the Azerbaijani SSR. Let's agree on that and move on. Grandmaster 11:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Btw, if you scroll up you'll see that I said I was fine with Clevelander's proposal. Somehow you missed that and started accusing me of various things. Grandmaster 11:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

...but Golbez never objected to your response to my proposal in the first place. In fact, I was interested in seeing what he thought. -- Clevelander 11:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why are we having this argument? Let's move on. Grandmaster 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been on for a few days. Since school started, I won't be able to contribute as much. At any rate, as EXTENSIVELY discussed before, we can't say "the region was established in 1923" since the region was established in the pre-Cambrean period. And for the sake of not tossing the past discussion away, we should go with "handed to/recognized as part of ..." version rather than "incorporated." We can't use transfer, since NK was never part of Azerbaijan before 1920 (Sultanov never had de-facto rule over NK, nor was Azeri rule recognized either de-facto or de-jure, since Azerbaijan itself wasn't recognized as de-facto at the time--TigranTheGreat 22:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The colony of Virginia was established in 1604. The Soviet Union was established in 1922. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in 1923. None of these statements is either ambiguous or incorrect. Your complaint about 'established' makes even less sense than GM's complaint about 'incorporated'. --Golbez 01:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that both established and incorporated are very clear and unambiguous. Time to move on. Golbez, you can just be bold, pick a version and get it over with. How about you and Francis choose one together without any partisan intervention? There are other parts of this article that require attention. --Eupator 01:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Eup's suggestion. Golbez and Francis should make the final decision. That way we can ensure that it will be nonpartisan. -- Clevelander 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, colony of Virginia was established in 1604, but the region of Virginia wasn't established by anyone. Yes, and NKAO was established in xxxx, but the region of NK was never established. Applying "established" to a region makes no sense. You yourself agreed to this in the following edit summary: [4]--TigranTheGreat 02:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the new ordering seems to be "the NKAO was established in the region", and your comments tend to be blanket against the word 'established'. --Golbez 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the "new ordering" (proposed by GM) is "NK was established in Azerbaijan" or (by Clevelander) "NK was established as NKAO in Azerbaijan." You have to know that in any form/shape, using "established" with respect to "NK" makes little grammatical sense.

If you propose "NKAO was established," I will state my objections to it then.--TigranTheGreat 03:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's basically what I was saying. It would be better in the form of "NKAO was established in 1923 within Az.SSR", but whatever. Let's go with Clevelander's proposal and move on. Grandmaster 08:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What suggestion was this now? - FrancisTyers · 09:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander and Golbez suggested the following: When the Soviet Union expanded in to the South Caucases, it established the predominantly Armenian region as the NKAO within the Azerbaijani SSR. I think it is OK, let's agree on that and move on. Grandmaster 09:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. So do we agree on that? - FrancisTyers · 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That sounds good. Gm used to freak out regarding the line "within the Azerbaijani SSR" which I initially suggested months ago. I'm glad he's fine with it now. Golbez, Francis is ok with this, can we now end this?--Eupator 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as Im concerned, it's signed, sealed, and delivered... HyeProfile 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for a resolution and my solution works. The sooner we end this dispute and unlock the article, the better. -- Clevelander 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't look good at all. How do you establish a region? So, it's incorrect and makes no sense. And we are excluding the prior history of 1918-21 (dispute, grant to Arm., then Az). But, I will accept it only if Fadix is fine with it. He, I, and GM have been the principal participants in the mediation.--TigranTheGreat 00:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To establish a form of government within a region is very possible. This is the case with Karabakh as an autonomous oblast. -- Clevelander 01:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so reorder it. "it established the NKAO in the predominantly armenian region within the Azeri SSR". --Golbez 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's better and more logical. Grandmaster 05:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's quite more logical to say that a predominantly Armenian NKAO was established within the border of the Azeri SSR. can we move on??? HyeProfile 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis, can we please get this incorporated into the article... HyeProfile 12:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The reordering is actually worse. "the predominantly armenian region within the Azeri SSR" makes it sound like the region was part of AzSSR even before the AO was established (I suspect that's why GM agreed to it). Which would be fine in the prior version (when we mention its belonging to Armenia at some point). That's why generally it's not a good idea to abruptly abandon a version that we worked on for weeks (i.e. the "handed to" one) and overnight choose a totaly new version suggested out of blue.

Sorry guys, I am not gonna give my vote of approval to a poor and underdiscussed version just for the "good overall feeling" that we reached a compromise. You can move on all you want, Francis is free to add or not add what he wants, and I (just as anyone else) am free to make any changes I see necessary when the article gets unprotected.--TigranTheGreat 00:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Headline

I think the term Mountainous Karabakh is preferable. Nagorno-Karabakh is neither Armenian, nor Azeri, it is incorrect Russian (instead of Nagorny Karabakh/Нагорный Карабах). Further more, Mountainous Karabakh is more self-explanatory due to the English word than Nagorno-Karabakh. At least Mountainous Karabakh should be mentioned and there should be established a redirect. --Ulf-S. 09:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

True, Mountainous Karabakh is more accurate name, but for some reason Nagorno-Karabakh is the name, adopted in English language, and it gets more hits on google. Grandmaster 09:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mountainous Karabakh should be a redirect, but the prevailing term in English for the region, and especially the country, is Nagorno. English speakers have a habit of trying to keep the orignial name as they first heard it, rather than properly deconstructing it. (Since in French, it's Haut-Karabakh. And in English, 'Montenegro' would properly be 'Black Mountain', and this is recognized in most other languages, but we first heard it through the Italians or Latin or some sort, so...) Remember, folks - "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." --Golbez 10:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I created the new redirect. Hopefully this should work: Mountainous Karabakh. -- Clevelander 10:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Name origin.

Golbez, could you please replace current Azeri explanation of the origin with the following, at least until we verify by dictionary what each component means?

The word "Karabakh" has Turkic and Persian roots and literally means "black garden.

That much is sourced ([5]). The current version is original research (i.e. that of Brad, based on Azeri journalists (!) ). Thanks.--TigranTheGreat 22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I removed the ref, I can put it back. Brad should know better than to use original research ;) --Golbez 01:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Not sure whether it was already mentioned, but should the article contain a remark why its Russian name is the most common? --Brand спойт 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. We could blame the Soviets, but then again, the NKR chose that name for itself as well. --Golbez 17:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the question already exists above :P --Brand спойт 15:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

PACE resolution #1416

In the International status section, the sources for PACE resolution #1416 should be corrected (footnote #4) and should point to a neutral source such as www.coe.am/en/docs/pace/resolution_1416.pdf, or better yet, to the actual PACE resolution document itself, at [[6]]... Original sourcing restrictions shouldn't apply in this case since the resolution was released to the public through formal channels...

Furthermore, the comments on PACE resolution #1416 are very Azeri-POV... We should at least include the following line after the first two citations:

However, the Assembly reaffirmed "that independence and secession of a regional territory from a state may only be achieved through a lawful and peaceful process based on democratic support by the inhabitants of such territory", which was clearly the basis by which the NKR established itself as an independant state through it's referendum in the first place, and the war was a direct consequence of Azerbaijan's unwillingness to accept NK's right of self-determination. HyeProfile 13:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The whole Int. Status section is filled with "pushing" words like "reaffirm," "specifically mention" etc. And it unnecessarily quotes entire segments as if in a collage of newspaper clippings. It needs major work.--TigranTheGreat 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don’t understand what the problem is with the current link. It leads to the official website of the PACE http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/TA05/ERES1416.htm, which is the original source of the document. I don’t understand how it is not neutral. The text was quoted directly from its source, so there’s no need to replace it with the link to the version with .am domain. As for the quote, you cannot quote only parts of the sentence that you like, we should quote the whole paragraph that reads:

2. The Assembly expresses its concern that the military action, and the widespread ethnic hostilities which preceded it, led to large-scale ethnic expulsion and the creation of mono-ethnic areas which resemble the terrible concept of ethnic cleansing. The Assembly reaffirms that independence and secession of a regional territory from a state may only be achieved through a lawful and peaceful process based on the democratic support of the inhabitants of such territory and not in the wake of an armed conflict leading to ethnic expulsion and the de facto annexation of such territory to another state. The Assembly reiterates that the occupation of foreign territory by a member state constitutes a grave violation of that state’s obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and reaffirms the right of displaced persons from the area of conflict to return to their homes safely and with dignity.

It actually says that Armenian side should not annex the territory of the neighboring state and ethnically cleanse it, and should use only peaceful means to achieve secession of the regional territory. By the way, PACE refers to NK as a regional territory of Azerbaijan, which was the subject of our prior discussions. And there's no need to attack Adil on any given occasion, it was me who included most of the quotes into that section. Every single one of them is easily verifiable. Grandmaster 06:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Shaumyan as part of NK

The claim that Shaumyan is part of NK is not valid, NK as a geographic notion appeared in 1923, and this region was not included in it. The link that Tigran provided in support of his claims is dead. Grandmaster 09:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether the term NK first appeared in 1923 is irrelevant. The region has always existed, and Shahumyan is part of the region (i.e. mountainous part of Karabakh). The COE document says "the Shahumian district (on the Northern tip of N-K)"--it doesn't say "Shahumyan, north of N-K," as it would if Shahumyan was seperated from NK.

Second, your suggestion that the geographic notion of NK was invented in 1923 is unsourced, and inaccurate. In 1918-20 the area was referred to as Mountaneous Karabakh (french Haut Kar.). In the Kavburo decisions its stated "mountaneous portion of Karabakh." So, clearly the notion that there was a mountanous Karabakh region was there.--TigranTheGreat 10:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The geographic term of Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be found earlier than 1918, Karabakh has always been a single geographic region. Anyway, it is irrelevant now. Grandmaster 10:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on intro

So is everyone happy with the introduction paragraphs? --Golbez 08:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Two remarks. "...very close to the border with Armenia". I think actually not so close (it's very close only in one point), so "very" may be removed. "The predominantly Armenian region..." Since when? Would be better to define. --Brand спойт 10:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I figure 4 kilometers is very close, I wanted to portray that it's almost touching Armenia but not quite. And since always, I think. No one ever challenged that it was predominantly Armenian. --Golbez 12:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, but mean it would be better to define since when it's actually Armenian. --Brand спойт 12:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That runs in to the pre-1918 problem, in which on one knows what the hell was going on in Nagorno-Karabakh before the Soviets came in. The Armenians say x, the Azeris say !x. Twas ever thus. That should only be dealt with in a more detailed section, rather than in the lede. --Golbez 13:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Golbez, in your intro, you've completely modified the sentence we've all agreed upon!!! The "predominantly Armenian region" part is missing (it should still be there even if it's mentioned above), and the overall structure/wording of the sentence is not what we agreed upon above. The whole point of the argument was that we don't want it to have any connotations of ownership, so the integrity of the structure and wording is very delicate. It took us a lot of time to come up with a consensus, and it must be integrated verbatim!!! I have corrected the intro to say "[...] it established the predominantly Armenian region as the NKAO within the borders of the Azerbaijan SSR", as agreed above...65.94.148.141 20:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, the intro sentence hangs on a finely tuned balance. Any change can mess it up and restart the edit wars. Any such edits, especially by non-regular contributors should be carefully monitored and added only with express consensus. The "wholly within" was added by Superbfc (see here: [7]). When we agreed on "officially," it didn't have the "wholly within" segment--it was one or the other. The addition makes it sound like "it was really really part of Azerbaijan." I know, and you know that the intented meaning is simple geography, but that may not be so obvious to the average reader. The intro already mentions that it doesn't touch the border with Armenia, so I see no reason to put that segment in. And the Geography portion makes it even clearer that it's an enclave. --TigranTheGreat 23:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I for one will no longer stand for the constant butchering of the intro that we all agreed upon... I will edit it back to the original version74.56.152.235 03:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Flag

So is the picture an accurate depiction of the flag? I thought at first it was just pixelated because it was enlarged from a tiny source but then I read it has a white pattern so now I guess it's really supposed to be like that? Nil Einne 21:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. See: www.nkr.am/eng--Eupator 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Currency

Nagorno-Karabakh has its own currency. I assume it's pegged to the Armenian dram, but should it really be called the Armenian dram in the infobox? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it appears that the NK dram is not the legal and circulating currency? Interesting. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Stub for Nagorno-Karabakh

I recently created a stub to organize the growing number of articles relating to the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. It has since been nominated for deletion. Please voice your opinion on the matter here. Thanks. Serouj 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrative subdivisions

The article lists both Azerbaijani and NK subdivisions, why we have an NK template and no Azerbaijani? Grandmaster 08:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article lists NK subdivisions, then points out where they correspond with Azerbaijani subdivisions. I agree that the NK template is not quite useful, but to say that NK is an administrative subdivision of Azerbaijan is simply incorrect. Furthermore, it's not on the template you're adding. --Golbez 09:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just mean that the region of NK includes rayons of Azerbaijan, while the whole region is not a subdivision. But I agree that it is better to remove both templates. Grandmaster 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Official name of NKR in Armenian

"(rv - being referred to as something != its name, that is mentioned down in the name section. please check any such edits on the talk page. i am not azeri, i am a neutral administrator.)" - Golbez

I'm not sure what this administrator means, but in Armenian, NKR is known as Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետութիւն — Արցախ, and it says so in the coat of arms. Also, the NKR government is also known as Artsakh, and it is the preferred word used by Armenians (please see http://nkrusa.org/ to verify).

Lastly, this country is known as "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (a.k.a. NKR), not Nagorno-Karabakh).

I hope I have addressed all of your concerns, Golbez. Thanks.Serouj 03:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, this article is specifically about the republic, not the region right? The region is covered in the History of NK article.--Eupator 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That is an issue that was never dealt with - whether the article is about the region, or the country. And requires a far larger discussion than what we can accomplish over this edit war. If it's about the country, then yes, the Armenian name should be included. I always thought it was more neutral to have it about the region first, then the country. I request that the edits to add this wait until we achieve a consensus here. --Golbez 07:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent republic in the South Caucasus." -Nagorno-Karabakh article.

I think the opening line suggests that this article is about the country. Perhaps the article should be renamed to "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (NKR). In its current form, I think this article is about the NKR and is really a country article, with the flag, national anthem, etc. I'd be fine in having two separate articles, with perhaps the "Nagorno-Karabakh" article simply being about the region, its history, and current status (with a link to the NKR article). As is, the "Nagorno-Karabakh" should be treated as what it is de facto - an article about a country. It therefore deserves its proper name and a distinction as to what Armenians refer to it as. (A note about the name "Artsakh." When speaking Armenian, Armenians don't refer to Armenia as Armenia but say Hayastan; it's the same thing with NKR: they don't usually call it Nagorno-Karabakh, they say Artsakh.) Thanks. Serouj 07:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I made this suggestion a while ago. I'm not sure what reason was made against it in the archives. - Francis Tyers · 11:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

None from what I recall. Nobody ended up doing it I guess. I assumed that the History article is the "region" article. --Eupator 13:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, up until the establishment of the state. I see no reason why we can't have a History of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic too though. - Francis Tyers · 14:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So, is someone going to do it, or should we have a poll or something first? - Francis Tyers · 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A poll is not necessary for something this logical. It will be much easier to work on separate articles also. Lets just get Grandmaster's take on this and then do it.--Eupator 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Gm hasn't been around for over two weeks though.--Eupator 14:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Polls are evil and unnecessary. We need discussion, not polling. --Golbez 01:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, whether the article is about the country or the region, the stuff that goes above the flag in the infobox has to be the country's official self-name. We can have the title NK, but the lines above the flag and coat of arms should be NKR. The flag isn't that of "Nagorno Karabakh," it's that of "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." If noone objects, I would like to add it.--TigranTheGreat 12:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I think at the same time we need to move the current "Nagorno Karabakh" article to "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" article (no hyphens). I think the "Nagorno Karabakh" article would essentially be about "Nagorno Karabakh" Autonomous Oblast, which I think is the first entity with the name "Nagorno Karabakh." (Previously it was known as "Artsakh" by Armenians, and is still called that to this day; and "Karabakh" to Azeris.) It looks like there are no objections, so I think we can go ahead with the move. Serouj 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Objection given, not on the merits, but just to say we need a little more discussion than that. --Golbez 04:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Serouj I think we should go ahead with that move. ROOB323 19:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now I don't have a particular position on this, but what would be the advantage of the move? --TigranTheGreat 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The advantages of the move include (Please add to this list):

1. Separation of the entities i. "Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast" / the region known as "Nagorno-Karabakh" (they are one and the same) and ii. the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." This allows us to unambiguously describe the official name of the republic of Nagorno-Karabakh as "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic," be able to mention that it's called Artsakh by Armenians, and other things like the current territory under its control, etc. The NKAO's life is over, but the NKR's life has just begun... Since they are separate political entities, I think they should be treated as such.Serouj 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The disadvantages are (Please add to this list): Serouj 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the NKAO and Nagorno-Karabakh were not coextensive; the NKAO excluded Shahumian, which the NKR claims and is, I believe, classically a part of mountainous Karabakh. I defer to editors more knowledgeable though. --Golbez 21:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to say what the exact borders of the region named "Karabakh" is. However, we do know that two political entities, with clear borders and/or regions of control, have existed in the region known as "Karabakh": the NKAO and the NKR. I'm now thinking that there might be three articles: Karabakh (region), Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (if enough info exists; if not, we would stick it under History section in the Karabakh article), and the Nagorno Karabakh Republic article (which would also have a mention under the History section of the Karabakh article, with a link to the main article). Serouj 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But see, Upper Karabakh (i.e. NK) has been historically important as a separate entity from Karabakh. It was where Armenians felt safe from Muslims, and established principalities.--TigranTheGreat 01:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, and we can include that in both the "Artsakh" article (which already exists), as well as the to-be-created "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" article; the NKR claims Upper Karabakh, if what you mean by it is the Shahumian district. Serouj 02:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There already is an article related to the Soviet period (Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast) but its better to distinguish the current day borders of the NKR to that of the historical region which obviously surpasses beyond the map lines.--MarshallBagramyan 03:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Adil, STOP IT

We have been there already, I thought this was settled. Stop including Karabakh population as if it representing the population of Nagorno Karabakh, which is its mountainous region. Armenians have always been concentrated on its mountainous region. Fad (ix) 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

First, We've indeed been there and thus this should remain. Second, you STOP it. Third, the population it refers to is the mountaneous population -- prof. Richard Hovanissian for example makes that very clear. Fourth, the page is not about NKAO, nor is it about "NKR". Fifth, the "NKR" census of 2001 includes the population from all the currently occupied Azerbaijani lands. Sixth, you guys gladly included other pre-NKAO census. Seventh, NKAO territory changed during the existence of USSR, just like "Nagorno Karabakh" territory is a very lose concept. --AdilBaguirov 16:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, even Grandmaster stoped with that, Tabib admited himself there was no records for NK only. Hovannessian does indeed relate to NK, but the rest does not represent NK, stop twisting you know it since we've been there. The fact that you are only talking about Hovannesian show that you know that you are adding irrelevency. All the 1823, 1832 and 1897 had records for K, NOT NK, where Armenians were concentrated. Fad (ix) 17:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mountanous Karabakh is much larger than Nagorno-Karabakh. --TigranTheGreat 17:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, didn't know that Mountaneous Karabakh is different and larger than Nagorno-Karabakh -- would you care to elaborate on that? Nagorno means Mountanous, by the way.

Fadix, re-read again -- this page is not about NKAO or about "NKR", and you were very glad to include some Armenian calculated estimates (can't call them census) from before and after NKAO -- so why didn't you complain then? Also, Hovanissian's 70% for Armenians in NK in 1916-1919 is in sharp contrast with the figures of 1923 (before the NKAO existed and before the first Soviet census was taken in 1926), and with a few other numbers. It shows how unreliable and untrue the 94%, that an Armenian researcher Kocharian calculated, is. So the table is very much relevant, as are all the figures, and they are correct -- the very large Karabakh khanate ceased to exist in 1822, whilst the first figures from the the next year, 1823. By then, Karabakh was reduced to 4 uezds (Shusha, Jevanshir, Jebrail, (these covered the Dizak, Varanda, Khachen, Jraberd regions) and Zangezur), which mainly corresponded to the 20th century NK (especially its larger version in the 1920s). Hence the comparison is valid and correct, and since Armenians were concentrated in the mountaneous section, whilst Muslims in the lowlands, and the figures show a steady decline of Muslims in net absolute and relative terms whilst increase in Armenians in both absolute and relative terms, then it proves once more that the comparison is valid. I am intentionally not providing the figures from the Karabakh khanate -- done by Russians immediately upon joining of Karabakh to Russian empire in early 19th century -- because that would skew the picture (it shows overwhelming domination of Muslims over Christians). Meanwhile, all figures post 1822 are valid and correct. --AdilBaguirov 17:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This article IS about NK, and you are simply distorting, K had 21 districts, Armenians were only living in 8 of its districts, the 5 mountainous districts is where the current NK is.

The survey started in 1823, clearly shows Armenians being the majority population.

Here are the five districts and their population.

• Khachen, 12 Armenian villages, 0 Tartar villages
• Jalapert, 8 Armenian villages, 0 Tartar villages
• Dizak, 14 Armenian villages, 1 Tartar villages
• Gulistan, 2 Armenian villages, 5 Tartar villages
• Varanda, 23 Armenian villages, 1 Tartar villages

Those were the mountainous districts, and Armenians were a majority, (over 90%), before the supposed 1828 resettlement.

Clearly, in the 5 mountainous districts which were about the 5 Melikdom(which has become NK), Armenians have always been a majority. NK was not a good settling place for nomadic tribs.

We’ve been there IN FACT, the Armenian population (%) did not increase, it decreased. We neither know if Hovannessian is relating to the other 3 districts which were part of present day Zankezur, with a more significant Muslim population. It is not clear at all.

The survey of 1823 is the only which provides population region by region like this.

But you knew that already, because we have discussed about that, so you included that by knowing that you were distorting. Fad (ix) 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, you are stretching and manipulating the facts -- for the millions time, neither the NKAO, nor "NKR", nor what has been understood by NK for the entire 20th and 21st centuries, nor even 19th century NK concept, consist just of those 5 "melikdoms" that you cited. No, the NK consists of pretty much the entire 3 uezds of Jevanshir, Shusha and Jebrail, plus half of Zangezur uezd. (also, you don't have a reliable source for your "statistics"). It is the selective border drawing of that type that led to the alleged "94.4%" for Armenians in early 1920s, and thus only 5% for Azerbaijanis. Meanwhile, prof. Richard Hovanissian, the most notable of all Armenian scholars in the West, has reiterated in his article in Armenian Review and also in his book that Armenians made-up "nearly 70%" in the Mountaneous Karabakh in 1916 and 1919, which means the rest were mostly Azerbaijanis. So how do we go from nearly 30% in 1916 and 1919 to just 5% Azerbaijanis in 1921-23? I guess that's a rhetorical question -- although for me, with roots in Shusha, it is not :-( That's why, once more, to be fair I've started the chronology AFTER 1822, when the concept of Mountaneous Karabakh started to be born, as opposed to BEFORE 1822. Likewise, as said already, the dynamics of population increase and decrease is also undeniable -- Azerbaijanis decreased in numbers, whilst Armenians increased. It is funny to see you label the 1828 resettlement as "supposed". Not only is that a well known fact, but I have the book, written by S.Glinka in 1832, who was a contemporary and wrote his book for (and using the money of) ethnic Armenian Col. Lazarev. It states the same, showing how Armenians were being settled to Karabakh. I have even the scanned version of the letter in Armenian from Lazarev. :) Of course there is the same info from Shavrov, Velichko, Griboyedov, etc. So this "supposed" resettlement was actually very real, and there is nothing one can do to deny or hide it. It explains how the Armenian population in general, and in Karabakh in particular, exploded in numbers, whilst Muslims dwindled. --AdilBaguirov 19:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bournoutian is the authority on archival records on that region not Hovannessian. The manipulation you claim is what he provides, and the two Western authors having quoted the relevent materials have cited him, he corrected them, because they misplaced his research. Bournoutian is a scholarly source, you are not. Nagorno Karabakh is clearly the mountainous region. Fad (ix) 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, since you consider Bournoutian to be more scholarly and authoritative source, I would like to bring the following quote from Bournoutian, which I am sure will be a delightful fact for you as a fan of this scholar:

In the first quarter of the 19th century the Khanate of Erevan included most of Eastern Armenia and covered an area of approximately 7000 square miles. To the north lay Caucasian districts recently conquered by Russia, to the south and southwest Iranian Azerbaijan and the Ottoman provinces of Bayazid and Qars. The land was mountaineous and dry, the population of about 100,000 was roughly 80 percent Muslim [Persian, Azeri, Kurdish] and 20 percent Christian [Armenian].

The Khanate was governed by a capable governor, Hoseyn Qoli Khan Qajar, one of the most powerful princes in the realm. under him, taxes were regularly collected, agriculture and commerce prospered and population increased. Even his Christian subjects remembered Hoseyn Qoli Khan as a tolerant, just and noble ruler (George A. Bournoutian. Eastern Armenia in the Last Decades of Persian Rule, 1807 - 1828, Malibu: Undena Publications, 1982, review by Dr. Firuz Kazemzadeh, Professor Emeritus of History, Yale University, published in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4. (Nov., 1984), pp. 566-567.)

Perhaps, I should also add, that Hoseyn Qoli Khan as well as the entire Qajar ruling dynasty of Persia were of Azeri Turkic origin. I welcome your counter arguments, which I expect to contain some counter references to non-Armenian sources as well. Cheers. Atabek 17:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We've been there already, there is a very long discussion on that, and placed to rest. The fact of the matter is, that Adil is distorting on purpouses. He knows that NK is not K, but try to pass K as NK. Fad (ix) 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so according to this map, the Erivan Khanate did not even include Karabakh Khanate (it stretches to a little bit past Lake Sevan and borders the Nakhichevan Khanate and Karabakh) and so those statistics cited by Bournoutian are not even related to the conversation on hand (Nagorno-Karabakh), so....--MarshallBagramyan 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Marshal Bagramyan, yet it's unclear how Armenians forming 20% in what's now pretty much the Republic of Armenia (Erivan khanate) at the end of 19th century, suddenly form 97% at the end of 20th. That's what I was alluding to by Bournoutian's quote. Perhaps, there is some genocidal policy involved here, because such a huge change in percentage in just a matter of 100 years can occur only due to ethnic cleansing, not due to natural birth-death processes. Perhaps, the same applies to fluctuating population in Karabakh, which as of 1994 is 100% Armenian, whilst in 1988 was about 70% so. Just a random thought :) Atabek 12:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Um no, there is no strange anomaly. If you remember there was a certain period during the 20th century where Armenians were subjected to a harmless "relocation" perhaps? And that certain "relocation" created a refugee exodus of hundreds of thousands of Armenians who found no other safe haven but to the East. --MarshallBagramyan 17:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess you admit then that what's now the Republic of Armenia was majority Azeri-settled territory of Russian empire, which became Armenian only as a result of mass relocation of Armenians from Ottoman and Persian empires. That's what Bournoutian's reference confirms as well. Thanks. Atabek 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we admit that what is now Republic of Armenia, as well as half of Azerbaijan, has been populated by Armeninians since antiquity, whose percentage decreased only due to Turkoman invasions in 16-18th cc (except in Karabakh and some other areas). And much of the area began to become fully Armenian again after the Genocide and influx from Diaspora. And we fully intend to restore the Armenian population to the rest of these ancestral lands, bit by bit.--TigranTheGreat 14:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, your constant barrage of baseless and futiless accusations and ad hominem is nothing new -- I'm not distorting anything as more than enough of all kinds of sources have been cited, but you, Fadix, are distorting both facts and the record of people you have an axe to grind against. Hovanissian is far more famous and celebrated than Bournoutian -- the latter doesn't even have books published by reputable big names in publishing, it's always the Armenian-owned publishing houses in Malibu, CA. Whilst Hovanissian is a full professor at a major university and has been extensively published. However, Bournoutian NEVER objected to this, and could not have -- he is using Russian sources, like everyone else, and his Russian is not good, e.g., he made a bunch of mistakes and false statements in his Karabakhnameh book. The facts are all stated -- Armenians were nowhere near the made-up 94% figure as even Armenian sources, not just Hovanissian, but the Dashnak sources he cites, acknowledge that Armenians madeup "nearly 70%" in 1916 and 1919. And we all know how Armenians were being resettled to Karabakh throughout 19th century, there is no secret there, it's well publicised. Hence, the number of Armenians started to increase rapidly in then the Karabakh Khanate -- in 1810 Russian census, there were about 9,500 Muslim families, and 2,500 Christian. (Joining of Eastern Armenia to Russia. Vol 1, Yerevan, 1972, p. 562.) So Fadix, STOP IT. --AdilBaguirov 03:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Baseless accusations, ad hominem? Well, just like you do in the above? I have never claimed that Hovannessian was not credible, what I said was that Bournoutian is the authority on archival records on population. The non credible Bournoutian who is not notable, is cited on ISI databases, over 4 times more than Audrey Altstadt, I haven’t found Svante Cornell neither your De Wall. Bournoutian has contributed in a couple of encyclopaedia’s, one of which, Iranica, which Grandmaster likes to quote. And here, I have used a single database, but I have searched on some others with the same result. Bournoutian is more notable than Alstadt, Cornell and De Wall. He is an authority on manuscriptal and archival research. So much of him bring restricted on some ‘Armenian-owned’ publishing houses in Malibu. Azerbaijani scholars are maybe biased to death (explains why you will never find any as reputable as Hovannessian, Dadrian etc.), but don’t mistake Alievs Azerbaijani Academia of Science, with reputable Armenian-American scholars. I have yet to see any Azerbaijani scholar treating history who was criticised in any peer-reviewed journal in a positive way. If you think you can keep demolishing scholars based on their ethnicity, taste your own medicine here, at least, here I am saying the truth. You are also in no position to criticise Bournoutian for alleged false statements.

Bournoutian would agree? Actually, the figures you provide have been recycled from Alstadt, Alstadt took them from Bournoutian. Bournoutian was the one having done the archival research, and the original work was distorted, Bounoutian himself requested correction in his answer. [8] Bournoutian never agreed, and given that the numbers are from his own research, and he claims that his research has been distorted, it is enough to exclude such distortions. Your friend Tabib stopped to fight over it, Grandmaster placed it to rest. So Adil, STOP IT. Fad (ix) 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only you are doing ad hominem, but also ad nauseum, and a classic manipulation of facts and concepts. I don't care about Bournoutian, Cornell and Altstad, or "my" (?!) de Waal. And I certainly don't see how ANYTHING you write above is RELEVANT to the table, as none of it cites Bournoutian, and only one census cites Altstad, but that one is for 1897 Imperial Census and is very transparent, based on simply sum of the populations of the uezds that made up Mountaneous Karabakh. Hence, not a single critique of Bournoutian of Altstadt is relevant, and Altstadt has been published by a far more prestigious publishing house than Bournoutian, who has the full support of rich Diaspora -- yet that gets him only some Mazda publications in Malibu. And he is no "authority" on archival records on population -- give me a break, NOTHING he cites is a secret to Russian-language scholars and publications, and NOTHING of his archival research is unique. He is simply filling the void in English-language, since the other side, Azerbajani, is much slower to respond, and doesn't have the numbers and financial resources of the Armenian diaspora. The guy can't even translate from either Russian and Persian correctly, as his mistreatment of Karabakhnameh shows. And Dadrian? Don't bring the name of this guy here -- not only is it irrelevant to NK, but as full Prof. of a top US university Guenter Lewy said, "Many Armenian scholars use selective evidence or otherwise distort the historical record, but V. N. Dadrian is in a class by himself. His violations of scholarly ethics, which I document in my book, are so numerous as to destroy his scholarly credentials." So Fad, STOP IT! --AdilBaguirov 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Respect civility, and stop with your stupid intimidations. Manipulation of facts? I see now what was the worth of your charges against Bournoutian, when you accused him of making false statements.

I will show what is a false statement or manipulation. Cornell who you quote for the supposed figures of 1822-23, writes for the 9% on the same book which you have cited and the other records (1822, 1832, 1880) : This information is only of limited use, as the census included the entire Karabakh Khanate, that is including lower Karabakh. Hence the figures for Mountainous Karabakh remain unknown;… p.68

He then claim that certainly Armenian resettlements made a difference though, but without providing any support for that statement.

In short, Cornell clearly write that those have little use to know the relevant figure of Armenian population, actually, this same 1823-23 record, Bournoutian take in his answer and limit to the 5 districts now forming NK, the only thing NK gained was a 6th district later. This, Hovannesian too did agree on, he writes: Nagorno(Highlan)-Karabakh Autonomous Province, consisted of five (later six) districts,… (In his work: The Armenian people from ancient to modern times- from antiquity to the fourteenth century Palgrave Macmillan, (1997) p. 17). 1897 census? Lets take a look at it, the Tartar population of the entire Karabakh was of 35,000 according to the official figures of 1836. There was no more than 3500 Tartars in NK, because there were only 7 Tartar village against 59 Armenian villages in the 5 districts. Now, what you are claiming is that from less than 3500 in NK, Tartars have increased in population in 1897 to 164,098. Interesting resettlement policy, as Tartars population increased in NK by a factor of 50X.(there was no NK census figures in 1897) The only thing the figures show is that there was at the very least just as much Tartar increase of population in the region as Armenians. What the relevant materials shows too, is that in 1822, Armenians were consisting a clear majority, this before the so-called massive resettlement. Indeed, considering the way you distort the material, you have to quote from Hovannissian before being taken seriously for the 70%.

Your psychosis about the ‘Rich, Rich’ Armenian Diaspora take them out of Wikipedia, no one is interested with your delusions, we are not in kindergarten, my father is richer than yours tone, which you are known for, I’m not interested to read about. Oh and, prestigious you say? Altstadt is not known beyond her research on Azerbaijan’s history, and ISI yield more for Bournoutian, and ISI is one of the main tools to check for notability.

Oh and, about your full prof. of a top US university, Lewy, the work in which his critics of Dadrian is included wasn’t published for 10 years. He could not find any publisher for it. I guess his arguments were so valid and his research so relevant, that no publisher bothered publishing it. I don’t remember any work of Dadrian having been on the waiting list for more than a year. Oh, so much a manipulator Dadrian should be. Fad (ix) 01:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, chill out and learn some civility. I understand you are very courageous behind your computer, but this is not the place for your childishness. You are again failing to provide any reliable source for your Armenian-Tartar villages statistics, and are very freely interpreting what you want to be in NK and what you don't. The statistics you use is not only flawed and unsupported by independent scholars, but the whole concept is flawed, as you selectively limit yourself to a few villages, ignoring the fact that NKAO -- the only entity in Karabakh's history that can legitimately be considered as an example of Nagorno-Karabakh or Mountaneous Karabakh concept, was much larger than the 5 melikdoms (btw, at least 3 of those meliks were of Caucasian Albanian heritage, and all were appointed by an ethnic Azerbaijani shah of Iranian empire). And again, after 1822 there were no more Karabakh khanate, so all statistics for NK is very much valid. But if you persist, then I will start insisting to include all available statistics for Karabakh, starting from about 1805. And will start bringing more and more references about the massive settlement of Armenians into Karabakh, Naxcivan and Irevan in 19th century. As of Lewy, he couldn't publish because of Armenian opposition -- apparently, Armenain HIStorians don't like opposition and feel very insecure about their concept of HIstory. --AdilBaguirov 10:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I got a sensible nerve there. Slinging it back? It is pretty much obvious who is acting like a child here. Reliable source? Sorry, but I don’t have to. You are the one wanting to incorporate misinformation. You are not a credible source, your analysis have here absolutely no validity. All the sources I have provided, including those you have quoted to justify your inclusion refer it to the whole Karabakh(even your quoted source say that), the whole Karabakh had a population of 35,000 Tartars in 1836. And no, the sources have never been valid for only NK, NK was created from 5 districts, those 5 districts still exist. Tartars have never been concentrated there. Besides the 94,4% refers to the records of 1921(Azerbaidzhanskaia sel’skokhoziaistvennaya perepis’, 1921 Goda, Itogi, Baku, 1924, vol. 3, no. 17:iv), it was a census published in 1924 but representing the figures of 1921, so here too you have distorted trying to pass the publishing date as the date it was taken. In 1897, in Shushinskii and Dzhevanshirskii districts total there was 93,600 Armenians and 115,800 Tartars. When restricting to Nagorno-Karabakh, most of the population were Armenian. There were only a few Tartar villages, and a few on Kel’badzharskii. (see. A. N. Yamskov, Oct., 1991. Ethnic Conflict in the Transcausasus: The Case of Nagorno-Karabakh, Theory and Society > Vol. 20, No. 5, Special Issue on Ethnic Conflict in the Soviet Union p.650). Also, what happened after WWI, NK has lost 20% of the population, the Turkish forces with the help of Mustavat party have captured Armenian villages and killed its population (p. 656 of the aforementioned work), I have also provided archival records of the plans to destroy NK. I am also waiting that you quote for the 70% for NK. Given that you have distorted every single source here, sorry but unless you quote, I don’t believe you. Armenians have consisted a majority in NK for a very long time. And the only thing the statistics shows is that just as much Tartars resettled there. As for your theories about the Meliks, no one is interested; keep your theories to yourself. Oh and, you aren’t threatening me with your ‘starting from about 1805’, as during the campaign of Peter the Great in 1722, Armenians were reported to be the majority population and who greatly supported him military. For centuries Armenians were a majority in what is now NK, and none of the statistics you have provided could support your affirmation, you just distorted them.

As for Lewy, not tired of fabricating? Armenians weren’t even aware of the work he was working on. He wasn’t been published because the controversies of the last decades he engaged in. He first denied and minimized the US marine crimes in Vietnam, he minimised the crimes perpetrated against the American Indians, even going as far as claiming they were not a crime. He hasn’t used anything more heavy than ethnic cleansing for what happened in Rwanda. He is classified as one of the few scholars who still restrict the term genocide to the Holocaust. People had yet to see the supposed US investigation about the marine he talked in his work, and which there is not a single record of. It would help for you to stop talking about things which you ignore. Lewy critics of Dadrian is in a series, in which Lewy takes pleasure discrediting scholars of genocides. Fad (ix) 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting even Azeris sources contradict you.

One source claims that the population of entire Karabakh was of 10,000 families in 1805. We much know that this is a round number. The number of 1808 seems to be more accurate, it provides 7,474. [9]

This is what the above Azeri source say: It also has to be noted, that of the total Karabakh population, the share of 5 districts situated in the mountainous part of Karabakh, i.e. the districts of Dizak, Varanda, Chelaberd, Khachen and Talish, where, as mentioned, Azerbaijanis and Armenians lived mixed, was 1.559 families (7.75%). Despite its importance, a substantial deficiency of this document was the fact, that Armenians- first wave settlers from Iran were included in the register without provisions.

It uses the 1823 records. But this is not true, since in those districts there were 7 Tartar villages against 59 Armenian villages. Only 10,6% of the villages were Tartar villages, while 89,4% of the villages were Armenian. Assuming that this Azeri source information is accurate for the 5 districts and that there was really 1,559 families living there, which I doubt (since the 4,366 Armenian families mostly lived there and the regions now part of Zangezur). This would mean 1,394 of the families were Armenians while only 165 families were Tartars. (Ratio vilage-family taken here)

Since those 1823 records provides the following:

• Khachen, 12 Armenian villages, 0 Tartar villages
• Jalapert, 8 Armenian villages, 0 Tartar villages
• Dizak, 14 Armenian villages, 1 Tartar villages
• Gulistan, 2 Armenian villages, 5 Tartar villages
• Varanda, 23 Armenian villages, 1 Tartar villages

The Azeris source claims that Iranian settlers were included, this is not so, the only Armenian settlers who were included were those Armenians who escaped the oppressions of Ebrahim Khan in the late 1790s and returned in 1805 when it become a Russian protectorate, lost and then regained in the 1820s.

Another relevant thing, is that in the rest of Karabakh, records shows a boost of Tartar population, more than Armenian, while on the 5 districts the Armenian population was clearly forming a majority, the number of Tartar villages increased, and in the rest of the districts there was a demographic explosion, Tartar population increase mostly.

Face it, you have no cases, if anything this discussion has provided, is that we will have now to include that the Armenians have been forming a majority in 1805 from the beginning of record taking, and at the same time deleting your distortions. From 15,729 Tartar families in 1823, it jumped to 35,000 in 1836. For Armenians, from 4.366 to 19,000. Interesting really, since when considering the natural increase of population for a period of 13 years, we can assume not much could be acounted to it to explain in both cases to this huge increase for the whole Karabakh. An excess of population for the 13 years, for the Tartars of 19,271 families, and for the Armenians of 14,634. It doesn't seem Tartars needed any invitation to move for Karabakh. Does it? But regardless of this, when restricting for NK, it is clear from every data, that Armenians were clearly forming a majority. And I hope you stop disturbing and stop it. Fad (ix) 05:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, it was GM who kept stating that the concept of NK didnt' exist before 1923, and removed all references to NK prior to 1923. If now Adil claims that the statistics of 19th c. refer to NK, we can start by restoring these removed references.

Hovhannisyan's stats most likely included regions in Zangezur, as well as Kurdish populated Kelbajar (not to mention Jabrail and Zangelan).--TigranTheGreat 14:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh (History of Karabakh) who covers from 1740s to 1806

Since at this time the five Armenian mahals of Qarabagh had not submitted to the khan... The source say about Panah Khan: He decided to subject the five Armenian mahals.

So clearly in the 18th century, the 5 district population were Armenian. Fad (ix) 19:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh, and it does that there were 5 districts in Qarabagh with predominately Armenian population. --Mardavich 20:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a copy, then read it, and you might be able to understand that the 5 mahals or melikdoms were small and much less than the NKAO and the concept of Mountaneous Karabakh per ce, as well as "NKR", about which the pages has been speaking. Everything has been described above -- and Fadix et al have not presented any citations and facts to back up their POV and deny the true demographic presentation. --AdilBaguirov 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The 5 districts still exist, Hovannessian use them, the one allegedly backing you. The census of 1921 indeed present 94,4%, Cornell who you have quoted say in the same work that the figures about K he present does not represent NK. In short, all the sources contradict you, even those you have used. The only thing NK gained was a 6th district. All this is documented above, so stop disturbing this article. Fad (ix) 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, just because you say that the 5 "districts" make up the pro-Armenian concept of NK doesn't mean anyone believes you -- you fail to cite any sources, indeed, all your undated numbers and pseudo-statistics is from uncited POV Armenian sources. To begin with, the statistics on population must include all statistics that is available, which means from 19th century. Secondly, the page is clearly about Karabakh in general, and NK concept in particular, with NK concept being understood as being at least the size of NKAO, but in reality the entire 3 uezds of the Russian empmire and perhaps + half of Zangezur uezd. Third, I haven't even started yet providing all the well-known data and stats on the massive inflow of Armenians into Karabakh and Caucasus in general throughout the 19th century. As of Hovanissian, here's the full quote which once again disproves the stipulation by Armenian sources that Armenians could have been 94% in NK (except by violent means of killing their Azerbaijani neighbors en masse from 1916 until 1923):

"Russian statistics for 1916 showed that Moslems outnumbered Christians two to one in the province of Elisavetpol as a whole but that the Christian Armenians formed nearly 70 percent of the population in the mountainous sector." (Richard Hovanissian, "The Armeno-Azerbaijani Conflict over Mountainous Karabagh, 1918-1919", The Armenian Review, Vol. 24, 2-94, Summer 1971, p. 4) -- so as we see, not only am I quoting the inherently biased prof. Hovannisian, but he is using his own calculations ("nearly 70 percent") and it is him who clearly says that this nearly 70% applies to the "mountaneous sector". Let's continue quoting him:

"In Mountainous Karabagh proper, encompassing the Shushi uezd and parts of the Elizavetpol (Gulistan), Jevanshir, and Jebrail uezds, there were approximately 165,000 Armenians, 59,000 Moslems (20,000 of whom lived in or near the city of Shushi), and 7,000 Russians". (footnote 4) (ibid., pp. 4-5).

Thus, what do we see here -- prof. Hovannisian clearly states what makes up the artificial concept of NK (as opposed to Karabakh as a whole) which did not even exist yet in 1916 - and omits from it parts of Zangezur completely. I followed suit, and in bringing my calculations from the 1897 census, I excluded all of Zangezur and Gulistan (as Hovannisian clearly states that only parts of it made up the pro-Armenian artificial concept of NK), and based my figures solely on Jevanshir, Jebrail and Shusha uezds (I hope no one would claim that Shusha is not mountainous). All three of these uezds are mountaneous and had the bulk of the Armenian population of the region -- and Armenians were still nowhere near the claimed 94% -- instead, they didn't even make-up 70% as Hovanissian admits, at least by 1916. Thus, despite trying to do the unthinkable -- count as many villages of one ethnic group to carve out a geographic entity -- we still do not have more than up to 70% for Armenians -- and how many of them were really Armenian and not remnants of Caucasian Albanians, who still very much existed and were mentioned in both Velichko (1903) and other studies, remains to be seen. We all know from all Karabakh-nameh's that of the 5 melikdoms only one was native to Karabakh, and of the 5, either 2 or 3 were clearly Caucasian Albanian (Udin), and only one could have been Armenian ethnically.

Also, note how many Russians there were in NK -- despite having NK for just over 100 years, there were already 7,000 permanent inhabitants of Russian origin! Moreover, as Russian sources admit (e.g., Fadix's favorite Yamskov), Azerbaijani semi-nomadic population was routinely undercounted in the mountains - which lead to the bloated "nearly 70%" (or more) estimate in favor of Armenians.

Meanwhile, let's see the Footnote 4 prof. Hovannisian cites, which shows that not only am I going way out of my way by citing this biased author, but he is basing his biased calculations on already tainted figures from Armenian sources: "[FOOTNOTE] 4. Archives of the Delegation of the Republic of Armenia to the Paris Peace Conference (now integrated into the archives of Hai Heghapokhakan Dashnaktsutiun, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, in Boston, Massachusetts, cited hereafter as Rep. of Arm. Archives), File 70-2, H.H.Adrbejani Divanagitakan Nerkayatsutsich ev Adrbedjani Karavarium, 1920, and File 105-4, H.H.Patvirakutium, 1919: Hushagrer. Statistics in File 3-3, Hayastani Hanrapetutiun, 1919, show 137,000 Armenians and 47,000 Tatars in Mountainous Karabagh, while figures in US Archives, RG 84, Tiflis Consulate, 1919, pt. 4, File 711, show 150,000 Armenians and 58,000 Moslems." (ibid., p. 5)

As you can see, there is a clear discrepancy in all the Armenian estimates, and I went with the lowest estimate from a very pro-Armenian source, Hayastani Hanrapetutiun. I should, however, go with the US estimate, which would yield lower numbers for Armenians. Interestingly, that while prof. Hovannisian mentions the Azerbaijani delegations' official population reports, he does not disclose them - I wonder why.

Thus, as you can see, we esentially have four (4) population estimates from prof. Hovannisian, all showing Armenians being roughly 70% in the artificially-created and selected entity of NK -- which despite being a majority, is a far cry from the 94% (or even 94.4% or 96% as some Armenian sources claim).

And once we take into perspective the census figures of the 1897, as well as earlier one's, everything become more clear to us, as Armenians increased due to inflow of Armenians from Persian and Ottoman empires, whilst Azerbaijanis decreased due to either being persecuted (taken their lands away, as is admitted in many Russian sources), undercounted (once again, see, for example, Yamskov), or just killed.

Let's consider this from Prof. Tadeusz Swietochowski: "The influx of the Armenians to Transcaucasia experienced major increases after each of the nineteenth-century Russo-Turkish wars: their population surged after the Crimean War of 1853-1856 and the 1876-1878 War. In addition, the mid-1890s massacre by Kurds under the Abdulhamid II (1876-1909) regime in Anatolia caused an influx of Armenians. By the turn of the century, the number of Armenians in Transcaucasia had reached 1,243,000. [24]" (Russia and Azerbaijan, a Borderland in Transition, New York: Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 12).

And the promised Sergey Glinka - the Russian contemporary author (Moscow, 1831), who worked at and for Col. Lazarev (and his book was published in Lazarev Publishing House, and he worked in the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages) - the ethnic Armenian who was actively used by the Russian czar to get the support of the Armenian populations in Iran and Ottoman Empire against those countries, to revolt and become the fifth column. Glinka does not conceal even a little bit his sympathy for his benefactor or Armenians. I have scans of all relevant pages, including with letters in Armenian, which mention the successful efforts of settling thousands (8,000 families or 40,000 Armenians, as the book cites on page 92) of Armenians into Naxcivan, Irevan, and Karabakh right after the Turkmanchay Treaty (1828).

Anyway, as you see there is overwhelming and undeniable evidence that 1) Armenians were being settled en masse into Azerbaijan, and specifically into Karabakh, since 1828, 2) gradually came to make-up a majority by about 1880, and 3) could never have been 94% at least before Sovietization, as all even 100% pro-Armenian sources admit only up to 70% -- although after Sovietization, as Azerbaijanis were killed and persecuted more, it is possible that it became about 90%+, but that is only due to mechanical rise of Armenian population, due to war and emmigration. To sum it up, the full census table stays, not the POV short one. --AdilBaguirov 05:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You could not have written more emptiness with this size.

Let’s review this.

1- The first quotes by Hovanissian relate to the mountainous sector, I could search for the NK to not avail.

2- The second quote is an estimation, and we both knows that Shish uezd, parts of Gulistan, Jevanshit and Jebrail uezd is indeed larger than NK, check the delimitations of Karabakh Khanate, NK is about the 1/3, and the delimitations above were just more than that.

As for your calculations, you know what I can do of it, don’t you? And you know that the 94.4% was a census of 1921, with the source provided ABOVE, which was not Armenian but printed in Baku. Oh and again, your theories about the Meliks pump them you know where.

Semi-nomadics were registered in the lowlands, according to their residency, this is what provided the punching card system, and you don’t expect the Azeris to be counted twice, do you? Armenians were permanently living there.

Prior to 1824 for centuries Turkic tribes replaced the Armenian population which was evacuated, this is documented it plenty of source, and included in an anomalous form in both the 1840s and 1860s Ottoman records, which had a recorded Armenian population of 2.4 million, but pass the frontier zone a huge deficit of Armenian population. A large hole, this can only be recorded with some groups, which you call the ‘Albanians.’

Over the centuries, the highly unstable political situation in the region, the large-scale displacements of the Armenian population and the penetration of Turkic nomadic tribes resulted in a dramatic transformation of the ethnic composition of the region and its cultural landscape. This quote is from Saparov. The work already provided.

The deportation of the Armenians, which already begun in the 1530s under Tahmasp I, should be viewed as part of a master plan by the Safavids to create a countervailing power against the feudal Qezelbash.

There are various scholars, various, and I can play this game too by quoting one after the other, the huge displacement of the Armenian population and its replacement by nomadic Turkic tribes, with no national affiliation before 1918 Azerbaijan republic, an entity which has never existed previously above the Arax. I can too play this game on Azeris never having existed, or the place having been a geographic area, and sure, hell knows that the arguments are much stronger than your Sedat Laciner quality petrified broken records, pitiful for a man of your age.

Relevant, very relevant.

As shown above from the official records of 1823, 90% of the villages were Armenian and this before your so-called resettlement. Another thing remains, as Armenians were a majority back during Peter the Great, and all of the 5 districts have provided man power for his campaign, as all officially supported it.

The five districts encompass the Meliks, and I don’t give a thing about your ‘nothing and no one is Armenian’ fartations, it is pass time you decide to grow up.

The 13 years following the 1823, an excess of Tartars of 19,271 families, and for the Armenians of 14,634. More Tartar excess population can not account for an eviction of Tartars and their replacement with Armenians. Nomads have no frontiers beside geographic ones, Armenians have always lived in altitude, the Armenian plateau, the mountainous region of Karabakh. They never existed or nothing was their, or they just landed from Mars according to your delusions, but who really cares of your theories? You see, I am not saying that you should be medicated, of course that would be personal attack, I am just asking you to grow up a little.

Besides, the resettlement you throw ad nauseum, which has become a broken record, brought Armenians from regions where there would have been no Armenian had they not been evicted there. There are recorded Armenians in the Armenian plateau centuries BC, before Turkic nomadic tribes have come in the area, the Albanians you use as tool (you don’t even have respect for any nations besides belly Azerbaijan) have vanished from the same invasions for centuries, first the Arabs, and to not forget the Turkic nomadic tribes, that have brought Armenians near extinction. Any individual with any basic knowledge of math, would know that a people having inhabited for over 2,000 years in the same area, can not settle to 3 million, unless it has been assimilated. Does it seem Tartars have been that ill treated, I mean they came up in what, 12th century? How many are they now? In Azerbaijan 8 million, and in Iran? Only in Azerbaijan there is more Azeris than there is Armenian in the entire world. So much of those Armenian ‘invendors.’ If you knew anything about genetic, you would hide your head under your pillow out of embarrassment by understanding the polarization between the y and x chromosome ancestral three and how unusual it is when comparing the ‘Azeris’ with ‘Armenians.’ If you even knew genetic you would even not bust your nonsense about Armenian resettlement.

As seen there, I too can diverge, and post empty stuff.

So here will you, answer to the relevant no diversion.

In the 1720s, Armenians were recorded majority in the 5 districts, they were in the period from 1740 to 1806, from Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's. The Khan has tried hard to have them, didn’t he? The Armenians were still a majority there in 1823 according to the official records, 90% of the villages. I have already provided declassified CIA documents supporting those assertions, Grandmaster questioned the authors, and best he could do, sounding as if there was some Armenian conspiration in the American government.

The records printed in Baku in 1921, 94.4% were Armenians. Despite the fact that Karabekir and his army penetrated Karabakh with a recorded loss of 20% of its Armenian population, which would compensate statistically any non-documented but hallucinated by you, of Tartar eviction.

You still have the audacity to support your edit, when there is not a single source which shows that Tartars have ever been a majority in NK, the only place where the Safavit resettlement policies haven’t reached.

Now, it would be fun, if you just stop disturbing this article, I know how well you are at edit warring and the countless numbers of articles you were able to lock thanks to that, but if it is edit warring you are expecting find another mate, I will not lower myself to your level.

Oh and a last note, "even biased, nationalistic, propagandistic, Armenian scholar..." this song you like to sing, I read "woof," "woof"... Fad (ix) 08:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

ADIL 3RR

Adil you just violated the 3RR. Stop reverting back until there is a compromise on the topic which you keep reverting. ROOB323 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ROOB323, you probably don't know, but I didn't violate anything. You in the meantime are considered a vandal, since you never participate in any discussions and just revert. --AdilBaguirov 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What??? who says reverting to an older version and not adding any new stuff just reverting to a version that was there before is a vandalism. Your doing vandalism by reverting to you own views, which your the only one that support that views. There is still no compormise and there is still discussion in the talk page, also nobody agreed to any change but you keep reverting and adding your own version and breaking the 3RR. You call something vandalism if it is not the same with your views? ROOB323 23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What "what"? Your version -- is new version, my version - is old version, and hence by reverting it, you are vandalizing it, as you are spreading your POV and never participate in any discussions. --AdilBaguirov 05:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Who says your version was the old version? Your the one that keeps putting your own views in Nagorno-Karabakh, Qazakh, Stepanakert, Shushi ... in all those articles and calling people vandalizers just because they don't have the same view as you do. ROOB323 05:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are new, since had you been around longer, you would have known that this table was part of the article last year until it was quetly removed. I restored it and will keep an eye on it from now on. Thus yes, you are a vandal, as you remove fully sourced information that must be part of the article. --AdilBaguirov 05:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, its removal was accepted by including Grandmaster. We have seen how far they are sourced, when Cornell who is referenced there say that the numbers he present does not represent NK, or that the whole Karabakh kanate is presented as NK, which is by its size only 1/3 of the Khanate. Fad (ix) 08:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, the expanded table shows PERCENTAGES (RELATIVE), not absolute numbers, for those years, and taking into account that the numbers of Armenians and other Christians INCREASED throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, whilst Muslims DECREASED, and Armenians were mostly concentrated in MOUNTANEOUS regions (as Armenian sources themselves emphasize), thus these RELATIVE NUMBERS are very much applicable, as they show the DYNAMICS in the mountaneous regions as well. Secondly, NKAO existed from 1921 or actually 1923 until 1991. And first Soviet census was done in 1926, last in 1989. Hence, only numbers from AFTER 1926 and BY 1989 are applicable to the "best" definition of the concept of NK. All numbers AFTER 1989, and BEFORE 1926, are much less defined, yet since you and other Armenian users consistently bring about post-1989 "census" and pre-1926 "census", then you can't complain that others do too. Then, we saw how Prof. Richard Hovanissian defined NK in the above-cited article. Other scholars, to simplify the structure, defined it as Shusha, Jevanshir, and Jebrail uezds of the Elizavetpol Guberniya of the Russian Empire, which corresponded to the Dizak, Varanda, Khachen, and Jraberd Caucasian Albanian melikdoms (as we see, Gulistan melikdom was excluded sometimes, since it was inconvenient -- Azerbaijanis were a majority there). In fact, this definition of NK was the one used and accepted by Armenians of NK in 1919, when they recognized sovereignty and rule of law of ADR over them -- see the English-language Armenian archives from Armenian Foreign Ministry [10] Interestingly, but early Russian military historian V.Potto, who is also so liked by Armenian sources, considers all 5 melikdoms as LOWER Karabakh (also identifies it as Artsakh), whilst MOUNTANEOUS Karabakh is Syunik-Zangezur, Lachin. Thus, as we can see, the expanded table is absolutely valid and features essential information for this article, allows everyone to learn more facts and better know the history of the region. --AdilBaguirov 02:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think bs will stop being bs when you leave your caps on? The excess number of Tartars has increased more than Armenians in the years following the Russian control, the same years that your ad nauseum Armenian resettlement happened. And, believe me, you would not like playing with numbers in my presence. Relative numbers are poor indicator when there are population mouvement which includes different group and when one group is a minority compared to another. If 5,000 Armenians and 5,000 Tartars settle in a region where there are only 1,000 Armenians and 10,000 Tartars, the relative value for the Armenian population jump while the one represent the Tartars decrease. In the whole Karabakh Khanate, as shown above by substracting the number of families from the records of 1836 and those of 1823, shows that there was more population excess in the situation of the Tartars not explained by natural increase compared to the Armenians, since the Armenians were a minority in the Karabakh Khanate, the relative figure of Armenians would increase, while those of Tartars would decrease. For it to be maintained, the resettlement would have to keep the same proportion, since even though more Tartars settled for Karabakh, their relative number decreased. On the other hand, other than Gulistan, all the districts which represented the 1921 NK, Armenians were constituting a clear majority in 1823. And again, like I have told you previously you can take your theories on the meliks and put them where I think. Also, the 1921 were published in Baku an nowhere else.

Valid 'fact'? Funny, I don't remember ever seing such a section on any other article, if the figures were not distortions, maybe, but you know very well that there is no a single records which claims that Armenians were a minority in what is today NK, so any records for Karabakh khanate have absolutly no value. Also while you boost the value of relative values for after 1824, there were not a single Tartar there before 12th century, the depopulation of the Armenians is recorded since the first Persian rules, followed by the Arabs and then Turkic rules. For over half a millenium the Armenian population decreased and those of the Tartars from absolute 0 increased. You don't have an idea on how a hypocrite you sound like when you talk about some period favoring the Armenians which did not even amount to one century, not even half. Fad (ix) 13:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Officially

Wasn't this the term we agreed on? Fad (ix) 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that's what's there. Wikipedia is having weird cache issues it seems, I'm hitting edit but it's bringing back old versions or something. --Golbez 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I am late to this debate, but "within the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan" means exactly the same thing, the meaning is not changed, and it is better because there can be a big debate over use of "officially", like "officially according to whom", for instance, according to the NKR constitution it is not, and that constitution is an official document at least in the eyes of NKR. so if you want the most neutral and uncontroversial phrase, you need to use "within the internationally recognized borders of......." and no one can dispute that, not even NKR supporters Pernambuco 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we did not poll every single countries. There are various newspapers which uses the term "disputed," the US government for instance while officially recognize it as part of Azerbaijan, the aids it provides to NK is trough the NK government. It isen't through some international peacekeeping forces, or through Azerbaijan or through Armenia. NK has specific packages of aids it recieves from such countries including by the World Bank. Some maps still present it as disputed but as an indication that it is officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan. This wording I qualify as more accurate than claiming "within the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan". Officially just means that on open discussions it is considered as part of Azerbaijan, but in practical, it is still considered as disputed and that there is still a de facto recognition of its government. Fad (ix) 03:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did I get reverted by Golbez?[11]

What is the difference between 1. "within the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan" and 2. "officially part of Azerbaijan"?

They both mean the same thing, but the first one is NPOV because even Nagorno-Karabakh's supporters can agree to it Pernambuco 03:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I explained perfectly why I reverted - the intro is such a point of contention that I don't care if you are putting in a perfect synonym, it needs to be discussed first. --Golbez 03:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

that is ok, and this is what we are doing, so let us discuss: isnt it better to use the version that everyone can agree upon, it is more NPOV, because "officially" implies a point of view, from the point of view of Nagorno-Karabakh and its constitution, and the people that live there, it is certainly *not* officially part of Azerbaijan. Listen, I dont take sides, but this is an encyclopedia, let us try to be as neutral as we can, especially since when you compare the two sentences, 1 and 2, they really come down to the same thing and mean exactly the same, so dont split the hairs Pernambuco 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it is a point of view. The World Bank transfers to the government of NK not Azerbaijan, the US has a special package to the NK government like other countries. It is true that for those living there it is not officially part of Azerbaijan, but "officially" was the best term we could come up with and compromise over. Believe me we have tried every possible flaviors. Fad (ix) 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An edit like this [12] proves my point. It shows why "officially" is not great, and at least it is better to use "within the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan" because it is factual and correct, and can not be disputed, in contrast the word 'officially' is wide open to discussion and it all depends on the eyes of the beholder ....... Pernambuco 03:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your proposition suppose that it is internationally recognized, we did not poll every single countries in the world, and I don't see how different it does make for the people living there and not accepting it. Fad (ix) 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not this again. I suggest eveyone who proposes any change to the intro gets himself familiarized with archives first. It's all been discussed in much detail, this is the version we settled on after many months of debating. I really don't want to start it all over again. Grandmaster 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you there. I was opposing to his change actually. Fad (ix) 07:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, it seams to me that we came to an agreement about the intro a long time ago, and you keep on reverting it back to a unacceptable version... Again, as I mentioned in the "Consensus on intro" section, the exact wording must be maintained in order to keep both sides happy and for NPOV, even if the "predominantly Armeninan" part is repeated! I do not want to open up this debate again since it took a long time to get a consensus...

I am therefore changing the intro back to the wording we all agreed upon (except Tigran): "it established the predominantly Armenian region as the NKAO within the borders of the Azerbaijan SSR". Finished, no more reverting...HyeProfile 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The consensus version is the one currently in place. Please do not change it without agreement on talk. Grandmaster 18:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

GM, maybe you should scroll up and read the discussions... I was actively involved and we ALL agreed about "the predominantly Armenian region" and the "within the borders of Azeri SSR" portion. I will kindly ask you all to refrain from reverting to any other versions!!!HyeProfile

This is one of the weirder edit wars I've ever seen. Hyeprofile, look at the reversion you went back to: [13]. The phrase "predominantly Armenian region" appears TWICE. Some time ago I (I think) moved that to the start of the graf, and there's been no problems since. As for "within the borders", I'm not getting into that for now, but please stop adding the duplicate phrase. --Golbez 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, here is my point:

1) It took us months to agree on a very specific terminology for that single sentence, and removing (even transplanting) the "predominantly Armenian region" portion seriously compromises the NPOV of that sentence: it completely fails to mention the reason why the NKAO was established as an AUTONOMOUS entity and not part of Azerbaijan proper (obviously it's Armenian majority, but the first time reader doesn't know that). The only reason we agreed to remove the "it was initially established as part of Armenian SSR" part was if it that "predominantly Armenian" portion was integrated. That in itself was already a major concession, which I now regret ever making!!! Now, by removing that pivotal portion of the sentence, it makes is sound like the NKOA belonged to Azeris and the Soviet Union, and Armenians were not even involved or even present in those years (which is obviously completely false)... I will not stand by it and I urge you to revert to the initally agreed sentence!!!

2) It seams to me that no one ever agreed to MOVING the "predominantly Armenian region" portion, and I checked the archive and no such discussion exists!!! I would appreciate it if you proved my otherwise by pointing out that discussion... In fact, from what I remember, the reason that section was added was due to the lack of Armenian representation in the first sentence of the article (which, as you know, makes the biggest impression on first time readers).

3) The "within the borders of the Azeri SSR" was preferred to "within Azeri SSR", because of the connotation of ownership which is inherently biased POV!!! Read the discussions above, which I was extensively involved in, and you will see that "within the borders of the Azeri SSR" was the achieved consensus!!!HyeProfile 00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please calm down and use fewer exclaimation points? Second, I'd like others to comment on this before you continue this pointless revert war. (Nothing to do with this particular war; all revert wars are inherently pointless). --Golbez 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the specific diff: [14] Note the reasoning and my admission that it wasn't consensus version. However, considering that it has existed for over six months, has been passed back and forth by editors on both sides, and has not once, so far as I can tell, be challenged, until now, then it is a de facto consensus version. I invite others to comment on it, but your revert war over it ends now. Now is the time for discussion. I also note that Adil has added you to the list of parties in the ongoing arbitration case, meaning you are now under a one-revert-rule restriction; he's not exactly the most neutral party to do that, but I was on my way to do it when I noticed he had. This holy war between Armenians and Azeris ends now, and I will not let this article continue to be a pointless battleground. --Golbez 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the edit was made in September 2006, during a period when consensus was still being developed. --Golbez 00:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fewer exclamation points??? Calm down??? Golbez, I respect the way you deal with things very much, but doesn't my response seam calm and rational to you, especially when I've been so involved in the creation of that very sentence (a single sentence), and that sentence gets mangled around at people's whims??? I'm sorry Golbez, but YOU should calm down with your aggressive POV-pushing and agitation-prone behavior (respectfully). A consensus version was agreed upon, but the version you incorporated back in August wasn't even the one we all agreed upon, and I even pointed it out to you (see above)... You can ignore it all you want, but we have a serious problem with people changing things without discussing them first, and you're unfortunately becoming the perfect example yourself.

Just because a change was silently made and not noticed for a couple of months doesn't make it warranted! I noticed it now, and it SHALL BE reverted because a consensus WAS REACHED and it took a lot of effort to reach it, because that's how this works: we talk, then we change, not the other way around... You cannot undermine the work done by others in this respect, and simply decide that you can change things around as you please! (notice the deliberate exclamation mark, human emotions are important too you know) I have huge respect for the way you work since you listen more than others, but how can you now say that we shall discuss it before reverting when you yourself did not discuss it before making the change? In fact, you were more than well aware of the delicate nature of that very sentence, yet you chose to ignore that and edit it anyway! This is unacceptable. I will revert back to the prior version, and we will only discuss the changes you propose...HyeProfile 001:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me a specific date and time when "consensus was reached", that would make things much simpler. You will not revert back to the prior version, because "reverting to something from more than six months ago" does not equal consensus. You do not disappear for six months then come back and claim that everything that transpired in your absense is not consensus. Consensus is not the HyeProfile Show. --Golbez 06:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, I suggest you calm down and read the "Solution" and "How Long" sections in full, and you will see that we reach a consensus at the end in the form of "When the Soviet Union expanded in to the South Caucasus, it established the predominantly Armenian region as the NKAO within the Azerbaijani SSR"... In fact, you proposed it verbatim, [15], and it was approved by everyone in the discussion, notably Francis [16], Clevlander, Eupator [17], and even the POV-pushing GM [18], with the only exception of Tigran who stated his objection but said he'd accept the change for the sake of moving forward [19]...

There, I proved my case, and will therefore keep reverting back to that intro as long as it take... Now show me where you discussed YOUR proposed change, IF it was discussed, and prove the concensus on your version... Until then, the above-mentioned version will be the one that stays...HyeProfile 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have not responded to any of the arguments I made above, which can only mean that they are valid... I will refrain from reverting more than that allowed by the 1RR as a gesture of good will, but we must revert back to the original intro until this is settled.HyeProfile 05:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you will refrain from reverting more than that because you will be blocked otherwise. --Golbez 06:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I will follow the 3RR, but I WILL revert as much as necessary to protect the integrity of the article...HyeProfile 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, I remember now, and amazed that I have not seen it before. Predominantly Armenian region relate as is as the current situation, while we made the concession by raising it for the period too, adding the predominantly Armenian region for the period and the "within the region" and forget the rest. While there is two predominantly Armenian region on HyeProfile version, it was not really redundency since it relates to two different periods. We could change the wording for one by 'majority' wording. Now that it has been pointed, the pandora box has been opened. Damn... To say the truth after the months on that, I have not really read it all. I was tired on the wars for some words. Fad (ix) 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not redundancy to have the exact same statement twice? Anyway, you two don't get to change a statement that has been in for six months in the interest of reverting to consensus. We discuss it.

Both refers to two different periods. Don't you remember? We had all this conflict over months on including it was first incoporated in Armenia then Azerbaijan, Grandmaster would not agree etc., then finally adding the predominantly and within and remove all the sentence about that? Both refers to different periods, the first predominantly refers to the current NK, the second refers to the population before it was established within Azerbaijan. Anyhow, I will not bother with that, if it will creat another conflict, it does not worth it. Fad (ix) 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the point I made, that although the wording is redundant, the necessity to state that the region was predominantly Armenian isn't, since we completely eliminated the fact that the region was first given to the Armenians before the Azeris... Again, the logical thing here is to revert back to the originally agreed version and discuss any disagreements, if any, with that consensus version. Golbez, I will revert it back as much as necessary to protect the integrity of the article, and I strictly oppose your way of dealing with this. If you really believe that a change is warranted, make your case through civil discussion, and we'll consider it (however, keep in mind that completely eliminating the "predominantly Armenian" part from the sentence sacrifices NPOV, and I will not stand by i)... Any change that isn't discussed is simply unacceptable.HyeProfile 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Threats of edit warring is not a very bright thing to do. Fad (ix) 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the intro has been in place for many months and therefore is a consensus one. Any attempts at a unilateral change will result in renewal of the dispute, and this is not something we need. So it should remain as it is. Grandmaster 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

GM, consensus was never created on the current version, regardless of how long it has been online (in fact, it's only been changed a month ago through covert means [it was introduced with another subtle change] and therefore we only notice it now). Arguing that is just plain ridiculous...

And for the record, I am not edit warring, I am simply dealing with vandalism since you all refuse to answer the underlying claims that the current version is NOT what we all agreed upon and it is strongly Azeri-POV and completely eliminates the Armenian representation in the entire paragraph... I have clearly documented my reasoning and no one has rejected my claims, so therefore I can only assume that there is no real academic objection, just reaction POV-pushing. Again, the concensus version stays and this version gets discussed. again.HyeProfile 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

fuller Demographics and Census table added back

The fuller democgraphics, census, and official counts table, known to Western research, has been added back -- each and every figure is fully referenced, discussed, and verifiable. There is simply no arguing with the fact that ethnic Armenian population gradually rose over the 19th century in mountaneous Karabakh, whilst Azerbaijani population decreased. --AdilBaguirov 04:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This table should not be removed -- it should be expanded. The percentage increase/decreases are representative of the NK as much as the historic Karabakh, since Armenians, as Armenian writers remind us, concentrated in the mountaneous parts. Thus, most Armenian settlers from Ottoman and Iranian empires that were resettled in 19th century to Karabakh, went on to live in the mountaneous sections -- such as the village Maragha, which even put an obelisk to commemorate the 150th anniversary of resettlement from Iran in 1978 (later the obelisk was destroyed, but photos remain). --AdilBaguirov 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The fuller census should not be removed, since this is a total violation of all applicable Wikipedia rules of NPOV and verifiability. And the excuse that users such as Vartanm and Fadix try to use do not apply, since first of all, none of the censuses from before 1926 and after 1989 apply to NKAO -- the classic definition of Mountaneous Karabakh. Secondly, all official censuses (unlike the 1921 so-called "census"), especially when using relative numbers (percentages), still give us a correct and true picture of the demographic situation, since Armenians lived mostly in Mountaneous parts, and thus all censuses that showed Armenian population by default applied mostly to NK. As Prof. Cornell remarked on this occassion, "it is nevertheless certain that the overall increase in Armenian population was due to an increasing migration of Armenians to Mountainous Karabakh or an exodus of Muslims from the region." Prof. Svante E. Cornell, "Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus", Curzon Press/Routledge, 2001, p. 68 So stop removing the table. --AdilBaguirov 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Karabakh and Nagorono-Karabakh are not the same thing. Its like saying Southern California is the same thing as California. Vartanm 04:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek are we back to revert warring? Vartanm 04:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And what of the Armenian population prior to the 19th century? Why must we simply include statistics (that Fadix has time and time again debunked in their veracity to no avail) to imply that Karabakh's history began in the 1800s? The demographics section on other country articles such as Germany or the Netherlands don't include historical figures. Why (It's obvious why) apply this standard here? --MarshallBagramyan 04:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix didn't "debunk" anything - he only showed his bad faith when he selectively quoted Cornell, by quoting only the first half of the sentence (I later provided the second half, to complete the quote). History doesn't begin at any given period, I am the one who always reminds that. However, we are bound by the Wikipedia's Verifiability clause, and thus should provide only those historic facts which are authoritative, academic and verifiable -- which applies to each and every single portion of my fuller table. That is the fuller demographics table is based on all the verifiable academic and official sources -- and if you have more, please add them. Removing he fuller table is against the rules. Meanwhile, none of you, Vartanm and MarshallBagramyan, objected to using non-NKAO "censuses" from after 1989 and before 1926 (the only official Soviet census period). Indeed, some have selectively started their HIStory from 1921 AGRICULTURAL census, that was further selectively interpreted by an Armenian researcher R.Kocharyan and published in mid-1920s, to show the "94%" mythical figure. Of course, no NKAO existed at the time of the 1921 agricultural census, and what Kocharyan did was to simply include only Armenian populated villages and exclude Azerbaijani one's. At the same time, whilst the definition of NK varries from scholar to scholar (e.g., Hovanissian's is different from Potto), everyone agrees that overwhelming majority of Armenians of Karabakh lived in Mountaneous part of Karabakh. As such, the whole demagoguery about "Karabakh and NK are not the same" is just a weak excuse that doesn't stand up to a scholarly test, because any increase of Armenians with a simultaneous decrease of Muslims applies to NK as much as it does to all of Karabakh. That's why prof. Cornell continued his sentence, which Fadix preferred to not quote: "[i]t is nevertheless certain that the overall increase in Armenian population was due to an increasing migration of Armenians to Mountainous Karabakh or an exodus of Muslims from the region." So the table should stay and should not be disrupted by you. --AdilBaguirov 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, return and read carefully what I have said, I did quote Cornell and I did say what he say next, I have never hidded any informations at all I also added that Cornell provided not footnote for his assertion. As for the rest of the things you say about 1921, original research, not long ago you did even not know the figures represented 1921. Fad (ix) 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Axxn 14:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the map of Nagorno Karabakh should include the liberated territorries as well (like Qazakh, Kalbajar, Fizuli and Lachin).

No. --Golbez 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Qazakh, Golbez: can you please check out the discussion at User talk:Atabek#Qazakh and User talk:Khoikhoi#Regarding Qazakh over the word "occupied"? Please let me know what your opinion is on the matter. Thanks, Khoikhoi 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a glance but last track quickly; can you give me a cliff's notes on what the argument is, please? --Golbez 23:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is over the sentence "During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenia gained control of Yukhari Askipara and Barkhudarli, the two exclaves of Qazakh." Atabek wants to changed "gained control" to "occupied". I think that the former is more NPOV, but Atabek's argument is "If UN, US State Deparment, Council of Europe say it's occupied, why should Wikipedia say it's controlled." In my opinion, since Armenians will use the word "liberation", control seems to be somewhat of a compromise. Khoikhoi 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say occupied, and I've never wavered from this front. Nagorno-Karabakh is not occupied (you cannot occupy yourself); Lachin, Barkhudarli, et.al., are. However, I would say that 'control' can be an NPOV compromise, but I can also understand why some would say it's "too" neutral. --Golbez 23:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I think the best way to go now is to say "gained control/occupied". Khoikhoi 23:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundant word "located"

The redundant use of the word "located" is one of the most common errors in English Wikipedia. It adds no meaning and therefore should be deleted from the first sentence. Korky Day 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word "officially"

The word "officially" in the first sentence implies some office or official has taken a position. That's true, in this case, of the officials of Azerbaijan. The officials of Artsakh take the opposite position. So this unmodified use of the word "officially" is biased. We could add "according to Azerbaijan" or delete "officially" and re-phrase as "still claimed by Azerbaijan", etc. --Korky Tashjian Day Korky Day 21:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Officially means that all the international bodies officially recognize Azerbaijans borders, which include Nagorno-Karabakh. Thats very NPOV sentence. If we change that, it will create a spiral of revert wars. Vartanm 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, the only authorities that we know of that disagree are the authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh. The UN, EU, OSCE Minsk, even Armenia, say that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan, and they also all agree that it is part of Azerbaijan in a de jure status only. I'm not too happy with official but it was accepted by consensus and as hard as consensus is to find on this topic, I'll live with it. --Golbez 23:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Census table

I don't see why the census table is being removed persistently by User:Vartanm. Can the user provide explanation for the removal of legitimate sourced information? Atabek 05:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained myself every time I reverted. I'll explain it again. You are adding census numbers of Karabakh to Nagorno-Karabakh article. Nagorno-Karabakh is different than Karabakh, its like adding census numbers of California to Southern California article. Vartanm 06:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not! It's been explained why this excuse of yours does not hold true -- 1) the definition of NK is fluid, varries from source to source; 2) the editors of this page that use this excuse of your never cared about it when they used census from AFTER 1989 and from BEFORE 1926, when NKAO didn't exist; 3) Armeanians lived mostly in Mountainous part of Karabakh, hence any increase of them in Karabakh refers to NK; 4) the fuller census table mostly give percentages, giving relative numbers; 5) Prof. Hovanissian, for one, is clear that his numbers from 1917-1919 are for NK, and 5) Prof. Cornell also makes clear: "[i]t is nevertheless certain that the overall increase in Armenian population was due to an increasing migration of Armenians to Mountainous Karabakh or an exodus of Muslims from the region." Hence the fuller table is absolutely appropriate, and correct. --AdilBaguirov 09:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If its appropriate and correct then lets go ahead and add the census numbers of California to the Southern California article. Lets see how the Hispanic population of the Southern California would feel when all of a sudden a big number of White Americans got added to their census. Vartanm 09:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

hehe Fad (ix) 14:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what's funny, but the table is fully sourced, verifiable and from authoritative books. It's applicable to NK and to the Armenian population, and gives a good idea about the demographical shifts in the region. --adil 08:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutly no point to even discussing with you, a disturber, a POV pusher, who is here on Wikipedia to simply push his positions. I have quoted from the sources which you have provided. They say -it does not represent NK- I have provided the official records, I have provided Bournoutian paper on the matter. You still, push, push, push, push and push. All the over a thousand of words and various records I have placed there which were NEVER even addressed by you, but rather you ignored totally. I have used every single records you have used there. First you still repeat the 1923, when you have access to the Jstor, and that one of the papers I have presented cite the source and make it clear that while it was printed in 1923, the figures represented those of 1921. You then, just fabricated a BS claiming how the figures of 1921 does not represent all the Azeri, when we've been already there as the Nomads when not on season during the records were counted in the lowlands, and that you would have expected them to be counted twice one on the upper Karabakh and one in the lowlands. I can hit your head with the countless numbers of sources one after the other, like the Enegizer bunny, again, again, again... you will still revert with not a single change, not even a SINGLE compromise. One can really not understand how disturbers like you are allowed to toy this way and not respect a single contributer and get away with it. So yes, there is actually nothing funny here. And you even attempted soon after your block was experied to creat an Azerbaijan Genocide article with a government declaration, which you knew did not go there and will cause another conflict. You aren't even an Arbitration case. I appologize for the ranting for the rest of the readers, again. Fad (ix) 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your bad faith is well known Fadix, and your yet another admission that all you can provide is POV source like Bournoutian as your "evidence" is best testament to that. The expanded census table corresponds to every Wiki rule and requirement, and you and your possy should stop the disruptions and stop the revert warring. Full rationale and explanation was provided on numerous occassions as to why the expanded census table is the only fair way. --adil 00:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We can have yet another example of your distortions of sources on March Event talkpage, in which you modify its title and with selectivity change the entire meaning. Bournoutian is a notable and credible academic, which you will never be, just like when I have used Cornell, which you use and where he state that the figures he present does not represent Cornell, just like the rest of the records I have presented. I rest my case, you have no purpouses here than pushing your position by distorting sources. Fad (ix) 01:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil, the sources that you use base themselves directly on Bournatian's work, and by undermining Bournatian's credibility you undermine theirs as well... In simpler terms, it is clear that we can't include Cornell as a source without including Bournatian as well sine that latter bases himself on the former's work. Like Fadix said, you're just pushing an argument which has already been dismissed...The only thing we can do here is add and entry which includes both sources and extraopolate figures only for the territory of the NK from the data provided...HyeProfile

Fadix, it's funny to hear about distortions from you. Nevertheless, the fuller census table is valid and fully up to Wiki standards. Meanwhile, the recent additions of Anushevan Daniyelian figures is not. --adil 17:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Answering would be to repeat myself, I rest my case. I hope the Arbcom would take the right decision on you. Fad (ix) 18:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected

This is a lot slower and boring than a typical edit war, but I'll credit that to the fact that most of the people involved are on a one revert probation. It has been protected on the last version I saw it at, ostensibly the wrong version, and should not be taken as an endorsement of one side or another by me, because as y'all can probably see by the fact that I don't really revert this one, I don't care. I'm just tired of seeing this article tick my watchlist in slow motion.

So, talk. You have three days til protection drops. Please use that time wisely. --Golbez 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How about adding information to the 'Notes' field that indicates the area (in km2) or something of the region in which the population figures were collected. If that is not available then a note could be added indicating that the size of the region is unknown. Furthermore, a map could be added illustrating various definitions of Karabakh and Nagorno-Karabakh. This would allow the population figures to be included, but also illustrate the fact that they may apply to different sized areas. - Francis Tyers · 11:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The root of the dispute is what constitutes Nagorno-Karabakh. Is it just the territory of former NKAO or mountainious part of Karabakh in general, as the name implies? I think we can use the statictics for various periods, but we need to mention what territory it relates to, i.e. is it certain uyezd, khanate, or autonomous region. The notion of Nagorno-Karabakh did not exist before 1923, but the territory did. Grandmaster 13:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and my idea would deal with that problem. - Francis Tyers · 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for interfering and putting an end to the constant reverts of the crucial demographics info. I have wikified the 2007 news in terms of its citation and wording. --adil 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The first three sections of the table are based on wrong information!!! In fact, from the mentioned sources, Prof. Svante Cornell's "Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus" relies on an unsourced and uncited Russian census in 1832 of the entire Caucasus region from which NK makes up only 38% in terms of territory. In fact, Of the 21 districts that the census he cites covers, only 8 are located in Mountainous-Karabakh and present-day Zangezur (then part of Karabakh). In other words, according to the survey cited by Cornell (and also by Altstadt BTW), Armenians formed 92% of the population of Mountainous-Karabakh. As for Prof. Audrey Altstadt's "The Azerbaijani Turks: power and identity under the Russian rule", she directly cites and misrepresents data from George A. Bournoutian's "The Ethnic Composition and Socio-Economic Condition of Eastern Armenia in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century" article. In fact, he deals with this and other missuses of his data and other census figures in his [Politics of Demography: Misuse of Sources on the Armenian Population of Mountainous Karabakh article] article. The first entry must be removed since the survey referred to by Cornell does not include Karabakh in it's geographical coverage and is therefore irrelevant (see "Correct Figures on the Armenian Population of Mountainous Karabakh as Derived from Primary Sources" subsection from George A. Bournoutian's [[20]]article). We must keep the source of the second entry but add George A. Bournoutian's article as a source as well, and correct the table accordingly with figures relevant to Nagorno-Karabakh only, in proper geographical context. The third entry and the accompanying source to Prof. Altstadt's work must be completely removed since she directly cites and misrepresents Bournoutian's work (as he himself states in the above-mentioned article).HyeProfile 21:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything which does not suit your notion is wrong. Those table is made by well-known scholars and their books are reliable. If you want question them, you can bring other scholars quote or table. Otherwise your assertions are OR.--Dacy69 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dacy, did you even bother to read what I wrote??? I did bring scholarly quotes... In fact, the references I removed that you call "scholars" directly cite Bournoutian, and Bournoutian himself has rebuked your so-called "scholar"s use of his data... you people are just blindly reverting my edits without botehring to read what I write on talk. This is ridiculous!!! Admins should intervene to save this page from vandalism!!!HyeProfile 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you are pushing Bournatian (which is ethnically Armenian and might be biased) and your arguments centered around this particular scholar. I have read your arguments. You dismiss others - it is your OR.I don't mind if admin will look at this case. And you call other opinion 'vandalism' without ground. Exclamation marks does not win arhuments.--Dacy69 22:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying, reasonable and logical argumentations wins arguments... Yet some editors clearly lack this understanding...

What arguments did I dismiss??? You can;t just say "you dismissed others" without saying what those arguments are... I'm not psychic you know...HyeProfile

HyeProfile, you are a meatpuppet that should stay away from edit warring. Two admins already edited the table and improved it further. We can't allow you remove the 1897 and previous censuses, and keep adding Armenian references -- for each Armenian, an Azerbaijani must be added too. --adil 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil, I don't appreciate being personally harassed from you and being called a meatpuppet. I think it's pretty obvious who the meatpuppets really are... I will warn the admins once more about your personal threats, but I think your faith is already sealed...

As for the table, I made my point and you didn't even bother to refute my claims (because you can't and you know I'm right)... If you had even bothered to look at my chanegs, you would have seen that I also wikified the table, yet you reverted that too... You lack integrity and that's why you keep on blindly reverting others' work without even bothering to explain yourself. My argument stands...HyeProfile 17:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Create new article for Current Situation/International Status

Might I suggest that due to the fact the "current situation" and "international status" sections are becoming increasingly cumbersome, and should be moved and perhaps integrated in to a new article such as Current Status of Nagorno-Karabakh or Current Situation of Nagorno-Karabakh (similar to Kosovo Status Process) so as to keep the section concise, around just to provide a brief summary than 2-3 paragraphs.

Might also be helpful to desist the article's reliance on online sources.--MarshallBagramyan 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. --Golbez 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

old talk in new intro bit

I nearly reverted on sight when I saw this, as HyeProfile knows well and good that all changes to the intro, no matter how minor, have to be discussed here. It even says so in the cute little HTML comment. However, I stayed my hand and gosh darn it if the addition ain't that bad. Here's the proposed change:

From:
The predominantly Armenian region became a source of dispute between the republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence from the Russian Empire in 1918. After the Soviet Union expanded into the South Caucasus, it established the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

To:
The historically Armenian region became a source of dispute between the republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence from the Russian Empire in 1918. After the Soviet Union expanded into the South Caucasus, it established the the predominantly Armenian region as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

(I've readded the Armenian link that got removed) Change: It changes 'predominantly Armenian' at the start to 'historically Armenian', and puts 'predominantly Armenian' in later on, where he were trying to add it earlier. However, my challenge of "you can't establish a region like that" remains, so the sentence should probably be reordered if this is kept. Like, "It established the NKAO in the predominantly Armenian region within the AzSSR"? --Golbez 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the intro is OK the way it is now. “Historically Armenian” is subject to a very big dispute, and what’s the point in inserting “predominantly Armenian” in every single line? It already said that in the previous line. Grandmaster 07:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, we agreed to remove any mention to it incorporated in Armenia before in exchange of being specified that it was predominantly Armenian and the "within"(which could not be disagreed as it is just a clarification and better English overall). That I have not seen the missing part since now escapes me. I agree "Historically Armenian" should not go there, but the predominantly Armenian two times refers to two different periods. Perhaps a synonym could be found there. Fad (ix) 14:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to repeat “predominantly Armenian” twice in this short paragraph. It is pretty obvious that the region was predominantly Armenian during all the events mentioned there. I thought we had an agreement not to open this can of worms ever again. Last time we did it it took us a few months of heated debates to settle on the current version. Grandmaster 14:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, then lets move the predominantly word then. Fad (ix) 15:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The chap who reverted it (I had forgotten to) did bring up a good example, "historically Armenian" tends to imply it's been part of Armenia, or has always had Armenians or what not, and we don't know that, as per the policy that we know nothing prior to 1923. --Golbez 08:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

HyeProfile is reverting again. I think it is about the time someone explains him that he should get a consensus for his changes on talk. Grandmaster 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

GM, I am not the one reverting, you and Golbez are! I am simply protecting to the version which has "predominantly Armenian region" in the sentence, which is the consensus versions, which both you and Golbez agreed to as I pointed out in my post above [21]! Why do both you and Golbez ignore what you personally have agreed to and pretend that you have discussed your version on the talk page when that's not true (I've asked you both to point me to that discussion, without a reply)... I have clearly shown that my version is the consensus version, with links showing how you both agreed to it, and how you never ever discussed your proposed changes, and THAT'S why I'm reverting, due to your inabililty to prove your case. Yet, you still insist on changing the intro without consultation. GM, didn't you state above that "all changes to the intro, no matter how minor, have to be discussed here"? Why didn't you discuss you change before making it, knowing full well that even a minor change has to be discussed first... You both lack integrity and should stop disturbing this article's integrity...

I will warn you that I will be forced to notify the admins if you repeatedly insist on incorporating your POV-pushing wording to the intro despite what was agreed to after a long and arduous debate!!! You do not own this article and cannot change the wording any way you please... Get it into your heads that the region is and always (and therefore, "historically") has been predominantly Armenian, and Azerbaijan has only owned the land officially in 1991, and lost it in 1993...HyeProfile 17:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The region was never historically Armenian -- any study of third-party and primary sources, not to mention some lesser biased Armenian sources, quickly affirms that. Even the wording "predominantly Armenian" is a big compromise from the Azerbaijani side, as 1) the definition of NK has never been standartized and even the most "stable" NKAO constantly adjusted borders and 2) the demographics and census information clearly shows the constant so-called mechanical (i.e., not natural) rise in Armenian population with an equally mechanical decrease in Azerbaijani population. Moreover, the very concept of ARBITRARILY carving out a unitary territory (as is the case with the concept of NK vs. Karabakh) disregarding historic and administrative borderlines that have been developed over centuries, with the sole purpose of inflating the numbers of one group and minimize the numbers of another group, is called jerrymandering and cannot be accepted as legitimate. Same results can be achieved by carefully carving out only those regions of Glendale, California, where Armenians live, and split Glendale into "Mountaneous Glendale" and "Lowland Glendale" (while just as in case with Karabakh, the "Mountaneous Glendale" would not include all the mountains and would include some plains, whilst the "Lowland Glendale", like Karabakh, would also include some mountains and not all the plains). --adil 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Blah blah, stop talking its always been Armenia's and still is get over it! Azerbaijan never had it, stop trying to rewrite history. Karabakh was only part of the Soviet Azerbaijan, but that Soviet republic no longer exists. Artsakh same thing as Karabkah! Artaxiad 23:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask Golbez and Francis to have a look at the article about Karabakh, this dispute moved to the article about Karabakh, which is a wider region than Nagorno-Karabakh. Certain users try to include claims that Karabakh was “historically Armenian” region, which they failed to make here. I do not think inclusion of such POV claims is acceptable, and I would appreciate involvement of third party editors into that article as well. Grandmaster 06:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The current intro is the consensus and it cannot be changed until a consensus is reached on talk. Grandmaster 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Armenians have been the only constantly present ethnic group in the region for ages. This is historical fact, even as per the encyclopedia Britannica... Failure to note such an important fact in the intro is unacceptable for both sides as it seriously compromises the basis of the article.

I will repeat myself here for the sake of clarity although it has been said numerous times: NK has never been in the hands of Azeris. During the soviet days, it was incorporated under the jurisdiction of the Azeri SSR for administrative reasons but remained autonomous in it's own government (which was in majority Armenian). Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NK and the region of Shahumian have declared their independence through the official channels set in Soviet law.

Those who push Azeri POVs must realize that they have no claim on any representation in this article. In fact, Azeris have had very little influence on Nagorno-Karabakh, apart form the latest conflict, as explained above. Armenian and even neutral editors have made a lot of concessions to allow the Azeri parties to have some representation for the sake of peace, but they continue their confrontational behavior and adopt a completely uncompromising stance on everything! Furthermore, they (especially GM, Aduil, & Golbez) resort toguerrilla tactics of slowly changing parts of the article in their favor without discussing these changes, hoping that some of the changes will get lost in the fog of war. My claims to such are clearly evidenced by the "predominantly Armenian region" portion which they agreed to, yet now try to eliminate from the intro. The admins should consider this and the potential aggression this could cause, and remove these parties from these discussion! It seams to me that if this continues, we will have to remove all references to Azeri POVs from the intro, and simply state the de-facto realities regarding Nagorno Karabakh, notably that it is predominately Armenian and always has been, and is currently an self-proclaimed independent republic. HyeProfile 17:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We have already been there, we spent many months debating the current version of the intro. I suggest you read all the archives before bringing up this issue. I have no desire to start it all over again. Grandmaster 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So then you agree that we must incorporate the version discussed under the "solution, "consensus on intro", "how long..." and "officially" sections which includes the "predominantly Armenian region" portion in the second sentence... I have therefore removed the "predominantly Armenian" section in the first sentence since we have not discussed it thoroughly, and added it to the second sentence since we have already agreed to that before, as explained above... I had only left that first portion intact when reverting to the consensus version of the second sentence since Golbez had integrated that change himself after the consensus was created on the second sentence, and it can only be assumed that some sort of Armenian representation must be stated in that first sentence. However, I still argue that we need to emphasize either the general ethnic composition (Armenian) of the region or the historical presence of that Armenian ethnic composition in that first sentence of the intro. I would prefer "the historically Armenian region" but am willing to compromise for "the Armenian region"...HyeProfile 20:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version has been in place for many months and is the consensus. Your version does not make much sense anyway, how can a region be established as an autonomous oblast? Does it sound like good English? Grandmaster 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Which one would you logically call a consensus? The version which was debated for months and everyone (including you and Golbez) agreed to, or the version which Golbez integrated a couple of months ago which was never discussed or agreed upon and that editors only recently noticed? Time does not nulify the consensus we reached in August 2006, and you cannot use it to justify your position! How absurd is that??? So can I, by the same analogy, say that because the Armenians are the de-facto inhabitants of the NKR and it's surrounding liberated regions and have been for the past 15 years, then it is automatically ours!?! Your argument lacks common sense.

When people have a foolishly blind sighted and completely unreasonable stance such as you do, and when they repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the basic principle of another person's opposition to their own opinions or points of view, then it's totally useless to negotiate with them. Your behavior can only lead to aggression and agitation.

Until you make a point of contending my underlying claim that changing around the sentences deeply impacts the neutrality of the intro, then it is pointless to even argue with you...HyeProfile 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"A couple of months", six months.. same thing, right? It was during a period of lots of people changing to the intro, yet you pick on that one change to remove. You have a deliberate misunderstanding as to what consensus is (tip: it's not the result of a vote) and by calling people who disagree with your version of consensus "vandals", you are creating a hostile editing environment that I promise you will come back to you in a present or future arbitration unless you cease. Finally, I am infinitely amused that you call me biased towards the Azeri position, when I think the Azeris here would think that I have a pro-Armenian position. Clearly, I'm almost as neutral as possible. (minus the fact that I admit a slight bias towards secessionist movements - not necessarily this one in particular). --Golbez 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You were warned about the fact that your changes to the intro were not in line with the consensus by myself on September 30, 2006, and by Tigran on November 12, look at the Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Consensus_on_intro section. So how do you count six months between mid-November and mid-March??? Anyhow, that matter is irrelevant since time itself does not create consensus without an actual discussion...

As for the consensus version, it seems clear that YOU ARE the one who doesn't understand the meaning of the word. I gave my arguments which clearly showed what the consensus version was and how you and mostly everyone agreed to it [22], and you couldn't refute my arguments... Yet now, you clearly admit that your version was not even discussed, yet you pretend it is the consensus version??? Golbez, I'm willing to have a civil discussion on the matter, but not as long as you dismiss my logical argumentation without at least attempting to refute them. In fact, it is you who should explain why your changes are warranted/better than the consensus version, and we'll discuss THAT, not the other way around... When a person adamantly defends a change, and that others disagree with those changes, than that person is clearly pushing a POV when he refuses to discuss his changes... HyeProfile 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So, does anyone want to discuss it, or discard HyeProfile's version out of hand as strongly as he's discarding ours? --Golbez 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, we must discuss YOUR changes first, since those were never discussed!!! Make your arguments why we should accept your proposed changes and how they are better than the consensus version... HyeProfile 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Statute of limitations; you do not get to discard an edit that lasted six months simply because it weren't discussed. Now, if you want, we can discuss the merits of the change you want to make - but the argument over which version is consensus is over and has no point. --Golbez 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, did we or did we not have lengthy discussions over the intro with at least a half a dozen editors involved??? Did we or did we not come to an agreement??? Answer my questions for a change!!! Your attitude is completely nonconstructive and highly disturbing!!!

Furthermore, you can't just pretend that no one ever objected to your changes!!! Wake up and smell the coffee: myself, Fadix, and Tigran clearly opposed your changes right from your beginning, yet even when you ignored us we chose not to engage in an edit war (which shows our good faith)... Your changes were objected to from the beginning, and they were never discussed, how can you even pretend to talk about consensus in such a case!?! Why do you so adamantly refuse to accept this??? It's clear as daylight that your changes don't have half the amount of merit as those which were discussed in length and agreed to by multiple parties including yourself... Is it not clear to you that you are aggressively pushing a POV???

I don't see a point in discussing with you since your are totally unreasonable in your argumentation (well, actually you don't even give an argument why you changed the intro, you just say "it's better that way", but why, we don't know) and completely stubborn in respecting other editors... You are abusing your adminship, and I hope someone puts a stop to this nonesense... HyeProfile 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am giving you an opportunity to work towards the future. That requires you abandoning the struggles of the past. What is required here is civil editing practices (that means not calling people who disagree with you "vandals") and a respect that you do not determine consensus. Nor do I. But this article is far more than contentious enough to require every change to be discussed. The discussion on this change might have been lacking - but it was six months ago. Most of the article didn't exist six months ago. Should we discard it all? My point here is, I am attempting - twice now - to discuss the merits of the change you want, but if you insist on obsessing with the process and the 'consensus' of the addition you are attempting to unilaterally add (unilateral consensus?), then we will get nowhere. I cannot discuss this change with you until you start actually discussing the change, instead of the manner in which it is introduced.

Furthermore, if you continue to accuse me of "aggressively pushing a POV", I will disregard your comments altogether. I am not accusing you of a POV in this, though I know one exists; but swinging the POV bat precludes any civil discussion.

So, final chance: Will you discuss this edit on the merits of the edit, or will you simply continue to attack others? --Golbez 01:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Either follow the rules Golbez has laid out or don't. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to lecture from. I have many personal views on this region, its history, its culture and people but I, nor most of us, push it around as if its a loudspeaker for those specific views. The rules are not that difficult, Golbez has been extremely tolerable throughout your edits so you should not have any difficulty in working cooperatively with all users to better the article.--MarshallBagramyan 01:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Marshall, I am not pushing MY views, I am simply trying to protect the consensus that was achieved previously by all editors involved in writing the intro, as I explained on numerous occasions [23] [24] [25]. Please take the time to read my arguments before accusing me of POV pushing. In fact, I didn't even fully agree with the consensus version but I accepted it for the sake of moving forward, so your argument that I'm pushing a POV is completely unfounded. I do follow WP rules with integrity, and although Golbez has been mostly helpful in this article, I find his handling of this particular matter very unjust...

Now Golbez, I truly respect your constructive input, but try to understand why I'm objecting instead of treating me like a POV pusher... You're acting like I'm the one being unreasonable when in fact I've done everything in my power to respect you and be reasonable on the talk pages, yet have in turn been disrespected by being called a meatpuppet and a sockpuppet when such claims are unfounded [26]!!! How would you react??? Haven't I already made clear attempts at argumenting my case already [27]??? Have you even bothered to read my arguments???Wikipedia:Consensus clearly states that "consensus on conflicts are reached via discussion on talk pages", not through idle time, and I've been trying to do exactly that. In fact, Tigran [28], Fadix [29], & I [30] have been objecting to your changes to the intro during the months of September to November, and since you were refusing to consider our pleas, I reverted to the consensus version on March 22 [31], That makes it 4 months, not 6. Anyhow, it doesn't matter because time alone cannot create consensus... As for edit wars, we both are guilty of having one in late March, but I truly want to discuss this and come to an agreement, and that really can't happen unless you listen to my arguments... Again, you can find my arguments against your proposed changes [32]

Please take the time to seriously consider how removing the "predominantly Armenian region" will completely remove any Armenian representation in that second sentence of the intro (it's as if Armenians were not even present in the region during those years). As for your argument that "I moved it to the first sentence", and considering that that first sentence is already balanced because it mentions that both Armenian and Azeris were in disagreement over the region, it's clearly more productive to state that the Armenians were a majority in the region in that second sentence to balance that as well... Pleeeeaaase try to understand why I'm saying this and pushing for the consensus version to stay, because I fear that if small changes like the one you propose are integrated, then edit wars will be unavoidable... HyeProfile 15:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have introduced your proposal it to the general population to discuss, but I've so far disregarded it as long as you swing the POV and bias bat. Based on the note you left on my talk page, and glossing over this post, I will accept that you are now past this, the bat is going away, and you want to discuss this on the merits. However, since the previous paragraph harps on the past, bringing comments on the arbitration - I did say leave it behind, didn't I? - I'm not sure I can civilly respond to it.

So, I will create a new section. It will be about the bit you want to enter into the article. We will discuss. Hopefully, we can get some discussions from people before they are banned for a year. I will ignore any further responses from you in this section. So scroll down, please. --Golbez 16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Symbols of NKAO

I have bronze medal devoted to 60th anniversary of NKAO (1983) describing in a very nice artistic way the nature and meaning of NKAO. I will take the photo of it and place it on NKAO page. I am looking for active members' support in this. --Ulvi I. 11:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Grandmaster 11:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see this too. --Golbez 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)