Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Final - this unconstructivism of some cannot go on forever

This is really annoying - can admins please interfere and stop this endless round of ping-pong? All verifyable evidence has been presented and everything is very clear. Please first remove the reference to the "Georgian professor" and include the HETQ article reference and compromise language, as agreed two weeks ago (see earlier posts above). Second, I will repeat once more the information STRICTLY related to Naxcivan of Shah Abbas times.

1)FROM: Arakel Dawrijeci ("Book of Histories", trans. L.A.Khanlaryan, Moscow: Nauka State Publishing House, 1978, http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus2/Davrizeci/text1.phtml

From Chapter 3:

"А когда он, покинув Тавриз, приехал через Нахичеван в Ереван, чужбинники в Нахичеване, узнав, что шах тавризских чужбинников изгнал и переселил в Персию, сочли это для себя благом, и кое-кто из них поехал в Ереван, предстал перед шахом, дескать, мы тоже шахисеваны, и желаем поехать в страну персов. И шах, дабы ублажить их и обмануть этаких простаков, велел преподнести им хлхат, и им дано было пять хлхатов. [Шах] поставил над ними проводников, которые переселили их в Персию."

"And when he, having left [abandoned] Tabriz, has arrived through Naxcivan to Yerevan, the non-believers [i.e., Muslims, non-Christians, in text: чужбинники] in Naxcivan, having learned [having found out], that the shah has expelled the Tabriz non-believers [in text: чужбинников] and has moved them to Persia, have thought about it as a blessing, and someone from them has gone to Yerevan, has appeared before the shah, said, we too are Shahsevans [either the Azerbaijani Turkic tribe of Shahsevan's is meant or play of words -- "those who like the Shah"], and wish to go to the country of Persians. And the shah, to appease them and to deceive such gawks, ordered to present them khlkhat, and to them it has been given five khlkhats. [Shah] has put conductors above them which have moved them to Persia." (p. 61)

From Chapter 4:

"Из [числа] армян, переселенных в Исфахан, отделили пятьсот домов и поселили в Исфахане, пятьсот же домов отделили, повели в Ширазскую область и поселили там."

"From the Armenians that were resettled to Isfahan, five hundred houses [households] were separated and have been lodged in Isfahan, whilst [another] five hundred houses [households] have separated, have led to Shiraz area and have lodged/settled there." (p. 68)

2) FROM: prof. Ronald Grigor Suny in his article in Encyclopedia Britannica: "During the war that broke out in 1602, Shah 'Abbas I strove to regain the lost territories, and in 1604-05, with the aim of stimulating trade in his dominions, he forcibly transferred thousands of Armenians from Julfa to Esfahan, where those who survived the march settled in the quarter named New Julfa." There we go, yet another Armenian source admit that only "thousands" were resettled from Julfa, not "tens of thousands" or "hundreds of thousands". From: "Armenia." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 14 June 2006 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-44272>.

3) FROM: Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, 1970, article JULFA: "By the beginning of 17th century, Julfa had a population of 20,000." ("К началу 17 в. в Джульфа - 20 тыс. жителей"). http://www.referatu.ru/1/23/504.htm

Therefore, we conclude:

1) Arakel, an Armenian and Christian writer with deep biases and resentment of Turks, Azerbaijanis and Persians, acknowledges that not only ethnic Armenians were resettled from Naxcivan, but all others, especially Turkic shahsevan tribe.

2) Since all Julfa residents of Armenian origin, whom Arakel notes were the richest among Armenians and indeed good traders, were resettled to Isfahan, and Arakel specifically mentions only 1,000 families, that makes anywhere from 5,000 Armenians (if we assume 5 people family) or even 6,000-7,000 (if we assume that Armenian families were much larger in the past).

3) Julfa and Naxcivan were the only significant cities of Naxcivan region. Julfa, the wealthiest, had a population of only 20,000 people. Even if we are generous, no more than half of them could have been Armenian. Thus the data of prof. Suny and Arakel about only "thousands" of Armenian and "thousand" families, amounting to about 5,000-7,000 Armenians from Julfa resettled to Iran, is correct. End of story. --AdilBaguirov 00:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So, how should we reword this sentence here?:

He forced most of the local population, including skilled Armenian workers, to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia.

I say we fix it up like this:

He forced most of the local population, including thousands of skilled Armenian workers, to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia.

Since I have not yet seen a source that has confirmed that the Armenians were the majority in the region, I say we do not use that word the describe them. With Adil's sources above however, we can still use the word "thousands," which may or may not imply that they were indeed the majority. As Adil said above, end of story, when the article is re-opened for editing, we shall include this version. -- Clevelander 02:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The following paragraph should be completely rewritten. It gives too much weight to Armenians and completely ignores Muslim and other population.

In 1604, Shah Abbas I Safavi, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy. He forced most of the local population, including skilled Armenian workers, to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia. [2] Many settled in a neighborhood of Isfahan that was named New Julfa since most of the residents were from the original Julfa (a very rich Armenian town which was looted and burned).

Grandmaster 10:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I still say we should have "thousands" in there. After all, we at least have references to back up that statement. -- Clevelander 11:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should say something like this:

In 1604, Shah Abbas I Safavi, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy. He forced most of the local population, including Muslims, Armenians, Jews and others, to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia. [2] Many settled in a neighborhood of Isfahan that was named New Julfa since most of the residents were from the original Julfa (a very rich Armenian town which was looted and burned).

Even Armenian historians say the same thing, so it should not be a problem. Grandmaster 11:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll agree to that if we can list the ethnic groups in alphabetical order. This way we will both be making a concession. -- Clevelander 11:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Muslims should go first, because they apparently were a majority as is obvious from a number of sources. They prevailed in such towns as Nakhichevan and Ordubad, while Armenians were in majority in Julfa. And the words “rich Armenian town” are incorrect, it had mixed population, but was predominantly Armenian. So it should say “a rich town with predominantly Armenian population”. Apparently, with Julfa Abbas had also plans other than scorched earth policy, but that’s another story. Grandmaster 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I say that we just change the wording of "a very rich Armenian town" to a "predominately Armenian town" as it makes more sense. I still stand with my position that Nakhichevan's ethnic groups should be listed in alphabetical order. I have yet to see any reference to a Muslim majority in Nakhichevan prior to the Shah's population relocation nor do I think it really matters at this point. To list them in alphabetical order, in my opinion, would make this section neutral. I also think that we ought to include Georgians in the list as well, allowing it to read as: "Armenians, Georgians, Jews, and Muslims." Or if you like we can compromise and go back to saying "including skilled Armenian workers" without mentioning an exact or estimated number (such as "thousands"). -- Clevelander 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to population of the area, out of three major towns of the area (Nakhchivan, Julfa and Ordubad) at least two had predominant Muslim population. For example, the biggest town of the area Nakhichevan was predominantly Muslim. See this article from encyclopedia Iranica:

Iranica, History of Azerbaijan, Islamic period to 1941, Bosworth, C., page 225:

In the Mongol period, indeed, the Christian communities enjoyed at the outset a comparative florescence and toleration; in the time of the Great Khan Guyuk (r.1246 – 49), the influence with Mongol horde of the Syrian monk Simeon Rabban Ata secured the building of churches in strongly Muslim towns like Tabriz and Nakhchevan (Nakjavan), until the conversion to Islam of Gazan (r.694 – 703/1295 - 1304) brought about a reversal of this favor (see Spuler, Mongolen, pp. 203 ff). Thereafter, Christianity in Azerbaijan declined to the point of extinction, with the exception of the vestigial Nestorian or Assyrian Christian Neo-Syriac-speaking communities of the lake Urmiya region, which have survived till today. [1]

This article refers to the period of Mongol invasion, that was about 200 years before shah Abbas, but it is unlikely that “strongly Muslim town” Nakhichevan became a town with predominantly Christian population, since according to the source "thereafter, Christianity in Azerbaijan declined to the point of extinction". Plus, Arakel also describes Nakhichevan as a Muslim town, see my above references. We may completely avoid the controversy by using the wording like “He forced most of the local population, regardless of ethnicity or religion, to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia”. What do you think? Grandmaster 07:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, it only mentions specific towns as strongly Muslim. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I agree with you, let's just avoid mentioning any ethnic or religious groups at all in that sentence, thus avoiding any further lengthy arguments. Here's how I think it should be setup:

In 1604, Shah Abbas I Safavi, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy. He forced most of the local population, regardless of ethnicity or religion, to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia. [2] Many settled in a neighborhood of Isfahan that was named New Julfa since most of the residents were from the original Julfa (a predominately Armenian town which was looted and burned).

Sound good? -- Clevelander 11:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it’s OK. Grandmaster 11:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizing Nakhichevan

Reverting the demographics section

To Armenians and Azeris alike who have contributed to this article, I respectfully apologize for my edits on the demographics section, which, ultimately, led to further disputes. I say that the only mention of Armenians in the demographics section should be that they were forced to emigrate during the Karabakh war, while not specfifying how many exactly lived there. Here's how I say we should do it:

As of 1990, Nakhichevan's population was estimated to be 350,000. 98% of the population are Azeri. Ethnic Russians constituted the remaining population. The Armenians living in the area were forced out during the Nagorno-Karabakh War.

End of discussion. -- Clevelander 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. --AdilBaguirov 07:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reworking the history section

I say we cut up the first paragraph and totally remove it from the history section. These first two sentences should be removed from the history section on the account that nobody has been able to cite a source for them:

The city of Nakhichevan was first mentioned in Ptolemy's "Geography" as Naksuana and was said to be established in 4400 BC. Naksuana is ancient Greek for "the land of sweet water".

The sentence describing the history of Nakhichevan's name should be used to revise the lead:

The Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic (Azerbaijani: Naxçıvan Muxtar Respublikası, Armenian: Նախիջեվան, Turkish: Nahcivan Özerk Cumhuriyeti, Russian: Нахичеванская Автономная Республика), known simply as Nakhichevan is an exclave of Azerbaijan. Since it frequently changed empires, sultanates, and khanates, the name of Nakhichevan was altered many times, changing to: Nakshijahan, Nuhchikhan (the place where Noah landed), Nesheva, Nakhijevan, etc. As part of the Azerbaijan SSR of the Soviet Union, it was known as the Nakhichevan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

The 5,500 km² region borders Armenia (221 km), Turkey (9 km) and Iran (179 km) and consists of 7 rayons: Babak, Julfa, Kangarli, Ordubad, Sadarak, Shahbuz and Sharur. Its capital is Nakhichevan, home to the Nakhichevan State University.

This last sentence is not really that significant and it isn't big enough to have its own section. Therefore, I say it should be removed:

Throughout history Nakhichevan land brought up prominent persons such as Hindushah ibn Nakhchivani, Abdurrakhman en Neshevi, Ekmouladdin Nakhchivani, Ajami Nakhchivani, Generals Ehsan, Kelbali, Ismail, Hussein, Jamshid khan Nakhichevanski, Presidents of Azerbaijan Republic Heydar Aliyev and Abulfaz Elchibey and others.

Other than that and a few grammar and disambiguation errors, those are the main revisions that need to be made to the history section. -- Clevelander 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find the reference in Ptolemy either, and neither of the three relevant articles in Great Soviet Encyclopedia has any reference to it. Everything else looks good. --AdilBaguirov 08:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I found several references to Naksuana - one is from Encyclopedia of Brokgauz and Efron, from 1897, St. Petersburg, Russia [2]: "Naxcivan ... Naksuana in classical authors writings" (Наксуана у класс. пис), and Biblical dictionary of Gelley, transl. 1996 into Russian (Библейский словарь Геллея.Переведен в 1996г.) [3],[4]. --AdilBaguirov 00:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! We finally have a reference and now we can use the first sentence. -- Clevelander 01:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As for prominent people, normally the articles about regions mention them, we can make a list at the bottom of the article, or leave it like it is, it’s quite important as two presidents of Azerbaijan hailed from this region, why not share this information with readers. Grandmaster 07:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if there was a seperate listing on the page actually, so maybe we could do that. -- Clevelander 11:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree, we can make a list. Grandmaster 11:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputes section

The disputes section should be left as it is right now (with maybe a shortening on the khachkars piece as it runs on way too long) -- Clevelander 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree about shortening it, but reference to the Hetq article as I thought we agreed on wording should be made. Otherwise, let's create some page about "cultural-heritage disputes and accusations between Armenia and Azerbaijan" and place everything there from both sides, and thus simply refer to that page. --AdilBaguirov 08:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind shortening. As for Hetq, Mr. Baghdasaryan was informed of your ill mannered attempts to use the article on this page and his response was that Azeris always use things out of context. Perhaps you are interested in the full exchange? :)

Also Hetq recently added the following on the main page: http://hetq.am/eng/culture/Julfa.pdf

Wonder why Adil? :)--Eupator 15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a beautiful example of suppression of sources, and use of intimidation against honest journalists doing their job. Just as Onnik Krikorian noted, as soon as Edik Baghdasaryan published his story, some Armenians started to attack him and slam for doing his job. I hope this example will be noted for the record as to how some people are ready to go to any length to supress, falsify and intimidate other people - very unfortunate. Just one has to realise that such "damage control" won't help - truth will come out despite all these unfortunate efforts. P.S. Full exchange can be sent to me by e-mail, which is linked to my profile. Rgrds, --AdilBaguirov 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You truly are a master at seeing things that don't exist. I must say i'm quite tried of your aloof demeanor that seems condenscending towards others. You have canned ridiculous responses with the same old rhetoric. --Eupator 15:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to revisit the Hetq article, because my agreement with you on the issue was made in haste in order to prevent another major Armenian-Azeri dispute from emerging (in other words, I didn't want us to end up in the same boat as Grandmaster and Fadix - always arguing and never getting to a point). When I saw that the arguing had died down, I was hopeful that there would be room for a peaceful compromise. -- Clevelander 20:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Adil, if you agree to not include the Hetq article (which seems to only be intensifying Armenian-Azeri disputes), then I will agree to remove the Steven Sim reference. What do you say? -- Clevelander 11:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Steven Sims is neither prominent nor authoritative. HETQ article is an Armenian admission of themselves demolishing khachkars, and is far more credible than the blurry and poor quality videos that are featured on the Armenian sites, whilst Sims might be just a biased writer whose qualifications and interest in the region is suspicious at best. I've proposed that we take that whole section about khachkars out, and replace it with a reference to a special new page about mutual accusations of Armenia and Azerbaijan about cultural heritage destruction. This will remove the HETQ article from the Naxcivan page and depoliticize the Naxcivan page which is already giving excessive attention to topics that have much wider interest than just the small region of Naxcivan. --AdilBaguirov 11:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the creation of a new page will be just asking for debate, dispute, disagreement, and will only lead to further, greater problems eventually. I didn't find the Sim entry as biased as it was controversial which is why I proposed that we should agree to include neither Sim nor HETQ. I still find HETQ's relevancy questionable. Again, Edik Baghdasaryan's piece seems to be making a point that the Armenians should take care of their own house before criticizing the destruction in Nakhichevan. This may have brought up complaints from Armenians, hence Onnik Krikorian's notes.

You still have yet to show me where Baghdasaryan asserts that the Armenians were responsible for the demolition of khachkars in Nakhichevan, thus providing relevancy for its inclusion. Also, to call the HETQ piece "an Armenian admission of themselves demolishing khachkars" would be incorrect as nobody has come forward and admitted to destroying the khachkars in Yerevan. Baghdasaryan implies that Armenians destroyed them, but he does not say that anybody openly admitted to doing it. -- Clevelander 11:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But who could that in Yerevan? Azeri army? Grandmaster 05:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I never doubted that it was Armenians in Yerevan. Of course, not every single Armenian in the country was responsible for it, but a certain Armenian group probably was. My point was that we don't know who, specfically did this. If you read the article closely, you'll see that nobody admitted or took the blame for doing it. -- Clevelander 11:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander, my problem with the whole section of disputes on Naxcivan page in general, and with Sims, for example, in praticular, is that it in itself is loosely relevant to Naxcivan page in terms of encyclopedic value. If we are to include all disputes and controversies and allegations, there will be no space for everything. Also, Wiki is turned into a one giant debate forum -- and thus I don't see a problem with creating a new, special page where all occurences of valndalism can be put toghether - that is far more encyclopedic and fair than having a special section on selected pages. And let them debate it as much as they want - I have photos and resolutions of PACE too to back my arguments with. Or I can then add a special section to Yerevan page about the demolishion of Azerbaijani mosques and graves there, as well as on the occupied territories. Why should the world know only about Armenian POV, but not everyone else's story and facts?

Last time I checked, it's a "dispute" about Nakhichevan, thus it belongs in the "disputes" section, like it always has.

Meanwhile, who is "Scotish" Sims and how do we know he even exists? How reputable is the guy - where did he ever publish anything? He doesn't have any publications. Not a single Armenian video or photo was shown in reputable publications -- all are self-made poor-quality videos on various pan-Armenian websites showing nuidentified men demolishing khachkars and other stone objects for no reason, or apparently to build some shooting range. And yet this flimsy, partisan information is prominently displayed on multiple occassions here, whilst HETQ, being authoritative and credible and most importantly from an Armenia's own source, is being resisted.

First of all, it's "Scottish" and secondly its "Sim" not "Sims" (I'll admit to making this latter mistake myself). The videos are at least something that we can show to illustrate the controversy. We have yet to see proof that they are frauds or not. Until then, it stays on the page. Furthermore, the section itself does not represent a total Armenian POV. All of it (with the exception of Sim's work) is from credible news sources. After lots of editing, we also made sure to make this section as NPOV as possible. For example, the first sentence originally read: "Azerbaijan embarked on campaign between 1998 and December 2005 to completely demolish the cemetery of finely carved Armenian khachkars in Julfa." It was changed and now starts off like so: "Armenia has accused Azerbaijan of embarking on campaign between 1998 and December 2005 to completely demolish the cemetery of finely carved Armenian khachkars in Julfa."

You say: "You still have yet to show me where Baghdasaryan asserts that the Armenians were responsible for the demolition of khachkars in Nakhichevan, thus providing relevancy for its inclusion." and then yourself admit that: "Baghdasaryan implies that Armenians destroyed them". Indeed, here are these abundant quotes from the HETQ article:

To start off, the title of the article: "We Need to Defend Ourselves from Ourselves"

"I had taken him along with me to show him how we Armenians treat our national treasures."

"We Armenians are now building one more restaurant or hotel using our ancestors' headstones."

"We are doing the same thing here in Yerevan."

"But who will protest, who will fight against us, here at home? Perhaps we should appeal to various international organizations and ask them to come and protect our treasures from ourselves?"

Of course, he implies that the Armenians destroyed khachkars. BUT, aside from Yerevan where he found them, he never specified WHERE. In Nakhichevan? Well, let's see, nowhere in the article does he mention that the Armenians were responsible for any khachkars destruction there.

You also say: "as nobody has come forward and admitted to destroying the khachkars in Yerevan...but he does not say that anybody openly admitted to doing it." I think it is unreasonable to expect we will ever know the identities of all these men or someone will come out and boast about this vandalism. But more importantly, why do you apply this thinking only to Azerbaijan -- has anyone admitted anything in Azerbaijan? No, to the contrary, denied it even at the level of the president. Meanwhile, has anyone denied demolishing those khachkars in Armenia? Nope, everyone keeps silent. So even if we use this argument, Armenian clamis are still flimsy, and meritless. --AdilBaguirov 09:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has admitted to anything in that article, nor has anybody denied anything in it either. No suspect or culprit was mentioned throughout the entire article. Again, it is only implied who destroyed them - the Armenians and even from there we don't know WHICH Armenians. There are roughly 6-7 million of us worldwide, we couldn't have all been responsible for it. -- Clevelander 11:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There are at least 10 million Armenians worldwide,

Hence, why I prefaced my statement with "roughly."

and if you continue with this approach about "nobody has admitted to anything" etc., then please do the same for the other side -- the Azerbaijanis not only never admitted, but rejected Armenian allegations about any state-sponsorship or wholesale destruction of any khachkars, whether Armenian or Caucasian Albanian. No suspect or culprit was ever found or reliably identified -- in fact, not a single photo or video had any proof that it actually was in Naxcivan.

Yes but the Azeri side was accused and denied their involvement. In the HETQ article, no specfic Armenian or group of Armenians is accused of the destruction and since its publication, no Armenian has admitted or denied anything. Also, you still have not showed me where Mr. Baghdasaryan states that the Armenians were directly responsible for the destruction in Nakhichevan, a view which you allege that he implies or expresses. You have attempted to connect it with the article for purposes of pushing your own agenda and point of view, which is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

The HETQ article, which was the first Armenian attempt that was harshly repressed by Armenians themselves, is clear about whom it accuses of destruction of the khachkars pictured in Yerevan -- Armenians themselves, as there simply could not have been anyone else, unless Azerbaijanis somehow reached Yerevan at night and brought destroyed khachkars. --AdilBaguirov 20:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Harshly repressed?" Even if you are expressing your opinion, don't you think that's a bit strong? In any case, though, nowhere in the article does Mr. Baghdasaryan accuse anybody of anything. He only implies that Armenians did it, and again, as I said above he does not specify which Armenians. I didn't deny or rule out the possibility that Armenians did destroy them, but I merely pointed out that this incident has nothing to do with the khachkars destruction in Nakhichevan. It's a seperate issue completely. -- Clevelander 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The future

If you guys are willing to cooperate and not argue, I'm willing to request unprotection for this article. There is a lot that I want to do in fixing it up, like including a section on the rayons of Nakhichevan, etc. I also want to do a "historical monuments" section, though I'm not sure we should do that as any mention of old Armenian relics (which have great historical significance) may bring up the khachkars issue and thus bring us into World War III. My point is, if only we could de-emotionalize our contributions, we maybe able to get somewhere. -- Clevelander 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing has no limit

Adil, your distortions leave them in your website.

Noone of the points I have raised, the relevant materials I have provided have ever been addressed. Grandmaster is just making up things. Urdubad was deserted just before Abbas, he build up a majority which he can not substenciate. Not only does he question the authors and the works I cite, which is original research at best, but he is just making up things which he still has to source.

What I have documented is that Armenians were resettled permanently, Arakel just like the various other sources I have provided document this. What I have documented is that they were resettled for reasons nothing to do with the Muslim population. I have provided at least two sources making mention of Nakhochevan as a land which its Armenian population had been resettled under Abbas but does not mention anything about its Muslim population. Adil either is manipulating or doesn't understand Arakel, Arakel is clear that those are groups which he is including. Also, non-Believers were either Christians or Sunni Muslims, I already covered the crime perpetrated against the Sunni under the pretext of comploting and supporting the Ottoman Empire. Arakel is known for his total ignorence of Islam, Lewis the Islamologist and historian in one of his works depict Armenian historians of the past total ignorance of Islam. Adil is simply innacurate when he suggest who those non-believsr might be.

There is no issue there, Grandmaster now is not only requesting the deletion of any mention which differenciate what happened to the Armenians (which is POV pushing), but now he request to present the Muslims first as if they were the specific target when it was quite the opposit.

We should stick to the relevant materials, and as I have documented, records in relevant scholarly publications only mentions the Armenians when referring to resettlement of population, restricting themselves to the permanency of the policy. Extrapolations, insinuations etc., just doesn't make it. Fad (ix) 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, please stop your incessant and baseless attacks, which are all alike and more of the same. Try to argue with facts - we've never seen any facts from you and definitely have not seen any refutation of the simple truth: 1) Julfa had only 20,000 inhabitants in Shah Abbas times; 2) only 1,000 Armenian families (5,000-7,000 people) were living there, and thus were resettled to Iran; and 3) the rest were Muslims, Jews, other Christians such as Georgians, Albans, Greeks, Syriacs, etc. I've requested admins to interfere and put an end to this abomination of yours. --AdilBaguirov 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Another example of fabrication, this might be offending, but you are indeed fabricating. It is much known that Julfa population was not only Armenian by its large majority, but that it was more than a large majority, if there was 1% non-Armenian there, it would be quite amazing, since it was called by foreigners, one of those town still where the population was totally Armenian. Arakel is only mentioning a group, not all of them. 12 thousand Armenian families were displaced to new Julfa from Julfa and its seroundings.

We resided in the quarter of the Armenians, which is separated by the Zayenderood from the Mahommedan city. It has received the name of Julfa, in memory of the town near Nakhshewan, from which these Christians were forcibly conducted by Shah Abbas. Their number was then estimated at twelve thousand families, which are supposed to be now reduced to six or eight hundred. [5]

I really would not have expected you to even going as far as claiming that even in Julfa the Armenians would have had formed a minority. It is really pathetic. Fad (ix) 16:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That source had some interesting info: Intermarriage with Georgians and Circassians, Koords, Arabs, Albanians, Sclavonians, Greeks, and Armenians, has no doubt modified the frightful Mongolian features of the genuine Turk. --Eupator 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This woman traveled to Isfahan in 19th century, long after shah Abbas resettlement. She says Their number was then estimated at twelve thousand families, which are supposed to be now reduced to six or eight hundred. Estimated by who? And what happened to those thousands, did they return to Nakhichevan or what? As for Eupator’s quotes, there are even funnier quotes about Armenians, which I’m not going to cite here, because it’s not relevant to the topic. Grandmaster 18:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have provided two records of Abbas period of families resettled. Fad (ix) 19:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

From Nakhichevan? We still have no statistics on the region. Grandmaster 19:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems as though you guys have completely ignored my calls for a peaceful discussion above in favor of an argument over POV pushing. I say we end this new topic right now before it gets any worse. -- Clevelander 20:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's too late today, but tomorrow let's work on a new version of the disputed paragraph. Take care. Grandmaster 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, so I am the POV pushed, pathetic, falsifier -- all for citing authoritative and even biased (in favor of Armenians) sources! As a note, if we are to accept that woman's estimate that was given to her by Armenians among whom she lived, then 12,000 families becomes at no less than 60,000 Armenians from Julfa if we accept a 5 person average family, or 84,000 Armenians from Julfa if we raise the estimate to 7 person average family. Obviously this is ridiculous - neither had Julfa ever been so big, nor does it correspond to what the Armenian-edited Great Soviet Encyclopedia wrote: 20,000 total population at the beginning of 17th century, right before Shah Abbas' resettlement. I was generous enough to up the estimate of Armenians there from 5,000 to 10,000, and thanks to such anecdotal evidence as presented here by Fadix, it reaffirms that I was correct, or actually, that Arakel was correct in testifying that only 1,000 families of Armenian origin lived there. --AdilBaguirov 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, please, I don't want to see this discussion steered into another argument or dispute. Let's just leave this particular discussion alone. It's not getting us anywhere and it's a waste of all of our time. -- Clevelander 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree! Thanks, --AdilBaguirov 23:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cemeteries

This article only says one side of the destruction of cemeteries and hides the fact that Armenians are destroying cemeteries in Yerevan themselfs, see here

Baku, we're already discussing this at length above. In fact, we've discussed it several times. Furthermore, read the article closely and you'll see that nowhere does the author mention that Armenians destroyed khachkars in Nakhichevan, thus making it completely irrelevant to the topic. -- Clevelander 21:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander, you are talking of different things with Baku87. He said "hides the fact that Armenians are destroying cemeteries in Yerevan themselfs", whilst you reply "nowhere does the author mention that Armenians destroyed khachkars in Nakhichevan" Meanwhile, the HETQ author does say that those destroyed khachkars in Yerevan "The headstones had been brought here from somewhere else". --AdilBaguirov 20:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, so what? Damaged khachkars in Armenia do not help you in any way to whitewash destruction of khachkars in Nakhijevan.--Eupator 20:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Mr. Baghdasaryan does not specfically state that they were destroyed in Nakhichevan. It has no relevance to this article. -- Clevelander 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention - these are NOT Khachkars!!!! --RaffiKojian 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't realize it until now, but Raffi is absolutely right. Nowhere does the article mention that the stones discovered in Yerevan were even khachkars. In fact, he only mentions the word "khachkars" when speaking of the destruction by Azeris in Nakhichevan. "Stone fragments with Armenian letters inscribed on them" does not automatically make the Yerevan stones khachkars (actually, examining the photographs, they look a lot different then the ones seen in Nakhichevan prior to the destruction). Also, how do you explain the destruction of whole churches in Nakhichevan? -- Clevelander 12:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda image

I removed image that I saw as POV. I am sure that Azeri people can also post many images in which Armenian soldiers destroying their graves. This is an geographical article, and it is not place for such images. A images showing landscape and places of the region would be more suitable here. PANONIAN (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the image "propaganda." It's a piece of information that illustrates the dispute. However, I'll concede to this anyway as I can see how it may bring up further disputes in the future. I'll re-add the old khachkars image in its place. -- Clevelander 23:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This new image is quite nice. Although, I propose that new section about ethnic groups in Nakhichevan could be written and there could be presented both, Azeri and Armenian heritage of the region. PANONIAN (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, my point is that the presentation of cultural heritage of different ethnic groups of the region should not be connected with political and territorial disputes of the two countries. I know that it is often used in connection with these disputes, but if we want NPOV article, we should have separate section where we will write about disputes and another section where we will write about Azeri and Armenian cultural heritage. Cultural heritage and political disputes are very different things. PANONIAN (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that whole story with alleged destruction of gravestones takes way too much space. The issue of cultural heritage destruction by both sides of the conflict can be dealt with in a separate article and accusations against Azerbaijan are already reflected in the article about Julfa, why wasting so much space in this article as well? Grandmaster 11:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I still say that it should be included in this article. It's still a dispute on Nakhichevan. I don't like the idea of starting a whole new article as that would create even more problems that we don't need. I do agree though, that we need to cut the paragraph down a bit. So, I cut it down further more and I think this latest revision will work the best (I removed Charles Tannock's equation of Azerbaijan to the Taliban as well as the name of the U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan). -- Clevelander 11:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the quotes by Europarliament deputies and add the quote from Europarliament resolution, which is much more notable than the opinion of individual deputies. The resolution condemns destruction of cultural heritage in both Armenia and Azerbaijan:

The European Parliament,

Condemns strongly the destruction of the Djulfa cemetery as well as the destruction of all sites of historical importance that has taken place on Armenian or Azerbaijani territory, and condemns any such action that seeks to destroy cultural heritage; [6]

Overall, I think the issue shoudl be dealt with in the article about Julfa, and not Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 11:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I agree, I say that we should place that in there instead of noting the opinion of individual deputies. It's more neutral. -- Clevelander 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A friend of mine is going to visit Nakhichevan this summer so I'll be uploading loads of pictures of Nakhichevan then Baku87 13:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits

The latest additions on communist history of the area are not accurate. There was actually a referendum held in Nakhichevan, and the people decided to be in Azerbaijan. See:

In July 1920, the Red Army occupied Nakhichevan and declared it Nakhichevan Soviet Socialist Republic with “close ties” to Azerbaijan SSR. However, in November of that year, a declaration by Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee, celebrating the “victory of Soviet power in Armenia”, proclaimed that both Nakhichevan and Zangezur should be awarded to the Armenian people as a sign of Azerbaijani people’s support for Armenia’s fight against the former Dashnak government. Lenin, although welcoming this “fraternal act”, did not agree and called for the people of Nakhichevan to be consulted in a referendum. This referendum, held at the beginning of 1921, demonstrated that “nine-tenth” of Nakhichevan population wanted to be included in Azerbaijan “with the rights of an autonomous republic”. Thus, the December 1920 treaty between the RSFSR and Armenia, which recognized Armenian claims to Zangezur, but not Nakhichevan, was upheld.

Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal by Tim Potier. ISBN: 9041114777

Grandmaster 08:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you including that. It sounds credible to me and you have references. I don't think that the information presently included is totally inaccurate, just not complete. It seems that you found the missing puzzle piece. -- Clevelander 10:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Grandmaster, could you give me the page number from the Potier book where that paragraph is specfically mentioned? Thanks! -- Clevelander 19:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Isen't it amazing that you guys highlined Karabakh referundum Tartar boycott in every given occasion even though had they voted 100% for its incorporation to Azerbaijan would not made any differences, and now of course the exclusion that the 40% of the population of Nakhichevan prior to the war were Armenians, were totally excluded by such a consultation which may have contrary to the Karabakh cases made a differences demographically speaking? Will help Grandmaster if one day you do provide us your standards rather than limiting ourself on your unpredictable additions which picture simply double standard. Fad (ix) 17:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the double standard here? Reporting that such referendum took place? We should present the facts the way they are, we included information about referendum in NK in the relevant article, we do the same here. We don't draw any conclusions here, just state the fact. Grandmaster 18:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK then, let do the same, and state that the 40% of the pre-war population was not consulted. If stating 'facts' is all that matters afteral. Fad (ix) 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that it was not consulted? Cite your sources. Grandmaster 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Statistics don't need sources, I don't need sources to claim 1+1 = 2. To claim 90% of total votes when Armenians constituted 40%, it doesn't take a genious to do the math. Fad (ix) 20:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You know the rules. The edits should be based on reliable sources. Grandmaster 20:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So Armenians have voted 70% for the incorporation of Nakhichevan in Azerbaijan then. Fad (ix) 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, guys, I really don't want to see the Nakhichevan page turn into another huge argument again. I'm interested in finding out what really happened during the Bolshevik invasion of Nakhichevan. Fadix, if you have a source that you would like to cite then please present it. We can then work together and evalute our revisions. Thusfar, Grandmaster's source explained a little bit more than I knew before, but if you say that the Armenians boycotted the referendum, then I'm interested in seeing your sources. We shall have a complete and fully-accurate history of Nakhichevan yet! -- Clevelander 00:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)