Talk:Karabakh

Map

How is this map "Clearly POV" just because its from an Armenian source doesn't mean its POV. Artaxiad 08:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It does. Get a map from a thrid-party source. I can create a map myself, place it at some Azerbaijanica.com and then upload here, would you agree to its inclusion? The maps should come from a reliable third party publication. Grandmaster 08:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An absolutely bogus claim, with a wave of hand at your own side's unreliability to appear neutral. Given your record, no one should expect more. Աշոտ (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"present-day" and Turkic/Persian origination

Karabakh is not in "present-day" Azerbaijan, unless Syunik, Yerevan, etc., are in present-day Armenia.

Meanwhile, Karabakh is from the Azerbaijani language, and should be properly identified as such -- otherwise, it makes no sense, why would a Turkic word and a Persian word be used, when both Turks and Persians have their own words to denote "black" and "garden". Only a language which is a symbiosis (to some degree) of two (or more) languages, and its speakers, would call a region in such a mixed way -- ethnic Persians, or Turcomans or Turkmens, would not. Azerbaijani language has formed in 11th century (BSE), the word Karabakh is from about 13th century. --AdilBaguirov 05:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's from the source. Artaxiad 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is, then you should quote it. Since you don't, you are just making up an excuse to supress the word Azerbaijani from there -- and you can't do that. --AdilBaguirov 08:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the source, it says it exactly. Artaxiad 19:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it's not a quote, and the word Kara and Bagh are still very much in Azerbaijani language -- do I need to scan appropriate dictionary pages? So supressing Azerbaijan there won't work, you are again being disruptive. --AdilBaguirov 19:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being disruptive, I am referencing what is there. Artaxiad 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No you are not, since you are not quoting (you know, those little things called "quotes"?) Karabakh was and is in Azerbaijan, and its name was given when neither Turkey, nor Iran/Persia, ruled the area. And since being an Azerbaijani word, that's how it will be called in the page, whilst denoting the linguistic origin of both words that make up Karabakh. --AdilBaguirov 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil is right, no need to add "present day" before the word "Azerbaijan". You don't say Disneyland is located in present day France, or Holliwood is located in present day USA. We just state a fact that the region of Karabakh is located in Azerbaijan, internationally recognized country. And the word "bagh" is a loan word from Persian, that exists in Azerbaijani language. Grandmaster 20:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know Disneyland is in France. Just kidding. Actually, the "present day" is relevent when covering a historic region with a term preceding the foundation of a country. Hollywood did not exit before USA. NK exist, but Karabakh had its own delimitations, there is no Karabakh within Azerbaijan, there is the lands which were part of Karabakh within Azerbaijan. This is why in this context the "present day" is relevent. Much like Constantinope is in present day Turkey. This does not undo its legitimity as being part of Azerbaijan, it is simply a clarification, we do not search the term "Karabakh" in Azerbaijan's map, we search the current names of the places which were once part of Karabakh. Fad (ix) 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to search results for the word "garden" in an online Azerbaijani dictionary, you can do a search for the word "garden" yourself: [1] Grandmaster 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

According to George E. Marcus, and other scholar etc references say it is a Turkish word so is it Azeri or Turkish?.Artaxiad 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Narek, are you kidding man?! "Turkish" does not always refer to Anatolian Turkish, but to the Oghuz Turkic language -- which used to be the same for all Oghuz Turks in 11th century, in 13th century, and even 14th century. But such basic, rudimentary words are "Qara" have always been the same in pretty much all Turkic languages -- whether Oghuz or Kipchak or Chagatay or Tatar. And since 1) Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan both today and in 13-14th centuries (when Mongol-Tatar Il-khanids had their capital in Tabriz, Azerbaijan), and 2) only Azerbaijani (and to some degree Anatolian Turkish, although more limited) have both words "Qara/Kara" and "Bagh", whilst Persian language does not use "Qara" but their own "Siyah", hence the word Karabakh is Azerbaijani, and not Persian or even Turkish. Of course, once again, that doesn't mean that the origin of the words is not Persian and Turkish (actually, once again, Qara is not Turkish as in Anatolian Turkish, but rather a common word for all Turkish or Turkic languages.) As I said before, if needed, I can scan relevant pages from the authoritative Azerbaijani-English dictionary if needed.

Meanwhile, as I said before, "present-day" is misplaced in this context -- if we are to include it, then we must reciprocate in all Armenian pages, by inserting "present-day Armenia" for obvious reasons.

Meanwhile, whilst I appreciate that Narek compromised and agreed that my edits made sense, his latest insertion "and historically a part of Armenia at times" is very much disputed -- medieval chroniclers such as Movses Khorenatsi (Father of Armenian History), and Caucasian Albanian Movses Kalankatuyski, were clear that Artsakh (Karabakh) was part of Caucasian Albania. Same is said by such encyclopedia's as Great Soviet or Columbia. The only time when Caucasian Albania, and with it Karabakh, could have not even fell to "Armenian" hands, but just accept suzeiranty, was under the ethnically Persian Tigranes the Great, king of Greater Armenia, in I century BC (and even that is very much disputed, but I am just repeating what Ronald Grigor Suny claimed in Enc. Britannica). Of course, even if Caucasian Albania did accept suzeiranty of Tigran for a few decades, that doesn't make Karabakh "historically a part of Armenia at times". If you want to debate this -- I am ready. --AdilBaguirov 08:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Artsakh was part of Armenia. Kingdom of Armenia 2500BC [2], Kingdom of Armenia at 95-55BC [3] Kingdom of Armenia at 150AD [4] It was part of historic Armenia. Vartanm 08:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

that's called Original Research -- your maps are inadmissible. Also, all the dynasties you've mentiond are Iranian (Persian and Parthian), not ethnically Armenian. --AdilBaguirov 08:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats original research? me proving you wrong? Those were Armenian kingdoms and they included the territory that was Karabakh. Thus historically part of Armenia. I won't even reply to your non-Armenian remark. Vartanm 09:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Those dynasties belonged to Armenians, it doesn't matter if they were Armenian or Parthian, they were labeled "Armenian kings" for a reason, I'm sure they ruled those territories for years, while the Azeris did not, so thus this should be removed our changed to present-day Azerbaijan, "is a historical region in Azerbaijan" or we can add, the Armenian part it was referenced accordingly, it referred to Karabakh not NK. Artaxiad 03:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

According to, Svante E. Cornell and Christopher J. Walker (Professors, scholars, etc experts on the region), "Karabakh was not separated from Armenians lands until 428 AD;" and Karabakh formed part of the greater Armenian states mentioned between the second century BC and 387 AD. I say we add that small part of historically Armenia and leave Azerbaijan as is. Artaxiad 03:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, you are again twisting the record, by misquoting the source. Prof. Cornell never said the unsubstantiated amauterish propaganda -- he clearly said on page 64 of his book that its "Walker claims", not Cornell's opinion (and Walker is no historian, by the way). Cornell is just reporting, as an honest third-party observer, what the Armenian, and then the Azerbaijani, sides say. Also, it doesn't matter what a few historians say, when primary sources -- chronicals -- say clearly that Karabakh was part of Azerbaijan (Arran), not Armenia. Meanwhile, "present-day" is simply misplaced. We can add it, if you insist, but then I will add the same to all Armenia related pages, as there was no Armenia in its present form until 1918, just like Azerbaijan or Georgia, for that matter. --AdilBaguirov 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Than on your behalf I will remove Azerbaijan, Armenia was present much earlier and went by its name yet Azerbaijan did not so before 1918 there was no such thing called Azerbaijan historically Karabakh was part of Armenia, we can put a disamb to Kingdom of Armenia if it makes you feel better. Artaxiad 16:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the claim of an anon editor that the region was "historically Armenian". It was rather historically Albanian, and changed hands many times. Grandmaster 07:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We should add, "than part of kingdom of armenia at times" Artaxiad 16:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No we shouldn't. The so called Albania has never extended that far West.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Says who? Why don't you read both Movses Khorenatsi and Moisey Kalankatuyski (Movses Dasxuranci) for a change, especially the latter, as the primary source, who makes clear that Utik, Artsakh were Albanian, and that even Syunik was independent of Armenia. --adil 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Karabakh was historically a Armenian region, Moses depends on his works some may be folk tale mixes etc, lots of things to point out on the verifiability of the content. Artaxiad 00:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Moses is still the "Father of Armenian history" as he is described, and his source is not the only one, look at any authoritative source, all of them will say the same. Karabakh is a historic region of Azerbaijan, and before that, of its predecessor state, Caucasian Albania. --adil 00:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So? that does not change anything, and it is NOT a historic region of Azerbaijan keep trying, just because supposibly its predecessor state is Caucasian Albania does not change anything, it was Armenia's, as Eupator pointed out they never reached far west foolish of me into thinking that. Artaxiad 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You make all those wild, off the mark claims with Eupator, but never present a single fact to prove your groundless claims. All sources show that Karabakh was a historic region of Azerbaijan and before that, of its predecessor state Caucasian Albania, and that the only time when Armenian might have had any control was under the ethnically Persian or Parthian -- in any case of Iranic origin -- Tigranes the Great. Before him Armenia was ruled by Persians, after him Armenia was ruled by Parthians and many others. So how does Karabakh become "historically Armenian"? --adil 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So how does Karabakh become "historically Armenian"?. Probably because Armenians maintained broad forms of autonomy even under foreign rule.

lol

I'm sorry, but can you please point to me on a map where Azerbaijan was roughly located from the period of ∞ BC - 1918? (not the one below the river Araks, mind you)--MarshallBagramyan 00:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Karabakh is a wide region, which was popualted by Caucasian Albanians. This is true both for upper and lower Karabakh. Armenian presence in the lower part of Karabakh has been very minor, it was populated by Udis, and later by Turkic people. The capital of Albania Barda is also located there. So claims that Karabakh was historically an Armenian region is POV and contradicts known facts. It is better to not make any mention of historical claims in the intro. Grandmaster 10:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Right....:rolls eyes: --MarshallBagramyan 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster give me one good historian who actually says this, Karabakh was part of Armenia for hundreds of years its widely known Azerbaijan has nothing to do with it except for the fact the war that was started. Artaxiad 23:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I already explained Karabakh has a lot more to do with Albania than Armenia, the capital of Albania was located in Karabakh. No need to insert controversial claims into this article, considering that you failed to include them into NK article. Grandmaster 06:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

oh dear. All I wanted to do was make maps, you know. Make maps... --Golbez 08:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Karabakh has been part of Caucasian Albania

Some editors here now started to raise issues and claim that Karabakh could have been a "historic" Armenian region. I wonder how would that be possible when even the Father of Armenian history, a 5th century Movses Khorenatsi clearly showed (Book I, Ch. 4) borders of Caucasian Albania and Armenia? Not to mention native historian, Moisey Kalankatuyski (Movses Daxuranci), who did the same (see Book I, Ch 4; Book II, Ch 21), and it is clear how much of history of Caucasian Albania was interlinked with Karabakh (Utik + Artsakh). Here are two encylopedia's speaking, both extremely favorable to Armenians and Armenia, and in fact, in the case of the first, edited by an Armenian:

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

(Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, 1973, "NKAO, Historial Survey")

"[Karabakh was a] part of Caucasian Albania called Artsakh."

(The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition. Copyright (c) 1993, Columbia University Press.)

The famous Russian historian of 19th century and beginning of 20th, V.L.Velichko, wrote: "Especially interesting is also the question of Caucasian Albania, or, in Armenian, Aghvank. This country, which incorporated contemporary Elizavetpol' Guberniia, as well as part of Tiflis [Guberniia] and Daghestan, was populated by nations of non-Armenian ancestry.... Until the beginning of XIX century a separate Aghvan or Gandzasar Catolicosat existed, which competed with the Echmiadzin [Armenian Catholicosat].... Currently, the Christians who were before of Aghvan Catholicosat, are considered Armenians, and after mixing with them [assimilating], adopted their character." (p. 66). Velichko later continues: "An exception were the inhabitants of Karabakh (Albania or Aghvania), incorrectly (in relation to history) called Armenians, who professed the Armenian-Gregorian faith, but were descendants of [Caucasian] Mountaneer and Turkic tribes, and who had gone through the process of Armenianization only three to four centuries earlier." (p.154)

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

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

Another Armenian author M. Belakian writes that mountaneous Karabakh was part of the Albania rather than Arshakuni Armenian kingdom until at least IV century A.D. (he also writes about Armenians constituting minority in Erevan until 19th century, and the inflow of Armenians during that time in the Caucasus).

Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal - Page 1, by Tim Potier - 2001 "Nagorno- Karabakh was part of the province of Artsakh, which belonged to Caucasian Albania."

Even a very POV book by A. J. (Agop Jack) Hacikyan, Nourhan Ouzounian, Gabriel Basmajian, Edward S. Franchuk, writes: [5]: "Vache was the prince of Artsakh and Utik and is often referred to as the "King of Albanians" by Armenian chroniclers." (p. 363) I think this is more than enough to prove that POV contentions of some editors are meritless. Karabakh, or rather, Artsakh (and Utik) were historic provinces of Caucasian Albania, whilst Karabakh (the name since 1230s) is a historic region of Azerbaijan. --adil 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

also, on the "Armenian" meliks and in general, about the "historic" Armenian "gavar" of Karabakh (Utik and Artsakh), you all seem to forget one of the most famous Armenian patriotic writers, a very nationalistic, pro-Armenian author, who relied only on Armenian chroniclers for his research, Raffi and his "Melikdoms of Khamsa" [6]:

Меликства Хамсы — это пять небольших гаваров, которые, соседствуя друг с другом, образуют целую область, ныне называемую Карабах, а в нашей истории известную под именем Арцах, или Малый Сюник. В более отдаленные времена она являлась частью страны Агванк.

...

Эти края, которые, как я упомянул выше, когда-то являлись частью Агванского царства, впоследствии стали пристанищем армянских меликов.

...

II

1. Происхождение Мелик-Бегларянов, владетелей Голистана*.

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

...

3. Происхождение Хасан-Джалалянов, владетелей Хачена.

Из пяти господствовавших в Карабахе меликских домов лишь правители Хачена были местными жителями, а остальные, как мы видели и увидим далее, были переселенцами из других мест(4). Происхождение меликов Хачена следует считать очень древним, они потомки князей Хасан-Джалалянов. --adil 10:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

             Dude stop bullshitting yourself. According to Movses Khorenatsi and Movses Kaghankatvatsi, Artsakh was the original 
             dominion of a certain Aran who was the progenitor of the House of Aranshahik - "the ancient native Armenian family". Aran  
             was called “the Aghu” (meaning amiable in Armenian) because his good manners. The genealogy of Aran (old spelling: 
             Eran, hence: Eranshahik) is preserved by the historiographer Movses Kaghankatvatsi, who wrote that Aran belonged to the 
             lineage of the ancient patriarchs and kings of Armenia, including Hayk, Armeneak, Aramayis, Gegham, Aram, Ara the 
             Beautiful, Haykak, Norayr, Hrant, Perch, Skayordi, Paruyr, Hrachea, Ervand (Orontes) Sakavakeats, Tigranes et al.

             Aran was appointed by the King Valarsace of Armenia as hereditary prince (nahapet or genearch) over the plain of Arran  
             until the fortress of Hnarakert. Aran is also known as the divine eponym and the first governor of the Caucasian 
             Albanians, appointed by Vagharshak I the Parthian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.241.30 (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC) 

"Karabakh has been historically Armenian" POV

This quote has no reference and is an unsubstantiated POV, which lays at the source of the actual Karabakh conflict. As it's an unsubstantiated and POV quote, I will be making an edit to remove it. Atabek 17:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Historically means for a long time - pls. artaxiad provide your reference--Dacy69 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Historically does not mean long time it means past events, I still have yet to see references from you. Artaxiad 21:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's entertaining. Since you are inserting your claim, please bring your reference. Then we will talk.--Dacy69 22:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Than your not supposed to revert you simply add the fact tag. Artaxiad 00:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the above references, including from Armenian sources, show clearly that there is no basis whatsoever for the POV claim of "historically Armenian region". --adil 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Karabakh is not majority Armenian population -- even after ethnic cleansing, at least half of the IDPs from there, 300,000-400,000 people, live in Barda and other cities, towns and villages of Karabakh. Meanwhile its true that Armenian forces occupy most of Karabakh, and that should be reflected. --adil 03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to an early version since its better how it was until people started messing around with the article. Artaxiad 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it back since it's better when there is more sources, references and links from authoritative and academic sources. The article provides more valuable info to the reader this way, why did you remove GSE reference, etc? adil 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What are these "citation needed" inserted for? There is a link to the NK article, which covers all those subjects -- why do you need to insert that, just for the sake of spoiling the article? adil 03:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow Wikipedia Guidelines and add them. Artaxiad 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Map2

We desperately need a map of the region, not just Upper Karabakh but the whole thing, so I can see just how much is controlled/occupied/owned by what side. --Golbez 21:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Armenia does not claim the whole Karabakh, so I removed a claim that the region is disputed between two countries. The region is very large and extends down to the junction of Kura and Araks rivers. Armenia claims NK and some adjacent highland territories of Azerbaijan. The map of Karabakh would indeed be very helpful. Grandmaster 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the word Azerbaijani from the part where it says Karabakh is an Azerbaijani word. The source says that Karabakh has Turkish and Persian roots. VartanM 07:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, bag is a loan word from Persian in Azerbaijani language. That's how kara and bag became combined into one word. Grandmaster 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, word Karabakh in Azerbaijani means black garden, hence it's been agreed upon earlier that it's Azerbaijani term. Armenians designate the region with it's Caucasian Albanian name of Artsakh. Atabek 13:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, the reason I removed the "Azerbaijani word" was because the source says its Persian and Turkish. If you can provide a source that both words are Azerbaijani from an Azerbaijani dictionary it can stay. VartanM 20:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, both lowland and highland of Karabakh are officially parts of Azerbaijan. So no need for original research and/or generalizations. Yerevan is not a town in South Caucasus, it's a capital of Armenia. Thanks. Atabek 13:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

False comparison. A better comparison would be saying whether Stepanakert is a town in Azerbaijan or Nagorno-Karabakh. To me, it seems more neutral to state it's in the South Caucuses, since there's a legitimate dispute over ownership. ---- Golbez (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, Karabakh both highland and lowland are under Armenian control, there is no need to turn this into a political article. If I wanted to push POV, as you're accusing me of doing, I would write something about it being historic Armenian region and how great it is that Armenia liberated from Azerbaijan. But all I did was apply the most neutral term to a geographic article. -- VartanM (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lowland Karabakh is not under the Armenian control, only a part of it (Agdam) is. The rest of the lowland Karabakh (Terter, Barda, Agdjabedi, etc) is under Azerbaijani control and has Azerbaijani population. So saying that the region is not part of Azerbaijan is wrong, and highland Karabakh is also internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. -- Grandmaster (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So, whats the problem with Golbez's version? -- VartanM (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, Karabakh both lowland and highland is not only under control but under occupation of Armenian forces. That's what 4 UN Security Council resolutions say. It's officially part of Azerbaijan and was never recognized as part of any other state or independent by anyone. Hence, it's region in Azerbaijan. -- Atabek (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, what does that have to do with a geographic article? -- VartanM (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that Karabakh is a region in Azerbaijan, and most of it is not claimed by Armenia. NK is like 1/3 of the whole Karabakh or maybe even less than that. The highland part is also internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, so saying that the region is not in Azerbaijan is wrong and inaccurate. Grandmaster (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No one's saying it's not in Azerbaijan. But it is disputed territory, and therefore it's better to state its broader, non-political location first, then explain the politics. --Golbez (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Only a small part of it is claimed by the neighboring state, so it is not disputed. Plus, that small part is also recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how it's recognized, the fact is that it is disputed. Mention the non-political context first, then mention the political, any time the political is in any legitimate doubt. --Golbez (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster its not only claimed but also liberated/occupied/controlled/taken over/ by NKR and has been self governed since 1991. But that has nothing to do with this article. Again this is a geographic location, not a political one. Please lets leave politics out, at least from this article. I don't know who wrote this article but I like the fact that the war is mentioned at the very end, and not at the beginning, like the rest of NK related articles. Although my first edit overlooked the fact that Azerbaijan was removed from the article, I find Golbez's version very neutral VartanM (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

POV

This page is about the region, for political expressions/positions/opinions there is Nagorno-Karabakh Republic POV fork. Atabek (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This region is located in Azerbaijan, both Armenian occupied highland part and Azerbaijani controlled lowland part, which extends to the junction of Kura and Araks. I don't think this could be disputed. Grandmaster (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Karabakh is not in Armenia. Grandmaster (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is! Karabakh is a geographical-historical region, right? And this geographical-historical region uncludes also Syunik-Zangezur. This is not my own opinion, I draw on the works of the Karabakh-Armenian historian Arakel Babakhanian ("History of Armenia" volume 3, foreword) and others. --Vacio (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"History of Armenia" volume 3, foreword by Karabakh-Armenian historian Arakel Babakhanian is not reliable source from NPOV. Gülməmməd ^Talk 18:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Arakel Babakhanian is regarded as the most prominent Armenian historian of modern history. Why you think he isn't reliable? Moreover, History of Armenia was written at the beginning of the 20th century, before the present-day conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, thus detached from political motives.--Vacio (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been many political "motives" since long ago between these countries especially in the beginning of the 20th century. We, therefore, cannot accept such sources as the neutral and reliable sources from point of view of the material that is presented in the article. And also, the map is useless, doesn't indicate anything about the region clearly. Finally, Karabakh is in Azerbaijan not in Armenia. Gülməmməd ^Talk 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Gulmammad, Zangezur/Syunik is part of this region, thus Karabakh lies in both Armenia and Azerbaijan. If you don't trust Armenian sources or Russian maps, there are also Azerbaijani sources argueing the same. Mirza Jamal for example.--Vacio (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Mirza Jamal does not say that KArabakh was part of Armenia. Please cite reliable sources. Grandmaster (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Armenia nor Azerbaijan had official borders at the time. Mirza Jamal includes Zangezur in Karabakh, as do Armenian sources. Thus a part of the Karabakh region is in the moden Republic of Armenia, an other part in the modern Republic of Azerbaijan. --Vacio (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mirza Jamal includes Zangezur not in Karabakh, but Karabakh khanate. That khanate included at various times various territories, such as Ganja, Nakhichevan and even Ardabil. It does not mean that all those territories were part of geographic region of Karabakh. The geographic region of Karabakh does not include any areas in Armenia, you cited no reliable sources about that. Grandmaster (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Karabakh region existed centuries before the Karabakh khanate, which was established around 1750 and remained till 1823. Mirza Jamal says: "As it is written by ancient historians the boundaries of Karabakh vilayet are the following..." and adds that the western border of Karabakh is the Zangezur Ridge: "...the high mountains of Karabakh, called Kyushek, Salvarty, Erikli..." Mt. Salvarty (3.160 м) even falls within the Shakhbuz rayon of the Nakhichevan Republic. --Vacio (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed POV and OR linked to maps by blogger Andrew Andersen. Follow the discussion at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh to find out why blogger-made maps aren't acceptable in conflicting cases. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Johann Schiltberger

I propose to remove (temporary) the section about Johan Schiltberger and look for other sources to confirm or to contradict his reports. After all this article is about Karabakh, not Johan Schiltberger and should not contain information about which is not related with the first. --Vacio (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what new this quote adds to the article. It just confirms that the region was populated by both Armenians and Muslims, and that Shiltberger had no knowledge of geography and believed everything his Armenian friends were telling him. It should be removed, permanently. --Grandmaster 06:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's an interesting fact that a prominent traveller visited Karabakh in the 15th c.. The quotation however makes it too long, after all this article is about Karabakh not Schiltberger or his journey. Anyhow, the quotation is needless and Ill remove it. --Vacio (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To anonymous IP editor. Please, do not remove Azerbaijan templates from the page, it's counter productive. Atabəy (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is long enough to remove all stub templates. After all A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. --Vacio (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Protip:

Karabakh (the whole thing) is at least partially in Azerbaijan, so it's not POV to include templates (stub or otherwise) pertaining to Azerbaijan. --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Except for Zangezur, it is in Azerbaijan, i.e. 90% of it is in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 04:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Azeri vs. Muslim

The Muslims of that period in Karabakh are known as Azeris (Azeri Turks) of today, just like Christians in Karabakh are now known as Armenians. So I added a reference to Karabakh Khanate being called Azeri. If we are to go back renaming everything Azeri to Muslim (actually not very appropriate behavior for Wikipedia), we shall also investigate how ethnically Albanian population of Mountainous Karabakh suddenly became Armenian. Atabəy (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Caucasian ALbanian

Golbez, I added a reference to an Armenian author, who indicates that the province was that of Caucasian Albania. Atabəy (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Okeydoke. :) --Golbez (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Chorbajian does not call Artsakh a "province" of CA and Hacikyan deals with Armenian medieval literature so I think it is irrelevant to the status of Artsakh in ancient times. Indeed Robert Hewsen, the author of many works dealing with the status of Artsakh / the Principalities of Karabakh in various historical periods, indicates that it has never been a "province", nor even "a recognized political entity" as it already has been discussed. --Vacio (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But it was a region within Caucasian Albania. Grandmaster 06:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It was part of CA in early medieval times, I have noted that in the article. --Vacio (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Vacio, there is no sufficient justification for removing Rywkin reference. Atabəy (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Shahumian

I added a fact tag to the claim that local government in Shahumian claimed to join the so-called "NKR". Shahumian was under full control of Azerbaijan SSR by September 1991. Atabəy (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It presumably had a local government, local politicians, local administrators, didn't it?

New section

I have done some major rewriting for the history section of this article. Much of the rewriting has involved contentious information which user Quantum666 added several months ago, on the basis of a very flimsy and, to be quite frank, amateurishly written source (The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: A Legal Analysis, by Heiko Krüger). It is a poor source, and one that is written as a legal treatise rather than a work on history (Krüger happens to be an attorney at law, and not a historian). After browsing through the pages, it’s clear that the author himself has shown poor judgment in selecting his sources, citing material from less than reliable sources such as Audrey Altstadt and as controversial figures as Farida Mammadova, a revisionist historian who has a proven track record of distorting information and reducing the historical role of Armenians in Artsakh/Karabakh, and coming up with flimsy conclusions (one of the reasons the Armenians of Artsakh were not Armenian, he says, was because they had Arabic names, which is highly inaccurate since Armenians simply liked to adopt such names, see the House of Hasan-Jalalyan article). His opinions in this article have consequently been replaced by individuals who are far more qualified to weigh in on the matter, namely historians.

Even worse, there are points in the book where it seems that he is consciously misinterpreting a source and ignoring the evidence of the very people he is citing. Among the most basic mistakes he makes is the assumption that the “Albanian Church” of Artsakh was some sort of independent ethnic and political entity until it was abolished in the 19th century, when all scholars agree in union that it was Armenian in all but name (the Albanian Church had been directly subordinated to the Armenian church since the 5th century and its members, in direct contrast to what Krüger says, felt themselves as Armenians and after the 11th century, of holding the last bastion of Armenian independence in the region. (See Robert H. Hewsen, "The Kingdom of Arc'ax" in Medieval Armenian Culture (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies) in Thomas J. Samuelian and Michael E. Stone (eds.) Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1984, pp. 52-53. ISBN 0-8913-0642-0)

I have instead turned to George A. Bournoutian, a peer-reviewed scholar and respected historian who specializes in the early modern history of Karabakh, for tackling the most thorny aspects of this article. In an article published in the peer-reviewed journal, Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, and published online here, he scrutinizes and debunks much of the misinformation (most notably the notorious use of Audrey Altstadt’s error-riddled book; he shows how Altstadt has distorted the statistical information from the 1897 Russian census) which has unfortunately been repeated on this article and elsewhere. I have also correspondingly nPOVed the article and removed some of the more egregious POV lines. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit sum

My last edis summary had to be "POV edits", I wrongly used my Armenian keyboard. --vacio 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting data in the 1823 census

There seems to be a very wide gulf in the figures given in the 1823 Russian census, of which a few copies were published in 1866 and were stored in the archives of the Russian government. George Bournoutian has only recently prepared an English translation of the the 1823 census, and it's doubtful that authors like G. Reza Sabri-Tabrizi (who is the actual author of the chapter and not Ehteshami), F. Coene and S. Cornell have personally read the census results. Furthermore, none of these individuals are really specialists in the given field (i.e., the history of the Iranian khanates and the Russian Empire at the turn of the 19th century) unlike Bournoutian, who is an accomplished, peer-reviewed scholar in his field. It is quite possible that they are working with material published by secondary authors (Sabri-Tabrizi cites Molla-Zade of the Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences whereas Cornell does not even bother to name his sources). Bournoutian himself has published a study on how the statistics of this survey have long been manipulated and distorted by scholars working in Azerbaijan and, taken from the publisher's page, we read:

Finally, in 2003, he [Bournoutian] was delighted to learn that a new edition, numbering only 500 copies, had appeared in Baku. However, instead of printing a facsimile of the original, the production team had decided to reformat the entire text. In doing so, they not only had made numerous spelling and typographic errors, but had also omitted important data, some of which appear to have been intentional. The editors had not bothered to explain the invaluable data on the administration, land tenure and taxation of Karabagh prior to its annexation to Russia. One would have hoped that in reformatting the entire text, the editor or some other scholar would have researched the many terms and presented a true picture of the socioeconomic conditions of Karabagh under the last Khan.

In Bournoutian's article, we further read:

Prior to Soviet rule, the Russians conducted a number of surveys in the different regions of Transcaucasia.(2) Although not as accurate as a present-day census might be, the surveys were the first of their kind in Western Asia. In 1822, the Russian administration decided to determine the Armenian population in Transcaucasia. The survey was primarily to determine how many "non-Orthodox" Christians there were in the region.(3) The survey managed to record the number of Armenians in Georgia, Ganje (Elisavetpol), and Baku.(4) Erevan and Nakhichevan were under Persian rule and were not included. The Khan of Karabakh, Mahdi-qoli, fearing that the Armenian-populated districts might be removed from his control, did not permit the survey in Karabakh. Later that year, he fled to Persia, and the Russian were able to commence their first survey of Karabakh. The survey began in early 1823 and was completed on 17 April of that same year.(5) Its more than 300 pages recorded both the Armenian and Muslim population, not by numbers, but by villages and tax assessments. It noted that the district of Khachen had twelve Armenian villages and no Tatar (Russian term for the Turkish population) villages; Jalapert had eight Armenian villages and no Tatar villages; Dizak had fourteen Armenian villages and one Tatar village; Gulistan had two Armenian and five Tatar villages; and Varanda had twenty-three Armenian villages and one Tatar village. Thus the five mountainous districts (generally known as Nagorno-Karabakh today) which, according to Persian and Turkish sources, constituted the five (khamse) Armenian melikdoms,(6) had an overwhelming Armenian population before 1828.(7)

The mahal of Tat'ew had twelve Armenian and one Tatar village; that of Kiopar, six Armenian villages; and Bargushat, two Armenian and three Tatar villages. Thus these mahals, which form part of present-day Zangezur and were a part of the larger region called Karabakh, were also overwhelmingly Armenian. Armenians were also represented, in small numbers, in all the other non-nomadic districts of Karabakh.

It is possible that the cryptic survey cited by Altstadt was an official Russian state publication regarding the population of Caucasus which was published in St. Petersburg in 1836.(8) That source puts the Armenians of all of Karabakh at approximately 19,000 and the Tatars at approximately 35,000. Thus the Armenians were 35.2% of the population, which is close to the so-called 1832 survey cited by Altstadt. The important fact is that the official 1836 survey clearly states that the Armenians were concentrated in the mountainous part of Karabakh (generally called Nagorno-Karabakh). Thus once again 35.2% of the population of Karabakh (the Armenians) inhabited 38 percent of the land, where they formed an overwhelming majority.

I think such a detailed study is far more reliable than some of the sources Neftchi introduced, who do not seem to understand the intricacies of the census and the population on whom they reported on. Given the tendency among historians working in Azerbaijan to omit or reduce the historical presence of Armenians in Karabakh, it almost seems plausible that the data they are looking at has been distorted to present an inaccurate image to unsuspecting authors. Once I get a copy of the English translation, we will be able to provide more precise figures, but for the moment I would suggest we give credence to the individual whose specialty is precisely the period in question.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe Neftchi added reliable and credible information. While nobody contests Bournoutian has conducted a research on the subject, other writers can't be simply dismissed on the basis of "it's doubtful that...". How do you know or what exactly are you basing your doubts on? You or any other Wikipedia editor were not there when these authors were researching the archives. Simply put, Neftchi was right to add the other side of the story. But this is not all. To shed more light on the conflicting data, let's look at the 1897 Russian tsarist census data and the 1823-1897 year span.

If the source Pride of small nations: the Caucasus and post-Soviet disorder by Suzanne Goldenberg is correct which I have no doubt it is, then we can state that nearly 57,000 Armenians from Ottoman and Persian empires were relocated to Karabakh and Yerevan while 35,000 Azeris were moved out. Considering this data, accompanied by the data from Ehteshami, Coene and Cornell on increase in numbers of Armenians versus Azeris, Armenians could still hold no majority, even in Highland Karabakh. The three uyezds of Elisabethpol Governorate, located on Highland Karabakh, combined had the absolute Azeri majority of population, according to 1897 census:

• Shusha: 73,953 Armenians - 62,868 Azeris
• Javanshir: 19,551 Armenians - 52,041 Azeris
• Jabrayil: 15,746 Armenians - 49,189 Azeris

TOTAL: 109,250 Armenians - 164,098 Azeris

So, considering that

1. Armenians were being relocated to Karabakh and Yerevan; and Azeris were being forced out, indicating the natural reduction in the number of Azeris versus Armenians,
2. the 1897 census showed an overwhelming majority of Azeris in Highland Karabakh versus Armenians

it is impossible to assume that Armenians could have held a majority in Highland Karabakh. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of easy to answer that because they do not cite the census report in their footnotes. They give the works of secondary authors (like Sabri-Tabrizi) or do not provide any of their sources at all (like Cornell). It's much better to give credence to a historian whose specialty is actually Iranian and Russian history from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. And, in fact, Bournoutian singles out Suzanne Goldenberg for special criticism. Again, from his article:

Unfortunately, those who have the habit of copying sources without verification have used Alstadt's misleading footnotes and have further damaged my credibility as a scholar. The worst offender is Suzanne Goldenberg's Pride of Small Nations: The Caucasus and Post-Soviet Disorder (London: Zed Books, 1994), which states, "Even in 1832, after considerable migration had taken place, it is generally accepted [Bournoutian's emphasis] that Muslims were a majority in Karabakh. An official Russian survey of that year recorded that Muslims made up 64.8 percent of the region and Armenians 34.8 percent" (p. 158). The note cites my article as the sole source. The survey, which I have never seen or cited, is now attributed to me.

So what Goldenberg has done is that she has attributed a probably non-existent survey to a historian who never authored such a work in the first. Such carelessness is not the mark of a careful scholar and it might perhaps behoove you to reconsider your certainty on the reliability of her work. It is true that Armenians settled in the newly conquered territories but as Bournoutian once again shows, almost all of them were repatriates and barely any of them settled in the Karabakh region because they were told by the Russian authorities that there was not enough land:

Having disposed of one myth, I shall concentrate on the question of the immigration of Armenians from Iran and Turkey into Karabakh. Between 1828 and 1831, 45,207 Armenians immigrated to Erevan (23,568 from Iran and 21,639 from Turkey), and 3,883 to Nakhichevan (3,856 from Iran and 27 from Turkey).(9) The Armenians of Bayazid desired to settle in Karabakh but were told that there was not enough land for them there. They were encouraged rather to settle around Lake Sevan, where Muslim tribes had evacuated. They did, and the district became known as Novo-Bayazid or New Bayazid (later Gavar and Kamo).(10) The only work which deals primarily with the Armenian immigration from Persian Azerbaijan to Russia is by Sergei Glinka.(11) He does not supply any numbers, but makes it clear that the majority of the Armenians were headed towards the newly-established Armenian Province, created from the Khanates of Erevan and Nakhichevan. An archival document, however, does shine some light on the issue. The document states that only 279 Armenian families decided to immigrate to Karabakh, and that they settled in Kapan and Meghri on the banks of the Arax (in the southernmost part of Zangezur bordering Iran).(12) All documents relating to the Armenian immigration make it clear that Russia, for political, military, and economic reasons, strongly encouraged the Armenians to settle in the newly-established Armenian province, especially the region of Erevan, which between 1795 and 1827 had lost some 20,000 Armenians who had immigrated to Georgia.(13) Since few Georgian Armenians planned to return, Russia concentrated on repatriating the Armenians taken to Iran in the seventeenth century by Shah Abbas. The only major immigration into Karabakh was by the former Armenians of Karabakh who had escaped the oppression of its ruler Ebrahim Khan,(14) some as late as the 1790s, who had sought refuge in Ganje, Georgia, and Erevan. They began returning home after a decade or so, following the Russian protectorate over Karabakh in 1805 and continued to do so until the 1820s. According to archival documents most of them returned to their own villages, which, for the most part, had remained abandoned.(15)

--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you even realize how biased your argument sounds? There are a few authors used for sources to reflect both sides of the conflicting data, yet you, as usually go on giving credibility to the historian of Armenian heritage who is more likely to write in favor of Armenian majority, than those three (of Persian, Jewish, Swedish, etc heritage) who have no affiliation to Azerbaijan and thus wouldn't fake the demographic information in favor of Azerbaijani majority, as you suggest. Again, I don't doubt that Bournoutian conducted research in the archives, but the evidence I presented above questions the data, hence the conflict in numbers and arguments. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's actually lost on me. I assign greater credibility to the individual who is the most qualified in his field and who has carried out actual research in the archives and personally observed the document in question. An individual who publishes material in peer-reviewed journals and who adheres to modern, western scholarly standards. I have already introduced reasons on why the statements of these three other individuals are highly dubious, and that is probably because they are working with distorted primary source material and this may not be something they themselves might not be aware of. So could you please stop bringing up ethnicity into this argument? You have already been banned twice for invoking ethnicity as grounds for dismissal of a source and yet you still persist with this same old line. It just baffles me.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you are playing these childish games of giving credibility to Armenian authors and dismissing Azerbaijani and neutral non-Azeri authors who do not corroborate Armenian claims, is well known to all who participate in Azerbaijani-Armenian topics. What was your intent this time? To get me "entraped" and report on AE? :)

No, I did not "exclude" or try to exlude, for that matter any Armenian authors. If so, please point an exact location in the comments where I did. What I told you in crystal clear pure language is that while the data is conflicting (see above on 1823 data from neutral authors and 1897 census of Russia), and while you bash and discredit neutral authors who have no relative affiliation to Azerbaijan, the author of Armenian heritage is more likely to write in favor of Armenian side of the story than those unrelated to Azerbaijan authors in favor of Azerbaijani side. I suggest you stop your childish cat and mouse games, cease your bashing of Azerbaijani and neutral authors, and commit to good faith contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I accept and exclude sources based on the qualifications of their authors. I look at the environment they are writing in, what their degrees are in (Cornell, e.g., is not even a historian but a political scientist), I look at the professionalism of their writing and how careful they are in making their judgment with the sources they have at their disposal, and I look at the sources they use to ensure that they themselves are taking their own works seriously. In all this, quantity is worthless: 100 authors can write that the earth is flat but a single scholar who challenges that belief and demonstrates convincingly that it is round can upturn a widely held belief. The fact that you do not even raise questions relating to a source's qualifications (affiliation is somewhat of a moot point) and simply go about invoking ethnicity as a possible inhibitor to a source is grounds for concern and I make it known. I do not do anything to "entrap" others so please accept the responsibility and the consequences of the statements you make.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Marshall, at the very least, when you state something, please try not to embarass yourself. I think it was you who "looked at the environment", "professionalism of writing" and added a source from Armeniapedia, a website owned and operated by User:RaffiKojian. So much for "professionalism" remark, Marshall.

I understand you want to make an impression on the community and the admins who will be looking at this talk page, but your statement above on selection of sources is completely untrue and I can deliver dozens of examples where and when you added unreliable sources such as one from "Armeniapedia" I mentioned above. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

lol, Tuscumbia, this again? I told you on the talk page of the Gulapli article, Armeniapedia is just a mirror site that hosts a PDF copy of a census that was officially carried out by the NKR authorities. The reliability of the source thus falls upon the competence of the NKR authorities in the same way that if www.marshalbaghramyansblog.com decides to upload an article by the New York Times to his website the question of reliability would be the author of the NYT article and not the blog's owner. In any case, I think the census is found on a website hosted by the NKR government. So the issue is definitely not what you're making it out to be and I don't feel embarrassed at all.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Marshall, embarassed or not, the fact that you add some personal websites of Armenian users in Wikipedia as a source and comment on this talk page claiming you select sources according to "environment" and "professionalism", speaks of gaming the bystanders. You know very well that this "Armeniapedia" source example is not the only one. I can pour dozens of examples where you added unreliable sources, contrary to your statement which you made above, just to impress the observers. So, please just be yourself. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is about the 1823 census so please stop diverting this issue elsewhere. My original point still stands - Bournoutian's research and level of expertise outweighs those of the three authors' which Neftchi introduced on the basis that he has seen the original document, he is a peer-reviewed historian, and his field is early modern Iranian and Russian history. Once I have a copy of the translation of the 1823 census, we can use it to confirm what the scholar says.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It is about the 1823 and the conflicting data. I already addressed the concerns above. While in the light of the conflicting statistics, I presented several neutral authors and their works, and added the other side of the story, you in turn, discredit all these neutral authors and prefer a singled out version. Unacceptable. And once I have the time to find more sources, they will be brought up. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not the first time that Marshall disregards reliable authors and sources. It seems to me that anything that does not fit your perspective is to be disregarded. But on the other side we have to accept sources from Armeniapedia? Are you kidding me? Marshall these sources and solid and not open for your personal interpretations. It is not your job to judge the reliability of Cornell, that would be original research on your part. Mursel (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I think in this context Anoushiravan Ehteshami is not a reliable source to quote. Prof. Ehteshami is an expert of International Affairs and Arabic studies. His publication are generally about geopolitics and international relations. Noting related to the history of Cuacasus. --vacio 16:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you get off hurling such sharp accusations at me, but I am acquainted well enough with Wikipedia to know that as editors we have a right and a responsibility to examine critically and question sources whose authors are not necessarily experts in the fields that they are writing about. I have already stated that S. Cornell is simply a political scientist and not a historian while Sabri-Tabrizi is most probably making use of a primary source whose contents have been tampered with by secondary persons. I have done this within the limits of my capabilities as an editor and if sources can be demonstrated to have obvious defects then we can exclude them in favor of a source with better credibility. Bournotian is the only respected individual (and historian) who has carried out a specific study of the demography of the region in the nineteenth century and yet his expert opinion is still being treated as just another theory next to some authors who have not carried out any original archival research of their own (as evidenced by the sources they use). If this is going to be the extent of the discussion, I am going to ask for a third opinion on the matter. Until then I will acquire a copy of the English translation and hopefully put the dispute to rest.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Marshall, Neftchi is right. You do discredit authors based on their writings in favor or contrary to what your version of the argument is. What do you mean by "most probably"? Were you there when these authors were doing their research? If so, please do tell us. Cornell might not be a historian, but it doesn't take much to be at the Russian archives and read the lines Bournoutian read and write the results in a book. Apart from that, these authors are neutral and their works have been added as neutral sources. In the meantime, I can add several sources written by Azerbaijani historians. Do you mind? Tuscumbia (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a personal interpretation that, needless to say, I disagree with and a vague and poor one at that. Neftchi's edits speak for themselves when we see that the information he added includes confusing the data of Highland Karabakh with Lowland Karabakh, alongside the entire province of Karabakh (which included a huge swath of territory besides Karabakh, something that Cornell himself admits). This is unfortunately not the first time we've had to clarify the language in Neftchi's edits and so we must be grateful to Vacio for the quick catch. You know my position regarding scholars who work in constricted political environments and are forced to toe a politically-charged line which they themselves may not believe in. But if you can demonstrate that said scholars have a positive reputation in the West, are peer-reviewed, adhere to modern scholarship standards and do not resort to erasing the names of historical peoples and places from maps and other primary sources, then I think I would be willing to reconsider my position.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Marshall, for God sakes, you discredit the neutral authors who are from the West, and you ask me to demonstrate to you that Azerbaijani authors have reputation in the West and then you will not mind including them? :) Come on now. Plus, I don't see any difference between the sources used in this very article by Bagrat Ulubabyan and Arakel Babakhanian, who were born, lived, wrote in Soviet Union and the sources written by Azerbaijani historians who were born, lived and wrote in Soviet Union. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

They may be from the West but they may not be experts in their field. I've held this discussion perhaps a dozen times now and I have no interest in going into details again. If after all this time you are incapable of grasping the difference between a historian who proposes a genuine theory which might not necessarily be accepted by everyone but still be accepted as a valid theory nevertheless and a person who calls himself a historian who then goes to unprecedented lengths to delete every single mention of a people attested in ever primary source dating to the past 2,500 years and then fixes the facts so that they can conform to a recent national narrative by claiming every historic monument built by those people – well, what else can I do? Robert Hewsen put it nicely:

Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291

I am sorry that a national identity for Azerbaijan does not truly develop until the early 20th century. Really I am. But that doesn't give someone the excuse to distort the material and then expect someone else to believe that they are "correcting" history. That's plain academic dishonesty and something that must be excluded from these pages.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Hewsen is not a divine authority to tell about hundreds of historians and researchers and if you consider him so, please keep that to yourself. A Russian historian Shnirelman criticizes Ulubabyan and other Armenian authors, for that matter, as well. For some reason, we don't see them being discredited by you, do we? Azerbaijani nation-state of ADR was established in 1918, but Azerbaijani Turks have populated Caucasus and beyond for hundreds of years, and their cultural and historical heritage was destroyed, and is being omitted in many instances. You are yet to answer a specific query I posted above. I don't see any difference between the sources used in this very article by Bagrat Ulubabyan and Arakel Babakhanian, who were born, lived, wrote in Soviet Union and the sources written by Azerbaijani historians who were born, lived and wrote in Soviet Union. So, do you? Or you suggest we should remove them as sources from this article. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

How does the disagreement with a theory really compare to removing mention of the Armenian people and Armenia from the works of authors like Strabo and/or replace them with Caucasian Albania/Albanians? Do you honestly see a valid comparison here? The fact of the matter is that historians like Ulubabyan and Leo (who was born and raised in the Russian Empire) have no need to stretch facts because the Armenians are well attested in Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arabic, Ottoman, Persian sources, to say nothing about their own rich literature. I know you know this so please stop bringing up this silly diversion up every once in a while.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Marshall, civility would not hurt. Please consider that. I don't see anything above as a "silly diversion". What I see is a deliberate attempt to hold a few authors of particular background above authors of the other background. As far as Strabo is concerned, I don't exactly know what you're talking about and I fail to see where Armenians were replaced by Caucasian Albanians. Both were and are a part of Azerbaijani history as an ethnic minority along with other minorities living in Azerbaijan. I fail to see the connection to my question. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This conversation has run its course. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. When you have valid arguments and valid answers to concerns, please come back to this page. Cheers. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

---

A huge thanks to Vacio for figuring out the reason as to why we got such diametrically different figures (namely, that Bornoutian was reporting the statistics for the region of Highland Karabakh while Neftchi, without any attempt at clarification, added figures of the entire Karabakh khanate). I have expanded the body of the text a bit, addressing the reason of the demographic shift from predominantly Armenian to predominantly Muslim, have made grammar corrections, and added more reliable sources and removed the work by Goldenberg, given the serious questions revolving around her reliability (as highlighted by Bornoutian). I also switched the order of the spelling in the lede by keeping it in line with the English alphabet (Ar. before Az.), which only seems to makes sense in such contentious articles as these.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What a nice way to put it. Why did you switch the places of the name in Azerbaijani to Armenian? The region mostly lies within the Republic of Azerbaijan. Moreover, everybody clearly understand that the name Karabakh derives from Turkic words Kara and Bagh. Do you you see anything Armenian in there? The Armenian spelling is the transliteration of the word Karabakh, therefore should follow the Azeri spelling. Additionally, reworded a POV which seemed to exclude the fact that Karabakh was actually a part of Abbasid Caliphate, Ilkhanate, Jalayirid Sultanate, Kara Koyunlu, Ak Koyunlu and Karabakh Baylarbaylik of Safavid Empire before it became a part of Karabakh Khanate. Removed the text Nevertheless Highland Karabakh was still ruled by its own hereditary princes. Really? Where was Panah Ali and Ibrahim Khan if Armenian princes ruled Karabakh? If it were the Armenian princes in power, how come it was the Khan of Karabakh who signed the Kurekchay Treaty? Another NPOVed word "Tatars" - changed it to Azerbaijani Turks. Do you really need me to prove that those people called by some Tatars were actually Azerbaijani Turks? Even the Russian Imperial sources attest to that.

Marshall, using a word "probable" in It is probable that the Armenians formed the majority of the population of Eastern Armenia at the turn of the seventeenth century is a violation of WP:OR. I am sure you're aware of that.

Furthermore, I NPOVed the article section by restoring the neutral text and retaining the additions from Bournoutian. Added the news piece as to why the claims by the Armenians of NK were dismissed by the Soviet Supreme Soviet and finally removed the Further Reading Section because it constitutes a POV. I could understand if you added a book or something, but you're clearly adding a POV piece of one writer bashing the others on certain claims. Needless to say, the same is done on the other side, but that kind of controversial pieces are usually not added to avoid the unnecessary. I hope you understand. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

All you did was just carry out a wholesale revert of my previous edits.

The above does not constitute a reply I would expect from an editor who is genuinely concerned about POV but someone who thinks he is always in the right by displaying an aggressive, combative attitude. The word "probable", for that matter, is Bournoutian's wording (guess you didn't bother to check that source either), but I honestly am at odds at with what you're telling me because you seem to be breaking your own self-defined rules. I hope that a decision will be issued at the AE soon because, frankly, I don't have time for these games you are playing. I don't see any attempt at engagement, none at compromise, no real display of concern of other editors' concerns - just an editor who reverts and leads others into endless discussions with the hope that the other side will simply give up in exasperation. ---Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think playing a victim is an option here? Concentrate your energy on viewing what I actually changed, restored and retained to NPOV the article which you POVed. I clearly stated above what constituted POV additions above. It doesn't take much effort to understand what games you're playing here with your additions. How is excluding the fact that Karabakh was part of Arab, Mongol, Turkic and Persian states from 700's until establishment of independent Karabakh Khanate and instead adding Highland Karabakh or Artsakh was from 821 until the early 19th century ruled by the Armenian House of Khachen not a POV? I could go on and on, highlighting more POV in your additions, but I showed good faith instead retaining additions from Bournoutian's book and NPOVing by indicating what was written by him and what was written by others. You instead try to remove opposing sources to leave what you like. Don't like it? Needless to say, AE should resolve the situation by reviewing both your and my editing. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not playing the victim but you are gaming the rules. You have yet to give me an adequate reason on why a peer-reviewed historian and scholar like Bornoutian represents a POV (with the exception of his ethnic heritage which is absolutely irrelevant) is given short shrift over individuals who have not even carried out any original research in this area (Reza Sabri-Tabrizi does not even really give his own opinion and just quotes what others have written in the past) and are thus not really the best experts to be consulted. I have no problem with mention that Karabakh fell under suzerainty of this or that power, but neither should it be forgotten that Artsakh was the final bastion of independent Armenian rule in twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Your "NPOVing" consisted of nothing more but re-adding to the confusion of the original wording. I treat most sources equally but I give due preference to authors who do not have a nefarious agenda to advance and it's unfortunate that your best explanation for dissecting the reliability of such sources is dismissed simply something based on my personal whims. This disrespectful attitude and behavior has already landed you on fire and you are not doing yourself any favors by continuing to treat other editors as if they must always exonerate themselves from some grave sin.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic heritage??? Deja vu... Wasn't this editor once already topic banned for this type of nonsense? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 07:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Marshall, you might try to game the system but certainly not me. It's not "Bornoutian represents a POV", it is you who adds POV. And I NPOV it by restoring alternative views by neutral non-Azeri authors, replacing POV wording with NPOV. You in turn, discredit authors, for which you have been indefinitely banned for making derogatory statments about sources or their authors based on nationaility, place, publication or similar general characteristic. In a nutshell, you simply refuse to accept any other point of view which runs counter to the claims or versions you add to the articles, be those views expressed in books written by Azerbaijani authors or German, Jewish, American, Iranian or Swedish ones. You certainly understand what kind of POV you had added, hence your earlier 821 until the early 19th century now shrinks to twelfth and thirteenth centuries? It is an indirect admission Marshall, that you as a Wikipedia editor simply attempt to add as much misleading information alleging Karabakh was historically Armenian as possible, in violation of WP:NPOV

Ashot, I'm not really sure whether you guys convene off-Wiki before coming to a certain page in an attempt to discredit specific editors, or you just woke up one day after relative inactivity and decided to come to support Marshall, but I'll tell you this in response to your statement. Marshall himself was on revert paroles and topic bans on AA2 4 times, including an indefinite topic-ban on Azerbaijan-Armenian pages (later reduced to one month) and indefinite restriction for making derogatory statments about sources or their authors based on nationaility, place, publication or similar general characteristic. Secondly, I recommend you remain civil in your comments and take a look at your own history of gaming Wikipedia administrators with multiple accounts like Psalm Tours editing pages for self promotion. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead of listing what Marshal did or did not, you'd better concentrate on yourself not to repeat things for which you have been topic banned recently. And there is no history of gaming with administrators on my side (read carefully). This accusation is one other nonsense of yours. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 14:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ashot, please feel free to get back to your off-Wiki meeting. There is no "repeating things" for which I have been topic banned. I highlighted the activities of the editor you support and things he was topic banned for. The changes in the article were made to NPOV the text, retaining what George Bournoutian had stated in his book. So, there is no "repeated things" here. Your and Marshall's messages are a coordinated effort to keep repeating (irrelevant to the nature of article) the same thing over and over about some topic ban to get me blocked (?) because I do NPOV and I do opposite untrue information. Cheers. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of off-Wiki coordination? Because, the last time I checked, that's one hell of an accusation to level against other editors. I suppose it did not occur to you that your edits could be so contentious in content and added in so mendacious a manner that they might actually attract the attention of other users. For the last time, what is wrong with Bournoutian as a source? Why do you dismiss him so casually as someone who is bound to write "POV" (which you use in such a vague and unspecified manner) and assign equal, if not greater, credibility to authors who are neither experts in the area we are talking about nor historians? You have mentioned his ethnic heritage several times now, enough to warrant another ban, and have co-opted articles as if they are a very special part of your domain.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you timed out on the above discussion for a few days, and then came to reply in an attacking mode with your supporter Ashot who has been relatively inactive on Karabakh-related pages for quite some time speaks for itself. Whether I have evidence of off-Wiki coordination or not, I wouldn't be presenting it directly to you. The above is not an accusation but a suspicion. Any user has a right to suspect (see WP:SPI, WP:DUCK, etc). I already told you that Bournoutian's credibility is not questioned, your POV additions are and at the same time your discrediting of other authors, neutral non-Azeri authors, by the way, are. As far as the author's point of view is concerned on works of others, then it can't be added. Any other can write a critical piece. It doesn't mean that it has to be added. Otherwise, we would have quite a long list of Further Reading. And enough of your threatening rhetoric. It is finally a time when admins should take a thorough look at you and your history of disruptions. You do need to understand that your repetitive threats are not welcome. Cheers. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We all know that such off-Wiki coordinating activity was taking place on the Russian Wikipedia, but it was revealed that all such members were Azerbaijanis, including some editors who have edited on the English Wikipedia. That was handled admirably by the Russian administrators by the issuing of appropriate blocks and bans so unless you have some concrete proof you need not repeat accusations that have no basis in reality. The only reason I timed out was because of the stonewalling. How many times can one ask the same question and still get the same answer? It'll drive any editor mad. You still continue to avoid directly answering my questions and I will re-introduce my edits but will be mindful of incorporating some of the other material mentioned here today. Oh, and the Armenian spelling comes before the Azerbaijani simply because of alphabetical order. It's the best solution to these articles and makes no difference if Karabakh is now found wholly in Armenian or Azerbaijani hands (but most of it is under de facto Armenian control). Other examples abound, such as Stepanakert. No need to search for another conspiracy theory to cling on to...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not even interested in your off- or on-Wiki coordination. Neither am I intending to prove anything. I have no relation to Russian Wikipedia or any users who might have been blocked accordingly in that Wikipedia. Neither am I accusing you to be related to Russian Wikipedia or its off-Wiki coordination. I'm just stating what I see based on the suspicious actions of two users. Whether you like it or not, it's quite obvious. We both know why you timed out :) I have already addressed your questions. How many times do I have to repeat myself? You are welcome to introduce any edits since you are an editor in Wikipedia, but keep in mind that POV additions will be contested and NPOVed. So, I suggest you assume good faith and mind WP:NPOV. Armenian spelling can't come before the Azerbaijani simply because the word itself derives from Turkic language and majority of territory is in present-day Azerbaijan. Even alphabetically, the Armenian language is indicated as hy. Best. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Tuscumbia, we all know that your version of the edits are worded in such a way that would not be acceptable elsewhere on Wikipedia. Weasel wording abounds. We have phrases like, "Additionally, the assumption for demographic disbalance is that..." and "It is also claimed that the Armenians..." This is not how you write an article; you do not obfuscate, distort, and try to marginalize the findings of a serious scholar by phrasing it in such a way to cast serious doubt on his research. Furthermore, you should not try to place it on an even plane by including individuals (like Suzanne Goldenberg) whose academic reliability is shown to be in question. You shoehorned your POV edits originally and I was hopeful that you might make those edits yourself. The question of order of spelling is a matter of what comes first in the alphabet; origin or etymology is not important. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Marshall, you can get away with your sneaky editing where you revert an editor with an edit summary explaining your revert, yet adding your disguised POV you've tried to add for a month without dropping a single word on a talk page, in a kindergarten, but in Wikipedia your changes are watched due to a long history of your disruptive editing and POV pushing. If you have an idea about literature, you should also know what and how texts are written when the data is conflicting, especially when the data comes from a number of neutral sources on one end, and potentially biased on the other. Furthermore, please familiarize yourself with WP:OR and stop playing God with lines like It is probable that the Armenians formed the majority of the population of Eastern Armenia at the turn of the seventeenth century. I think you understand. If not, go back up and re-read the thread. Last but not least, your sneaky attempt to mislabel the ethnicity in Karabakh - Azerbaijanis with Tatars, trying to mislead the reader that there were not Azeris in Karabakh, is inadmissable. You know quite well, Tatars per se are different from Azerbaijani Turks or "Azerbaijani Tatars" what Russians used to them. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just a simple country chicken lawyer baCAWWWK but I'd like to remind you fine folks that this here article and its editors fall under the provisions of WP:AA2, and as such braAWWwk it would be nice if y'all could not get into an edit war or incivil discussion. Now be good, y'hear? --Golbez (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be past that point Golbez. If anything, outside intervention (your presence is more than welcome) seems necessary here since the discussion here has spun in circles with nothing to show for. I can go ahead and list point by point the fallacy behind most of Tuscumbia's edits, including the doozy that "It is probable that the Armenians formed the majority of the population of Eastern Armenia at the turn of the seventeenth century..." is just a paraphrase of the scholar's own wording, but I know it will be a thankless and profitless exercise since good faith cannot be maintained when it was thrown out the window a long time ago. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are past that point. Any editor taking a look at your edits will find how disruptive your editing behavior is. All you can do instead of working out the differences of opinions is cry a victim. Every instance you add POV, you are proven wrong. And, do mind WP:AA2. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Im concerned by the misleading writing by Marshal. Its well established that by - Caucasian Tatars and Muslims in the Caucasus - its meant Azerbaijanis. Here are just a few academic sources confirming this [7], [ http://books.google.nl/books?id=ZeP7OZZswtcC&pg=PA8&dq=Caucasian+tatars+azerbaijanis&hl=nl&output=html_text&cd=3 ], [8]. Mursel (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No Muslim in the region at the start of the 19th century would have described himself as an Azerbaijani. Loyalties lay with their families, their tribes, their religion, and so on. Nationalism among the Muslims of the South Caucasus did not develop until much later so it's important not to brush them with too broad a stroke. And let's not even start with the litany of misleading edits you have made in the past Neftchi. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? And what exactly did they call themselves? Do you understand that with this thread you're actually showing your true intentions? Azerbaijanis or rather Azerbaijani Turks who populated the area and constituted majority, even in large parts of today's Armenia, called themselves Turks or Azerbaijani Turks, everybody else called them Azerbaijani Turks, Russians called them Aderbeijan Tatars. But the problem is that your intent is to simply replace Azerbaijanis with Tatars and wikilink it to mislead the reader so that the reader is redirected to an article about Tatars who have nothing to do with the area, as much as Albanians have nothing to do with Caucasian Albanians. Like I said before, it is time you realize your tricks will not pass and finally start editing as a good faith contributor. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

They called themselves members of this or that clan, or Muslims, or something else. Never did they collectively refer to all the Muslims living in that region as Azerbaijanis that early into the period. Do I really have to tell you that nationalism is a modern conception whose roots go back to the 18th century? And that it took a much longer time to make inroads into obscure places like the Caucasus? I don't have to tell you all this.

They called themselves members of this or that clan, or Muslims, or something else. Never did they collectively refer to all the Muslims living in that region as Azerbaijanis that early into the period. Do I really to tell you that nationalism is a modern conception whose roots go back to the 18th century? And that it took a much longer time to make inroads into obscure places like the Caucasus? I don't have to tell you all this.

I don't have "intentions" (whatever that means) but I do want to allow the facts to present the information themselves. You are depriving the reader of that neutral information by injecting your own original research phrasing. And yet you continue to bully other editors and aggressively revert whosoever makes the most slightest of changes. If you haven't noticed, it is you who has been acting as if you own this article. The disrespect and scornful tone you speak with to others is highly unwelcome here.

Why do you consistently ignore and remove the Russian archival evidence that says that Russian authorities prevented Armenians from migrating to Karabakh? Why do you remove or try to conceal the fact that the Armenian families who left in the 1780s were allowed to repatriate to their villages? Why do you continue to give precedence of one alphabet over another in a contentious article like this when Wikipedia itself states "Local official names are often listed first, but in other cases it serves neutrality to list the names in alphabetical order by language — for example, (Armenian: name1; Belarusian: name2; Czech name3)"? These questions are constantly being ignored or openly flouted, and the opinions of a peer-reviewed and authoritative scholar like Bournoutian are being shoved aside by individuals who are not experts, are working with secondary sources, and can just marginally be passed off as scholarly. Even Cornell's contention that the "figures for Mountainous Karabakh remain unknown" is directly contradicted by the findings of Bournoutian and the publication of the 1823 census.

As it appears that discussion has led us nowhere, are you amenable to accepting a third opinion regarding the most contentious edits or mediation?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And nobody denies the fact that those Azerbaijani Turks from Baku to Erivan called themselves by names of their clans or considered themselves belonging to a particular royalty, but collectively they were called Azerbaijani Tatars which is an important distinction between Tatars and [{Azerbaijani people|Azerbaijani Turks]]. Secondly, the same applied to Armenians. Armenians did not call themselves Armenians. They also belonged to specific royalties and meliks and called themselves Hays. Even today they do. So, your argument is invalid, as much as you try to tie the Azerbaijani Turks to Tatars.

"...do want to allow the facts to present the information themselves. You are depriving the reader of that neutral information by injecting your own original research phrasing". Excuse me? Where exactly did you "allow" any facts and me "depriving" (?!) the reader the neutral information? All I can see is you NOT allowing the facts in by removing neutral authors and pushing Bournoutian through.

What Russian archival evidence says Russian authorities prevented Armenians from migrating to Karabakh? Are you sure about what you write? :)) The Russian tsar a century before Russian take over of Caucasus declared how well Armenians needed to be treated and used against Turkic world (with reference to Ottoman Empire and Turks in Caucasus). I don't conceal any facts about the repatriations. Clear your prejudice and re-read the text in the article which does say that it was claimed Armenians were repatriated and it is attributed to the source. As far as the alphabetical reference is concerned, please provide Wiki rules on that.

I have no objection whatsoever to the third party opinion. Please request one and I'll respond. For now, I am reverting to the neutral version which does not take one source over three-four other neutral sources. I retain some of the edits. Once the RfC is filed and concluded, we can amend the text. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Muslims living in present-day Azerbaijan at the turn of the 19th century never referred to themselves as Azerbaijanis. To argue otherwise is just an attempt to impose an anachronistic and inappropriate ethnic designation in a region where nationalism had hardly made inroads.

Bournoutian has a special section in his article titled "The Myth of Armenian Immigration from Iran and Turkey," where he dispels the misleading notion that Armenians were transplanted to the Karabakh region. He writes, "All documents relating to the Armenian immigration make it clear that Russia, for political, military, and economic reasons, strongly encouraged the Armenians to settle in the newly-established Armenian province, especially the region of Erevan, which between 1795 and 1827 had lost some 20,000 Armenians who had immigrated to Georgia." Just because the Tsar welcome the Armenians to the Caucasus does not mean they were allowed to settle wherever they liked.

Your reverts are constant headaches. One cannot even pretend to ignore the lengths you are going out on to foist your views, while falsely and unilaterally claiming that your version is somehow neutral. I quote you policy on naming conventions and yet you continue to ignore them. Please follow your own advice and remember why your heavy-handed tactics and abusive behavior have landed you on the ArbCom pages. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Marshall, I don't doubt for a second that my edits are a headache for you. I would never think otherwise and when you are under an investigation by admins next time, I will make sure to list all your POV edits with specific examples versus my edits with NPOV edits exhibiting arguments from both sides and when I say both sides, I literally mean, the side sourced with an Armenian-American author, and the side sourced with third party editors.

Regardless of what Bournoutian dispels, he can't possibly go against archival documents of the Russian Empire, Griboyedov's reports and enforcement of Peter the Great's policies. It's actually amusing, how you go on at lengths over and over to discredit neutral authors who provide historical data attesting to relocation of Armenians into Karabakh and Erivan and keep pushing your POV.

And please, for the love of God, stop these sneaky attempts to misrepresent who I am. Anyone looking at AA2 logs can see how big of a violator you are. I recommend you refrain from the practice of character assassination and assume good faith at last. Please do invite the third party to comment via RfC. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel the need to protect this. I feel the need to protect it on the right version. That right version will be the one with these paragraphs excised entirely. --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends what the right version you consider right. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Locking it down won't do any good. The discussion has been going on for two, three months now. We need a third opinion or mediation - some sort of intervention that will lay down which sources to use, which to give preference to and which to discard entirely. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, locking it probably won't fix anything. Better to block the people insisting on edit warring, instead of relying entirely on a discussion process. A lack of consensus is not a license to resume reverting. --Golbez (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Locking it would be unwise. The case with the census is clear. The opinion of a peer-reviewed and authoritative scholar like Bournoutian should be used. I checked the other reference and it comes from some obscure Iranian Azerbaijani nationalist Reza-Tabrizi who may not even exist. [9] Winterbliss (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Meowy, please. Do you really want to keep popping up with new accounts? And yes I do have evidence to file an SPI on you. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Marshal this kind of behavior is unacceptable. You cannot dismis all of these neutral sources and insist that this article be reflected on your personal opinion. All of these sources support my argument and yet you have failed to present any sources.[10] [11], [12] Mursel (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Neftchi, your presence on this talk page, and all others for that matter, has been negligible. Unless you have something meaningful to contribute, please get off your horse and stop pretending that mendacious POV pushing is not at play here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Karabakh vs. Nagorno-Karabakh article

I don't see a point in having two article, one called Karabakh, and one Nagorno-Karabakh. The content seems to be very similar, the topic is pretty much the same, and the section on the name can explain how the name(s) have been used over time and in current times. Is there a reason I am not thinking of to explain the existence of these two article? Shouldn't they be merged? Wikiboer (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If the content is the same then that needs to be remedied, but since Upper Karabakh is only part of Karabakh, we need some treatment of Lower Karabakh somewhere, right? --Golbez (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that could be worked nicely into the same article, and that readers would be better off for having all of that information in one place, and explained in one article. It would need to be the Karabakh article that trumps Nagorno-Karabakh though, if they are to be combined. Wikiboer (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no point to do so. Karabakh is a totally different geographical notion. Nagorno-Karabakh is not only a geographical area, also a political one. --vacio 09:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought the political one was called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. --George Spurlin (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There's also the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. But these don't change the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is a geographic construct, right? --Golbez (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

There is a lengthy discussion above but I have seen no reference to the inconsistency about the claim concerning the Turkic-Armenian nature of the "Greater bagh(k)" version. The "bagh" part is Persian. In Turkish Kara means "black" or "land". Never has had the connotation of "great" or "greater". IMO the said claim is baseless and meaningless. It should be removed.

There is enough information and the necessary academic references for the etymology of this word at the relevant Turkish Wikipedia article. --E4024 (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Another example is the country Monte-negro is Karadağ (Kara is black and Dağ is Maountain) in Turkish. Kara is obviously in the meaning of black here. Platonisreal (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Map3

It seems crazy to have an article about a geographic region without having a map indicating where this area of the world is. There must be one that doesn't set off a political debate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A map about the Caucasus that doesn't set off a political debate? *dejected laughter then sigh* You'd think one was possible for this region at least, since it's not so much of a political thing. --Golbez (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

present-day eastern Armenia?

Whatever the ongoing disputes, I think localisation of Karabakh in the "present-day /.../ eastern Armenia" is outright wrong. Separatism is an issue, the region is occupied by the Armenian army, but I have never read anywhere that Armenia presented it as its own land. Even if it was the case, this claim has never been recognized by any country in the world. Karabakh Armenians claim their "independence". De jure, it is still sovereign territory of Azerbaijan. Please comment on this before I correct that. 2A01:E34:EEC4:FAA0:7548:FA0E:E38A:BB8D (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC) kazim

Well, you have to keep in mind by "Armenia," the reader should not interpret it to mean the modern Republic of Armenia, but Armenia, the geographic entity and Armenia, the Plateau. In that sense "Eastern Armenia" consisted of the ancient kingdoms and principalities of Tashir-Dzoraget, Gardman-Parisos, Utik, Artsakh, and Syunik. "Western Armenia" was generally the lands found in current-day Turkey, or the area from around the right bank of the Euphrates to maybe Kars/Ani.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Several years late, but could be useful for future readers: Karabakh includes the Syunik Province of Armenia as well, which constitutes most of the Zangezur region (between Mountainous Karabakh and Nakhchivan). Kentronhayastan (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Schiltberger

I accidentally deleted the edit note for [this revert](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=710485539): the source says plain in Armenia. --vacio 06:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 June 2016

It starts with "Karabakh is a geographic region in present-day eastern Armenia...". But this is not true (you can check it in the map) and therefore needs to be removed. It is FULLY within the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan. This is a sensitive issue and therefore needs a cautious attention.

134.19.212.56 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: any requests like this will need consensus among other editors before they can be actioned — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You have "Karabakh" mixed up with "Nagorno-Karabakh". So no change needed. --Golbez (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karabakh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/sas/bour2.html
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20011110023636/http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/sas/bour.html to http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/sas/bour.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Khari-bulbul.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Questions about population figures and sources

User Rs4815 keeps vandalizing this article.

In the article it states that the Armenian population in 1823 was 8.4%. 9 years later in 1832 the population rises to 34.8% which is mentioned in the same paragraph (the article states 35% to be precise). This user keeps claiming that the figure of 1823 is unreliable based on thin air, and changes the figure of 1823 from 8.4% to 34.8%. But he fails to provide any proof for that neither does he provide an alternative source to back his claims. User has a history of disruptive editing. He has been warned for his behavior. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I changed the section name to be more appropriate. MrUnoDosTres, I don't see any evidence of vandalism, so I'd suggest striking that comment, if you would be so kind, thanks.

The figure of 8.4% prior to 1828 is sourced to Yazdani. It's not clear to me where he gets that number from, as I don't have access to the book, does anyone else? The figure was changed here: [13], and the citation was in fact changed to an alternative source, Bournoutian. Bournoutian states that there was an 1823 survey, completed by the Russians on 17 April, and "its more than 300 pages recorded both the Armenian and Muslim population, not by numbers, but by villages and tax assessments." If actual numbers were not recorded, I'm not sure how Yazdani comes up with such a precise figure of 8.4%, but surely he must be referring to the same survey? It would be helpful to have more sources that specifically discuss this survey. The other source, that had been removed, was Cornell, who stated a similar proportion: "According to Russian census reports, the Armenian population in Karabakh represented 9 per cent of the total in 1823 (the remaining 91 per cent being registered as ‘Muslims’), 35 per cent in 1832, and a majority of 53 per cent in 1880."

Bournoutian doesn't give a proportion from this 1823 survey for the overall population, only for the mountainous regions, stating only "Thus the five mountainous districts (generally known as Nagorno-Karabakh today) [...] had an overwhelming Armenian population before 1828"). He goes on to mention the figure of 34.8% attributed by Altstadt to a 1832 survey, but denies any knowledge of this survey. So I would say that specific figure for 1823 (or even 1832) does fail verification in this source. He speculates that Altstadt might be referring to a survey published in 1836, showing overall 35.2% (but about 90% in the mountainous regions).

He then discusses the question of Armenian immigration and/or repatriation prior to 1828, but to be honest I don't quite follow it, and I'm not sure what his position is on the overall population ratio in that period. Rs4815, could you explain why you think that the Bournoutian source supports an overall figure of about 35% in 1823, or how it contradicts the figures of about 9% given by Yazdani and Cornell for that year? Thanks.

I notice that Khirurg has again removed the Cornell citation - could you please explain why you believe it is an "unreliable source"? Svante Cornell is a notable Swedish scholar, and the book was published by Routledge, one of the most respected academic publishers. --IamNotU (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Article previously said: "On the other hand, the population of the Karabakh khanate, taken as a whole, was largely made up of Muslims (91% Muslim versus 9% Armenian)" with link to Cornell's "Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus".

If you check this book, you can see a lot of references to the Suzanne Goldenberg's "Pride of Small Nations: The Caucasus and Post-Soviet Disorder". He used it as a reliable source for his own work. And since there is no other sources noted by Cornell in his work that gives any information about Karabakh's population (for the first half of 19th century), exept Goldenberg's, we can surely say that Cornell uses Goldenbergs's falsified data. Compare, this is a quote of Cornell:

According to Russian census reports, the Armenian population in Karabakh represented 9 per cent of the total in 1823 (the remaining 91 per cent being registered as ‘Muslims’), 35 per cent in 1832, and a majority of 53 per cent in 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; 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

and this is the Goldenberg's quote:

Some scholars, quoting reports prepared by Russian military officials in 1823, have put the Armenian share of Karabakh’s population as low as 8.4 per cent, with Muslims making up 91 per cent.1 Even in 1832, after considerable migration had taken place, it is generally accepted that Muslims were a majority in Karabakh. An official Russian survey of that year recorded that Muslims made up 64.8 per cent of the region and Armenians 34.8 per cent.2

as you can see, same data. Now G. Bournoutian's commentary:

An uncited Russian survey of 1832 and my article are used as the main sources for this statement. The survey lists the Armenian population of the whole of Karabakh at 34.8 percent (slightly over one-third) and that of the Azeris at 64.8 percent. This time Altstadt confuses the reader by identifying the whole of Karabakh with Mountainous Karabakh. The Armenian population of Karabakh (as will be demonstrated below) was concentrated in 8 out of the 21 districts or mahals of Karabakh. These 8 districts are located in Mountainous Karabakh and present-day Zangezur (then part of Karabakh). Thus 34.8 percent of the population of Karabakh populated 38 percent of the land. In other words the Armenians, according to the survey cited by Altstadt, formed 91.58 percent of the population of Mountainous Karabakh.
...
Unfortunately, those who have the habit of copying sources without verification have used Alstadt's misleading footnotes and have further damaged my credibility as a scholar. The worst offender is Suzanne Goldenberg's Pride of Small Nations: The Caucasus and Post-Soviet Disorder (London: Zed Books, 1994), which states, "Even in 1832, after considerable migration had taken place, it is generally accepted [my emphasis] that Muslims were a majority in Karabakh. An official Russian survey of that year recorded that Muslims made up 64.8 percent of the region and Armenians 34.8 percent (p. 158)." The note cites my article as the sole source.

by the way, Svante Cornell has been criticised for being not neutral and having "pro-Azerbaijan" views. --Rs4815 (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, actually Cornell had another source in his book for this issue - Audrey Altstadt (read about her above, Bournoutian's commentary, I havely recomend you to read full text of his commentary, not only the part that i quoted). --Rs4815 (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Also Bournoutian actually wrote a whole book where he did research about 1823 survey, it's called "The 1823 Russian Survey of the Karabagh Province: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of Karabagh in the Early 19th Century.", while I could not find that book in open sources, I could find his interview about that book (where he gives an important data from it) in YouTube (you can watch only first 2 minutes, if don't have time to watch full of it). --Rs4815 (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Rs4815, thanks for your answer. I don't think we can simply dismiss everything written by Cornell and Suzanne Goldenberg as "unreliable sources", just because Bournoutian criticized one thing Goldenberg wrote, and because Cornell cites her book several times - though not for the fact in question. You're welcome to try to make a case for that at WP:RSN, but I doubt you'll have much success in getting a consensus.

Bournoutian's criticism of Goldenberg and Altstadt is that they use the figure of 34.8 percent in 1832 for the whole of Karabakh in a misleading way, that is, to imply that it related to the population of Nagorno Karabakh, where the proportion was actually far higher - and incorrectly citing him as a source.

He doesn't say anything about what the population of the whole of Karabakh in 1823 was, only about Nagorno Karabakh. Nor does he mention the quote of Goldenberg about it above, let alone make any accusation that Goldenberg falsified data about 1823.

We have three sources - Yazdani (1993), Goldenberg (1994), and Cornell (2001), all giving the figure of 8.4 percent in 1823 for the whole of Karabakh, purportedly taken from the Russian survey. We have no statement from Bournoutian disputing that, nor any claim by anyone that the percentage was 34.8 percent in 1823.

Unless someone can get a citation of Bournoutian's The 1823 Russian Survey of the Karabagh Province that says otherwise, I'm afraid we'll have to return to the 8.4% figure - making sure it's clear what it does and doesn't apply to. It would be helpful to have such a citation, as well as the original source for the 8.4% figure used by Yazdani (the oldest of the citations) and Goldenberg for comparison. --IamNotU (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• "because Bournoutian criticized one thing Goldenberg wrote, and because Cornell cites her book several times", Cornell is a scholar specializing on politics and security issues in Eurasia, he is not a professional historian and definitely not an expert on 19th century demography. He is not a reliable source for this issue, and doesn't even give us his exact source of information for that numbers. Since he mentioned works of Goldenberg and Altstad as his sources in many other parts of his book, there can be no doubts that he took that data from those two authors.
• "He doesn't say anything about what the population of the whole of Karabakh in 1823 was, only about Nagorno Karabakh", Karabakh traditionally divided into three parts, Zangezur in the west, Mountainous ("Nagorno") Karabakh in the center and Lowland Karabakh in the East. Bournoutian says that acourding to 1823 survey, both Zangezur and Nagorno-Karbakh (where's the capital of Karabakh located) were overwhelmingly populated by Armenians, and Armenians were also represented, in lesser numbers, in all the other non-nomadic districts of Karabakh. And with that information you still offer me to trust Goldenberg’s data that Armenians composed less than 9 percent of the entire Karabakh population? In the same time when we have already seen that Goldenberg failed to give as correct data for 1830s.
• AND BY THE WAY, attention please (check the notes of Goldenberg's book), this numbers (about 9%) Goldenberg took from Azerbaijani historian Sulejman Alyjarly (Suleyman Aliyarov) who is known as one of leaders of Azerbaijani "school of historical revisionists" (Victor Schnirelmann. "Войны памяти: мифы, идентичность и политика в Закавказье", page 166). Suleyman Aliyarli (specialist in the history of oil fields in the Baku region at the end of the 19th century) known by such nonsense statements like Turks live in Armenia, Goergia and even Sumer (!!!) since Antiquity (long before Seljuk invasion in 11th century) (page 170). He called the term "Alban" (you know, Caucasian Albania) the turkic word and that Caucasian Albanians were part of oghuz-turkic people, and of course he claimed that there were never (!) been any Armenian state in South Caucasus (page 187), while writing about Principality of Khachen (in Nagorno-Karabakh) he never mentioned in his works that the population of that principality was Armenian (page 236). Schnirelmann criticized Aliyarli in many other matters, if you can understand Russian I could give whole quotes from "Войны памяти: мифы, идентичность и политика в Закавказье" about him (I don't know if there is any English edition of it, maybe "The Value of the Past. Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia" mantioned in Schnirelmann's bibliography?). Anyways this Goldenberg/Aliyarli union is not neutral and not reliable source at all.
• IamNotU, you several times already mentioned Yazdani, but still did not bring any quotes from him, nor of his sources of information. Since than, I'm afraid we'll have to not mention this misinformation (8.4% figure). Unless you can find any REAL reliable sources on this topic. PS. My English is horrible, I know. --Rs4815 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Rs4815, I don't have access to Yazdani's book that's cited, except through Google books search, from that I found: "Als Folge der Umsiedlungen stieg in den Jahren 1828 bis 1830 der Anteil der Armenier in der Provinz Karabach von 8,4 Prozent auf 34,8 Prozent" ("As a result of the resettlements, the proportion of Armenians in the province of Karabakh rose from 8.4 percent to 34.8 percent between 1828 and 1830."). I don't know what his source is. I don't have access to Goldenberg's book (which isn't cited) either. I can see in the quote you provided that there's a footnote, but I don't know what it is - can you provide a copy of the footnote?

Please understand that I'm not interested in arguing for the "truth" of this 8.4% figure that is supposedly found in the 1823 survey. What I'm saying is that we need to base the article on published, reliable sources. So far we have three sources, two by notable authors, saying 8.4%, and no sources that say otherwise. The figure is also repeated in numerous other sources.

If you wish to dispute the 8.4% figure, you simply need to cite a reliable source that does so! If what you say is true, it shouldn't be that hard. So far I only see ad hominem arguments about the unreliability of the authors of the currently-cited sources. If you're not able to provide reliable sources disputing the figure, but you still feel that all the authors are so unreliable that they must not be cited, I suggest opening a discussion at WP:RSN, but that's going to be much more difficult to get consensus on.

If a reliable source is provided that disputes the figure, it still doesn't mean that we just dismiss the other authors and erase their citations. The WP:NPOV policy does not mean that we only cite authors who are "neutral"! We must explain all significant viewpoints, especially in controversial issues, without editorial bias. Even if for example Suleyman Aliyarli is biased as you say, it may still be necessary to present his views, and contrast them with other views, if they are notable and widely discussed. "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." --IamNotU (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• "I don't have access to Yazdani's book that's cited ... I don't know what his source is", then we can not accept him as a reliable source for this article. We need to know on what source exactly he based that statement. Maybe it's again Aliyarli?
• "can you provide a copy of the footnote?"

  1. Аlijarly, Sulejman (1992), 'The republic of Azerbaydzhan: Notes on the State Borders in the Past and the Present', unpublished paper. London.

• "So far we have three sources, two by notable authors", notable does not mean reliable. One of these authors is a scholar specializing on politics and security issues, criticized for his pro-Azerbaijan views, second "notable" is Goldenberg (the source of Cornell) who used as her source of information an Azerbaijani revisionist Аlijarly and who accused of misinformation for 1830s data. And the third one is Yazdani whose book is not available for us.
• "and no sources that say otherwise", wait a minute, we have source that says that Armenians composed wast majority in both central and western Karabakh (more than 90%), and lived also in its eastern part, but with smaller numbers. With this information we can assume that Armenians at least made up a sizable part of Karabakh's population but not just 8.4%. How many Azeris lived in semi-desert Lowland Karabakh in the 1820s, a million?
• "If you wish to dispute the 8.4% figure, you simply need to cite a reliable source that does so! If what you say is true, it shouldn't be that hard.", that number, 8.4% is based only on oil specialist Alijarly estimate, who is revisionist and propagandist who rejects even the fact that Armenians had statehood in South Caucasus. I have reliable source that heavily criticized Alijarly. If you want to depict all views of Azerbaijani revisionists and falsificators on Wikipedia articles (in the same level with Bournoutian and other reliable authors), then we need to rename Wikipedia from "The Free Encyclopedia" to "The Free Fantasy Book". If 8.4% figure is true, then it will be very easy to you, to find real reliable sources that will give us that data.
• "Even if for example Suleyman Aliyarli is biased as you say, it may still be necessary to present his views", there is absolutely no reason for that, we cannot provide biased points of view and propaganda with the same level as neutral reliable sources (ESPECIALLY in controversial articles), in article you cannot find biased Armenian authors (Bournoutian is neutral and authoritative author) so why we must fill it with Azerbaijani revisionists? The only fact that we know about 1823 survey is that Armenians at that time composed more than 90% of the Mountainous Karabakh and Zangezur population. --Rs4815 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Rs4815, thanks for providing the footnote from Goldenberg's book. The cited paper by Aliyarli was published in 1996 in Transcaucasian Boundaries, by UCL Press, another highly-respected academic publisher. Here is the quote:

To return to the historical sources, the first special household description of the Karabakh province was carried out by the Russian authorities in 1823, immediately after the abolition of the khanate. The enquiry fixed the number of households at 18,963, of which 1559 families (or 8.4 per cent) fell to the share of the 5 Armenian melikates (Talysh, Chilaburt, Varanda, Dizak and Khachen). [49] Admittedly, this tells us almost nothing about the ethnic composition of Karabakh.

49. Central State Research Archive of Azerbaijan 1, 24, 141, 226 with the general title: Description of the Karabakh province, carried out in 1823 at the command of Ermolov, supreme commander in Georgia. Tbilisi, 1866.

I understand from what you've written above that you feel that Cornell, Yazdani, Goldenberg, Aliyarli, etc., are biased, revisionist propagandists, and not "real" sources, while Bournoutian is neutral and authoritative and thus only his views should be presented in the article. I'm not really convinced by those arguments. I can also find peer-reviewed sources accusing Bournoutian of pro-Armenian bias and incorrect interpretation of the survey. I think I've made it as clear as I can what my interpretation of WP:NPOV is. As I see it, there is at the moment no consensus to remove the 8.4% figure and the citations from the article - though we could modify the explanation based on the above quote - and you have three choices:

1. Provide at least one reliable source, preferably more, giving a figure other than 8.4%. Note that doesn't mean the other sources can necessarily be removed, unless it can be shown clearly that they are WP:FRINGE viewpoints.
2. Go to WP:RSN and get a consensus that all of the sources/authors are so biased and unreliable that they can't be cited.
3. Pursue one of the options in WP:DISPUTE resolution.

If you can provide reliable sources for different 1823 figures, I could try to help to incorporate them in the article, in accordance with WP:NPOV. If you're not able to provide reliable sources, I'm not really interested in hearing much more about it, sorry... --IamNotU (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"The cited paper by Aliyarli was published in 1996 in Transcaucasian Boundaries, by UCL Press", and let's look at the editorial board of Transcaucasian Boundaries - John F. R. Wright, Suzanne Goldenberg, Richard Schofield. What a surprise!

"I understand from what you've written above that you feel that Cornell, Yazdani, Goldenberg, Aliyarli, etc., are biased, revisionist propagandists ... I'm not really convinced by those arguments.", IamNotU, with all due respect, it's absolutely doesn't matter what convinces you and what doesn't, unlike you I don't bring my personal opinion here . There is exact reliable sources that criticizing Cornell (scholar specializing on politics) for being pro-Azerbaijan (check the article about him on Wiki), there is reliable source that calls Aliyarli - one of the leaders of Azerbaijani revisionism (Schnirelmann), there is reliable source that accuses Goldenberg for misinformation. It's not my problem that you prefer to ignore sources that you don't like. And yes, the Yazdani's book is not available for us. Right now the only reason why I do not contact with administration on this topic is because my English skills are poor as hell, and you kinda use it against me :) I'm more of a Russian Wikipedia author, and with this kind of "sources" in your hands, it will be very very hard to you to convince RuWiki admins that you're right (in RuWiki the rules on reliability of the sources are much stricter in controversial articles).

"I can also find peer-reviewed sources accusing Bournoutian of pro-Armenian bias and incorrect interpretation of the survey", oh really? Then bring them.

"As I see it, there is at the moment no consensus to remove the 8.4% figure and the citations from the article", on Wikipedia information mast be based on reliable sources and not just "consensus without discussion" (we never had real consensus on bringing this likely fake data to article).

"and you have three choices", are you a Wikipedia administrator to give me "three choices' (or four, or two, or one)? You're just a user, just like me, but with better English knowlage. You're better give me reliable sources, is it so hard? (I mean, you didn't have even Goldenberg's book (only Cornell), but just like in Yazdani case, wanted to use her work as a reliable source without even checking it. By the way I even have that original 1823 survey in PDF format (it's in Russian)) I even found in the work of another Azeri propagandist Tofik Kocharli (I do not consider him as a reliable source either, just like Aliyarly, but still) that according to 1823 survey Armenians made up from 21.7 to 25.4 per cent of Karabakh's population at that time.

Based on the same paper method, researchers calculated that in 1823 there were 20095 families in Garabagh, including 15729 Azerbaijani (78.3%) and 4366 Armenian families (21.7%).108
According to the calculations of Armenian authors, the number of the Armenian families was 5107.109 Which number concerning the Armenians is more correct - 5107 or 4336? One might say that difference between the two figures is not so high (741 families) and that it does not change overall view of the number of the Armenians in Garabagh.

Same survey, two Azeri authors, two different interpretations.

"I'm not really interested in hearing much more about it", but you seem very interested in editing the article without any consensus in talk page. --Rs4815 (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Deportation in the early 17th century

Can we get some clarification for this line: It is probable that the Armenians formed the majority of the population of Eastern Armenia at the turn of the seventeenth century, quoting George Bournoutian's "Eastern Armenia from the Seventeenth Century to the Russian Annexation". Does he really link the demographic changes in Lowland Karabakh with Shah Abbas deportations? I would be grateful if someone puts the citation from this source, since sources that I have encountered until now mention only deportations from the modern-day Armenia as it lied on the Ottoman route to Tabriz. The above-mentioned line seems to me as some piece of original research. John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have the source laying in front of me, page 96 (you can access it btw through Internet Archive)[14]

"It is probable that until the seventeenth century, the Armenians still maintained a majority in Eastern Armenia, but the forced relocation of some 250,000 Armenians by Shah Abbas and the numerous exoduses described in this chapter had reduced the Armenian population considerably. The census conducted by the Russians in 1830-1831 indicates that by the nineteenth century Armenians of Erevan and Nakhichevan formed 20 percent of the population. The Armenians of Ganja had also been reduced to a minority. Only in the mountains of Karabagh and Zangezur did the Armenians manage to maintain a solid majority."

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

So, basically someone deduced the rest for Bournoutian. He clearly states that in Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians remained a majority, so the considered line in this Wikipedia article is wrong. John Francis Templeson (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Minorsky

@Maidyouneed: Minorsky from Notes on Administrative Geography chapter (Tadkhirat Al-Muluk):

p. 164: A (North-West:Azarbayjan and Transcaucasia)

...

p. 166: III. QARA-BAGH is a term first appearing in Nuzhat al-qulub, and perhaps connected with some Turkish tribe extinct (footnote: see Qara-baghlar, north of Nakhichevan, Qara-bagh to the north of Urmiya, Qara-bagh west of Qhazni, Afghanistan, aradi-yi Qara-bagh near Karmina, see Iz arkhivov sheikhov Jubayri, Leningrad, 1938, p. 458). Qara-bagh with its capital Shusha, lies between Kur and Araxes (ancient Arran). On f.7b Qarabagh is coupled with Ganja which lies to the south of the Kur upstream from the Qarabagh proper. (bold and italics are mine, JFT)

— [15]

Frankly speaking, there is nothing even ambiguous, and as your argument is not valid (as it seen from the quote: Minorsky is definitely talking about Karabakh and definitely about the origins of the term), I would rather return the text. I would like to ask you to start a thread in a talk page prior to deleting the sourced information. John Francis Templeson (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Kara

@ItsObjectiveee: Kara is an ancient turkic word, not arabic. One online dictionary isn't an reliable source. See: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kara#Etymology_7 .— CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, it is not correct to give another wikipedia resource on the Wikipedia page, first check the WP: RULES page. First of all, I don't have any bad goals, and I am Turkish anyway. And see the Turkish language dictionary: [16]. Write "Kara" and search. Please don't change the subject. Old Azeri is an Ancient Iranian Language. You can see, I have to make this change because it is obvious and clearly. Old Azeri You can look at this page. ItsObjectiveee (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, that is not another Wikipedia article or an article in another language, but the Wiktionary, which isn't against the rules. And I didn't say you have bad goals. I think there's a misunderstanding on your side about the sentence about Old Azeri. It says "Old Azeri language (pre-Turkic language spoken in Iranian Azerbaijan)". It doesn't say it's turkic, it's saying that it's the language that was spoken in Iranian Azerbaijan, before the turkic one. But I'm not against you deleting that anyway, just wanted to let you know that I was not implying that it was not Iranic. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hola, generally it's not acceptable to cite anything to a wiki or other site where users can easily modify info (like IMDB). That includes Wiktionary. --Golbez (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, ItsObjectiveee. It seems like we can't agree on what to put near Old Azeri. We should just leave it without any explanation near it since literally when you hover over the name, the first thing it shows is the fact that it's an ancient Iranian language. The edit I made is essentially same thing as the edit you're trying to implement. Can we agree to not put anything explanatory nearby to avoid a dispute? Most people who have ever read Wikipedia already know that blue words are links. Good day :D — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

:D Yes I agree with you. But what I meant was: "Wikipedia has to be clear and simple" so we are not the only ones using Wikipedia, we have to be "simple". Respect and love. ItsObjectiveee (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you for being nice! — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsObjectiveee There might've been a misunderstanding, but I thought we agreed to not have any explanatory sentence near the Old Azeri word, since you said "Yes I agree with you". You seem to have reverted the change. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it wasn't actually what I meant, so the point I agreed with you as an opinion was different. ItsObjectiveee (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsObjectiveee: Ah, I see, there was a misunderstanding then. I think the explanation is not really needed as there's already an article linked. But if you insist, I think putting (Pre-Turkic Ancient Iranian language spoken in Iranian Azerbaijan) is more accurate and more explanatory. And, again I think you don't understand my intent, but "Pre-Turkic" means, "before the Turkic Azeri language". — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, what we said may be the same thing, but I will say for the last time, there is a rule that says "be simple" in Wikipedia, you have to follow this rule. Respects. ItsObjectiveee (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If we're being simple then that explanatory sentence isn't even supposed to be there. What policy is there on Wiki that says there's supposed to be an explanatory phrase near articles even when they're linked? Respectfully, — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't have to be a policy for every single detail. This issue is not an issue to be discussed and extended. There is no point in extending this subject, I did what should be. Have a nice day. Thanks for the nice discussion, no point in extension. ItsObjectiveee (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any "non-constructive" changes ItsObjectiveee (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whilst the principle of least astnonishment may apply, consensus should be reached when Wikipedia (Not Wiki!) articles have a dispute. There is a reason getting consensus exists because there is not a policy for everything. However, your current argument is that just because you like it, it should be kept. Instead consensus should be reached with multiple editors to decide the course of action. And this discussion should probably be closed by an uninvolved editor. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not the first to write "Wiki". When I replied, I thought of his word for replying. I don't understand why the discussion that doesn't matter much and arises out of just one parenthesis has gotten so big ItsObjectiveee (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who abbreviates Wikipedia as "Wiki" is incorrect, also, for your second point, I regret to inform you that most of the discussions on Wikipedia are arguing about small things. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Early Modern age

I dared to do some changes in the Early Modern age part as it basically was a dump of repeated statistical data, literally repeated. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Anachronism

Anachronisms or modern conventional names are widely used in historiography, e.g., see The Role of Azerbaijani Turkish in Safavid Iran by Floor and Javadi or describing of Fath-Ali-Khan of Quba's troops as Azeri by John Perry. For the subject see Nagorno-Karabakh: An Apple of Discord in The Contemporary Review: Consequently, in the middle of the eighteenth century, the local Azeri khans formed the Karabakh Khanate.... John Francis Templeson (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@John Francis Templeson: I am well ware of the usage of anachronisms in historiography, but that doesn't mean we should follow suit when the usage is considered to be contentious. On Wikipedia, we follow WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS and WP:VER, and the majority reliable sources simply do not use the word "Azerbaijani" as an ethnic label when dealing with a 18th century member of a Turkic tribe. The historiography of Azerbaijan was constructed in the 20th century on nothing but political lines, and is considered to be contentious/dubious in every sense of the word, per WP:RS. If there are modern WP:RS sources that consider Panah Ali Khan to be "Azerbaijani", then this should be covered in the Panah Ali Khan article, or the Javanshir clan article. Not here.

For the record: Bournoutian, George A. (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust., p. xvi

"As noted, in order to construct an Azerbaijani national history and identity based on the territorial definition of a nation, as well as to reduce the influence of Islam and Iran, the Azeri nationalists, prompted by Moscow devised an "Azeri" alphabet, which replaced the Arabo-Persian script. In the 1930s a number of Soviet historians, including the prominent Russian Orientalist, Ilya Petrushevskii, were instructed by the Kremlin to accept the totally unsubstantiated notion that the territory of the former Iranian khanates (except Yerevan, which had become Soviet Armenia) was part of an Azerbaijani nation. Petrushevskii's two important studies dealing with the South Caucasus, therefore, use the term Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani in his works on the history of the region from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Other Russian academics went even further and claimed that an Azeri nation had existed from ancient times and had continued to the present. Since all the Russian surveys and almost all nineteenth-century Russian primary sources referred to the Muslims who resided in the South Caucasus as "Tatars" and not "Azerbaijanis", Soviet historians simply substituted Azerbaijani for Tatars. Azeri historians and writers, starting in 1937, followed suit and began to view the three-thousand-year history of the region as that of Azerbaijan. The pre-Iranian, Iranian, and Arab eras were expunged. Anyone who lived in the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan was classified as Azeri; hence the great Iranian poet Nezami, who had written only in Persian, became the national poet of Azerbaijan."

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue is just a substitution of Turk identification by Azeri identification in early XX century and not about creation of ethnicity. It is the same as Ukrainians were called Malorussians in Russian Empire. It is generally accepted that Azerbaijanis formed in the Late Medieval Period and claims that Azeris didn't exist before 1930s {are quite strange} (added later). Well, Azerbaijanis didn't exist in ancient times, but at least existed from XV-XVI centuries with their language under the name "Turk". Wikipedia policies emphasize that the one should use modern, understandable naming. As deal of compromise I suggest to write Azeri in parantheses. Panahali khan, just to say, is great-grandfather of Azeri poetess Khurshidbanu Natavan and ancestor of Azeri official Behbud Khan Javanshir. John Francis Templeson (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that you have numerous high quality sources for all your above claims, don't you ? please post them here, would be a nice move.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

For what you want a source? For Azeri literature see Iranica; for exact timeline of the formation of Azeris see e.g. Russian 6-volume The History of East ([История Востока. В 6 т. Т. 2. Восток в средние века http://www.kulichki.com/~gumilev/HE2/he2510.htm]). For naming see Audrey Altsatdt's Azerbaijani Turks. Also see some information on the usage of Azerbaijani language in Safavid Iran and its Transcaucasia [17] and the history of language [18]. Please, refrain from trolling and scoffing. Your ethnic-based disrespect is of little interest for me, but I prefer healthy discussion. John Francis Templeson (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

He simply asked you to provide sources that support your statement, which is pretty normal in Wikipedia. How is that trolling, scoffing, and showing "ethnic-based disrespect"? (WP:ASPERSIONS). Ironically, you are contributing to the exact opposite of a healthy discussion with these allegations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

you have, don't you, it would be nice move seem not polite, informal and trolling-like to me. Anyway, what I ask is to stick to the formality, nothing else. I think this subthread is over. John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• See Micahel Croissant's [19] and John Perry's [20] use of Azeri in terms of people in Safavid era in 18th century. See an article about Mirza Fathali Akhundzadeh in Iranica [21]. Akhundzadeh died 60 years before the official introduction of the name Azerbaijani, but he is still called this way. So your statements that one cannot call someone in 18th century is totally senseless and contradict major scholars. I mean, my point is clear — of course Azerbaijani is quite a new name, but it is definitely used retrospectively and it's totally normal, since Azeris called themselves as Turk (they still do in Iran) and this term from scientific point of view is very vague. You oppose this by Bournoutian, who basically talks about falsifications of history in Soviet Azerbaijan and does not claim that Azeris didn't exist. I mean, you have to really try hard to claim that my great-grandfather wasn't an Azeri. John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You better read wiki rules, asking for sources fits with WP:VER. Baseless accusations of "trolling" and "scoffing" make you sound like a WP:NOTHERE editor making personal attacks. This is not the best way to engage in discussions with fellow Wikipedians. Anyway, i agree with you on one point : this thread is over and you failed to gain any consensus for your changes.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It can seem baseless for you, not for me. I expressed my dislike of the style you address to me. No accusation, just perception, I still do not see any change in this. If you don't want to listen and prefer to ignore sources that you asked for, we will just proceed to the following step of mediation. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Zangezur/Syunik

How accurate is it to count "Zangezur" as part of Karabakh? Because the current WP:COMMONNAME of "Karabakh" is mostly used to refer to the Karabakh in Azerbaijan. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Review

HistoryofIran, about here: These are the official statistics for the year 1926, and the corresponding source mentions the Soviet forced displacement that the Karabakh Kurds were subjected to, then I have other sources so if you have notes before I start editing. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 21:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE. Thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, Please don't ignore, I already read. Read these sources:

• http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_nac_26.php?reg=2275
• А. Букшпан, Азербайджанские курды, Баку, 1932. & Красный Курдистан: геополитические аспекты создания и упразднения
• Е. Г. Пчелина. По Курдистанскому уезду Азербайджана // журнал : Советская этнография. — РСФСР. Народный комиссариат просвещения: Издательство Академии наук СССР, 1932. — № 1. — С. 109—110. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 23:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but the first link is a good indicator that you didn't read. Arguably the same could said for the two other 'sources', which are from 1932, and which I can't even read, considering I can't speak Russian and you didn't even link them. Please don't expect me to go find a source in a unfamiliar script and language on my own. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, How to review it if you don't know the Russian language, There is no link between the source's issuance date and the event, although it's a close date and that's normal. The first source is based on official statistics, although I agree that the first source is somewhat doubtful at first glance. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 00:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Not even going to comment on the unreliablity of the sources you linked, but you do realize that all of these "sources" are about a certain, small part of Karabakh, so your sentences such as "Kurds made up most of Karabakh" is an absurd WP:OR. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, Well, we can write about the regions of Red Kurdistan in particular, Which included the regions of Karabakh. Being the sources talking about the red Kurdistan statistics and it's cities. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 11:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Then write them in Red Kurdistan. This article is about the Karabakh region as a whole, not about its specific parts. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden Know this, but it includes part of the region, so we can write about that part. Then I didn't understand where the problem is, as long as there are statistics for those areas and correspond the content of the section that created it. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 11:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Then I didn't prevent you from writing about the region as a whole although it is difficult for this to happen because it is a disputed region and it is assumed that if statistics happen that will be separate from the Azerbaijani or Armenian side, anything encyclopedic can be written that correspond the content. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 13:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Torivar: What is name of the author and publisher of the two Russian works? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Фонда Джона Д. и Кэтрин Т. Макартуров
• A. Букшпан & Е. Г. Пчелина Torivar ^{talk ✉} 14:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I meant in English :P. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
• Пчелина, Евгения Георгиевна Torivar ^{talk ✉} 15:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, the John D. 'source' is another indicator that you didn't read the guidelines above. I just have one question, how in the world is the source from the 1930s if the MacArthur Foundation was founded in 1970? Something doesn't add up. Either way, unreliable 'source'.

Evgeniya Georgievna doesn't seem to be cited by any source, that is if I got her name right through translation (since you didn't do it). Not reliable.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned before that there is no relationship between the date of issuance of the source and the date of the event, because in either case it will depend on other sources, while the second is the author of this source:

• Е. Г. Пчелина. По Курдистанскому уезду Азербайджана // журнал : Советская этнография. — РСФСР. Народный комиссариат просвещения: Издательство Академии наук

I also didn't understand how you Judged that it's not reliable. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 16:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that doesn't make much sense to me. That's because you haven't read the guidelines above, thus making it harder for both of us. Please read them, I am out of this thread until then. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I think we're moving away from it so I'm going to create a playground because there are so many other sources, We can apply the changes there. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 16:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by playground? Maybe you could just read the guidelines? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: "sandbox" I translated it literally from the Arabic term, anyway I can do this with another editor if you want to see me while I just read the guidelines. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 17:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy of map

The maps in the article seem really random. What are its borders based on? It seems to use modern district borders (but weirdly didn't include the Kalabajar panhandle as Karabakh). The "Mountainous Karabakh" part includes Jabrayil, Fuzuli and Agdam districts which are almost fully lowlands in real life. @Kentronhayastan: you seem to have made the map, so you'd probably know. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: The article says that it is a rough correspondence because there isn’t a definitively drawn border between the three regions (except maybe Zangezur), even though conceptually, the concepts of “mountainous Karabakh” and “lowlands/steppes of Karabakh" have had historical and modern significance. The map for Mountainous Karabakh was based on Azerbaijan’s official “Yuxari Qarabag” designation + Kelbajar because Kelbajar was never part of Zangezur but part of the mountainous half of Karabakh. If you want, we can update the maps to omit the adjacent “lowlands” regions to reflect a more geographic correspondence rather than the official borders defined by Azerbaijan. — [ kentronhayastan ] 21:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Kentronhayastan, thanks for clarifying. I think it would make more sense to base it on geography and historical definition than modern administrative borders. It'd also make more sense to give parts of the Lachin District to the Mountainous Karabakh part (especially the northern part where it borders Kalbajar) as, as far as I know, only a small part of the Lachin District, including the city was considered part of Zangezur (afaik this was same for Zangilan and Qubadli). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden But how would we define the geographic boundaries? We could use the territories of the Armenian melikdoms to represent Mountainous Karabakh, or simply use Nagorno-Karabakh + Kelbajar to represent the mountainous regions. That would fit the geographic description better. Alternatively, we can colour Kelbajar in a lighter colour (much like is done for Lowlands Karabakh) because it was part of the Khachen mahal of the five melikdoms but not part of modern-day definition of Nagorno-Karabakh, even though it is very much part of the “mountainous” regions of Karabakh. The Zangezur region’s boundaries here were based on the Zangezur Uyezd of the Elisabethpol Governorate, but unfortunately, the rest of Karabakh is made up of wider more arbitrary regions, so we don’t have a basis in that period for the distinction between Highland and Lowland. Also, I don’t want this to be a product of original research. We know that the distinction between Highland and Lowland Karabakh has historical and modern significance, but there is not a clear answer to the question “what are their boundaries?” If we are to make a change, I’d vote for modern-day NK + lighter-colour Kelbajar for the mountainous region, and the rest for lowlands. — [ kentronhayastan ] 23:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Kentronhayastan, I agree with your suggestion. Nagorno-Karabakh + Kalbajar would be good enough. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Completely forgot about this discussion. Kentronhayastan do you think you could update the maps based on the consensus here? Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Remain" vs. "Included"

I find it rather unconvincing the persistent efforts of some editors to insist on the Kavburo's wording that the Karabakh region "remain" within Azerbaijan. Whatever the thought-process of the Bureau, there is no doubt that Karabakh did not belong to either Armenia or Azerbaijan in the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the Russian Empire. Armenia (and the local Karabakh Armenians) fought over the territory with Azerbaijan (just like they fought over Zangezur and Nakhichevan) and its status was hardly settled when the Soviets established control over both republics in 1920. Neither had firm, legally recognized borders until the imposition of the Soviet settlement, which is why the word "remain" is highly misleading and inappropriate in this context. My suggestion is far more neutral (not least because, in response to CuriousGolden's own retort, many refer to this as clear evidence that Karabakh "belonged" to Azerbaijan). I fail to see the merit of privileging the Bureau's formulation over a more neutral and accurate term. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

My main problem is that the term "included" can easily be misunderstood and promote the already common propaganda that Karabakh was "given"/"gifted" to Azerbaijan. I'd propose putting the "remain" in the article within quotes to make it clear that it was the Soviets wording. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@John Francis Templeson: was one of the people who reverted the edits, so I'm informing them about the discussion. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support reproducing the Caucasian Bureau's report in part or in full in the article over the current formulation. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Karabakh was under de facto Azerbaijani control since 1919; although there was an Armenian rebellion just before Sovietization, it failed (see Salarov's Nagorno-Karabakh...) and Azerbaijan continued to control the whole region except several rural communities. In 1920-1921 whole Karabakh was again under the firm Azerbaijani de facto control. P. S. If documents say "to remain in Azerbaijan", that basically means that it was controlled by Azerbaijan before John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There had been steady Azerbaijani military presence in Mountainous Karabakh all throughout the period directly preceding Azerbaijan's Sovietisation. Hovannissian and Saparov provide an almost day-by-day chronicle of what was happening in Karabakh around that time, and it does not look as if Azerbaijan relinquished control of Shusha even for one day between October 1918 and the day when Kavburo made its decision. Suggesting that Karabakh was "included" when it had never in fact been "excluded" is misleading and contributes nothing to the article except feeding into the infamous "Stalin gave Karabakh to Azerbaijan, which is younger than Coca Cola" narrative. Parishan (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Maintaining an administrative or military presence is not the same as retaining or exercising control over a region. The fact of the matter is is that after the Russian Empire dissolved, all of the South Caucasus, including Karabakh, was up for grabs. The hold over the territories the three republics contended for was never firm to begin with and they only stabilized with the delineation of the internal borders by the Soviet state (hence why it is more accurate to speak of "including" and "excluding"). That is why I argue that that the current formulation is unsatisfactory and risks leaving a misleading impression on readers. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There were indeed territories where the hold kept shifting from one side over to the other, such as the present-day Ararat Province, where the word "included" would be suitable. In the case of Karabakh, however, the fact of Azerbaijan exercising the necessary amount of control over the territory was apparently clear enough to a third party, which is what prompted the Kavburo to use the wording it used. Otherwise, if we account for every pocket of land that was controlled by whatever military faction at that time, every slightly peripheral province of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan could be labelled as having been "included" in it by the Bolsheviks. Parishan (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

And that formulation wouldn't necessarily be wrong, either. In fact, it would be more preferable given how much more precise it is (and in some articles, that is how it is worded). Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be precise in the case of areas where there was no identifiable control throughout those years. May I remind you that Armenia never officially claimed Karabakh in 1918-1920 and, unlike in Nakhchivan, its regular army never set foot in either Karabakh or Zangezur, according to Hovannisian. Suggesting that Karabakh was "included" into Azerbaijan would mean that there there was another party that could claim legitimate power over it before the "inclusion", which is not the case. Karabakh, or at least its core, was effectively administered by Azerbaijan in 1918-1920, had an Azerbaijani governor based in its capital with local (Muslim and Armenian) aides and relied on its military to make sure that control lasts for as long as it lasted. I do not see any other definitions of "control". Parishan (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Erm, what? Consult Hovannisian (Republic of Armenia, vol. 2, map 5, p. 193) - there's literally a map submitted at the Paris Peace Conference showing the lands the Republic of Armenia delegation claimed, including Karabakh. It was a disputed and contested territory, just like Kars, Zangezur, etc. What I'm proposing is hardly controversial. Plenty of scholars and experts on the Caucasus have avoided repeating the misleading wording of the Bureau. Charles King, for example, uses "included" in his 2008 book on the Caucasus. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The map submitted by Armenia at the conference included lands as far away as Sivas, Kayseri and Mersin. It does not mean those lands were "disputed" and were later "included" into Turkey, it just means that Armenia laid far-fetched claims on lands that other countries had quite a firm grip on. I was talking specifically about the response to Azerbaijan's diplomatic note addressed to Armenia in June 1918, whereby the Armenian government officially declared its non-involvement in the war in Zangezur and Karabakh on account of it considering the Elisabethpol Governorate to be under Azerbaijan's jurisdiction (1971: 87-88). There are plenty of written sources and maps attesting to Azerbaijan's relatively solid control of Karabakh at the time. In fact, most sources studying the issue more closely than Charles King's one-paragraph trivia on the history of the present-day conflict in Karabakh suggest that it was Azerbaijan that was in control of the area and that represented the only legitimate power there. There were clashes but there were also times of peace within those two years, which further shows that the political situation in Shusha was not as anarchic as you are presenting it. Suggesting that Karabakh was "included" in Azerbaijan is POV that contradicts all primary and most secondary sources; it leads the reader to believe that the area had nothing to do with Azerbaijan prior to the 1921 decision, which is simply not true. Parishan (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

They weren't far-fetched. Those very claims in the eastern Ottoman provinces were supported to the hilt by the major Allied powers at Versailles. And we both know that Armenia was hardly in position to making claims in June 1918: the war was still ongoing and it was under partial Ottoman occupation. That was a statement made under duress. Would you accord it the same level of sincerity as Narimanov's declaration that Karabakh, Nakhichevan, and Zangezur in December 1920 were indisputable Armenian provinces? Once the war ended, Armenia reasserted its claims over Karabakh (as Hovannisian notes in volume 2 in the pages cited). All parties, regardless, awaited adjudication of the status of final borders from the Allies. So your assertion of legitimacy is false insofar as it was predicated on international approval (which it never got because of Allied indecision and the Bolshevik takeover). In the end, it was the Bolsheviks who drew up the new borders. I fail to see why there is so much opposition toward greater clarity and perhaps it's about time to ask for an RfC. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have already explained twice why I consider your suggestion unsuitable and why I think it does everything except adding clarity. I am sure you realise that this is not a trivial matter given the scope of the topic and that extra caution needs to be exercised when choosing words. We are not here to share personal impressions on what went down in Karabakh in 1918. We have documents and sources for that, and our sources support the idea that following the 1921 decision, Karabakh remained in Azerbaijan and was not given to it. The expression "drawing borders" may be applicable to the maps of the Ottoman provinces submitted at the Paris conference because those borders were literally drawn on paper and remained a drawing. In the case of Karabakh, the Bolsheviks, according to the final document, had no doubts that they were deliberating on the future of a province that was already part of Azerbaijan and not somewhere in limbo. To back this up, most sources agree that pre-Soviet Azerbaijan maintained continuous control of the Karabakh core well into 1921. Armenia did not, which makes its claims on Karabakh (if they were ever laid) no more material than its claims on Sivas (which certainly cannot be described as "included" in Turkey). I do not think I have anything to add to what I have already said. Parishan (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The above is roundabout and riddled with inconsistencies (and still no sources). I'll ask for an RfC. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not restricted by juridical formalities, otherwise we should ignore all three Transcaucasian republics, as they were recognized only de facto and even that in early 1920. Karabakh was firmly de facto controlled by Azerbaijan in 1919-1921 and it is illustrated in many sources. At last, I don't think that we have any reason to restate sources. If Bolsheviks have written "to remain", they apparently meant nothing but "to remain".

P.S. Armenia claimed the half of the Turkey till the Black Sea and Azerbaijan's claims left for Armenia just Erivan and its outskirts. Should we apply the same logic for Turkey and Armenia? John Francis Templeson (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Karabakh was firmly de facto controlled by Azerbaijan in 1919-1921" - firmly, no. Tenuous, yes. If possible, please introduce some sources to back that statement up. The Sovietization of Azerbaijan in April 1920 destabilized the country and saw the supplanting of administration in the region by Bolshevik forces. "Should we apply the same logic for Turkey and Armenia?" Not always, no. We should be consistent, but we should also judge it on a case by case basis. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Wording

Kindly requesting input from an outside editor who may weigh in on the discussion above about the propriety of using the word "remain" in the main article's body when referring to the region's formal assignation or inclusion within the borders of a newly-created republic over what I contend is a far more neutral formulation ("included").

In its bare essence, I argue that there is no doubt that Karabakh did not belong to either Armenia or Azerbaijan in the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the Russian Empire (1918). Armenia (and the local Karabakh Armenians) fought over the territory with Azerbaijan (just like they fought over nearby regions Zangezur and Nakhichevan) and its status was hardly settled when the Soviets established control over both republics in 1920. Neither had firm, legally recognized borders until the imposition of the Soviet settlement (these were supposed to be fixed at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, but the Allied Powers never got around to it). In fact, local Armenians chafed at the imposition of an Azerbaijani regime that never established firm roots in the region (even launching an unsuccessful rebellion to topple it) and which is why I argue the word "remain" is highly misleading and inappropriate in this context. I contend my suggestion is far more neutral and faithful to the facts, i.e., saying "inclusion" since from 1918-1921 the region did not have any international legal recognition as belonging to one country or another and that its status was only formalized by the central Soviet administration. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

When formalising the status of Karabakh, the central Soviet administration specifically mentioned that the region should remain within Azerbaijan (here is a scan of the 1921 decision, see the selected paragraph and the word оставить). Hovannisian (1971) and Saparov (2012), who give a detailed chronological overview of the political situation in Karabakh in 1918-1921, following the break-up of the Russian Empire, also confirm that Azerbaijan maintained control over Karabakh since June 1918, as manifested by the continuous presence of its military force as well as a governor based in the province capital of Shusha. Relying on "international recognition" when there are sources clearly using the word "remain" constitutes OR, as not every conflict is reacted to by the international community and one certainly cannot invent such reactions. In any event, international recognition has never been a factor in AA2 articles in determining whether a party exercised control over a territory or not; why should it be one now? Parishan (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I would highly advise anyone interested in these topics to obtain access to Tsutsiev's (2014) excellent Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus. Published by Yale University Press and obtainable at De Gruyter,[22] it includes a very detailed outlook on the Caucasus from the 18th century onwards, including dozens of maps related to the conquests in the area and the demographics of the region. This includes a map on the situation in Karabakh/Transcaucasia in 1918-1920. I can post some excerpts, but not the maps unfortunately:

Chapter: "1920: The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and Soviet Russia" page 71

• "In western Transcaucasia the granting of territories to the Ottoman Empire under the provisions of the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Batum was annulled and the Southwestern Caucasus Republic was abolished, its territory divided between Armenia and Georgia. The majority of districts densely populated by Armenians in Mountain (Nagorny) Karabakh formally remained under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan but were actually controlled by the local Armenian National Council. (Nagorny means “mountainous” or “highland” in Russian. Lowland Karabakh, on the other hand, was settled mostly by Turkic-speaking [Azeri] groups. The designations of “Mountain” and “Lowland” Karabakh here reflect the political fragmentation of the territory along ethnic lines during 1918–1921.) In 1919 Azerbaijan lost control of Sharur and Daralagez and, temporarily, of Nakhichevan. Zangezur had been occupied by Armenian troops in 1918."

page 73:

• "Nakhichevan District and the mountain portions of Shusha and Jevanshir Districts (part of Mountain Karabakh)—also claimed by Armenia, but mostly under the military control of Azerbaijan until March 1920. There was a preliminary agreement in effect between August 1919 and March 1920 in Mountain Karabakh reached through British mediation between the government of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and the local Armenian National Council granting Azerbaijan provisional jurisdiction until a final decision (which never came) on the status of the territory at the Paris Peace Conference."

• "During March and April 1920 an Armenian rebellion in Karabakh was accompanied by the introduction of Armenian Republic troops and the short-term incorporation of the area into Armenia. But on 28 April Azerbaijan came under Soviet control, and a new period began in the region’s history, one in which the Transcaucasian elite’s “national interests” were forced to harmonize with the geopolitical strategy of Soviet Russia, “the bridgehead of world revolution.” The fate of the Azerbaijan Republic was sealed by the RSFSR’s critical dependence on supplies of oil from Baku, which gained new importance during the war between Soviet Russia and Poland. Although it was losing its independence, Azerbaijan was gaining an important ally in its territorial confl icts with Armenia, whose troops were now confronting the Red Army. By August 1920 the army had occupied Mountain Karabakh, Zangezur, and Nakhichevan. The Soviets’ occupation of these areas did not predetermine any particular resolution of territorial disputes, but the boundaries of zones under military control were clearly considered probable “final” borders. Moscow again became the main force shaping the region’s political map. The Bolsheviks’ interest in partnership with Kemalist Turkey brought with it a growing role for Ankara in determining the borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In March 1921, under the Treaty of Moscow between Turkey and Soviet Russia, not only were new external borders established for Transcaucasia but a portion of its internal borders as well. This is when the autonomous Nakhichevan Territory (made up of the Sharur and Nakhichevan Districts) was proclaimed to be “under the protection” of the Azerbaijan Soviet Republic."

Chapter: "1920: Partition of the Republic of Armenia". page 76

• "The territory of Mountain (Nagorny) Karabakh was still under dispute in 1921: the Russian Communist Party’s Caucasus Bureau, the Soviet party-state office in charge of deciding territorial questions in the Caucasus, could not decide how to apportion it. In the end the Bolshevik leaders made their decision guided by their strategy of “gaining allies of the October Revolution among the peoples of the East”: the Kemalist regime was seen as a potential conduit for the export of anti-imperial revolution to the Muslim world. Armenia lacked any comparable geopolitical weight to equal Muslim solidarity with Soviet Russia. As a result, Mountain Karabakh remained inside Azerbaijan. But the decision featured a compromise (a result of the influence of yet another Bolshevik guiding principle—the right of peoples to self-determination): within the territory of the upland portion of Karabakh there was to be an autonomous province (oblast)—a place of Armenian self-determination within the boundaries of Soviet Azerbaijan."

- LouisAragon (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It would appear, per Tsutsiev (including the maps in the book), that the area was not under continuous Azerbaijani military control. However, when it all ended, the area apparently "remained" within Azerbaijan rather than being "included". - LouisAragon (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Tsutsiev is much less reliable than Hovannisian and Saparov, who worked with archival materials. If the military control of Azerbaijan lasted "until March 1920", this could not have taken place. Parishan (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Tsutsiev is much less reliable than Hovannisian and Saparov (...)"

Do you have sources (such as reviews) for this claim? If not, its WP:OR. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have sources showing that Tsutsiev is a specialist of ancient history who has not published a single paper on the South Caucasus and barely on anything other than ancient Ossetia. What exactly makes him a specialist on the contemporary Karabakh conflict that would make him match Hovannisian and Saparov? Even we insist that is a reliable source, he still uses the word "remain", which is what has triggered this RfC. Parishan (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You may bring it to WP:RSN if you think a source published by Yale University Press[23] and lauded/hailed by the likes of George Bournoutian (review) and Francis King (review) is "unreliable" or "less reliable" than XYZ. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Use "remained". The original document, which is by a third-party, uses "remained", they wouldn't have used that for no reason. And the term "included" can easily be interpreted as part of a wide-spread propaganda campaign that claims the region was "given"/"gifted" to Azerbaijan. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 05:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Use "remained" but add more context Reliable sources generally use the word "remained", but I get MarshallBagramyan's point. IMO, additional context clarification should be added in addition to a map illustrating the situation at the time. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggested a more nuanced wording in the above section yet even that proposal was spurned and ridiculed as dubious. The very propaganda CuriousGolden frets about holds its equal if not greater analogue among those individuals and groups that believe that Armenians have never had any genuine claims to Karabakh (hence the implication in saying "remain"). Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment per LouisAragon's explanation and sources, the section should probably be expanded. If this isn't enough to solve the issue, the wording can be further discussed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Artsakh status wording

My apologies @Armeniangigachad, I accidentally hit the "enter" button before I could finish typing the edit summary. What I was trying to explain was that because Artsakh is a state unrecognised by any UN member-state currently, the wording "limited recognition" without distinction isn't accurate and may misinform readers regarding its international recognition. There was actually a discussion regarding this wording on the talk page of Artsakh, I'd advise you to have a look at that. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 06:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Olympian, thank you for the constructive explanation! Best, – Աշոտ (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)