Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 12 May 2005

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives: 1, 2

CIA Factbook suggets

Armenia and Azerbaijan began fighting over the area in 1988; the struggle escalated after both countries attained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. By May 1994, when a cease-fire took hold, Armenian forces held not only Nagorno-Karabakh but also a significant portion of Azerbaijan proper. The economies of both sides have been hurt by their inability to make substantial progress toward a peaceful resolution. Turkey imposed an economic blockade on Armenia and closed the common border because of the Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas.

Before we start any problems with above text? --Cool Cat 07:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Categories are temporary, everything is more than likely to move around significantly. History category will probably be in a timeline format. --Cool Cat 08:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I want to hear arguments. PLEASE summerise. I do not want to see 150 Kb posts, lets discuss slowly.

Initial assesments

While my views are unimportant regarding the article, I placed comments places which I want you to start discussing the matter. --Cool Cat 08:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat’s mediation initiative

Coolcat, thanks for your initiative. In principle, I do not mind you or any other third and neutral party mediating between parties in order to make the final Nagorno-Karabakh page as complete and neutral as possible. However, let me remind you that my earlier appeal to mediation was rejected by Rovoam (btw, in rather rude terms). (). So, if he didn't accept mediation then, I do not see a reason why he would accept mediation now.

Moreover, Rovoam's actions, his personal insults and vandalisms have created totally new circumstances, which convinced me that we cannot achieve any progress if we choose Rovoam as a party to mediation or discussion. My case against Rovoam is still being considered by the ArbCom () but one thing is already clear: this person completely discredited himself by blatant vandalisms, personal attacks and threats. I do not expect anything positive from a person who vandalized many Azerbaijan-related pages and then said: "Try block my IP address! Try! I will get another one. Plus, I will bring here a hundred friends from all over the world. I will destroy the idea of Misplaced Pages!" () And this is just only one example of his numerous outrageous words and deeds...

In short, I do not mind mediation in principle, but I do not accept Rovoam as a party to this mediation. I expect that ArbCom should block him for a long period of time as a punishment for his actions. In fact he was blocked, but then was unblocked to be able to present evidences in his defense (which he did not).

I would very much prefer to discuss the page content development with User:Aramgutang, an Armenian editor in Misplaced Pages, who unlike Rovoam is very moderate. I also welcome any other editors, whether Armenian, Azeri, pro-Armenian, pro-Azeri or neutral, who would demonstrate good will and intentions to proceed further. However, one important point that needs to be made here is that any subsequent discussion should not be started from scratch. This means that any subsequent discussion should take into consideration and benefit from previous 200-page-long discussions which contain lots of factual material and arguments from the various parties involved. If we do not keep up to this principle, we will get stuck in endless,fruitless and confusing discussions, which would provide excellent grounds for various propaganda pushing. --Tabib 11:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I picked him because his nick registered in the discussion, I welcome any parties who wants to get involved. I want to make both sides talk to each other and come up with common gorunds. If he learend his leson that vanalising is bad for health he is welcome to return, else I will handle him. --Cool Cat 17:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I would be quite willing to constructively debate the issue with Tabib or anyone else, however I have recently been finding myself very short of time I can allocate for Misplaced Pages, and I probably won't be able to contribute to this discussion much for at least a week or so. I'm happy to see that the debate is moving in a more organised and constructive fashion now, thanks to Coolcat, and the actual N-K article looks acceptable for Misplaced Pages, even if far from perfect. --Aramգուտանգ 05:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Aram. I agree with you that the current version although certainly not perfect, is acceptable for both sides. Certainly, it can be enriched with further information. If you have some proposals on additions, editions or changes to the already existing paragraphs and/or formulations, please, share them with us in the talkpage. I will be more than glad to hear from you. --Tabib 11:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Starting from scratch.

Can you spit out already established concensious for me? The archives are a big mess... I prefer this format, also include who suggested the argumnent who supported who was against it. I also want your counterpart to confirm the concensius you suggested so as not to have a later conflict. --Cool Cat 21:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, I want to reiterate my earlier argument once again: "Starting from scratch" is out of question. I've spent too much time, efforts and nerves on this page, and starting from scratch would be a disrespect to me and also to other editors, who contributed so far to this discussion. Moreover, discarding all previous discussions would be a big mistake namely for the reasons I explained above (last paragraph). Unfortunately, no consensus was reached and could not be reached between me and Rovoam in previous discussions. But, I believe, eventually certain consensus was reached at least between me and other editors, who supported me in my struggle against Rovoam. Most importantly, we with User:Aramgutang both agree that the article as it is today is "acceptable to both sides", although not perfect). My suggestion to you Coolcat, would be to read through the earlier discussion to better understand the topic and the actions needed to be taken. You may also find it useful to look at the ArbCom evidences againts Rovoam to better understand how the conflict with Rovoam and me along with the rest of the editors started (). --Tabib 11:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

By starting from scratch I mean that you and old parties to forget older hostilities and dont refer back to those. vandalist people ofcourse is a different matter. Is there anything in the archives that needs to be added to the article? --Cool Cat 07:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) I was also asking this to make sure nothing was lost during the constant vandal attacks. --Cool Cat 07:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How to discuss

Please use the folowing color code and indention, this will make it easier for all parties. Each argument should be a seperate category. User:Coolcat/mediat

Please allow me to edit the article based on what we agree here.

I will not add anything on my own. How about either party present their case here? --Cool Cat 01:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You will not moderate this discussion, neither any discussions involing Armenians, Turks, Azeris, Greeks, Kurds etc. Your impartiality has been highly questioned by countless numbers of Wikipedians, respect us. Fadix 22:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat is not the only person whose impartiality could be *highly questioned*. Let's hold on to Wikiquette--Tabib 04:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The differences here is that his impartiality is "highly questioned" by many Wikipedians. Only a real mediator having the task to mediate should mediate such entries, and not people that want to dissolve articles. Fadix 14:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will have to agree with fadix on this one. His involvement with related articles particularly where neutrality and accuracy disputes have popped up some due to him, shows he is not suitable. Meok 02:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article should be correct regardless of what we agreed or disagreed

What's wrong with existing (current) version of the article:

• The very first sentence states that Karabakh is the part of Azerbaijan. This is simply misleading and is not true. The status of Karabakh is not yet determined and it is the main subject of negotiation between Armenians and Azeri. As a matter of fact, Karabakh was only part of the Soviet Azerbaijan, but Soviet Azerbaijan no longer exists.

• The historical name is Artsakh (Armenian: Արցախ). This is the Armenian name, not just referred to by Armenians, as incorrectly stated in the article. Other names are "Urtehke" or "Urtehini" (as in Urartianian cuneiform writings); Khachen, Small Suinik, etc., etc. The name Karabakh for the first time is mentioned in XIV century (in the Georgian annals of XIV century "Kartlis Tskhovreba" - Life of Georgians in Gergian).

• The history section is totally incorrect and needs to be re-written completely. Armenians can present impressing number of neutral sources which testify, that Armenians prevailed in region during more than millennia. However, the article incorrectly states that Nagorno-Karabakh was one of the historical parts of Aghbania, or Caucasian Albania. But Strabo (born 63 BC or 64 BC, died ca. 24 AD) mentions Orhistene among the Armenian provinces (as well as Phavneni and Kombiseni). Claudius Ptolemaeus (Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαίος; c. 85 – c. 165) in his "Geography" informs, that "Great Armenia is located from the north to a part of Colchida, Iberia and Albania alone the line, which goes through the river Kir (Kura)" (see: Ptolemaeus Claudius, "Geography", V, XII). Plinius Secundos (23–79 AD, better known as Pliny the Elder) writes, that "the tribe of Albanians settled on the Caucasian mountains, reaches … the river Kir making border of Armenia and Iberia" (see Plinius the Second, "The Natural history ", VI, 39). See, for example, Pliny the Elder, The Natural History (eds. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S., H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A.).

• The article states that the Albanian Church was under Gregorianization influence in the 7th and 8th centuries (during Arabian ruling). This is complete nonsense! The Albanians adapted Christianity due to the activity of St Gregory the Illuminator (just as Armenians), and for this reason they were called Gregorians and they were always very close to the Armenian Church (both Churches were non-Chalcedonian as they both refused to accept teaching of Council of Chalcedon). Contrary to what is stated in the article, Albanian Church broke its relationship with Armenian Church when some Armenians bishops attempted (in 590 AD) to accept Council of Chalcedon... Later (in 704 AD ) similar attempt was made by Albanian bishop Nerses Bakur (688 — 704 AD), but that was not successful either.

• The article about Aghbania, or Caucasian Albania is also incorrect, as it was edited by pro-Azeri users, like User:Tabib. I don't care about pro-Azeri or pro-Armenian point of view, but I would like to avoid historically incorrect statements.

• And yes, it is also true, that there was a time when Artsakh became part of Caucasian Albania. After Armenia was devided between Rome and Iran (in 387 AD.) Artsakh (and also part of Paitakaran) has been attached to Aghbania (which itself became a Persian province). Since then this expanded Albania (known as Arran) came to existence (Persian and Arabian Arran, Georgian Er-Ran), which included the major part of the territory of modern Azerbaijan Republic. However, the area was still rulled by local branch of Parphianian dynasty of Arshakids - the same dynasty, which also rulled in Armenia for centuries.

• The conflict itself is very well described (from the neutral point of view) in the Sovereignty after Empire Self-Determination Movements in the Former Soviet Union. Case Studies: Nagorno-Karabakh. -Publication of the United States Institute of Peace among other conflicts in the former Soviet Union (Osetia, Abhazia, etc.), and it needs to be referrenced as well.

• Please see:
  • • Sovereignty after Empire Self-Determination Movements in the Former Soviet Union. Case Studies: Nagorno-Karabakh. -Publication of the United States Institute of Peace
    • Pliny the Elder, The Natural History (eds. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S., H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A.)

Rovoam 07:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Whew! I've just read through 3 pages of pettiness, because I was trying to find out information about this subject from the wikipedia! I thought wikipedia existed for people like me, who wanted to find out facts! All pettiness aside, the above list by Rovoam is a very good list of the problems that cause one side to have a dispute with this article. I think we should deal with these points one by one and try to find out if either side has any merit.

• 1) Is it misleading to call N-K "part of Azerbaijan"? In terms of international recognition, no. In terms of majority population (culturally), perhaps. In terms of de fact military presence, yes. So the answer appears to be "yes and no". I think the article as it stands now already does a fair job of making all this clear to a neophyte like myself. So I wouldn't recommend any change on this point.

• 2) Everything listed here seems to be covered already in the present article (maybe it was added in since the 2nd April, when he wrote the above, but it's there now).

• 3) Both sides seem to agree that the area was part of Armenia as of 95 BC. Who had it before that, and when, is really the factual history dispute about this page. (I know this is not directly relevant to the other dispute on the ground today). One side alleges that it was populated by Albanian tribes prior to 95 BC. The other side came up with a historical reference that it was Armenian from 600 BC, i.e. about as long as there has been an Armenia. Armenia's indirect predecessor, Urartu, apparently did NOT control the region before that. In fact, I have researched plenty of historical evidence that the Kura-Araxes valley was called Arran before that, and was probably the original homeland of the Medes and Indo-Aryans. I would be very interested to know if anyone can tell us more specifically, what do the Urartean inscriptions say about "Urtehke" and "Urtehini"? Was it used as the name of a neighboring country? Was it a vassal paying tribute to Urartu? Who can tell us?

• 4) On this point, I am inclined to agree with those who find it offensive to speak of "Gregorianization" of the Albanian Church by the Arabs or the Armenian Church, considering that St. Gregory founded both the Albanian and the Armenian Churches in the first place. The term "Gregorianization" and such like should therefore be avoided and rejected on account of its offensive potential. Rovoam's account above of how the Churches split and dyophysitism crept into each Church at various times but never prevailed, seems to be the truth. So by the time the 2 Churches were reunited (evidently from Arab pressure), there was nothing seperating them doctrinally anyway, as both ended up remaining monophysite.

• 5) This should be discussed on the other talk pages for those articles

• 6) Rovoam here concedes that Artsakh was Albanian in 387 AD. But in fairness, I think it has been amply demonstrated that the area was constantly reverting between Armenia and Albania, both before and after that time, probably going all the way to 600 BC.

• 7) Rovoam suggests an additional link he claims is NPOV; I haven't visted it, but as long as it really is NPOV, we may as well include it on the page if it isn't already there.

I'm just a user trying to be impartial, please don't anyone get petty with me if you don't like something I said. But if you find merit in the above suggestions, I suggest they be implemented to resolve the edit dispute to everyone's satisfaction, or at least in such a way that anonymous parties don't keep reverting or vandalizing the page out of frustration. signed, Codex Sinaiticus 20:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom's Final Decision: Tabib vs Rovoam & Baku Ibne/Osmaonoglou/LIGerasimova

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

ArbCom's has finally issued its decision on two-months-long dispute between me and Rovoam, as well as me and Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou/LIGerasimova.

Please see, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Baku_Ibne,_et_al.#Final_decision --Tabib 18:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

...

As long as there are national POV pushers in Misplaced Pages, it is obvious that some will lose their patiences and lose control. If one takes off rovoam abuses and personal attacks, in what regards material informations, he understood better than you what NPOV was all about. And as I see, your POV push at Turkey entry isen't much better. I always thought that you were not the innocent you were trying to picture. But this is I. Fadix 04:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is your personal viewpoint, Fadix. I won't argue with you. --Tabib 12:26, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib. Do you have a counterpart for this article? --Cool Cat 01:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer term *partner*. I have a partner for this article - User:Aramgutang. See, & --Tabib 04:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Although I find the term "partner" slightly inappropriate, I concur that me and Tabib have plans to work on the article together. Unfortunately, my academic load has been preventing me from starting the process in the past week or so. I was hoping that I would have the time during this past weekend, but alas I still haven't finished the projects I'm working on. I haven't even had the time to go through, wikify and un-POV the Khojaly genocide article, recently created by an anonymous user. --Aramգուտանգ 05:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A quick googling reveals that the Khojaly genocide article is copied verbatum from . Also, I believe Khojaly tragedy or Khojaly massacre are more appropriate names for the article. --Aramգուտանգ 05:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just moved it to Khojaly massacre.--Tabib 06:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Minute differences in wording

Peace and Greetings to all readers,

• I'm not going to quibble about the minor changes, that mean basically the same thing. I only adopted some of Rovoam's phrasing in an attempt to appease him, so that he might stop vandalising the page. But seeing that didn't work and he refuses to be civilised, go ahead and keep it your way (Tabib). I don't see where the differences amount to a hill of beans as far as POV is concerned. The real differences are what I addressed above on this page in section 9 entitled "The article should be correct regardless of what we agreed..."

Not that it matters, but I confess I don't see what is incorrect about saying "The NKR's sovereign status is not yet recognised by any country in the world." Maybe you were assuming that the English word "yet" implies that it someday will be; however, it does not necessarily imply this. Alternative ways to say the same thing in English would be:

• It still hasn't been recognised
• It hasn't been recognised so far
• It hasn't been recognised as of now
• It hasn't been recognised up until the present
• How about "NKR's sovereign status is not (2005) recognised..."
• All of these variants are correct statements of fact, whether NKR ever is recognised, or never is. None of them imply anything about the future or express any POV regardless. So, keeping the little word "yet" just to humour Rovoam would have been (I think) a harmless concession; but that's all a moot point now, obviously R. is still being childish and unwilling to meet anyone halfway, so he's just lost any credibility or sympathy I might have been willing to give him. Codex Sinaiticus 14:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Codex, I am grateful to you for your involvement in several Azerbaijan and Karabakh-related pages, particularly Caucasian Albania and Artsakh, and I fully share with you the views about Rovoam. However, having a long history of interaction with Rovoam, I can say that this person cannot be stopped by "appeasing". The "yet" word has been discussed yet in the earliest discussions and has been accepted by all including User:Davenbelle, User:Aramgutang and myself as POV (se for ex. Davenbelle's and my comments. Nevertheless, I would actually gladly accept this "yet" word if I knew that Rovoam would stop from his POV pushing, vandalism and trolling. Unfortunately, I know Rovoam too well, and I know that he would not stop on this. The only way to stop this person is firm position by several editors, who would be at least as much persistent as him in fighting his vandalism and trolling.--Tabib 06:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

On User:RaffiKojian’s edit and removal of a paragraph

I formally object User:RaffiKojian’s recent edit in which Raffi removed (commented out) a number of accurate historical facts and introduced some formulations which do not correspond to Misplaced Pages NPOV standarts.

Moreover, as stated above, this is a *controversial topic* and anyone should read the previous talks and discuss his proposed changes before introducing substantial changes.

Raffi has commented out (virtually deleted) the following paragraph

Despite the fact that the Ottomans were defeated in the course of World War I, Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was recognized in 1919 by the Allies, who recognized Khosrov-bey Sultanov (appointed by the Azerbaijan government) as general-governor of Karabakh. Whereas Azerbaijan commended this decision as a recognition of its rights to the territory, the Armenian side criticized it, arguing that this decision was made because of the Allies' economic interests in the oil fields near Azerbaijan's capital, Baku.

This paragraph is absolutely accurate and neutral and Raffi’s removal of this paragraph is unacceptable.

Before elaborating further on this, I want to inform you and everyone else, that the comment “Possible propaganda” was introduced by User:Coolcat (see, diff link here), who although had good intentions but unfortunately did not have enough knowledge of the issue. I regret that I did not address this erroneous comment then, because I refrained from unilateral un-agreed edits.

Anyway, now I think it is proper time to address the issue of Allies’ de-facto recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan in 1919.

In order to make my arguments more evidently, I will rely mostly on what Armenian sources themselves say about this issue.

Below are excerpts from the Armenian web-site:

"...On January 15, 1919 the Azerbaijani government "having notified the British command staff" appointed Khosrovbek Sultanov General-Governor of Nagorno Karabakh and simultaneously issued an ultimatum to the Karabakh National Council demanding acceptance of Azerbaijani rule..." (under ‘Karabakh’ this site implies only *Karabakh Armenian* “National Council”, Karabakh Azeris, which constituted the majority in Karabakh at that time, are not included here)

"On February 21, 1919, the National Council received a telegram from General Thomson — Commander-in-Chief of the British army in Baku with the demand to recognize the authority of Azerbaijan over Karabakh."

"...On April 23, 1919 British General Shattelvort (subsequently — Commander of British troops in Baku) arrived in Shushi . During negotiations with Chairman of Karabakh National Council A.Shakhnazarian and Shushi municipal head G.Shakhnazarian Shattelvort stated, — "I warn you that any excess against Azerbaijan is a move against England. We are strong enough to make you obey us" (1). The fifth Congress of Armenians of Karabakh convoked at that time rejected this ultimatum."

"On August 26, 1919, under strong British pressure, the VII Congress of Karabakh concluded a temporal agreement with the Government of Azerbaijan. According to this treaty Nagorno Karabakh would be temporarily within Azerbaijan until the issue of the mountainous part of Karabakh would be settled at the Peace (Paris) Conference(2). The agreement did not change the status of Nagorno Karabakh, which preserved the status of an independent political unit. This agreement became one of the reasons that the League of Nations put the issue of Nagorno Karabakh on the agenda of the Paris Peace Conference(3)."

And here’s another paragraph, which falsely depicts the history in such as way as if the British recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan only because of their oil (whereas it was much more complex than that):

"This time the government of Azerbaijan tried to seize Nagorno Karabakh with the aid of the British. The British soon announced that new state borders could not be established in the Transcaucasus without their consent, which would take place at the Paris Peace Conference. In the meantime, the British worked to make Nagorno Karabakh a part of Azerbaijan. By establishing total control over the Baku oil supply, the British worked to separate the Transcaucasus from Russia once and for all. Their goal was to make Azerbaijan the outpost of the West in South Caucasus and thus end further Sovietization in the region."

The Armenian source above is certainly not a "pro-Azeri" by recognizing these facts. In fact it is evidently pro-Armenian and by its false formulations and interpretations, tries by all means possible to diminish the role of the historical fact that Allies in fact have recognized Karabakh as a de-facto part of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (1918-1920). Btw, this republic was one of the three republics (the other two being Armenian and Georgian Democratic Republics) which emerged following the collapse of the Russian Empire at the end of the World War I. These countries were never recognized de jure but they were recognized de facto by the Supreme Council of the League of Nations.

In short, the removal by User:RaffiKojian of the above mentioned paragraph was not only unexplained, but also unsubstantiated and erroneous. I call him and everyone else, not to introduce unilateral un-agreed and one-sided changes. Bearing in mind that this is a controversial topic, one should first read the talkpage, then make his case, and only after that introduce his edits. This is the only way which could bring to some positive results. I appeal to Raffi and everyone else, lets behave honestly and in a civilized manner and not allow vandals like Rovoam to poison the atmosphere of discussion here. --Tabib 17:38, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Raffi's edits and his usage of the inside page comments (using it virtually as talkpage) was so confusing that only now I noticed the POV paragraph he introduced while removing the initial NPOV one, which I showed above:

Here is this paragraph:

The Armenian General Andranik held this territory quite firmly, and the British convinced him to peacefully leave assuring him of a favorable outcome. He did, and they unilaterally handed it to Azerbaijan . The population at the time of GREATER Karabakh was solidly Armenian.

I do not want to sound impolite, but this is a distortion of historical facts. General Andranik was not "convinced" by the British to "leave" Karabakh, but was actually *demanded* by the British to remove his troops from Karabakh.

Moreover, Raffi either lies or is deeply incompetent over the issue when he says that the population of "GREATER Karabakh" as he puts it, "was solidly Armenian". Population of Karabakh (i.e. with mountainous and lowland parts, what Raffi refers to as "Greater") was always predominantly Azeri, and also population of mountainous Karabakh up to 1923 was predominantly Azeri as well. This issue has been sufficiently discussed before in my discussions/disputes with User:Rovoam and USer:Fadix. Se, for example, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive2#Another_attempt_at_manipulation_with_the_historical_facts, see, On historical demographics of Karabakh (again) --Tabib 18:50, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Which “discussed?” I don't consider the action of dismissing me as another “Armenian editor” or accusing me of fabrication, and then sending me links there and here, to show I am “supporting” Rovoam to discredit me, as something that could be considered as “discussed.” Fadix 03:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

How convenient for you Tabib.

That Nagorno Karabakh was temporarily placed in the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan, there is no doubt was the result of the British wanting to maintain their hands on the oilfield in Baku. Urquhart is enough evidence there.

Besides, can you be glad to show me any documents attesting that Nagorno Karabakh was recognized by the allies as a part of Azerbaijan(actually, it was quite the contrary), and not a temporary jurisdiction until there is a drawing of borders? And besides, when did the League of nations during that time, ever recognized it being part of Azerbaijan, in fact, they even refused to recognize it, did they change their mind later? If so, can you be glad to provide me any documents for that?

As for the temporary decision, those temporary decisions would never have been what they were, if the British were to know what was to happen in the future. Because the British predicted Armenia to contain parts of what was called the Armenian villeyets(Eastern Ottoman), and still the borders of Kurdistan were still not well traced. In fact, even in the Soviet times Karabakh was tried as a Red Kurdistan.

Temporary measures are not final decisions, if they are, please do show us documents attesting to it. What happened was that the British have redrawn from there, and America did not honor its promise to secure an Armenia.

In fact, that is so true, that when Armenia lost all those lands, and the Kemalists comploted with the Bolshevics to place Karabakh in the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan, later the Soviet tried to back peddle, and even Azerbaijan has recognized it as part of Armenia, before the decision was reversed.

When were the Wilsonian map or Sevres Treaty placed in application, giving lands to Armenia? From those proposition, I see in the map that what follow the Lachin corridor is one of the propositions of it being incorporated to Armenia. Explain me Tabib, since according to you, the allies recognized it part of Azerbaijan, how come the Eastern borders were not drawn?

Talking of allied recognition, yeh right.

So Tabib, if the allies recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, the allies recognized many other lands as part of Armenia... and they were unlike Karabakh not temporary decisions, BUT final decisions. If that is not so, please do show me any evidences for the contrary.

The only reason why the Soviet placed Nakhitchevan and Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, was because the Armenians rebelled against the Soviet rule in February 1921, and Armenian managed to be independent for nearly a month, before that, in December 1920, Karabakh was given to Armenia, and this recognized by Narimanov, the commissary of foreign affairs of Azerbaijans revolutionary committee reporting their decision.

In short, if you want to read few manipulations, go read your own manipulations, like your manipulation or/and distortion of statistics by trying to pass Karabakh as Nagorno Karabakh, or many such distortions recycled by ultra nationalist so-called historians close to Aliev dictatorial propaganda machine, and then finding excuses such as “nomadic Azeris.” While the Turks stopped believing in Ataturks Sun theories(at least a good portion of the population), it seems that Azerbaijan is still after national mythologies.

It seems as well, that you are a follower of Ziya Buniatov, that was the head of Azerbaijans Academy of sience, who has manipulated various old works(in German, Russian etc.), deleting words “Armenia” and “Armenians” in his translations.

Oh and, I have just visited the Arran entry, isn't it amazing that each time I visit entries you got involved, I read nonsense and historical manipulations?

Oh and, I expect being answered by intimidations and words like “liar” “another Armenian editor.” Fadix 03:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

My reply.--Tabib 06:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I had no idea the page was about to get suddenly locked, and it did while I was in the middle of playing around with the beginning and ending of the comment indicators. Raffi had commented out the entire provocative sentence and left it as a comment; if you look at the history you can see where he actually wrote a good deal more that was far less neutral, and I tried to put selected parts of it into the body of the actual article text, in order to work with it - then it inadvertently got frozen that way. So I apologize to all for any trouble I may have stirred up without meaning to. That should teach me not to mess with people's comments. Humbly yours, Codex Sinaiticus 03:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Codex, thanks for this message. It is an important note, because some (esp. those who are not involved closely with this entry) may perceive the fact that you edited after Raffi and left his comments intact as implicit support for his edits. So, thanks for bringing clarity to this point.

I agree with you fully that Raffi’s edits were far from being neutral and impartial. However, I would not term the paragraph that he removed (which I showed in my message above) as “provocative”. It is “provocative” only to those who do not want to accept the history as it is, who want to distort by all means possible the fact and deny the fact that Allies did in fact recognize Karabakh as a de-facto part of Azerbaijan. Moreover, this paragraph was there for long period of time (for more than a year -!), i.e. even before I came to Misplaced Pages. It underwent only minor changes since then, but the factual part of it (i.e. recognition of Karabakh as a de facto part of Azerbaijan by the Allies) remained intact. Therefore, Raffi’s removal of this paragraph and replacing it with a POV is unacceptable. I will insist on restoration of that paragraph and removing Raffi’s POV edits.--Tabib 06:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Rovoam has gone beyond the pale and is reverting simply to make some kind of point . Because he is virtually unblockable and rather obsessive, I have protected this article and quite a few others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony's protection, request for restoring the NPOV paragraph

Tony, is there a way for you to restore the initial NPOV paragraph removed by User:RaffiKojian? I have explained my concerns about his edit above. Since the page was protected, I have restored this paragraph simultaneously keeping subsequent helpful edits by User:Codex Sinaiticus under User:Tabib/Nagorno-Karabakh. Please, see if you find my request to put that NPOV version appropriate/possible.

Also, please, look at the Nagorno-Karabakh entry and you'll see that Raffi himself introduced his POV paragraph in such a way which even visually doesn't incorporate itself into the remaining text.

Just for records: Tony has protected a whole bunch of pages, which underwent Rovoam's vandalisms including Caucasian Albania, Artsakh, Azerbaijan, Arran (Azerbaijan), Safavids, Turkey, Urartu. This was definitely a needed action and has my full support.--Tabib 19:08, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

On User:Fadix and his accusations

"...My impression is that despite Fadix’s declaration that he is “done with this entry”, I will have to endure his continuous posts, whether relevant or irrelevant to the subject matter, for quite a long time. So, we will have time for further elaborations if needed.

(from my post dated Mar 12, 2005 )

Looks like I was not wrong in my guess. User:Fadix once again advances his ungrounded comments and accusations and definitely is not “done” with this entry.

As I have repeatedly insisted, I do not want to turn the talkpage into a personal discussion forum, any personal notes should be directed to user talkpages. But once again I have to respond to Fadix in order not to allow him to discredit me and convince others in his false accusations. Recently, I responded to User:Fadix in Talk:Safavids where he introduced a POV edit. Please, see Talk:Safavids#User:Fadix_POV_edit_and_groundless_accusation. To this I would only add that Fadix from his very first message attacked me calling me a “hypocrite” ("I find rather hypocritic from your part to tell us all here how you have proved this or that and how you are attacked..." ). Certainly, such a start and attitude does not allow for normal discussions to proceed. Then I have sufficiently responded to Fadix's allegations in my posts Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive2#Another_attempt_at_manipulation_with_the_historical_facts, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive2#Serious_concern_about_User:Fadix.92s_latent_.28for_now.29_POV_pushing as well as Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive2#Deja_vue:_Fadix_and_Rovoam. That’s it about the history of my (unpleasant) experience with User:Fadix.

Now coming to his allegations regarding the content:

Fadix writes,

That Nagorno Karabakh was temporarily placed in the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan, there is no doubt was the result of the British wanting to maintain their hands on the oilfield in Baku.

Whether it was a temporary decision and what were the intentions of the Allies, these are secondary details. The fact that matters now is that Karabakh was actually recognized as a de facto part of Azerbaijan by the Allies. And Fadix himself cannot escape from denying this fact. Certainly, this was a temporary decision, pending final solution in Peace Conference, as I have sufficiently demonstrated in my previous message. But I already said that the issue is not about de jure recognition but a de facto recognition. Moreover, I have to repeat again that the three Caucasus republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia themselves were not recognized de jure, only de facto by the Supreme Council of the League of Nations.

Fadix writes,

Besides, can you be glad to show me any documents attesting that Nagorno Karabakh was recognized by the allies as a part of Azerbaijan(actually, it was quite the contrary), and not a temporary jurisdiction until there is a drawing of borders? And besides, when did the League of nations during that time, ever recognized it being part of Azerbaijan, in fact, they even refused to recognize it, did they change their mind later? If so, can you be glad to provide me any documents for that?

Again, we see a deliberate attempt at confusing people. Fadix tries to portray my position as if I was saying that Karabakh was recognized by the Allies as part of Azerbaijan de jure. Here I bring the initial paragraph which was deleted by Raffi again:

Despite the fact that the Ottomans were defeated in the course of World War I, Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was recognized in 1919 by the Allies, who recognized Khosrov-bey Sultanov (appointed by the Azerbaijan government) as general-governor of Karabakh. Whereas Azerbaijan commended this decision as a recognition of its rights to the territory, the Armenian side criticized it, arguing that this decision was made because of the Allies' economic interests in the oil fields near Azerbaijan's capital, Baku.

As you see, it’s talking only about de facto recognition. De jure is not mentioned because even Armenia and Azerbaijan themselves were not recognized de jure. Therefore, Fadix simply plays with words, and argues just for the sake of creating a mess and confusion and discrediting me in your eyes. Subsequently, it would be very easy for certain editors to use this confusion and advance their biased POVs.

Further down in Fadix’s post, we see lots of irrelevant to this talkpage comments like, “As for the temporary decision, those temporary decisions would never have been what they were, if the British were to know what was to happen in the future...” (very interesting comment indeed) or “What happened was that the British have redrawn from there, and America did not honor its promise to secure an Armenia.” (complaining about Allies "betraying" Armenia) or “...if the allies recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, the allies recognized many other lands as part of Armenia... and they were unlike Karabakh not temporary decisions, BUT final decisions.” (how so?..) "..many such distortions recycled by ultra nationalist so-called historians close to Aliev dictatorial propaganda machine..." (does it remind you something?..), "It seems as well, that you are a follower of Ziya Buniatov, that was the head of Azerbaijans Academy of sience, who has manipulated..." (talking about an Azeri historian), "...isn't it amazing that each time I visit entries you got involved, I read nonsense and historical manipulations?" (equalling my contributions to nonsense and manipulations) etc etc.

These comments have no relation to the particular issue in question (i.e. Allies’ de facto recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan) and concern mostly the Armenian-Turkish issues, in which Fadix “specializes”.

In short, I ask User:Fadix once again to stop advancing ungrounded accusations on my address. I am prepared to discuss any question regarding this entry with him provided that he focuses not on personal issues but solely on concrete questions relevant to the Nagorno-Karabakh entry. I would also appreciate very much, if Fadix focuses on one issue in a time and do not try to embrace a wide range of issues. This would avoid confusion and facilitate more effective discussions.--Tabib 06:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib, again, I repeat, can you be glad to show me ever where the allies have ever recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan in ANY drawn border(which is what recognition is all about)? Let me remind you Tabib, that the allies DID RECOGNIZE Armenia(de jure) before it was dissolved, the Eastern bordering was still pending, and Wilson has proposed borders, the Peace conference DID HAPPEN, neither the League of Nations, neither at the Peace conference was Karabakh recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Even Azerbaijan has redrawed its claim over it, before Armenian rebelled from the Bolshevics, as an answer the Bolshevics took it away.

The same thing happened before Azerbaijan and Armenia became independent, because of the Armenian independence movement, the Soviet refused to respect the legal proceedings.

In short, Karabakh was never recognized as part of Azerbaijan, by any treaties from the allies, the eastern zone was still pending, temporary accords until the peace conference are NOT recognition. What is recognition is treaties and bodies such as the Peace conference.

Having said that, the claim that the allies recognized (de facto for temporary doesn't apply, since de facto, there was other propositions recognizing it as part of Armenia as well) Karabakh is simply WRONG, and placing it in the article is simply the sort of lies that Azerbaijani Academia of science has forged, and you as their followers, you're good at propgandizing national myths.

Now coming to the first part, Tabib, my comments about you are not ungrounded, while the positions against me comes generally from the genocide entry, because of national denialists, you had at least one person against your position, in each entries you have obsessionly taken over, besides probably the republic of Azerbaijan. You have edited the Armenian genocide entry, the World War I entry(because of course, it refers to the Armenian tragedy), you've been hijacking the Arran entry, and here I dare any Western Historian specializing to the history of Iran and the East, coming here and telling that your work there is true and not pure national propaganda. You've done the same at the Urartu entry, the same in many other entries. You are very badly placed to call me a POV pusher after everything you did, and you well know, as the reader will realize, that my accusation of you as being hypocrite, was rather dissolved, because I did not say you were a hypocrite, but that I find one of your actions rather hypocritic, which is far from being an attack. But yet, I have been accused from you of being a POV pusher(from the beginning), and you have even used my Armenian background to discredit me, and have even claimed I have fabricated a quote, which I did not fabricate.

Those things are wide open for anyone to read. Oh, and I almost forgot the way you have tried to question my integrity, with your pathetic guilt by association attempt, but sorry, it did fail. Fadix 15:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

De facto doesn't mean temporary

De facto recognition doesn't mean the same as "temporary recognition". It means recognising something because it is already a fait accomplis (justly or unjustly) - as opposed to recognising something because it is lawfully accomplished through due process (de jure).

A helpful historical example is the Norman conquest of England in 1066. William, duke of Normandy, asserted his "right" to rule as King of England based on both arguments, that he claimed were equally valid. He claimed to be king de jure, because the crown had been promised to him by Edward the Confessor. He also claimed to be king de facto, by reason of military conquest. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 17:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Which is what I've been saying. The British had a mandate in Karabakh, and were more interested to redraw their men from there, so they placed Karabakh temporarly in the juridiction of Azerbaijan until the peace conference(the only two reasonable reasons why it was not right away placed under the juriction of Armenia, was because they had to secure their oil interest, and because they could not manage a constant men power to secure it), since during that time, the Americans were discussing to replace the British to secure an Armenia. Wilsons proposition was to end up by the drawing of borders only once the Americans were to replace the British, this never happened. This means, that Karabakh was never recognized by the allies, in any possible way as being a part of Azerbaijan at that time. In fact, the decision of temporary measures was completly at the hand of the British, and there are no evidence what so ever, that it was supported by the rest of the allies, the League of Nations for example has completly refused the inclusion of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, and the allies beside the British plan to redraw, were just waiting, because the most possible scenario was self administration. Fadix 18:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

De facto vs. De jure vs. "temporary jurisdiction"

Most of my comments are addressed to User:Fadix, who apparently hastily overreacted by passing off Codex’s comments as support for his POV. I think it is necessary to bring clarity to certain issues.

Codex wrote,

De facto recognition doesn't mean the same as "temporary recognition".

Right, it doesn’t mean the same. But please, pay attention to the formulation: “Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was recognized in 1919 by the Allies” This is a very accurate and balanced depiction indeed. It talks not about some vague recognition but *de facto ownership*.

Furthermore, Codex wrote,

means recognising something because it is already a fait accomplis (justly or unjustly) - as opposed to recognising something because it is lawfully accomplished through due process (de jure).

Again, correct. But this is actually a comparison between de facto and de jure, whereas the real controversy is not on this point but on whether de facto may also mean “temporary”. My argument is that *de facto* may also mean *temporary* in cases when let’s say, some authority/organization adopts temporary decision supporting status quo (e.g. de facto ownership) while simultaneously, deciding to solve the issue in the (near) future. Thus, in our particular case, the Allies recognized that Azerbaijan holds de facto ownership/jurisdiction over Karabakh, they recognized the local general governor Khosrov-bek Sultanov, appointed by the Azerbaijan government and also decided that the final status issue will be solved in the Paris Peace Conference. These are the DRY FACTS. And I can’t understand, how Fadix contrives to deny these facts and manages to confuse you.

I think amidst these word games we get distracted from the essence of the problem. I want to remind everyone that the primary problem I raised was unsubstantiated removal of a paragraph, which was factually correct and rather neutral by User:RaffiKojian and its replacement with a obvious POV and factually inaccurate paragraph. Unfortunately, following Tony’s protection of the page from vandalisms by Rovoam, remained in the page content.

I have already explained in my post above why the paragraph introduced by Raffi was a POV and factually inaccurate. So, this paragraph should be removed in the first place.

As to the initial paragraph, it seems that Fadix himself does not reject the fact that Karabakh was provisionally considered as part of Azerbaijan by the Allies in 1919-1920. It seems that the source of dispute is formulation of the fact rather than the fact itself.

Let’s go step by step:

Fadix prefers the formulation “Nagorno-Karabakh was temporarily placed in the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan”. (at least, that's how he termed this in his post)

I prefer the formulation “Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was recognized in 1919 by the Allies”

Both Fadix and I agree on important issue: the Allies decided that the ultimate status of Karabakh was not determined and was pending final decision in Paris Peace Conference.

We disagree on formulations.

My argument is that de facto is the most correct term, whereas “temporary jurisdiction” is also correct to a certain degree, but also is misleading. Here I agree with Codex, that temporary is not quite the formulation to introduce here.

The problem here is essentially in semantics:

See, if we write, Nagorno-Karabakh was temporarily placed in the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan”, we imply that there was a special decision by the Allies about “placing” Karabakh within Azerbaijan. Whereas everyone, including Fadix, would agree that there was no such decision from the Allies. Allies, simply *recognized* the Azeri government as having de facto control/ownership over the territory. And they also recognized that general governor Khosrov bek Sultanov was the head of the local administration in Karabakh. And this is EXACTLY what the paragraph said when it stated that “Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was recognized in 1919 by the Allies”

Fadix wrote: ... the claim that the allies recognized (de facto for temporary doesn't apply, since de facto, there was other propositions recognizing it as part of Armenia as well) Karabakh is simply WRONG, and placing it in the article is simply the sort of lies that Azerbaijani Academia of science has forged, and you as their followers, you're good at propgandizing national myths.

Fadix, I am not going to respond to your false personal accusations here, but you are simply wrong. It is a fact, that neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan and Georgia were recognized de jure in the Versailles, as I said, these republics were recognized only de facto: a statement by the Supreme Council of the League of Nations on de facto recognition was issued in early 1920.

Also, Fadix probably did not read my posts attentively if he continues to ask:

Tabib, again, I repeat, can you be glad to show me ever where the allies have ever recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan in ANY drawn border(which is what recognition is all about)?

I believe, I have sufficiently addressed this issue by bringing namely Armenian sources which attested that Karabakh was recognized by the Allies as a de facto part of Azerbaijan, and I also clearly stated that this was a *temporary decision* pending final confirmation in Paris Peace Conference. Bringing same questions over and over again does not help the discussion an have a disruptive effect confusing other editors, and forcing me to repeat the same facts and arguments stated before.

Anyway, here's some additional evidence, this time maps:

http://www.hri.org/docs/sevres/map1.html - This is a map of Turkey after Treaty of Sevres (which Turkey never recognized). You can clearly see, that Karabakh area is indicated as part of Azerbaijan. However, most importantly, the map does not contain the border limitations. This makes on think that the borders were not determined de jure but Karabakh was considered as part of Azerbaijan de facto.

http://www.hri.org/docs/sevres/map3.html - Here’s another map concerning Sevres Treaty, which shows the territories “assigned” by President Woodrow Wilson to Armenia (the boundaries clearly exclude Karabakh, although include Nakhichevan)

http://www.atlas-of-conflicts.com/areas/armenia-and-karabakh/maps/armenia-and-turkey.jpg - Here’s another map from Atlas of Conflict web-site. It’s useful but not an academic source.

Also, http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/61_folder/61_articles/61_chronology.html chronology of major events in Azerbaijan in 1918-1920 which also contains a map showing the official borders of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic.

In short, I believe that it is enough to play with words. The facts are there and any attentive reader can make his/her conclusions. I request Tony to remove paragraph by RaffiKojian and restore the paragraph commented out by him.--Tabib 00:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

Tabib: Beneath is the paragraph you want restored, with a couple of amendments I would submit, based on your above conversation. At one point you used the word 'provisionally' - much more apt here than 'temporarily' recognised, so I thought we'd give it a try.

Evidently, from listening to both 'sides', the recognition by the Allies was both provisional AND de facto, so why not spell this out with both terms in the sentence, since each construes a slightly different descriptor?

The second addition I would make is your word-for-word statement above, that you say both you and Fadix agree on: "the Allies decided that the ultimate status of Karabakh was not determined and was pending final decision in Paris Peace Conference" If you agree to this, it might provide some balance if we also spelled that out in the article. So I envisage something like this:

Despite the fact that the Ottomans were defeated in the course of World War I, Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was provisionally recognized in 1919 by the Allies, who recognized Khosrov-bey Sultanov (appointed by the Azerbaijan government) as general-governor of Karabakh. The Allies decided that the ultimate status of Karabakh was not determined and was pending final decision in Paris Peace Conference. Whereas Azerbaijan commended this decision as a recognition of its rights to the territory, the Armenian side criticized it, arguing that this decision was made because of the Allies' economic interests in the oil fields near Azerbaijan's capital, Baku. --Codex Sinaiticus 05:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent Codex! This paragraph is even more NPOV and correct than the one initially I supported (which I did not author by the way). Once again I am grateful to you for your good judgement. This paragraph has my full support.--Tabib 09:03, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib, the Armenian republic of 1919 was recognized DE JURE by the United States of America and the left borders recognized by the Sevres Treaty and the Paris Peace conference, IN TREATIES. Your claim is simply wrong. You show us the Treaty of Sevres and claims that it shows that Karabakh is within Azerbaijan, while it is quite the opposite, since the right sides border was annulled as shown THERE, the annulled border was what was part of the Russian Empire, and the word Armenia extend BEYOND Ottoman Armenia. I Don't see any bordering in the right side that shows that Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan.

The way you present it is simply WRONG. The British had a mandate there, and placing temporary Karabakh in the hand of Azerbaijan, was their sole decision AND NOT the allies, the League of Nations never accepted in ANYWAY, Karabakh as being part of Azerbaijan, be it de facto, de jure or de blabla. Wilsonian Armenia is even clearer there, since a mandate was given to as well secure the region, which clearly show that Karabakh was to NOT be governed by Azerbaijan, and to at the very least get a self governance.

Tabib claims that the Treaty of Sevres was never recognized by Turkey. Oh yeh, like Germany has never recognized the subsequent treaties signed after its defeat, it was the German Reich, or in 1945, it was the third Reich, like any other subsequent French republics before the fifth. Tabib, how well as a master propagandizer you might be, don't adventure in subjects which you ignore, for your own sake. The Ottoman Empire recognized the Western border of Armenia and has signed the Sevres Treaty, on the other hand, the Lausanne Treaty was not signed by Armenia. This is like two people signing a contract to take away your houses, and don't ask for your signature. Do you want me to quote what as a result the president of the League of Nation had to say about those things?

Oh and, there is a differences between the ultimate statue of Karabakh was not determinated, and claimed the allies recognized the de facto... when beside the British, in this decision, no other states being part of the allies took such a decision... in that regard, the closest thing we had of a body recognizing those nations, was the League of Nations, which DID NOT, in anyway recognized it, as part of Azerbaijan. Fadix 15:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Please start again

I've removed a section in which Fadix and Tabib once again engaged in mutual personal attacks, generating more heat than light, on the pretext of discussing the subject of this article.

Please, both of you, consider the aims of this project--to make a better encyclopedia. You must not use this discussion page for the purpose of casting doubt upon one another's good faith--if that is of so much interest to you I suggest you go to RFC or RFAR.

I consider the behavior of both of you to be at present actively detrimental to the project and am close to considering you to be at the point where someone else must take some action. This isn't the case at present. So please, don't let me (and Misplaced Pages) down. Tone down the rhetoric, show some respect for one another, and discuss the article and not one another.

I am not interested in your self-justifications. Please demonstrate that you can treat one another with respect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Since there seems to be quite a lot of pressure to edit this article, I'm unprotecting it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I have restored the NPOV formulation based on suggested paragraph by Codex . But, I ask you and any other admin who may watch this discussion, to continue to keep an eye on this entry and, if necessary, to protect it again.--Tabib 13:05, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics