Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:06, 7 December 2006

To the author of this edit: Does anybody know how to revert edits to en earlier date's version. We have to stop this Grandmaster otherwise he is going to use everything about Shushi as a propaganda. On sept 25 he made changes that remained unnoticed. It was a real vandalism but he did not get blocked. When we armenians try to change something here we get blocked. Who is finally responsible for all this idiotism???? user armenian-nj

According to Azeri sources, the reason for this rapid population growth was not only economic development, but also Russian-sponsored massive Armenian settlement in Karabakh and other parts of Azerbaijan that took place throughout the 19th century. However, this is unlikely because all Armenians in Shusha and all of Karabakh speak an Eastern Armenian dialect whereas Armenians under Ottoman occupation spoke Western Armenian.

According not only to Azeri sources, but also Russian envoy Griboyedov, who described the immigration of Armenians from Persia. Grandmaster 16:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That I accept. They were resettled from Persia. The passage implied they were resettled from Turkish held territories. These are the Armenians who were taken by force from their lands (including Nakhichevan and Karabakh) to Persia by the order of Shah Abbas.

• http://www.iles.umn.edu/faculty/bashiri/Esfahan/Julfa.html
• http://www.littlearmenia.com/html/history/detail.asp?id=129
• http://www.iranchamber.com/people/armenians_in_iran1.php

--Eupator 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

After Turkmanchay treaty Armenians in great numbers were resettled from Persia to Caucasus, there are many evidences of that. For the most part they had nothing to do with those Armenians, who along with Muslims were deported from Caucasus by Shah Abbas 200 years before Karabakh became a part of Russian empire. Resettlement was part of the tsarist Russia’s policy of changing the demographics of the region and increasing the proportion of Christian population. Russia also encouraged migration of Armenians from Turkey for the same reasons, Tabib provided references about that. Grandmaster 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That is the keyword here, they were resettled from Persia. They had nothing to do with Shah Abbas' deportation? How do you think they ended up in Persia in the first place? It was not a Russian policy in regards to Turkey, Armenians of Russia were saving those in Turkey from absolute annihilation. It's as simple as that. It's not like Armenians would leave their territories within Turkey if they had a choice. Not to mention that no Armenian refugee from Ottoman/Western Armenia ever set foot in Artsakh. All Armenians within Artsakh speak and have always spoken Eastern Armenian. The refugees from Turkey settled only in the territory of modern Armenia and Georgia. I will address Tabib's references in due time.--Eupator 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

from 64.208.49.60 Sorry I don't read russian. Did they come from Persia or Ottoman empire because of turkish-russian wars? This argumentation is not clear! Why did you erase the fact that Armenians outnumbered Tatars in 1916 according to russian statistics? How could you say that "The Christian Armeno-Albanian population of Karabakh (which hitorically formed as a result of ethnic mixture of local Caucasus Albanians and Armenians)" and on an other hand "but also Russian-sponsored massive Armenian settlement in Karabakh and other parts of Azerbaijan that took place throughout the 19th century"? The armenian proportion in Shushi population didn't increased from 1885 to 1916 in Shushi. Do you contest that pogroms and massacres was made by turks and azeris soldiers in 1920 against the armenian civilians? Could you demonstrate that "mutual pogroms occured"? Bournoutian has demonstrated the pro-azeri manipulation of russian statistics and manipulation of its own articles by mix-up between Karabagh and Nagorno-Karabagh in order to prove armenian immigration : http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/sas/bour2.html

There's not a single albanian inscription in all Artsakh. Even a pro-Azeri author as Thomas De Waal "Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War" - 2004, who doesn't accept the fact of the armenian genocide in Turkey, recognizes that armenized albanians in Nagorny-Karabagh theory is a complete fabrication by azeri extremists. There's only armenian engravures on old churches and tombstones.

There is an history before 1756 in both Artsakh and Shushi. This page needs an update. See you soon.

There’s no need to repeat the same information many times, it should be included in the article only once. You provide the numbers of Azeri and Armenian population in the section “Shusha within the Russian Empire”, then repeat it again in the beginning of the article. As for ethnic clashes of 1920, they started after the attack of Armenian forces on Azeri garrisons. It is also described separately in the relevant section.

Bournoutian accuses his opponents of manipulating the numbers, but does exactly the same himself. I don’t think we should base this entry on the opinions of modern Armenian and Azeri researchers, they are engaged in a propaganda war, so it is better to use original sources.

As for de Waal being pro-Azeri, if he had been, he wouldn’t have said such things in his book, he would have supported only Azeri point of view, don’t you think so? His book is interesting, but there are some original sources, which show the things in a different perspective. Grandmaster 19:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dubious references and text added by Tabib

• 1. There was no Russian held census in 1823. There is no record of even some local survey.
• 2. There was no such term as “Azeri” in those years, Muslims were called Tatars by themselves and foreigners
• 3. Allegedly Shavrov wrote in 1911: "Of 1 million 300 thousand Armenians living nowadays in South Caucasus, more than 1 million don't belong to the indigenous population of the region and were settled by us' – something is wrong with this quote: the term “South Caucasus” was not in use in 1911, it’s a very recent invention. How is this possible then? The whole thing sounds phony. Besides, Nikolay Shavrov (Russian journalist and publicist, was very much involved in Caucasus region) died in 1899 ! More soon :) --Eupator 23:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It’s all just a matter of translation. The original source is in Russian. Of course there was no such term as South Caucasus, the original document uses the term Transcaucasia. Azeris were called Muslims or Tatars by Russians. Tabib used the modern name for this region, but that doesn’t really change anything. I’ll give you the original quote, and you do the translation. The book is called "Новая угроза русскому делу в Закавказье: предстоящая распродажа Мугани инородцам". Санкт-Петербург, 1911 г. It is written by Russian ethnographer Shavrov.

Наибольшее количество переселенцев выпадает на долю армян: так, из 1.300 тысяч, проживающих в Закавказье армян, более 1.000.000 душ не принадлежит к числу коренных жителей края и поселены нами.

As regards migrants from Turkey, he wrote the following:

"Конечно, колонистам были отведены лучшие земли казны и даны различные льготы. Затем с 1828 по 1830 год мы переселили в Закавказье свыше 40.000 персидских и 84.600 турецких армян и водворили их на лучшие казенные земли Елизаветпольской и Эриванской губерний, где армянское население было ничтожно, и в Тифлисском, Борчалинском, Ахалцихском и Ахалкалакском уездах. Для поселения им было отведено более 200.000 десятин казенных земель и куплено более чем на 2 млн. рублей частновладельческих земель у мусульман: Нагорная часть Елизаветпольской губернии и берега озера Гокчи заселены этими армянами. Необходимо иметь в виду, что из 124.000 армян, официально переселенных, переселились сюда и множество неофициальных, так что общее число переселившихся армян значительно превышает 200.000 человек. После Крымской кампании опять вселяется некоторое число армян, в точности не зарегистрированное. Период с 1864 по 1876 г. ознаменовывается нашей усиленной деятельностью по заселению Черноморского побережья армянами и греками, привозившимися на казенный счет из Малой Азии, а затем эстами, латышами, чехами. Новоселам отводились лучшие казенные земли. Счастливо окончившаяся турецкая война 1877-1879 гг. одарила нас целым потоком малоазиатских новоселов: в Карсскую область вселено около 50 тыс. армян и около 40 тыс. греков, и сразу пустовавшая область получает довольно многочисленное инородческое население. Кроме того, генерал Тер-Гукасов выводит в Сурмалинский уезд 35 тыс. кибиток турецких армян, которые остаются у нас. После этого начинается непрерывный поток армян из Малой Азии, переселяющихся сюда семьями и отдельными лицами".

I leave the translation up to you to avoid accusations of using the terms that did not exist at that time. Grandmaster 15:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to comment the quote, since none of us, I assume, have the actual book in front of us. It is true, that there was a large scale relocation of Armenians from Western Armenia to Russian-held territories of Armenia, in 1820-1830-ies. The question is: how accurately is it reflected in the “quote”? And is the quote genuine, to begin with? For example, this: Наибольшее количество переселенцев выпадает на долю армян: так, из 1.300 тысяч, проживающих в Закавказье армян, более 1.000.000 душ не принадлежит к числу коренных жителей края и поселены нами. is definitely a gross exaggeration, hence – a good reason to suspect the veracity of the entire quotation. No one can seriously suggest that more than a million people were relocated! There is a good chance that the whole quote is fabricated. Some wording raises my suspicions: инородческое население. It doesn’t sound quite right – I don’t think a Russian author would refer to Armenians in such form. One more: После этого начинается непрерывный поток армян из Малой Азии, переселяющихся сюда семьями и отдельными лицами". “Малая Азия” is a relatively new term, and was not in common use in XIX century Russian language. I’ve got a very interesting book: «Присоединение Восточной Армении к Росии» - a vast collection of Russian archival documents, published by the Academy of Sciences in 1972. Just checked the index, to make sure I was right: the term “Малая Азия” is not mentioned even once!

I have encountered this “quote” many times, it always comes up from Azeris, in their arguments. I personally think this is just a fraud – there is no such quote. But to be 100 percent sure, one must see the hard copy of the book, of course (if such book exists at all). Can someone, at least, name the title of this book, which evidently is so popular among Azeris? I did some more research – “Malaya Aziya” is nowhere to be found in Russian documents (and I am talking about 3 thousand archival documents related to Russian-Turkish relations, in 4 volumes). I am very much convinced now that the whole “quote” is simply a poorly composed forgery, unless I see a reliable source with my own eyes. Too many mistakes (in language, terms, etc.) - and not a single serious reference. You may want to see these statistics (from Brokguaz & Yefron “Энциклопедический словарь”, 1911 – a prestigious encyclopedia at the time). Жит. 25656 (13282 муж. и 12374 жен.), в том числе 56,5 % армян и 43,2 % азербайджанских татар; остальные — русские и евреи. http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/007/117/117444.htm--Eupator 23:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I just ran words Шавров Новая угроза through Google. Of course! Absolutely ALL hits (with that quote) referred to Azeri sites. Not a single non-Azeri reference! If the site, found by Google, is not Azerbaijani, the “quote” is brought up by an Azeri anyway. One was within an Armenian discussion forum. Try it yourself. --Eupator 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I trust Grandmaster, his translations have been accurate. What I want to ask you, Grandmaster, is this. Where did you read that quote. We will need to add the "reporting" site in addition to the "ultimate" citation. Of course if the book can be found, we don't need to do that. Now, as me and Grandmaster were discussing on the NK board, once the the source is verified to exist, rules of original research prohibit us to investigate whether Sahalov lied or didn't lie. Still, the publication/author need to be reputable, and this is where Eupator's research is relevant (as to whether we should present it as a mainstream view or something that was just stated by Sahalov). On the other hand if we can find reputable books that state the opposite, they will need to be included too. --TigranTheGreat 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the quote still doesn't say that any of those Armenians were settled in Shushi. We cannot make that inference on our own, if the inference is even to be included in the article, then it must have been published in a reputable source. He does mention "mountainous areas of Eliz. province" among the places where the Armenians were settled, but this could include Zangezur, or the areas north of Karabakh. By the way, Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, v. 13 has a map of Armenians' migrations to the area (the volume was published in 1987, the map was made in 1985). It shows large arrows to Georgia and modern Armenia's territory, a small arrow to Gyulistan (north of Karabakh), no arrow pointing to Karabakh itself. The article on Shushi itself mentions nothing about settlement. The local area's dialect is absolutely different from Iranian Armenian, which by the way is very similar to modern Armenia's dialect. Unless we find a reputable source making the connection, the article at best should say "Azeri side points to quote by ..... to claim .....".--TigranTheGreat 01:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tigran and other guys. Please stop talking about the things you have no idea about. The term Малая Азия was in use for ages, see article from Brokgauz encyclopedia, it is written before the Russian revolution. According to them, Название М. Азии существует лишь с начала V в. по Р. Х., со времени Орозия Испанского, который написал очерк христианской истории до 4 1 0 года. I know you are trying very hard to find faults with the references, but if you really want to prove something, you need to check the original source. But trying to find faults with words and phrases is not gonna work. Unfortunately, this book is not available online, but it was re-released in Baku in the early 90s. You have to look for the original publication in Russian libraries. By the way, this book is also quoted by pro-Armenian researcher Svetlana Lurie in her article about Russian colonization of Caucasus, so it’s not our invention. Grandmaster 07:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, where did you copy Mr. S's quote from? By the way, there was no quote about Armenians in Svetlana's article. Sorry, I like to talk about things I don't know. That's what Talk pages are for, I am sure you will correct if there is a mistake.--TigranTheGreat 09:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My quote is taken from the article by Emin Mamedli, he’s “старший научный сотрудник Института проблем управления РАН РФ”, and is very accurate with quoting sources, you can check his quote of Griboyedov, for example. And I did not say that Lurie quotes passages about Armenians, she just refers to the same book. Some of you say that this book is quoted only by Azeris, which is not true. Grandmaster 14:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

МАМЕДЛИ is hardly someone neutral obviously, quote him all you want as an Azeri source. It's not the same book. Your propapaganda sites (where tabib got his refs and text from) refer too "Новая угроза русскому делу" not "Русская колонизация на Кавказе" the existance of which can be verified with ease. Are you saying it's the same book?--Eupator 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, these are two different books by the same author. Lurie refers to both of these books. I don’t refer to Mamedli's conclusions, as he represents one of the sides in the conflict, but I think he can be trusted as a source for the quote. If you can prove that the quote is false, you win the case. Grandmaster 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Mamedli is right or wrong--we didn't get the quote from Mr. S, we got it from an azer site (http://karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/azerpeople/ap020.htm) that quotes Mamedli that quotes Mr. S. The rules of citation require that this be mentioned.

We are not saying Mr. S's book doesn't exist, we are saying the quote could have been distorted by the Azeri cite (there are famous examples, including the notorius "wholly opportunistic" clause about Armenians, or the "Yafet-Aran" "mistake"). Until someone reads the book itself, our source is not the book, our source is the azeri site quoting the book.--TigranTheGreat 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I’m speaking for myself only, I took my quote from Mamedli, who’s not known for distorting quotes, and as the law has it he is not guilty until proven otherwise. If you can prove that this guy misquotes the source, then you are right, otherwise your accusations are baseless. And mind you, I didn’t write this entry about Shusha anyway. Grandmaster 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not about holding Mamedli criminally responsible, it's about what source did you use. When we include a fact in the article, we cite the source that we used. We used as our source the Azeri cite that quotes Mamedli who quotes Mr. S. That's the source that we need to mention in citing the quote (all 3 levels). (And besides, this is the citation rule used both in APA and MLA styles, both discussed in Citing Sources article and both being the predominant styles used in academics. The article contains links to detailed handbooks discussing both styles).

The reason we are treating you as the provider of the source is that you are the only one who has verified where the quote was obtained. Tabib hasn't verified, so without you, the quote would remain unverified and subject to deletion. Now at least we know it's taken from somewhere verifiable, which needs to be mentioned as the source.--TigranTheGreat 09:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tabib cited his sources, all you need to do is to look for them and check them. As far as I know, Misplaced Pages rules don’t require providing scanned images every time you cite a source. As for my sources, they have nothing to do with the article and were used only in this discussion, as you had doubts about some terms and it helped to clear the matters. So your attempt to link my source with the article is quite absurd, to say the least. Regards, Grandmaster 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A few more points:

First, Tabib is known for copying quotes from azeri sites, writing only the "original" citation, and omitting the azeri website in the citation. Right now I dont' have time to copy paste and search, but go to the Nagorno K talk archives, search for quotes attributed to, say, Ishkhanian. Then do a text search on google. The introductory sentence written by Tabib is taken verbatim from azeri sites. Also check out in the same archives quotes attributed to Moses Kalankaytuk. The errors (e.g. "Yafet-Aran," the quote makes it sound this was a name of a person, which is distortion of the source text--it's "so and so guy, who was descendant of Yafet--named Aran....") are repeated verbatim on the azeri sites. Tabib didn't read those quotes in their sources, he read them on Azeri sites. The latest quote by the russian appears on many azeri sites. When we quote on Wiki, we include the source where we got the quote. If the quote should remain, it should state that "according to azeri site etc., Salahov said etc.."

Ask Tabib to post a scanned shot of the page of the quote and the opening page of the book. He has scanned stuff before, so he has the capability.

Second, the quote is irrelevant to the issue it is "supposed" to prove. It's talking about all Southern caucasia. Even if 1 million Armenians were settled, 300,000 were native, and they could very well include (and all evidence suggests, they did) 60,000-90,000 Armenians living in Karabakh. Most settlers were settled in Georgia and around Yerevan. Karabakh Armenians have been living there since whenever. At best, the article should say "the Azeri sides points to this quote to claim that ....."

Until a quote is verified, any editor has the right to take it out based on Misplaced Pages rules. I am too busy right now, and not active on this page, but feel free to take the quote out until Tabib verifies it or admits it's from an Azeri site. Then add back what you said about "Armenians in Karabakh don't speak the same dialect as those in Western Armenia" (you can phrase it in more NPOV way). It's valuable information, shouldn't be excluded. Be Bold in editting the page based on Wiki rules, it's strongly encouraged by Wiki policies.

Finally, check your talk page, in case you have missed, I answered your question, albeit abit late:)--TigranTheGreat 03:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster, please read and check them out before any judgements

The variant was till now - impudent propaganda lie. Shusha it has been constructed in the center of ethnically Armenian region Varanda, under the arrangement with the Armenian prince of this region Melik-Shakhnazar. The cultural shape of city till 1920 was defined by Armenians, and Azerbaijanians named it " Ermeni Shusha " - " Armenian Shusha ". In 1918-1919 Susha was capital of " Armenian Karabakh ". In 1920 Azerbaijanians have burnt city and have massacred and have expelled the basic part of its population. These are historic facts, and the facts conclusive, it is pleasant to someone or not pleasant. If someone considers, that the facts which contradict its nationalist feelings, it is not necessary to place - this person let writes for own Vikipedia.

Cite your reliable authoritative sources, please. References to the websites like nkr.am are not accepted. The role of melik of Varanda is fairly reflected. Grandmaster 10:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I refer to primary sources and primary sources not only Armenian (Mandelstam, Ordjonikidze). And you in general on any sources do not refer, except for Adegizel-bek which precisely writes, that the city has been based according to and on the ground of the Armenian prince.

Which primary sources do you refer to? They are all taken from Armenian websites and are not reliable. Adigezal-bey is a primary source, I quote him from the Russian website, and he does not say anything about the land being owned by anyone. Check it again. Grandmaster 11:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources are taken not from the Armenian sites, and from the Armenian academic publication. These are archival documents. Sfrandzi 15:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Grandmaster 11:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources do not cease to be primary sources of that they are published in Yerevan or Baku. As you on this theme do not have either primary, or secondary sources - in general any, and there are only your own imaginations, for example that as if Armenians have attacked in 1920 in Shusha on azeri and began to set fire to their houses whereas not only the Armenian sources, but also Russian speak about massacre of Armenians by AzerbaijaniansSfrandzi 15:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Trimming

Is this about Shusha or the khanate? The history section is way too long, needs retyping. Anyone willing to trim it a bit?Khosrow II 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should actually move a large part of it to History of Shusha. What do you think? Khoikhoi 05:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I dont think thats necessary, we should just stick to the history of the city, it should be easy to trim. Lots of it talks about the background events which is really unnecessary. I dont know, we should wait for more input. Also, the sentence about the city's population decrease seems like a math example and not actual information. I have currently put that that the population was halved until someone can re word the origional sentence better. There also seems to be some edit warring going on, maybe Khoikhoi can help defuse the situation? If not, I guess I could do it, I dont have leaning between either the Armenian or Azeri view, so I think I could be neutral enough.Khosrow II 05:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If sources can be provided for the disputed claims, that would be good. As for the edit warring, the anon is currently blocked for 48 hours, but if they return, we could definately discuss things. Khoikhoi 06:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I think it's more convenient for readers to mention briefly that the Qajars were of Turkic origin. This will help ignorant readers to know what groups were in the region back then. Khoikhoi 06:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

One last thing: I think that saying "present-day Azerbaijan" is a fair compromise, rather than saying "Azerbaijan" or not having it at all. Khoikhoi 06:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Grandmaster 06:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, that makes no sense. Regarding the Qajar issue, people can click on the link. I have never read anywhere English speaking Americans, or French Persian speaking Achaemenids, etc... that makes no sense. Also, regarding the other edit, that makes no sense either. How can Shusha have been the largest city in present day Azerbaijan? Thats like saying that Tenochitclan (I know I spelled it wrong, but the Aztec capital) was the largest city in present day Mexico... makes no sense grammatically or historical. It just doesnt make any sense to say that...Khosrow II 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said they were Turkic-speaking, I said they were of Turkic origin, which is important info for the reasons I already stated. Why are you trying to hide this fact? Khoikhoi 16:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, I just meant in general, it doesnt make any sense. That is what Wikilinking is for. I'm not hiding any fact, however, saying that the Qajar's were Turkic (which they were) and that their families came from Shusha doesnt really say anything about the region...As Brittanica puts it, these khanates were Persian ruled anyway... should we put that in two? This is about the city.Khosrow II 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Karabakh khanate was nominally Persian ruled only during the reign of the founder of khanate Panakh-Ali khan, and completely independent during the reign of his son Ibrahim Khalil. Qajars were Turkic and they ruled not only Persia, but also Ganja and Karabakh. When they refused to support Nadir shah and remained loyal to Safavids, Nadir shah took Karabakh out of their control and subordinated it to the ruler of Iranian Azerbaijan. After this Panakh-Ali declared himself a khan of Karabakh, and was affirmed as such by the decree of Adil shah. But when Qajars came to power in Persia, they refused to recognize Ibrahim-Khalil as a ruler of Karabakh, as they supported their relatives in Ganja and insisted that Karabakh belonged to Ziyad-oglu clan of Qajars, who ruled Ganja. Since that time Karabakh khanate was independent from Persia and Qajar rulers several times invaded the region to subordinate the region to Iran, but failed each time. Eventually imperial Russia took the region over and eliminated the khanate. This story in much detail can be found in a number of sources, including Abbas-Kuli aga Bakikhanov, Mirza Jamal Javanshir, Mirza Adigezal bey and others. I can provide online links to Russian texts of those chronicles. Grandmaster 06:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Qajars

The information deleted by Tigran is not false. Karabakh was ruled by Qajars of Ganja before Karabakh khanate was established. See Abbas-Kuli Bakikhanov:

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

I can provide translation, if required. The same information can be found in Mirza Adigezal bey’s book. Grandmaster 06:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As for independence, if Persian shah failed to establish his control over the region, it was independent. Grandmaster 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's published in Baku, 1991, and the text belongs to ultra-nationalist "historian" Z. Bunyatov. Clearly unreliable. As for independence, you have no source stating it.--TigranTheGreat 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources don't necessarily have to be neutral as long as they're attributed properly. That's exactly what I did. Khoikhoi 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a perfectly reliable source by a historian Abbasgulu aga Bakikhanov, the original Persian text is well known in scientific community and no one ever complained about this edition. I quote it from the Russian historical website, which very carefully selects its sources. Also, the same information can be found in another Muslim chronicle, by Mirza Adigezal bey:

Гянджинские ханы, происходившие из Каджар и известные по имени Зияд-оглу,.. всему миру они были известны как беглербеки и сардары, облеченные властью и самостоятельностью. Граница гянджинского ханства с Гюрджистаном проходила выше ,,Сынык-керпю” (Сынык-керпю, по азербайджански — ,,Сломанный мост”, так называется Красный мост на р. Храме) близ ,,Сури-Даша” и с Азербайджаном у Худааферинского моста (Под Азербайджаном автор в данном случае имеет виду только южные части Азербайджана). Бывало время, когда от знамени правления гянджинских ханов на Дар-ус-сурур (Дар-ус-сурур — по-арабски буквально дом веселья, эпитет гор. Тифлиса) падала тень мира и спокойствия, все население Тифлиса подчинялось их власти. Гянджинские ханы на муганском курултае тайно и явно, с исключительным рвением стремились к тому, чтобы никто, кроме сефевидов, не был бы царем, чтобы никто, кроме них, не воссел на трон. Оказывается о всех их мыслях доносили Надир-шаху…

Надир-шах, имея в виду, что потомство Зияд-оглу старинное и очаг их пережил много поколений, не счел удобным применить к ним иного наказания, как только того, что илатов Казаха и Бошчалу (Борчалов) со своими ханами подчинил эмирам Гюорджистана и высоко поставленному вали (Вали — наместник. Так иранцы титуловали царей Грузии). Население же Джеваншира, Отузики и Кебирли, входящее в состав илатов Карабаха, было приказано переселять в местность Сарахс Хорасанского вилайета. Было приказано отвести им там участок для постоянного поселения.

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

Таким образом, гянджинские ханы всецело лишились своих прав и полномочий, узда власти выпала из их рук, и они оказались в положении птицы с поломанным крылом.

As you can see, this info can be verified from more than one source. Grandmaster 05:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet another historical account providing the same information, Mirza Jaml Javanshir:

Глава вторая

О ПОДДАНСТВЕ, ДРЕВНИХ ОБЫЧАЯХ И ПОРЯДКАХ КАРАБАГСКОГО ВИЛАЙЕТА

Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку. Хотя и до правления покойного Надир шаха среди илатов Джеваншира, Отузики, Баргушата и пр. имелись мелкие ханы, но и все они были подвластны елизаветпольскому беглярбеку. Даже и после того как Надир шах завоевал Тифлисский, Ганджинский, Эриванский, Нахичеванский и Карабагский вилайеты, у жителей и войск Рума, Карабагский вилайет в течение короткого времени оставался под властью елизаветтпосльского беглярбека, а иногда подчинялся азербайджанскому сардару. Среди илатов и в магалах также были ханы и мелики, которые исполняли государственную службу по поручению азербайджанского сардара. Такое положение существовало до 1160 мусульманского года, соотвествующего 1743 христианскому году, когда был убит Надир шах. Grandmaster 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So that is 3 different Muslim chronicles, confirming the fact that Karabakh belonged to the khans of Ganja before Karabakh khanate was created. Grandmaster 06:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As for independence, the book of Mirza Jamal Javanshir book is titled:

НЕЗАВИСИМОЕ ПРАВЛЕНИЕ ПОКОЙНЫХ ХАНОВ КАРАБАГСКОГО ВИЛАЙЕТА ПАНАХ ХАНА И ИБРАГИМ ХАНА И РАЗНЫЕ СОБЫТИЯ, ОПИСАННЫЕ МИРЗОЙ ДЖАМАЛОМ КАРАБАГСКИМ ПО ПОРУЧЕНИЮ ГЛАВНОКОМАНДУЮЩЕГО ВОРОНЦОВА

Independent rule of the late khans of Karabakh vilayet Panakh khan abd Ibrahim khan and various events, described by Mirza Jamal of Karabakh on the instructions of the commander–in-chief Vorontsov. Grandmaster 07:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Jevanshir's text is about khan's independent behavior--this alone doesn't mean the khannate was an independent state. Whenever the central authority weakens, locals start acting independently--this doesn't mean creation of independent states. In historiagraphy, the Persian khannates of the era are generally considered semi-independent--this is basic knowledge. --TigranTheGreat 16:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. If the khanate was not independent from Persia, why did Aga Mohammed shah invade it twice? No one invades his loyal provinces. He managed to capture Shusha after the second invasion, but was soon killed by his bodyguards and his army had to retreat. So Ibrahim khan was an independent ruler, but his small state could not exist on its own, and he had to accept suzerainty of Russia. Independence of khanate had much to do with two factors – weakness of central authority in Persia and enmity between Qajars and khans of Karabakh. Grandmaster 20:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The late Qajars were horrible rulers. During the 1800's and early 1900's the central government basically had no control. Iran became for federal in terms of provincial rulers making their own decisions, while at the same time still mainting loyalty to the state. This was the case all over Iran. The Qajars had lost control of basically everything, they were incompetent rulers (the worst dynasty of Iran infact) and they were forced to reasserting their control (central government) many times in different places.Khosrow II 20:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

True. It was after Nadir shah’s death that some khanates became independent, while others were loyal to central authorities. For example, khanates of Ganja and Erivan were also ruled by Qajars and were always loyal to the ruling dynasty, while khanates of Karabakh and Quba strived for independence, but they all were eventually conquered by Russia. Grandmaster 20:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I dont really know the dispute between you and Tigran, just thought I'd put in my 2 cents on the subject.Khosrow II 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to GM, in the 5th c. Persia's king attacked Armenia to strengthen his control. Yet Armenia was not independent of Persia, and if I stated otherwise, I would be branded a nationalist. Local authorities tend to *act* independently as central authority weakens, yet this alone doesn't establish an independent state. If Persia recognized khan as independent, or if the khan defeated Persia's attacking force, it might constitute establishment of independent statehood. --TigranTheGreat 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Transfer/grant.

Regarding the sentence Moscow agreed to a division that left Zangezur to Armenia, while leaving Karabakh and Nakhichevan as parts of Azerbaijan. We have discussed the issue for weeks on the NK page, and it was made clear that stating "leave Karabakh in Azerbaijan" is unacceptable, regardles of what Kavburo said. Sources are all over the place when it comes to the choice of the verb, and we need to pick a neutral one. If GM dislikes "grant," then we can use the verb "be" (and provide the Kavburo quote separately). Namely:

Moscow agreed to a division under which Nagorno-Karabakh would be under the control of Azerbaijan SSR.

Zangezur and Nakhichevan are not at issue here.--TigranTheGreat 22:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Zangezur and Nakhichevan are not an issue here, but since the fate of those 3 territories was decided at the same time and in the same package, they deserve a brief mention. Zangezur was a disputed territory, which was under the administration of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic pending the final resolution at the Paris Peace Conference. Armenia established a brief control over the territory when the Red Army invaded Azerbaijan, but later it was occupied by the Red Army. Zangezur was handed to Armenia by the Bolsheviks, after the telegram of Narimanov. ROOB323, please see some quotes here: User:Grandmaster/Karabakh and stop reverting the article. Grandmaster 11:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Total BS, Zankezur was controled by the US recognized Armenian army, the recognized republic by the US, that it was under an Azerbaijan republic which was never recognized de jure by any state in the world is simply the product of your imagination. Narimanov (who was the Azerbaijan's never recognized republic leader who had claims over more than half of the current republic of Armenia as Azeris soil) could say that Mars is part of the republic of Azerbaijan won't make it accurate. You don't own articles, stop POV pushing, it is about time that you learn that you are not the last word in everything that remotly touch Azerbaijan, and you don't own Misplaced Pages neither any articles. Zankezur was never penatrated by any foreign army, it was kept as an Armenian bastillion, and they still remained even after Kars was left without defense. There never was any pratical claim over Zankezur, its claim being Azeris wasn't even Tartars request at first but rather an Ottoman one which find it the ultimate link, linking the entire Turkdom, it was the road that the Ottoman army was meant to take for its Panturkic ambitions. That Narimanov has recycled any BS thrown by there and here doesn't make it ultimate truth. Fad (ix) 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, this has been discussed endlessly. Zangezur and Karabakh had an Azeri governor Sultanov, appointed by Azerbaijani government and affirmed by the British command. See the quote:

Upon the Ottoman withdrawal, General Andranik made an attempt to extend Armenian rule over this disputed territory, but on December 1 Thomson asked him to cease his military operations. Furthermore, as of mid-January 1919, the British general put Nagorno-Karabagh together with the neighboring Zangezur uezd under provisional Azerbaijani administration. Armenian reactions became even more heated when Thomson confirmed the nomination of Khosrow Sultanov as governor of the two areas. Thomson's comment was that the British occupation was not an opportunity for revenge.

Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683

So please stop making baseless claims and remove the tag. Zangezur was given to Armenia by the Soviets. Even pro-Armenian Walker says so. I can provide more quotes if it is required. Grandmaster 06:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Another quote, this time from an Armenian source:

The British command at Baku came to accept the Azerbaijani rationale for provisional jurisdiction in Karabagh and Zangezur and assented to the appointment of Dr. Khosrov Bek Sultanov as governor general.

After Armenia was sovietized at the end of 1920, Soviet Azerbaijan ceded Karabagh and the other disputed districts to Armenia, but the decision was soon reversed. Then, in 1923, a part but not all of Mountainous Karabagh was formed into an autonomous region (oblast') within Soviet Azerbaijan.

Richard G. Hovannisian. The Armenian People From Ancient To Modern Times: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century ISBN: 140396422X

So Fadix, please explain what is totally disputed now? Grandmaster 07:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Fadix, if you make another personal attack on me, I will have to inform the admins. Consider yourself warned. Grandmaster 07:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The plan to appease Turkey is admitted even by pro-Azeri Cornell, and it should remain in the article:

The ‘Treaty of Brotherhood and Friendship’ between the Soviet Union and republican Turkey included a provision that both Nakhjivan and Karabakh were to be placed under the control of the Azerbaijani SSR. It seems as if this was a concession on the part of Stalin to the newly founded Turkish republic in Ankara; Stalin was initially positively inclined to Kemal Atatürk, whom he saw as a potential ally at the time. Thus Atatürk was hostile to any territorial arrangements favoring Soviet Armenia, since a strong Armenia could have potential territorial claims on Turkey.

http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/1999_NK_Book.pdf Cornell, Svante E. The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Uppsala: Department of East European Studies, April 1999, p. 8

As for Zangezur, yes, it has been discussed at length, and it was made clear that it was part of Armenia. The British decision had no legal value, since the Brits soon withdrew from Caucasus. The Armenians always remained in firm control of Zangezur. Here are a few quotes from past discussions that were omitted here.

However, the British were not so successful in installing their protégé south in the other highland region of Zangezur. They wanted to put him there to 'maintain order'. The Armenians retorted that there was order there, and by a policy of bluff, demonstrations and armed resistance, they were able to frighten Suttleworth into quitting Zangezur's capital Goris in a hurry, and successfully defying his fellow officers' decisions. Walker, Survival etc. p 272.

Even pro Azeri Cornell states:

By 1919, however, the Dashnaks were driven out of Nakhjivan, and although they stayed in power in Zangezur until 1921, they were soon toppled in Yerevan as well. Cornell, p 8.--TigranTheGreat 10:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Same pro-Armenian Walker you are referring to says:

Although Soviet Azerbaijan agreed, in a fraternal gesture, to hand over to Soviet Armenia the disputed regions of Mountainous Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan, of those territories only Zangezur was actually attached.

Christopher J. Walker. Armenia: The Survival of a Nation. ISBN 041504684

Grandmaster 10:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Walker and 100000 sources use 100000 words with respect to those areas--joined, annexed, remained in, ceded to (both Armenia and Azerbaijan). The extensive discussion is available to readers in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. They don't change the factual information provided by both cornell and walker--that Dashnaks/Armenians remained in firm control of Zangezur. Zangezur is not even an issue in an article about Shusha. --TigranTheGreat 11:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And the idea that Soviets were trying to appease Armenians in 1921 is absurd. Taking NK, Kars, and Nakh away from them, and leaving them only with Zangezur (where Armenians had control anyway) could only infuriate Armenians, not appease them, (and it did, which is why they took back some of it in 1990's)--TigranTheGreat 11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Walker which you referred to says that Zangezur was attached to Armenia by the Soviets. Zangezur had an Azeri governor and was not part of Armenia and was under the occupation of Red Army at the time. Stop edit warring, respect your own sources. Grandmaster 11:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He also says, in a different page, that Karabakh was "joined" to Azerbaijan. These words are used interchangebly by various sources. The Azeri governor's claims were never recognized, and even under Red Army's occupation, Dashnaks remained in control of Zangezur (by resisting the red army). The issue of Zangezur wasn't even part of the Turkish-Soviet negotiations. Please stop your disruptive behavior, and respect all the sources.--TigranTheGreat 11:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fighting in Shusha in March 1920

Before the events in March in Shusha there was a truce, brokered by the British. Karabakh and Zangezur remained under Azerbaijani jurisdiction, pending final resolution at the Paris Peace Conference. The Armenian militants broke the truce, when they started a surprise attack at the Azerbaijani garrisons in Khankendi and Askeran and the Azeri quarter of Shusha, when Azeris were celebrating Novruz. These attacks failed, and the Armenian part of Shusha was destroyed as result of fighting. Even the Armenian sources acknowledge that it was the Armenian side who started the hostilities and broke the truce:

Failure at Khankend sealed the doom of Shushi. As planned, the Varanda militia entered Shushi on the evening of March 22, supposedly to receive its pay and to felicitate Governor-General Sultanov on the occasion of Novruz Bairam. That same night, about 100 armed men led by Nerses Azbekian slipped into the city to disarm the Azerbaijani garrison in the Armenian quarter. But everything went wrong. The Varanda militiamen spent most of the night eating and drinking and were late in taking up their assigned positions, whereas Azbekian's detachment, failing to link up with the militia, began firing on the Azerbaijani fort from afar, awakening the troops and sending them scurrying to arms. It was only then that the Varanda militiamen were roused and began seizing Azerbaijani officers quartered in Armenian homes. The confusion on both sides continued until dawn, when the Azerbaijanis learned that their garrison at Khankend had held and, heartened, began to spread out into the Armenian quarter. The fighting took the Armenians of Shushi by surprise. Several thousand fled under cover of the dense fog by way of Karintak into the Varanda countryside.

Richard G. Hovannisian. The Republic of Armenia, Vol. III: From London to Sèvres, February-August 1920 Grandmaster 07:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anywehere saying Armenians "aimed at cleansing the town from the Azeri population" That part of the sentence should be removed. It says they attacked when Azeris were celebrating Novruz, but doesn't say they wanted to cleanse the town from Azeri population. ROOB323 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is an Armenian source, isn’t it? Why do you think it would say that? But it confirmed that it was the Armenian militants who started the fighting in the city. If they had taken over, the Azeri population would surely have been treated the same as the Azeri population of Baku in 1918. Grandmaster 07:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop imagineering what would have happened if that or this was done or if this thing was done and then this certean thing should have happened. Instead you should state the real facts not what would have happened. If you want to countinue your way than I'll countinue my way. I am sick and tierd of your racist hater views. ROOB323 07:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

ROOB, I suggest you watch your civility. - Francis Tyers · 11:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

When was I a racist hater? It is true that both sides treated the civilian population mercilessly. Armenian sources don’t support what Azeri sources say about the aims of the attack, but let’s remove that part for the sake of neutrality. Sources on both sides agree that fighting broke out after the Armenian militants attacked the Azeri positions in Shusha. Grandmaster 07:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

What is the dispute about? - Francis Tyers · 12:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

GM wants to say that the Kars treaty and Kavburo decision was meant to appease Armenia as well. Me, Fadix, and Roob believe it doesn't make sense, considering the decisions favored Azerbaijan. GM also wants to include info about Zangezur--we believe it's irrelevant to an article about Shusha. And it was not part of the discussions between Turkey and Moscow.--TigranTheGreat 12:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see on page 8 that it appeased anyone. If the source doesn't support it it should be taken out. Am I looking at the wrong page? Can you give a quote? - Francis Tyers · 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The ‘Treaty of Brotherhood and Friendship’ between the Soviet Union and republican Turkey included a provision that both Nakhjivan and Karabakh were to be placed under the control of the Azerbaijani SSR. It seems as if this was a concession on the part of Stalin to the newly founded Turkish republic in Ankara; Stalin was initially positively inclined to Kemal Atatürk, whom he saw as a potential ally at the time. Thus Atatürk was hostile to any territorial arrangements favoring Soviet Armenia, since a strong Armenia could have potential territorial claims on Turkey

This makes it clear that the decision was a concession to Turkey, since Soviet Union wanted to befriend TUrkey.--TigranTheGreat 13:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is over this paragraph:

In order to attract Armenian public support, Bolsheviks promised to resolve the issue of the disputed territories, including Karabakh, in favor of Armenia. However, Moscow also had far-reaching plans concerning Turkey, hoping that it would, with a little help from Russia, develop along Communist lines. Needing to appease Turkey and Armenia at the same time, Moscow agreed to a division under which Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under control of Azerbaijan, and Zangezur would be under control of Armenia.

Tigran and Fadix remove any mention of Zangezur. There were 3 territories, which were claimed by both countries, namely Karabakh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan. Moscow established borders, according to which Zangezur was part of Armenia, while the other 2 were parts of Azerbaijan. Now Tigran claims that Zangezur has always been part of Armenia despite the region having an Azeri governor appointed by the British. Grandmaster 13:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The appointment was never materialized. Armenians remained in control. And this is about Shusha--Zangezur is not relevant here. We are not including info about Kars.--TigranTheGreat 13:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If all three were under dispute and dealt with in the same agreement, they should all be included. - Francis Tyers · 13:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Z wasn't dealt with in the same agreement. The quote above says it all. The Treaty assigned NK and Nakh. to Azerbaijan. Nothing about Zangezur.--TigranTheGreat 13:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is strange that Tigran refers to Cornell, who says on the same page 8:

In the following years, three separate republics existed, but turmoil continued, mainly as the Dashnaks pursued their irredentist claims on their neighbours. They had territorial claims on both Georgia (the Akhalkalaki and Gocharli regions which are still today predominantly Armenian populated) and Azerbaijan (Karabakh, Zangezur, and Nakhjivan). Grandmaster 13:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the treaty does not mention Karabakh, only Nakhichevan. Check the full text of the document. Grandmaster 13:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cornell mentions both Nakhichevan and NK in the treaty of Brotherhood. Not Zangezur. And yes, Zangezur was claimed by both Azerbaijan and Armenia. But Armenia had control over it. --TigranTheGreat 13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cornell says that Dashnaks had territorial claims to Azerbaijan, particularly Zangezur. Grandmaster 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say "particularly." He simply lists the disputed territories. Of course he does it in his pro-Azeri biased manner. --TigranTheGreat 13:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Text of the Treaty of Kars: And Cornell lists Azerbaijani territories, claimed by Dashnaks. Grandmaster 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Cornell lists disputed territories with Azerbaijan. And he states that Armenians remained in control of Zangezur til 1921. We don't cite Wiki articles. Instead, we have Cornell here who states that Nakhichevan and NK were part of negotiations with TUrkey. Zangezur wasn't --TigranTheGreat 13:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not cite a wiki article, I refer you to the text of the treaty of Kars. Read for yourself and see what it says. Grandmaster 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cornell talks about the Treaty of Brotherhood. Not Kars.--TigranTheGreat 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, where is the text of the Treaty of Brotherhood? - Francis Tyers · 15:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no way that you could appease a country by giving a territory (Zangezur) which already was controlled by Armenia and then claim that you are appeaseing Armenia by giving a territory that already belonged to Armenia. It was simply appeaseing Turkey by giving Karabakh and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan and leaving Zangezur to Armenia. TigranTheGreat made the sentence the way it should be, but you GM had to change it because of your racist view towards Armenia. ROOB323 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis, we don't just rely on primary sources, but secondary as well. Cornell (quote by me above) clearly states that the Treaty of Brotherhood dealt with both Nakhichevan and NK, no mention of Zangezur. If you can see from the text, the Treaty was signed before the July/June Kavburo decisions (the one that we beat to death in August discussions). Kars was signed in October, way after the dust had settled. Kars may have been confirming Brotherhood, but doesn't mean they had the exact text.--TigranTheGreat 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I repeat what I said on the other talk page. I don’t mind using Cornell and Walker, if we use them throughout this and other articles. I would like to remind everyone that both Cornell and Walker stated that NK was left by the Soviets within Azerbaijan, and it was Tigran who rejected references to those 2 sources. I don’t think we should use the sources selectively, i.e. only when they suit a certain purpose.

Also, there were only 2 Treaties signed between Turkey and Russia at that time, Treaty of Moscow and Treaty of Kars. I provided the text of the Treaty of Kars, and here’s the text of the Treaty of Moscow (in Russian): and its description in the Armenian website (also in Russian): As you can see, it says nothing about Karabakh. Grandmaster 06:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest removing any mention of Turkey with regard to Karabakh. The role of that country in the settlement of the dispute over NK is not obvious and is not based on reliable sources. Turkey played a significant role in the issue of Nakhichevan, but had nothing to do with Karabakh. Grandmaster 08:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You find Cornell reliable, and he says Turkey was involved. So, we should use it. Your site of moscow treaty is not reliable--it's a blog.--TigranTheGreat 09:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you find the full texts of all the treaties/agreements in English (or French or Romanian) please. - Francis Tyers · 09:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkeys role is clear, and both Cornell (pro-Azeri) and Walker agree. Now, if ROOB is fine with it (after all, he will be dealing with GM, after I leave this page), we can leave out Nakhichevan (and Zangezur). But Turkey's role should be mentioned. No, no text from a reliable site.--TigranTheGreat 10:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, check the texts of both treaties and try finding any reference to Karabakh. Even the Armenian site describing the treaty never mentions Karabakh . Also, both Cornell and Walker agree that NK was left in Azerbaijan, but you object to inclusion of that info. I don't think such selective use of sources is acceptable. Grandmaster 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But we don't have a reliable text of the brotherhood treaty. Walker says "NK was joined with Azerbaijan." Let's use that.--TigranTheGreat 10:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, both Cornell and Walker state that NK was given to Azerb. under Turkey's pressure. Here is walker:

Although Soviet Azerbaijan agreed, in a fraternal gesture, to hand over to Soviet Armenia the disputed regions of Mountainous Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan, of those territories only Zangezur was actually attached. The reason was that when the status of these lands came to be formally laid down, the objections of Kemalist Turkey were taken more seriously than the wishes of the Sovietised Armenians.

So, a pro-Azeri source and Walker agree on Turkey's role. That's enough to include Turkey here.--TigranTheGreat 11:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The same Walker in the same paragraph also states that Zangezur was attached to Armenia by Soviets. Why should we include one statement and omit the other? Grandmaster 11:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Both statements should be included as they are both relevant. - Francis Tyers · 11:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis they are not, the attachment to Armenia refers to the incorporation of Armenia, a country recognized by the United States of America, Zankezur was never ever an issue, the claim of incorporating it to Armenia was a forged text authored by Narimanov which found itself with the final draft. It never at any time ended in any foreign hands. While Turkey took Kars without any real defense, they were to use Zankezur to link it with Azerbaijan, they never successfuly made it. Karabakh was garded by an Armenian force, it was taken from an Armenian defended army which controled it, the Armenians even managed to settle a government, even with a minister of education believe it or not, but in the cases of Zakezur, there never was any issues there. The only time it was brought was when the Bolshevics have refused the concessions made by the Turks who claimed it to grants to to Azerbaijans since the Bolshevics weren't permitting it to be taken by the Turks. Including the three in parallel is another attempt by Grandmaster to mislead. How can Nakhichevan which was part of Russian 'Erivan', which was granted to Azerbaijan, or Nagorno Karabakh be compared with a territory, which by no any time been a real issue, neither during war time, neither anytime. Maintaining the same logic, I could add Baku being granted to Azerbaijan or incorporating in Baku's article such issues, since at first there were discussions to not even include Baku in Azerbaijan but keep it as an independent entity. Grandmaster is simply forging a cheap reader digest type second grade history by directing articles the way it pleases him. Fad (ix) 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as that part of the sentence stays neutral it is o.k. with me, but it shouldn't be reverted to the old GM's views which was not neutral. It was very offending to say "Bolshviks appeased Armenia by giving Zangezur to Armenia." Turkey was being appeased not Armenia, by giving Karabakh and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan. ROOB323 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)