Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Christopher Walker is not a neutral source, it is considered pro-Armenian by other historians. See:

Armenian or pro-Armenian sources such as Christopher Walker, on the other hand, argue that the Azeris (which he terms Tatars) provoked the fighting.

Cornell, Svante E. The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Uppsala: Department of East European Studies, April 1999

So we should not rely on such biased sources in describing the Azeri-Armenian conflict. Grandmaster 06:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, here's a warning to you. If C. Walker is removed as a neutral source, I will remove every single instance of pro-Azeri De-Waal.--Eupator 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this is only one other (I assume) credible historian. Other sources that state Walker's bias include websites such as "Tall Armenian Tale" which is product of bias itself.

In any case, I think that because there is some doubt to Walker's credibility, we should still cut his references from the article for now, just to be safe. It should be noted, however, that in his book, Walker cites his sources and it may be worth it to look into these as they could possibly be verifable.

Admittedly, I recently checked out several books about Armenia and the Caucasus at my local library. "Armenia: Survival of a Nation" was one of them. As I began to read portions of the book, I felt that some of its information should be included in this article. I think that I should have probably researched Mr. Walker before adding his research to the Nakhichevan page. I apologize. -- Clevelander 11:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think when it comes to serious accusations such as massacres we should double check the sources. Grandmaster 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to cut down Walker's quotes. He is a reputable source. "Pro-Armenian" is Cornell's opinion, who himself is pro-Azeri (as he argues union of NK with Azerbaijan.

I agree with Eupator, if we leave out Walker, we will have to leave out De Waal, Cornell, and Potier as well.--TigranTheGreat 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that de Waal is pro-Azeri. I have never read Potier's work, so I don't know about him. It is possible, however that Cornell is indeed pro-Azeri, though we may need to verify this. -- Clevelander 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If Gm's definition of pro-Armenian is anyone or anything that disagrees with Azeri pov than De Waal which most definetly disagrees with Armenian pov is pro-Azeri.--Eupator 15:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

De Waal is a neutral source, from what I know about him. His work has on occasion irked both Armenians and Azeris, so he must be doing something right. Our fellow Wikipedia Armenian editor, Marshall B even used de Waal as a source for the Karabakh War article. I don't know why we're even talking about him as nothing of his is referenced in this article. If anything, the real debate should be over Cornell or Walker's works. -- Clevelander 15:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Who says that Cornell is pro-Azeri? Are there any credible sources that make such claims? If it is just a personal opinion, then it is irrelevant. Walker’s bias is not my personal opinion, I cite my sources. So should you. I personally think that NESL is pro-Armenian, but since I have no support for such claims, I don’t claim that we should not refer to them. Grandmaster 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I stated above that we "may need to verify" that Cornell is pro-Azeri, if he actually is. I am curious, though, what other sources state Walker's bias? I would like to know just for the record. Like I said earlier, the information Walker presents may be verifiable as he does reference the events in his book. -- Clevelander 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of it is not referenced. And it is quite enough that Cornell refers to him as pro-Armenian. The rules require that we use only unbiased sources. Grandmaster 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the book here with me and most of it is referenced. It is not "quite enough" that Cornell is the only source that has mentioned Walker's bias. I would like to see more. -- Clevelander 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do your own research, Clevelander. I gave you a reference that casts doubt on Walkers impartiality, so we should not use such a source. Here’s another one for you: [1] Grandmaster 20:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Still Cleve, I have cross-referenced De Waal's book with at least 2-3 sources to corrborate what he says. I don't use him as the the final word of what is true but rather as a convenient source on Wikipedia. Verify it with at least a few other resources so that there is no conflicting information. --MarshallBagramyan 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That "source" barely mentions any examples, if any, that makes Walker pro-Armenian. Just because he's written books on Armenia and comments on Armenian-related matter for that point, doesn't mean he's pro or against, it means he's interested about learning about a new culture or ethnic group. If everyone used that same standard in regards to Chechnya or Israel, they would be branded anti-Russian, anti-Israel, pro-terrorism, etc.--MarshallBagramyan 21:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, let me explain you something. Here on Wikipedia, we never take the opinion of any source as fact. That includes Cornell, and his statement that "Walker is pro-Armenian." We are not going to exclude a reputable academic based on the opinion of Cornell.

You have shown a tendency to pick a source that you like, and then quote him as fact, and then exclude others based on that assumed fact. We don't do it on Wiki. We gather assortment of sources, we compare them, and we construct the most neutral text possible based on them.

Also, keep in mind that no source is unbiased--every author takes some position by definition. We never exclude them (unless they are partisan sources--i.e. Armenian or Azeri), we collect a fairly balanced set of sources representing various biases. I never said NESL was unbiased, but I do say that it is reputable, and we should use it--same with Cornell.

And our opinions about the bias of a source are relevant--one of the requirements of editting here is to evaluate sources. Clearly, Cornell is taking a side in his legal analysis. The side is pro-Azeri. Hence, he is biased. But again, I don't suggest to exclude it, and neither should you (with respect to non-pro-Azeri sources).--TigranTheGreat 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And just take a look at who Cornell quotes to support his argument - Erich Feigel - a man who has written work denying the Armenian Genocide calling it "A Myth of Terror" and other articles repudiating or refuting Armenian based claims, his name appears on Turkish and Azeri websites. How come Cornell doesn't label Feigel with any names? If Walker is biased then what do we make of Feigel?--MarshallBagramyan 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Walker’s being pro-Armenian is not only the opinion of Cornell, even Armenian sources say so, see my another reference. In any case, I agree with Marshall that controversial information should be cross-referenced, if it appears in more than 1 neutral source, then it can be included in the article. So in this case if you can find the reference to the Walker’s information about massacres in any other source, you can include it into the article. It is pretty obvious that this source has a strong bias as it says nothing about the massacres of Muslim population in Nakhichevan by such butchers as Andronik and others. And Cornell refers to many different sources, including Armenian ones, if you read carefully his book you would not call him pro-Azeri. Grandmaster 06:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

GM, it's funny how your "Armenian" sources always end up being worse than Azeri ones. Have you ever heard of Ara Baliozian? (your source). I have read most of his essays. He is a provoker--he attacks Armenian identity using faslehoods taken from Turko-Azeri propaganda. Clearly he is trying to diminish the value of one of the most reputable British historians--incidentally, you are trying to do the same.

Everyone has bias, and biased people instinctively choose to emphasize some events. Cornell, for example, talks about how "Dashnaks chased Muslims away"--without talking about the Armenian massacres by Azeris in the same place (he only *much later* hints that violance was on both sides--but in this case trying to be neutral--obviously not wanting to focus too much on Azeri crimes).

We don't exclude reputable source just because we havn't found a corroborator--otherwise, we would exclude much of De Waal (and incidentally, Cornell). As a corrolary, we don't assert opinions of a any source.--TigranTheGreat 07:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, Walker is a historian (i.e. expert in historical events), while Cornell's expertise is more in the area of geo-politics. [2]. Interestignly, he knows Azerbaijani, but no Armenian (gee, I wonder why). And look at his credentials/projects/publications. The guy is practically soaked in oil.--TigranTheGreat 07:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I quoted 2 sources saying that Walker is pro-Armenian, now you quote one saying the same about Cornell or any other source that you don't like. Grandmaster 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your 2 "sources" are not neutral. One of them (Baliozian) is not even reputable (he is a minor Armenian writer, not even academic). Hence, their statements about Walker can't be taken as fact. Furthermore, Walker is more authoritative than Cornell--the first is a historian, the second is a "consultant in Caspian Oil issues."

I don't need to provide sources stating that Cornell is not neutral--we as editors are free to evaluate sources, and reading Cornell makes it clear that he is not neutral (as several editors have given examples earlier). And as I like saving the best till the end, let's see the crown jewel about Cornell's "neutrality" :)

Svante Cornell ... Background and Education: ... received honorary doctorate from the Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences

http://apps.sais-jhu.edu/faculty_bios/faculty_bio1.php?ID=268&SMSESSION=NO

Oh yes, he is so neutral, he is oozing with neutrality :) Or could it be the oil :) --TigranTheGreat 07:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Having honorary doctorate from the Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences does not make one biased. There are so many prominent scientists from all over the word who recieved honorary doctorate from the Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences, it does not make them pro-Azeri. And it is strange to hear such things from a person who claimed that Starovoytova was neutral despite the fact that she was deputy of the Armenian parlament. Grandmaster 09:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How typical. Another regurgitation of that half-truth. That was in 1989, last I checked there was no Armenia or an Armenian Parliament in 1989. She was a deputy in the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. --Eupator 20:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor does Cornell's opinion make Walker pro-Armenian, or being temporarily elected from ArmenianSSR make Staravoitova pro-Armenian. What's good for your sources is good for mine :) We finally seem to be getting somewhere.

And by the way, thanks for adding the dispute tag. The article indeed misses alot of Nakhichevan's Armenian history. Once it's all restored, we can remove the tag. --TigranTheGreat 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the Georgian professor quote is erroneous, which was proven on this talk page. The source of that information are authorities of “NKR”, which is clearly mentioned in the article. Clevelander accepted this, but unfortunately for some strange reason he included again the same erroneous quote with false attribution to the Georgian professor into the article. This is something I did not expect from him. Second, nowhere does the Georgian professor say that referendum was boycotted by Armenians, and there’s absolutely no source to back up such a claim. And the 90% quote is very well referenced from the book by Tim Potier, one must be blind to not see it. Also, the words that “it is believed that” are weasel and according to the rules cannot be used. In addition, it was none other than Fadix who said that the last Russian census was in 1897 and no figures for 1917 were available. Tigran knows that all perfectly well, but still reverts just to force false and unconfirmed claims into the article. Grandmaster 09:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Surveys placed the Armenian population to 40%, the surveys were actually based on the Census of 1897, which placed Armenians to 34.4%. The Armenian population only grew since then. Nakhichevan also recieved its share of Armenian refugees in 1915-17. I don<t see what is your problem with those figures when the official Russian census of 1897 support it.--Fad (ix) 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for that? -- Clevelander 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Source for what?--Fad (ix) 02:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For the 1897 census, Fadix. -- Clevelander 11:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't accept that Prof. Menteshashvili's quote was "erroneous." I only admitted "that I skimmed through [his] work, so if I missed any information of importance, it was entirely my fault." The only reason why I stated this was to avoid a greater argument with Adil. Ultimately, I'm not opposed to adding Menteshashvili's statistics, because they seem credible to me and he does not appear to be showing any outright bias. If you can prove to me that he is indeed bias or that he presents faulty information, then I will reconsider.

In any case, I believe that my own actions in regard to re-adding Menteshashvili just to prove something that a user who was reluctant to provide a source for were a bit out of line. Looking back at what I added, the statement is by definition, a "weasel" statement (as in attempting to "weasel my way out of providing a source"). I apologize and I will remove my statement immediately. It is not to be reverted unless somebody can find a credible source to reference it. However, any other points in the article that reference Menteshashvili are not to be removed.

One more thing, Grandmaster, did Potier reference where he obtained the information on the referendum? If so, what was it?

BTW, I am taking what Marshall and Grandmaster said into account. I will cross-reference Mr. Walker's information to see if it is indeed credible. I plan to do some full-scale research this weekend. -- Clevelander 11:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander, it is strange that you are asking me to prove that the Georgian professor quote is wrong, when Adil did that not so long ago. See here: [3] I have no idea why after that you still re-included that info, knowing that attribution of that info to Georgian professor is wrong.

And Potier does not cite his sources for the referendum in Nakhichevan. But this information can be cross-referenced and also be found in the U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies about Azerbaijan:

In mid-1920 the Red Army occupied Nakhichevan, an Azerbaijani enclave between Armenia and northwestern Iran. The Red Army declared Nakhichevan a Soviet socialist republic with close ties to Azerbaijan. In early 1921, a referendum confirmed that most of the population of the enclave wanted to be included in Azerbaijan. Turkey also supported this solution. Nakhichevan's close ties to Azerbaijan were confirmed by the Russo-Turkish Treaty of Moscow and the Treaty of Kars among the three Transcaucasian states and Turkey, both signed in 1921. [4]

Note that that LOC file says nothing about anyone boycotting the referendum.

You might also wish to check WP:POINT, just in case you did not know. Grandmaster 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, you've made your point, we'll remove all of the stastics referenced to Menteshashvili's article. -- Clevelander 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander, the Wikipedia rules of "No Original Research" and "Verfiability" preclude us from "proving" or doing our own research to "prove" that a reputable source is erroneous. If a reputable source states a fact, we use it--they don't even have to source it in the book. We don't examine if "he actually said the truth or not"--that's original research. The basis of inclusion of info on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This is explained in WP:NOR and WP:V. Take a look at the following paragraph from official Wiki policies:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. WP:V

In fact, GM knows this very well, I explained this to him the very first time we interacted [5], but for some reason he argues here that "Adil proved this wrong, so we should exclude the source," which is against the policies.

Now, Menteshasvhili's work is reputable, and that's all we should worry about. He didn't even need to source his facts--under No Original Research, we trust him. But he actually did source the population data of Nakh, and despite GM's claims that the source was NKR, Menteshasvhili's source actually was a Russian publication "Central Asia and Caucasus." So, not only he is reputable, but his book is sourced--so we can't simply exclude his data.

By the way, about Adil's so-called proof. I took at alook at it, and basically Adil is saying that he "searched the Russian publication's internet archives and didn't find that info." This is precisely the kind of research prohibitted by Wikipedia rules. Are we to trust Adil's research skills more than we do those of the Georgian professor? Of course not. And frankly, internet archives do not always contain all the issues of a publication--and the Georgian professor didn't get his data from the internet archives.

In sum, Clevelander, we cannot exclude a reputable source simply because someone claims that "he has proven it wrong." We don't use terms like "proof" here on Wiki, and whenever anyone says "he has proven this or that," it's a sure signal that he is trying to advance his POV.

By the way, Clevelander, looking at the archives, I was surprised that you so readily agreed with Adil's "proof." His POV is as extreme and outragous as it can get--just take a look at the NK talk page. Two administrators there suggested that he be permanently blocked from Wiki. He has been trying to push the most outrageous claims in several Armenia-related articles--including on Tigranes the Great and Koryun articles, and all have been rejected by the moderators of the respective pages.

So, the second reference to Menteshashvili needs to be restored. The first one--the one phrased in "weasel" terms--we still can't completely delete it, since part of it is sourced. However, if you are adamant about not stating the "boycotting" as fact until it's sourced, we can rephrase it in a more NPOV way--as something that Armenians claim. The information is too important to be excluded--if 40% population didn't favor Nakhijevan's annexation to Azerbaijan (which most likely they didn't), and the official data said "90% of population voted in favor," something doesn't smell right. But we can still phrase it as the position of one side.--TigranTheGreat 00:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you. However, I think Adil's point was that I was using Menteshashvili's statistics out of context when he was referencing someone else.

I didn't want to admit this earlier, but I hadn't actually read Adil's long-winded message to begin with. I readily agreed with him because I wanted to establish some stability in an already volatile article. Also, Fadix, an Armenian editor repeatedly stated that he didn't even want the work to be included. So, logically, I felt that since I added it, that no editor (Armenian or Azeri) wanted to include it, and since it was causing so much dispute, then it was my responsibility to remove it.

When Fadix brought up his boycott argument, it made sense to me. But when I asked him to provide a source he neglected to do so, only saying that numbers were the proof (numbers which he also neglected to source). So, I decided to use my own sources and I retreated back into using Menteshashvili's work. It wasn't until recently that I actually read Adil's argument all the way through. I will agree that most of what he does is extremely POV in favoring the Azeri side (especially in the case of the Tigranes article, the Talysh article, or the Karabakh article - all three of which had been peaceful articles until his arrival). However, I actually saw some merit in what he had to say this time. He was right, I had taken these statistics without evening looking at the context that they were being used in. It was my fault and my responsibility.

Hear me out, though. I want to use these statistics. I just need a viable source in order to include them - and for that I need to do more research. -- Clevelander 11:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't take Fadix's "neglect" personally:) He is busy, and sometimes it takes time till he responds to me. You can do all the research you like, but you should remember that we don't use Original Research here--i.e. we don't go out proving or disproving sources. We obtain other sources, comparing them, and coming up with neutral version.

I read Adil's argument about the "context" of the statistics, and again (I hate to say this), he was not being completely honest. He is saying that the statistics was claimed not by the Georgian guy, but by a British parlamentarian. BUT, the Georgian himself gives a source for the statistics--the Russian journal. --TigranTheGreat 12:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that at first too, but then I realized that his reference of the Russian Journal could actually be a reference to what the British parlamentarian said and not direct statistics from that time period. I would need to see that particular source for myself.

Anyway, I'm going to head over to the reference section of my local library today (you'd be surprised at the sheer amount of information you can find at the downtown Cleveland Public Library). I plan to first and foremost research Walker's claims. -- Clevelander 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you see the location of the superscript pointing to the footnote (which contains the Russian reference)? It's not after the entire discussion of the British guy's arguments--it's right in the middle, immediatly after the statistics. If the whole thing was taken from the British guy, why would the Georgian specifically make a footnote in the middle?--TigranTheGreat 13:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Still, I would need to see that specfic Russian Journal source first. -- Clevelander 13:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you are so diligent good luck:) I didn't know Ohio actually had a library (just kidding).--TigranTheGreat 13:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Cough "off topic" cough, believe it or not Ohio is actually underrrated. I drove through Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama (here a woman in a gas station told me this when I gave her an Air Miles card: "Son, are you paying by credit?") to reach Florida this year and the only state that left a good impression was Ohio.--Eupator 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the follow information (among other interesting tidbits that seem to lend credence towards Walker's work) in the volumes of a series called Documents on British Foreign Policy. I came accross these dusty volumes in the Cleveland Public Library's reference section. Regards, Clevelander 16:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Great job, Clevelander. Make sure to write down the full info of the book in which these documents are published--titled, year, place.--TigranTheGreat 17:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, of those 3 pages only the first one has anything to do with Nakhichevan, but it is very ambiguous. It says: “There seems to be a fine old massacre going on in Nakhichevan”, but it does not say who massacres whom. Azeris killing Armenians? Armenians killing Azeris? Both killing each other? So it is an interesting find, showing that there was indeed bloodshed in the area, but not much clarity as to what exactly was happening. Grandmaster 18:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Armenians were indeed the ones massacred (as concern is expressed over the security of the Armenian population in Nakhichevan) and because the dispute over Nakhichevan was with Azerbaijan, it is also implied that the Azeris committed it (though this latter assertion may need to be verified). Be patient, though. I still have a lot more research to do. Also note that the second image is a continuation of the Hohler letter. -- Clevelander 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just commented on this one source. It does not say that Armenains were massacred, it just says that there was a massacre in Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's quite clear that the massacre is against Armenians--adding to Clevelander's points is the historical context--the area was under joint occupation by Turkish and Azeri forces, which clearly outnumbered Armenians (whose security was the concern of the author of the document)--so it's obvious who was massacring whom.

Even more important, a historian (like Walker) is much better trained than you or me to analyze primary sources and construct the proper chain of events--that's his expertise, he is knowledgable of the tools of historical analysis, of the general context of the time period. That's the whole point of No Original Research--we don't do our research to prove a historian wrong--we trust his skill and experience. As stated in Wiki rules:

Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. WP:RS--TigranTheGreat 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Walker is not neutral, so we cannot rely on him. Especially considering that you yourself said on NK talk that we cannot trust his interpretations of historical documents. Now you say something completely different. This document does not say anywhere who were the victims of the massacre. It is open for various interpretations. Grandmaster 09:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said that. I said that we can't copy Walker's interpretation of the big picture--which is his opinion, and we don't assert opinions here on Wiki. We can surely trust his analysis of historical documents--"Armenians were massacred" is not an opinion or interpretation but a statement of fact. That's because he is a reputable, authoritative historian. Bias doesn't make an expert non-reputable, otherwise we would exclude every historian. And since you yourself admitted on the NK page that Azeris have always wanted to massacre Armenians, I don't see what is the problem.--TigranTheGreat 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I never admited anything like that on NK or any other talk. And once again, we cannot rely on Walkers interpretation of the above document, you yourself rejected his interpretations of historical documents. Grandmaster 05:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, we can rely on Walker's analysis of documents since he is a reputable expert in history. I never rejected his interpretation of historical documents on NK page. You, on the other hand, admitted his authority on the NK page, even suggesting that we copy Walker verbatim. --TigranTheGreat 07:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, we can rely on his analysis of the historical documents on NK page too. I did not admit his authority, I always refered to him as a pro-Armenian source, but according to the rules, we should cross-reference the info, and Walker says the same as Potier and Cornell with regard to NK being part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we should always use Walker's analysis of historical documents (such as the fact that NK was never under Azeri control, that it remained disputed etc). We should never use his or anyone else's interpretation of the big picture, since it's always POV. Especially that Walker never says the same thing as Potier and Cornell (who themselves merely state their pro-Azeri POV).--TigranTheGreat 02:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he says exactly the same thing as those 2. And I like the way you change your position about the same source on every other page. But in this particular case there’s no evidence of the massacre committed against Armenians. Grandmaster 05:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Grandmaster, there is evidence that a massacre was committed against Armenians because in his letter Mr. Hohler expresses concern over the security of specfically Armenians and Greeks. What reason would there be to mention this if their security was not at stake in the first place? It is clear that there is a massacre and it is also clear that it was committed against both Armenians and Greeks. It gets more vague though, when we begin to question who committed the massacres. It is possible that Azeris did it and it is also possible that Turkish soldiers did it as both groups at the time were opponents of the Armenians [and Greeks]. The question is, which of these two groups could it have been? For that, more research needs to be done.

Until then, I have revised the statement in the article to make it more neutral. I stated that there was mutual violence in the region and during one massacre against Armenians and Greeks, Mr. Thomas Hohler stated "..." I did not mention WHO committed the massacre as that is still unclear. This is a compromise to our dispute and I think that it would be just the resolution we need to solve our differences. -- Clevelander 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander, Walker *has* done the research, he is an expert, and we don't need to reinvent the wheel. The area was under joint Tatar/Turkish occupation, and his expert research concludes that they were massacred by both. We don't need to compromise the accuracy. I think we should restore Walker's quotes, since he is a good secondary source (we don't need to use just primary sources, in fact Wiki recomends us to use both).--TigranTheGreat 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the following quote has been added to the article:

According to Armenian sources, the Armenian population of the area (which constituted 40% in 1917^[1]) boycotted the election.

Please show me an Armenian source, claiming that Armenians boycotted the referendum. Georgian professor never ever mentions the referendum of 1921 in Nakhichevan in his article. How can you refer to him as a source of that information? Please stop adding unreferenced information. I thought we had an agreement on this. Also, there was no statistics of 1917, the last Russian census was in 1897. “NKR” authorities told the British parliamentarian from the group of Caroline Cox that the Armenian population of Nakhichevan constituted 40% in 1917, but they provided no sources of their information. Obviously, it is nothing but insinuation, and I find it strange that Fadix who objected when I attributed the information about statistics of Brochauz encyclopedia to 1917 now says that the information is accurate. Grandmaster 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We refer to the Georgian professor for the population data, which is clearly shown in the sentence--the footnote is added not at the end of the sentence, but in the middle, after the population data. You have no proof that his source is NKR--in fact he makes it clear that his source is a Russian journal. Your speculations about the data being inaccurate calls for Original Research--clearly, the professor is better versed in evaluating his sources and coming up with a conclusion than you.

Now, as for the entire boycotting statement, we are phrasing it as an Armenian POV, not as a statement of fact. So, what is the danger of that? clevelander, do you see any danger?--TigranTheGreat 22:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)\

Tigran, I believe Gm's ridiculous assertion is that not even Armenian pov says that Nakhijevan had a significant Armenian population when in fact Armenian pov is that Nakhijevan had an Armenian majority. For example:

The Foreign Minister of Armenia, Vartan Oskanian, in a December 16th letter, urgently called upon UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura to use his office to bring about an end to this destruction. In the letter, he expresses, with a "great sense of anger and regret," his hope that "the ire and disapproval of the international community will be brought to bear on Azerbaijan in order that they cease from carrying out these acts which are tantamount to ethnic cleansing - only this time, there are no people left, and they have resorted to cleansing the memory of those people." The Minister went on to explain that "Nakhichevan was home to a majority Armenian population for generations."[6]--Eupator 23:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Which Armenian source claims that Armenians boycotted the 1921 referendum? Do you have a neutral source for statistics of 1917? There was no census that year. You have not answered any of those questions. Grandmaster 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Georgian is a neutral source. He says 40%. Fadix states that Armenians boycotted. He is Armenian. Now, you have not answered my question--if we are phrasing the boycot as an Armenian claim, what is the danger? And I ask the same to Clevelander (I want his honest opinion as well).--TigranTheGreat 21:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. However, we still need sources for the statistics. Nobody has come forward with a neutral source that states that Armenians constituted 40%. My problem with Menteshashvili's work is that it's questionable (he seems to be quoting the British parlamentarian but at the same time he also lists a source right in the middle - and until I see it we cannot determine if this is credible or not). I would ultimately prefer we use a solid source than walking on thin ice to prove a point. I was interested in the information Fadix provided earlier as it appeared as though he knew what he was talking about, but again, he failed to list a source. -- Clevelander 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about the 40%, I am talking about the boycot. If we phrase it as Armenian POV, and not as fact, what's the problem? --TigranTheGreat 00:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, when I say that "you make a good point" that means that there isn't a problem. -- Clevelander 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thanks:) Now that the boycott thing is clarified, back to the Georgian guy. I understand that you prefer primary source statistics. But it's not necessary on Wiki to use primary sources--we can use secondary sources (like the Georgian guy), who themselves have used other sources, who have used primary ones. Wiki rules of WP:NOR preclude us from declaring a source invalid simply because we ourselves have no access to the underlying data. So, we shouldn't just delete this particular secondary source while we wait for the statistics. But, if you can access the Russian journal in your library, that will be fine as well.--TigranTheGreat 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We cannot refer to Fadix as source for Armenians boycoting the referendum. That would be an original research. It should be publiched somewhere. The same goes for statistics. You cannot include the statitics based on "someone says so". Such figures should come from a reliable source, such as census. Grandmaster 04:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The statistics come from a reliable, reputable, published secondary source (in this case the Georgian professor. Since we phrase the boycott as an Armenian POV and not as a fact, there is no danger that reader will take it as fact.--TigranTheGreat 07:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Where that fact has been published? According to the rules we include only the info that has already been published somewhere. Show me where exactly that fact has been mentioned. And statistics come from "NKR" authorities, who provoded that info to the British parlamantarian, to whom your source refers. Very dubious and unreliable. The last census was in 1897, the fgures for 1917 simply don't exist. Ask Fadix, he said the same before. Grandmaster 09:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't know if the statistics came from NKR authorities. What we do know is that a reputable source uses the statistics, citing another reputable source. So, it should stay. And tell me what is exactly the danger of phrasing the boycott as Armenian POV. After all, the reader's are not going to think that it's necessarily an accepted fact.--TigranTheGreat 02:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The source says: "Thus, after his visit to NKR in April 1998 being a member of the delegation “Christian solidarity”, the member of the House of Lords of the Great Britain Mr.Gilton described in his memorandum 15 reasons, under which the people of NKR will never accept the form of government of Nagorni Karabakh from Azerbaijan. Here are three of them: <...> · it is still vivid the memory of persecutions of Armenians in Nakhichevan where in 1917 Armenians made over 40% of the total number of the population, whereas in 1987 only two Armenian villages were remained in Nakhichevan."

Georgian professor refers to some British parlamentarian, who in turn refers to the authorities of "NKR". The source of the statistics is unclear, and there's no way anyone could provide figures for 1917, as the last census was in 1897. By the same token, I can attribute the figures of Brochauz on population of Erivan to 1917. As for the referendum of 1921, I repeat a millionth time, please show me any source claiming that Armenians boycotted it. We include only information published somewhere else before. Tell me where this info has been published. Grandmaster 05:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm starting to think that after being forced to evacate the area and after being massacred by Azeri and Turkish forces, Nakhichevan's Armenian population (once 42% strong in 1907) had dwindled by the end of the war. So if there was indeed a referendum, there is a possibility that the Armenians were no longer substantial enough in numbers to make a difference (or for that matter to boycott). This would also account for the reason as to why only pockets of Armenians lived in the area during the Soviet years (they were survivors of a battle for supremacy in Nakhichevan). In fact, I think that only a few areas in Nakhichevan during the Soviet era had an Armenian majority (I would especially think that this was the case with the Karki exclave which was transferred from Armenia to Azerbaijan by Stalin in 1931 and is now under Armenian control). Still, I've applied this idea to the article as it represents the most realistic interpretation of events as they occured. I also used Grandmaster's 1907 Russian Empire census data that Fadix had referred to earlier instead of the heavily-disputed Georgian source. -- Clevelander 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My theory appears to be supported by Library of Congress's Armenia: A Country Study. Check out the section entitled "The New Nationalism" and you'll see the post-World War I Armenian demographic information for Nakhichevan. Here is what the LoC states:

In Nakhichevan the number of Armenians had declined from about 15,600 (15 percent of the total) in 1926 to about 3,000 (1.4 percent of the total) in 1979, while in the same period immigration and a higher birth rate had increased the Azerbaijani population from about 85,400 (85 percent) to 230,000, or nearly 96 percent of the total.

At only 15% even if the Armenians did vote in the referendum, they would not have made a major difference. I will reaffirm my position that what caused the dramatic decrease of Nakhichevan's Armenian population from 42% in 1907 to 15% in 1926 was a direct result of mass emigration and Turkish-sponsered massacres by Azeri irregulars. I would also guess that further emigration (quite possibly to the Armenian SSR after World War II) led it to decline to 1.4% by 1979 and of course the Karabakh War finished off this number to 0% at present. -- Clevelander 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander, we should remove the phrase "and thus could not make a major difference in the outcome of the referendum"--it's original research and a particular POV. Just because population was 15% in 1926 doesn't mean it was 15% in early 1921--many Armenians could have left Nakhichevan after finding out that it was given to their butchers. And 40% as of 1917 is still well sourced from a secondary book--it wasn't just prior to WWI, but it was at the very end of WWI. Just because Azeris murdered many ARmenians doesn't mean the percentage of Armenians decreased. It was in fact replenished by influx of refugees from Armenian Genocide. So, the 40% data as of 1917 is verifiable and should be restored.--TigranTheGreat 22:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You forget to mention that Andranik's gangs also murdered many Muslims, but there also was a large influx of Azeri refugees from Zangezur. I saw the paintings of the Azeri artis Bahruz Kengerli, where he portrayed those refugees. I think that Armenians voted in support of Nakhichevan being part of Azerbaijan, for one simple reason: it was a Soviet referendum. There was no democracy in the Soviets, and people voted as they were told. So the Armenian population voted exactly the same way as the Azeri. But we cannot include that into the article, as it is an original research, same as any other versions we come up with. It should be published somewhere. Also, why my quote of Cornell was removed, while Walker remained? We either include both or remove both. Grandmaster 04:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I say we don't include either Walker or Cornell until we can get an administrator to work out our differences. I know that our fellow user MarshallBagramyan is searching for more information on the events from this time period. I would like to see what he comes up with. Somehow, I can't see Andranik as the "butcher" or "murderer" you desrcibe him as, but that's just me. Don't forget that there are two sides to every story. What about Enver Pasha and his "Army of Islam" and the crimes they committed against the Christians? (not just Armenians but Greeks and Assyrians also suffered at their hands too) Or what about Talat Pasha? I wouldn't exactly call him a saint. -- Clevelander 12:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Noone was a saint. Neither were Armenians, who slaughtered thousands Muslims in Baku, Zangezur and other places. Andranik was a notorious butcher, destroying whole Muslim villages together with their population. Sad history of our region. And we should use both Cornell and Walker, or use none. I have some infromation from the Alstadt book, which I'm going to include as well. Grandmaster 12:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Andranik, a heroic figure of highest integrity, specifically forbade any abuses by his soldiers. Your statements are mere repetitions of Turko-Azeri falsification machine. The so called "massacres of Muslims" were actually a result of Armenians defending themselves against armed Muslim militia, who tried to wipe them out as part of the ongoing Armenian Genocide. The very existence of Armenian Republic was at danger due to Turkish supported Tatat massacres and attacks. Which fortunately failed in the end.

Cornell is not a historian, while Walker is. And Cornell's blatantly POV statement "Dashnaks chased Muslims away," while omitting massacres of Armenians, undermines his neutrality. Walker actually doesn't shy away from stating that Armenians killed Muslims as well (and the mutuality of violence is reflected in the article), so Walker is way more neutral and authoritative.--TigranTheGreat 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Croissant appears to be not a reliable source. His quote of Narimanov contradicts to what other sources say. According to Potier, Narimanov said:

As of today, the old frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared to be non-existent. Mountainous Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan are recognised to be integral parts of the Socialist Republic of Armenia.

The same quote can be found even on the website of the Armenian separatists:

С сегодняшнего дня прежние границы между Арменией и Азербайджаном объявляются аннулированными. Нагорный Карабах, Зангезур и Нахичеван признаются составной частью Армянской Социалистической Республики. [7]

So the removal of the actual Narimanov quote by Tigran is an attempt to suppress accurate information. Grandmaster 09:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's move beyond the BS rhetoric and take a look at your logic. According to you, a neutral source that contradicts you is not reliable, but a source that agrees with you is reliable? Both your and my sources translated from the original russian, so clearly there will be some differences. And you can't rely on the NKR site this case because you wouldn't rely on it otherwise.

By the way, it was Potier who said "Paris Conference recognized Azeri claims over NK"? Even when there is no source for that? Sounds like Potier is the less reliable one here.

And did you honestly think that "Dashnaks chase Muslims away" even came close to NPOV? --TigranTheGreat 09:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The current quote contradicts the same quote in other sources, and I can refer to “NKR” site for cross-reference. And my quote about Dashnaks is as good as Walker, which is a biased source. Grandmaster 09:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Current quote is a translation, so clearly it's going to be different from Potier's quote. You can't cross reference with NKR site since you do not consider it reliable. What you read on the External Links site was about reliable sources. Oh, and another reason you can't cross-reference is that one is Russian, the other is English, and even Potier's quote doesn't literally translate the Russian original. We didn't quote Walker, we took facts from his book and phrased them in neutral fashion. And the Dashnak attacks against Tatars are included there as well. If we did quote Walker, you wouldn't like it (we could quote him saying, for example, that "Turks and Tatars killed Armenians following their habit," or that "Sultanov was a violent Tatar warlord."--TigranTheGreat 10:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't find phraising being anywhere near a neutral fashion. And if it is a matter of translation, Potier did a lot better job at that, so we go with him. Grandmaster 10:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold it, hold it, hold it. Tigran, Grandmaster, calm down. Is this REALLY worth debating about? It appears to be only a mere case of varying translation. This does not automatically mean that an author is or is not a reliable source. To say "As of today, the old frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared to be non-existent" is basically the same thing as saying "As of today, the border disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared resolved" but in a more frank way. I don't see why it matters. Let's just leave it like it is for now, alright? If you guys want to, we can come back to it later. There are more important and debatable matters in this article than this. As far as I'm concerned this argument is over until we can solve our disputes over Walker's work. Okay? Let's just drop this. -- Clevelander 13:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree.--TigranTheGreat 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to provide the accurate quote. Alternatively, we can remove the quote altogether. Grandmaster 04:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually wouldn't mind if we used the Potier variation instead (though I say we should keep Croissant reference intact as well, perhaps next to Potier's. In any case, it doesn't matter. My point was that we should not worry about details such as this until we solve our more pressing disputes. -- Clevelander 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Potier appears to be more accurate, and his text can be verified from "NKR" website. I think we should go with him, because I see no point of having two versions of the same telegram, it will be confusing. Grandmaster 13:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no, Grandmaster, I wasn't saying that we should have the quote on the article twice. Only the Croissant reference would be intact, meaning in other words, after the quote, we would have two references, thus lending more credibility to the quote. It's a common practice on Wikipedia and it's even encouraged. -- Clevelander 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Potier's quote is not closer in meaning to NKR's text than Croissant's. Nor is GM an expert in translation to decide so. And since GM doesn't regard NKR's site as reliable, we can't rely on its original text. Finally, Potier himself is not reliable, since he has used erroneous facts in his book (such as "Paris Peace Conference recognized Azeri claims over disputed areas") which goes against all historical documents.--TigranTheGreat 00:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly, GM once again is trying to pick and choose between sources he likes and dislikes. If we use the NKR site, we should use the Armenian Foreign Ministry site, which actually has an English version of the text, precisely corresponding Croissant's translation.[8]--TigranTheGreat 00:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

...that we had an administrator mediate this once and for all. -- Clevelander 11:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but who would that be? Btw, Araz republic was created before British took the region over. Also, could you please explain if you have any problems with the Narimanov quote, provided by me? If we continue to revert the article back and forth, it will get protected like many of the articles about Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of having Golbez be the mediator. -- Clevelander 12:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose. We should get someone new. Grandmaster 12:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with having Golbez mediate? -- Clevelander 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason GM opposes Golbez is because Golbez wouldn't let him press his POV on the NK page. In fact, Golbez did a fine job of mediation on that page, otherwise much of GM's POV would sneak in into that article as well. Of course this didn't leave GM happy, and he tried to push Golbez out of the article. This failed, but to make all sides happy, FrancisTyers joined the mediation. When GM wasn't happy with him either, Tabib was summoned to push Francis out, which once again failed.

I am sure GM is not happy with the fact that Golbez doesn't share his POV, but that is his problem--we don't pick and choose admins just because they disagree with our POV. By the way, Golbez is very well familiar with this article as well, has mediated here before, and if we choose an admin (which I think is still premature), he should be the choice. --TigranTheGreat 00:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I say we hold on having administrator mediation for now. If our disputes only get worse, then we'll bring in someone to mediate. -- Clevelander 00:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we are doing just fine.--TigranTheGreat 01:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hellooo out there. Anybody in? Cleve, buddy, what did you do? lol--TigranTheGreat 02:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why, I archived our last discussion, of course. -- Clevelander 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The following line was added to the article with reference to the book by Michael P. Croissant called The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications:

During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, areas in Armenia's southern province of Syunik were reportedly being shelled from Nakhichevan. Armenia responded by invading and occupying the Karki exclave.

Clevelander, I checked page 81 of Croissant book and found no reference to the village of Karki. Moreover, the book seems to contain no reference to that village whatsoever. Would you be so kind as to present the sources for that information? Grandmaster 09:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't counter that now as I don't have the Croissant book with me (I'm at work). I'll be willing to discuss it later, though. -- Clevelander 12:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See an excerpt from his book (page 81, to which you were referring):

The domestic political debate in Turkey on the question of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict was brought to a head in May 1992, when Armenian forces attacked Nakhichevan, the autonomous republic of Azerbaijan separated from it physically by Armenia. While the Turks were dismayed with the outbreak of violence, the assault on Nakhichevan was cause for concern primarily because the enclave represents the only portion of a Muslim state of the FSU with which Turkey is geographically contiguous. Fearing the loss of its physical link with Azerbaijan by an Armenian military victory in Nakhichevan, Turkey was faced with a serious dilemma. In the face of a deteriorating situation in Nakhichevan and amid growing pleas for humanitarian and military-technical assistance from the enclave's leadership, the Turkish government faced a political crisis in the third week of May. With all of the major opposition parties and President Turgut Ozal himself calling for action, Prime Minister Demirel was forced to take a tougher stand vis-a-vis Armenia. On 18 May Demirel pledged unspecified aid to Nakhichevan, and the Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a statement warning Armenia that “faits accomplis created through the use of force cannot be accepted”. Although there was little indication that Turkey was preparing for military intervention in Nakhichevan, Turkish sabre-rattling prompted a provocative response from Russia. In a clear reference to Turkey, Marshal Shaposhnikov of the CIS Joint Armed Forces warned on 20 May that “third party intervention into the dispute [between Armenia and Azerbaijan] could trigger a Third World War”. Grandmaster 12:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing about Nakhihchevan shelling Armenia (it even says that Armenian forces attacked Nakhichevan), no mention of Karki in the whole book. How am I supposed to assume good faith after that? Grandmaster 12:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I told you let me look into it later. It is possible that I've made a mistake and I meant to reference another source instead of Croissant. -- Clevelander 12:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then remove those lines until you can reference them, or put back fact tags. Grandmaster 12:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

...we are to discuss major changes to the history section before making them. Sorry guys, I'm reverting back to my earlier version. If you guys want to complain about it, bring it to the talk page instead of engaging in a revert war. Thank you. -- Clevelander 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Clevelander, but you don’t own the article. Check WP:OWN. I have a right to edit and make any legitimate additions I deem necessary, and neither you nor Tigran have any right to remove information, based on authoritative sources. I don’t mind discussing any problems, but you never consulted with me when you made edits to the article, so it is strange that you demand now that we should discuss any additions before making them. That’s against the rules, that say be bold in editing. Grandmaster 11:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't own the article, but as a rule of thumb and to keep some order, I think it would do us all good if we discuss our edits to the history section first before adding them. I don't see what's wrong with that. My edits yesterday were "tweaks." As you can see, I kept Cornell in there but I restored Walker's information per your suggestion of having them both included. I felt that from here we could discuss and evaluate our differences. -- Clevelander 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain why my changes were removed? What's wrong with information from Alstadt? What the Greeks have to do with Nakhichevan it never had any Greek population? Grandmaster 12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you didn't discuss them on the talk page first. -- Clevelander 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And when did you discuss quotes from Walker? You just added them and ignored my opinion. Grandmaster 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I re-added Walker in compliance with your suggestion that we include both him and Cornell. In any case, I will look over your edits now to see what you've added. We will evalaute them here on the talk page and then add them. -- Clevelander 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You added him long before, man. I suggest you restore my version and try to incorporate the additions I made. I don't make indiscriminate reverts like you guys do and always keep legitimate edits. You remove even such simple things as a link to the article about Khan Khoyski, and many others. I added it 5 times already. And restore the tag please, the article is disputed. Grandmaster 12:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, chill. When you were writing this message, I already decided to revert your edits back in favor of you explaining them. Please calm down, we can work this out through discussion. -- Clevelander 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander, there is no reason for you to give cart blanche to GM's additions while keeping out other edits. He rejects your attempts to resolve disputes, he uses coercive tactics to make you keep his edits (which include removal of long-existing passages), he is trying to keep the article only the way he likes it to see--in essense, he actually attempts to own the article. And you don't need to cave in to him like that.

Aldstadt's additions are POV (as I will explain below) and they are quoted in whole, with all the POV expressions. Besides being a copyright violation, this also violates NPOV standards. The same is true for Cornell's quote--as always, here too he copies Cornell's POV statement (Dashnaks chased Muslims) verbatim. This is GM's pattern, and it's against both copyright rules and NPOV rules--we include facts, not POV phrasings.

He also removes long-standing quotes such as Croissant's, while putting in quotes that suit him. If you didn't notice, he removed entire sections of Nakhichevan's Armenian history which were added by you (while I actually kept your edits).

If you want to insist on the rule that we shouldn't add stuff without discussion, then we need to stick with it. Aldstadt's POV comments were added without discussion. Cornell's POV quote was added without discussion, while Walker's quotes have been here for a long time. Potier's "translation" again was added without discussion. If GM agrees to try to work things out instead of blindly sticking only to the version that he likes, then me and Eupator won't revert him. Otherwise, there is no reason to tolerate his uncompromising stance.--TigranTheGreat 20:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Walker is a pro-Armenian source, which is a verifiable info. Yet information from his book was included in the article without any attempt to discuss it on the talk page. It is funny that Tigran now talks about neutrality, when the version he reverts too talks about massacres of Armenians that cannot be verified from any authoritative source. Cornell and Alstadt are as good as Walker, and I’m going to add more info from yet another book. All that info should remain in the article, according to the rules the rules the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. And the info that I added is verifiable. Plus, the info was not copied verbatim, I shortened it a little bit due to space limitations, and it is referenced to Alstadt, so everyone can see where it’s taken from. As for Narimanov’s quote, you know perfectly well that Potier’s version is a more accurate translation of the original Russian text. I know that you will be denying it as usual, but I suggest we get an unbiased native Russian speaker to check both Potier and Croissant versions against the original Russian text and pass his judgment. Grandmaster 07:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be original research. Since Croissant's quote is published, we include that.

Cornell's opinion about Walker is an opinion, which is never verifiable. On the other hand, Cornell's connections with the Azeri government are well verifiable. Massacres of Armenians are verified by primary sources. Cornell's and Lady A's comments, on the other hand, are not verified. Plus, what they state is their POV about the intent of Dashnaks, which is clear propaganda. Under NPOV standards, they can't belong to the article. --TigranTheGreat 02:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Grandmaster, here's your platform, please explain your recent additions to the Nakhichevan article. -- Clevelander 12:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I added two paragraphs:

The Azerbaijanis had a national committee in Nakhchivan as did the Armenians. Jafar Kuli Khan, the leader of the Azerbaijani Turks' National Committee, turned for protection to Ottoman forces and to his relative, the khan of Maku. Nakhchivan’s Muslim population was not interested in being part of an Armenian state whose forces cut off Nakhchivan from the ADR and carried out frequent attacks on border villages. The Armenian threat cemented Azerbaijani National Committee ties to the Ottoman army and the Maku khan and later led them to seek Allied aid against Armenian forces trying to incorporate Nakhjivan into Armenia.

When the British occupied Nakhchivan in January 1919, they regarded the Araz Republic, like the regime in Baku, as merely an Ottoman creation and accorded it no recognition. In the summer of 1919, according to Soviet accounts, an American colonel, James Ray, arrived in Nakhjivan. After discussion with various parties, he suggested to Jafar Kuli Khan that an American governor general oversee the territory. Colonel Haskell suggested the same in a letter of 1 September 1919 to the ADR government. He reportedly traveled through Nakhchivan and Sharur-Daralagez and, in his report to the Peace Conference, supported "neutral zone" status for these areas under an American governor general. In October, Azerbaijan published notices signed by Ray and Haskell that U.S. Army colonel Edmund D. Daily would be the U.S. governor general of Nakhjivan. Daily apparently never assumed the post.

Also from the same book I added the line about Turkish army taking control of the region in March 1920. The source of this information is Audrey L. Altstadt. The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity Under Russian Rule. ISBN: 0817991816. The second paragraph is somewhat repetitive, but I think Alstadt provided more precise and detailed information about the period of British occupation. You might wish to merge the second paragraph with the information previously included in the article. Grandmaster 13:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds credible enough to me and it seems to neutrally represent the Azeri perspective of events. I think it should stay. -- Clevelander 13:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but overall I'm in favor of placing less emphasis on the speculative info about massacres and attacks and focus more on political developments in the region. I gotta go now, talk to you later. Grandmaster 13:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, we'll pick up this discussion later. So long! -- Clevelander 13:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleve, buddy, how does one "neutrally represent the Azeri perspective of events"? If we push the Azeri perspective, then by definition it is not neutral.

How is this even remotely neutral? "Nakhchivan’s Muslim population was not interested in being part of an Armenian state whose forces cut off Nakhchivan from the ADR and carried out frequent attacks on border villages. The Armenian threat cemented Azerbaijani National Committee ties to the Ottoman army" The whole passage is pushing the idea that poor Azeris wanted independence to protect themselves from those "evil" Armenians (when in reality, as Walker makes it clear, it was Azeris and Turks who were carrying out the massacres of Armenians, who only afterwards responded with attacks on Muslims positions). This totally pushes one POV, while ignoring the fact that Azeris wanted Nakhichevan independent in accordance with the Pan-Turcic plan of uniting Azerbaijan with Turkey and smothering Armenia.

In addition to being a POV edit, the addition also copies Ms. A's book verbatim, which as I said violates copyright and includes all the POV phrases unchanged. That's not how Walker's book was used, mind you. And this is a general pattern used by GM--dump entire passages from various books (and the one he likes) into articles. This undoubtedly lowers the quality of articles.

And by the way, besides being highly biased. Lady A's book is also unreliable due to mistakes revealed on the NK page--together with Potier (who actually relied on A), lady A invented the idea (without source) that somehow the Paris Peace Conference recognized Azeri jurisdiction over the disputed areas--which is contrary to all historical facts (they didn't even recognize Azeribaijan de-jure).--TigranTheGreat 20:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, talk about neutrality, Tigran. How is this passage from Walker neutral:

Azeris from Ordubad attacked the nearby town of Lower Akulis (whose population was 80% Armenian). Subsequently, Armenian civilians were massacred, though some managed to escape to the Upper Akulis stronghold. However, this was destroyed too.

This info cannot be verified from any other source, and yet it is included in the article. Also, no mistakes have been revealed in either Potier or Alstadt book. Fadix’s opinion is not a proof of any mistakes being revealed. Actually, I’m going to include that passage from those 2 books in the article about NK, it is verifiable info that appeared in more than one source. Grandmaster 07:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No you won't. If you do, I will include the info from NESL stating that League of nations recognized the disputed nature of territories and didn't recognize Azerbaijan. Potier's statement is clearly disputed, and definitely a mistake, so we can't include it. As for Walker's quote--he is making a factual statement--Armenians were massacred. Lady A is giving her POV interpretation as to why "poor" Azeris were trying to be independent from Armenia--hence it's POV and can't be included.--TigranTheGreat 07:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will. You are free to include anything you want, but don’t forget to mention that Azerbaijan was denied acceptance to League of Nations in late November, and by that time it was long occupied by the Bolsheviks. The reason for denial was that the Azerbaijani government in exile did not control the entire territory of Azerbaijan, and not just Karabakh. It did not also control Baku, Ganja and other regions. Armenian and pro-Armenian sources try to present this as if Azerbaijan was denied membership in LN because it did not control Karabakh, but the fact is that Karabakh was not specifically mentioned. Information of Walker cannot be verified from any other source, so it’s pure propaganda. Alstadt and Cornell provide factual information about Armenian attacks on the Azeri population, so that information should remain in the article. Grandmaster 20:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try to write up an overall more neutral version of the history section myself tomorrow. Then when I complete it, I'll post it here before adding it to the article and we can evalaute it (and bring in an admin to look it over as well). -- Clevelander 23:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but if you want to bring the mediator, according to the rules he should be a person, accepted by both sides. Otherwise its not gonna work. I suggest we even apply for the official mediation, this article passed the stages of RFC and informal mediation, so we can do that. Grandmaster 07:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such rule. If we choose a mediator, he should be someone familiar with the article and issues, and known for his good track record. As Clevelander said, Golbez is the right match.--TigranTheGreat 07:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See [9]. I suggest we apply for formal mediation. I know you prefer Golbez for his pro-separatist sympathies, but I will not accept his mediation on any articles, related to Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Grandmaster 08:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how I didn't even get a chance to write-up a more neutral version of Nakhichevan's history, I don't think we should jump into mediation yet. I promise that I'll have something either by the end of the day today or by the afternoon (in US Eastern time). -- Clevelander 11:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The rules say parties should agree to mediation, not necessarily to the mediator. Pro-separatist sympathies have nothing to do with Nakhichevan. I know you avoid Golbez since he checked your attempts to put your POV in the NK article, but that is not a reason to exclude him. He is well qualified and should mediate, if we indeed mediate. But I agree with Clevelander, there is no need at this point.

And by the way, all that talk about "what Armenians try to do or not to do" with League of Nations' stance on Azerbaijan is your speculation and is irrelevant. Regardless of their reason, the point is that League of Nations didn't recognize Azeri jurisdiction over disputed areas, so you can't include Potier's erronous comments about Peace Conference. Walker's statements about massacres are verified by primary sources, so it should stay in the article. Lady A's comments are her POV interpretation, which means they can't be included in the article as fact (according to NPOV rules).--TigranTheGreat 02:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

--TigranTheGreat 02:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything about Potier's claim regarding Lenin's referendum in any other book that I've checked today on the Caucasus. I even checked out a book by Cornell (Small Nations And Great Powers) and I haven't been able to find anything on it.

But I did find out some really fascinating information, including Persian claims to both Armenia and Azerbaijan at the Paris Peace Conference as well as demographic information regarding Nakhichevan from 1914 and (get this) attempts by the government of Nakhichevan to secede from Azerbaijan in the 1990s. More to come soon. -- Clevelander 19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Referendum is mentioned in the library of congress file, I provided the link in my earlier posting. And Nakhichevan never tried to secede from Azerbaijan, I've been following all political developments in my country since 1988, and such thing never happened. Nakhichevan was trying to secede from the USSR. If your source indeed claims that NAR tried to secede from Azerbaijan, you can discard it right away. Grandmaster 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It came from Wars in the Caucasus (p. 54-5) by Edgar O'Ballance, who seems to be a credible historian. His work even claims that Nakhichevan sought to join the CIS on December 17, 1991, but Azerbaijan objected. -- Clevelander 20:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so credible, if he indeed says so. I can't believe anyone well familiar with the history of the region can make such claims. In my opnion, information should appear in more than 1 source to get included in the article. Grandmaster 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll look more into it tomorrow. -- Clevelander 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, according to a source that you provided, the LoC country study on Azerbaijan, Nakhichevan did indeed push for independence from Azerbaijan during the 1990s. But this was not without reason. Heydar Aliyev who was living in "exhile from Azerbaijan" built a power base in Nakhichevan, so powerful that he at times, due to his frustration with the Azerbaijani government, pushed for Nakhichevan's independence. However, when Aliyev was invited to return to Azerbaijan, Nakhichevan was quickly integrated back as part of the state, still maintaining its autonomy. Here's a quote from the LoC:

In 1987 Gorbachev ousted Aliyev from the Politburo and relieved him as party leader in Azerbaijan. Soon after returning to Nakhichevan in 1990, Aliyev was elected overwhelmingly to the Supreme Soviet of the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic on a nationalist platform. The next year, he resigned his communist party membership. After the failed August 1991 coup in Moscow, he called for total independence for Azerbaijan and denounced Mutalibov, who was then aspiring to the presidency, for supporting the coup. In late 1991, Aliyev built a power base as chairman of the Nakhichevan Supreme Soviet, from which he asserted Nachichevan's near-total independence from Baku. [10] -- Clevelander 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander, there is no rule that says we should include something only if it's mentioned in two sources. Since that info comes from a reputable source, go ahead include it. GM's "opnion" is not a Wikipedia policy.--TigranTheGreat 02:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)