Talk:History of Nagorno-Karabakh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 History of Nagorno-Karabakh is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
WikiProject Azeri This article is part of WikiProject Azeri, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azeri-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.

Contents

[edit] Protected

This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please note that protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. When editors have reached consensus on how to move forward, place a requet for unprotection at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khosrov bey Sultanov

This is the information Tigran and Eupator try to suppress. Khosrov bey Sultanov was appointed by the Azerbaijani government as the governor-general of Karabakh. He was recognized in this capacity by the British command, who represented the Allies in the region. The text of the Circular by colonel D. I. Shuttleworth of the British Command can be found on the website of the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

The English Command declares to the entire population of the counties of Shusha, Zangezur, Jebrail, and Jevanshir that:

1. the government of Azerbaijan, by its decision of January 15, 1919, has appointed Dr.Sultanov as governor-general. He enjoys the cooperation of the English command;

7. with this communique the English Command wishes to emphasize that in order for the Governor-Genera! to fulfill the obligations placed on him, including preservation of law and order in the governor-generalship, all regulations and directives issued by the Governor-General and his bureaus must be enacted without opposition, and the English Command lends its full support to all legally adopted measures.

According to the rules, “If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account”.

If we have a look at the sources which have biases at cross purposes (i.e. Azerbaijani and Armenian ones), we’ll see that they all agree that Sultanov was appointed by the Azerbaijani government and was recognized in this capacity by the British:

Armenian source:

On January 15, 1919 the Azerbaijani government with "the knowledge of the English command" appointed Khosrovebek Sultanov governor-general of Nagorno-Karabagh, simultaneously laying an ultimatum to the Karabaghian National Council to recognize the power of Azerbaijan. [1]

Azeri source:

In order to solve these problems Khosrov bey Sultanov was appointed to the newly created general-governor's position in January 1919. Three aides from the Azeri and three from the Armenian sides assisted the governor in his work. The general-governor-administered territories included the Shusha, Zangezur, Jevanshir and the Jebrayil districts. The Armenian authorities hurried to protest against this decision of the Azerbaijanian government and having evaluated it as «violation of the territorial rights of Armenia» appealed to the commander-in-chief of the Allied forces in the Caucasus general Thompson. But Thompson, who arrived in the Caucasus in November 1918 and had already got acquainted with the situation, recognized the legitimate rights of the Azerbaijanian government with regard to its internal affairs and also recognized the authority of the Karabakh's general-governor. [2] Grandmaster 07:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Before debunking GM's distortions, it's important to note that these very events are currently subject to dispute resolution on the Nagorno Karabakh page. Instead of waiting for the end of mediation, GM decided to put in his POV version of events, clearly to start an edit war.

Now, back to contents of GM's distortions. Despite his claims, me and Eupator have precisely included the very facts that his sources (i.e. the British circular) mentions--i.e. the appointment of Khosrov. The circular--i.e. the primary document in this case, states nothing about "recognizing de-facto ownership" or "reaffirming" such ownership. It's a mere practical decision by the British to keep one individual in charge of NK and stop the fight, while the rest of the Allies decide the issue in Paris Conference. There was no official recognition of anything or anyone (which is a word with legal/diplomatic connotations). And there couldn't be, because at the time Azerbaijan wasn't recognized neither de-jure nor de-facto.

Furthermore, GM is trying to suppress the sentence "The Allies decided that the ultimate status of Karabakh was not determined, and it was pending final decision in Paris Peace Conference." This is reflected in reputable sources:

The League of Nations and the leading world powers recognized the disputed status of Nagorno Karabagh. The League of Nations neither recognized the sovereignty of the Azerbaijan Republic over Karabagh nor accepted the Azerbaijan Republic as its member-state.

http://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf --TigranTheGreat 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean to say that Sultanov was not appointed by the Azerbaijnai government? Even Armenian sources don't dispute that. British supported that decision, as is obviuos from the primary source. Grandmaster 09:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I said no such thing--I am saying that the British support/appointment is no official recognition of "de-facto" or any other "recognition." You are trying to search for a legal significance from a purely practical, temporary decision so just install someone so the fighting stops--until it is decided upon who the land should belong to.--TigranTheGreat 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Meliks

Quote from Raffi, who says exactly the same as Mirza Adigezal bey:

Из пяти господствовавших в Карабахе меликских домов лишь правители Хачена были местными жителями, а остальные, как мы видели и увидим далее, были переселенцами из других мест. [3] Grandmaster 11:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. But Raffi says nothing about Kachen rulers claiming descendance from Albanian kings, so that part will need to be attributed to the Mirza guy. I still don't think a publication of the Azeri Academy of sciences is the best source, but for now I will agree to its use.--TigranTheGreat 13:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There's an English translation of this book by George Bournoutian from the same edition by the Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences. Russian translation is made by the Russian scholar Leviatov from the original, kept in Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences. This book is considered one of the most important primary sources on the history of Karabakh. Grandmaster 10:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Could someone work on the grammar for this article please? With all the time spent debating the history of karabakh, you would think there would be time to fix grammatical errors. With all due respect of course.

You do know you can fix the errors? Nareklm 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for the tag

The article is poorly sourced. Most references are to the website of Armenian separatists and some book published in Yerevan, which clearly contradict the rule that the sources should have no bias. Grandmaster 04:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific as to what issues you're exactly disputing? --Mardavich 06:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The article (1918-1920) is based exclusively on primary sources. The cores primary sources are really published in 1992 in Yerevan. Article is made with the maximal care. If someone has others primary sources, to it nothing prevents to insert them into article.Sfrandzi 16:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ugly article

This article needs to be compressed in length and needs a proper, concise introduction on the region and its history. The 1918-1920 section is so long that I doubt anyone would would to even look at it. Its been on my to do list, but consider compacting Karabakh's history like so: History of Nagorno-Karabakh (1822-1917), History of Nagorno-Karabakh (1918-1923), History of Nagorno-Karabakh (1923-1991), etc. This article shouldn't include more than two paragraphs on each section.--MarshallBagramyan 21:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is extremely bad, it needs a thorough clean-up. Most facts are not verifiable from reliable sources. We can split it up as well, but before doing that we need to check the article and remove POV stuff, and see what's left after that. Grandmaster 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have begun a "user page" version of this article: User:Clevelander/History of Nagorno-Karabakh
From here, we can iron out all the issues. -- Clevelander 19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Udis

native utis from the village of Nij Utik was a province of Caucasian Albania. The people of Utik are known today as udis. Nij is the largest existing settlement of udis. This is not an original research, but verifiable info. [4]

Raffi says:

Мелик-Бегларяны — коренные утийцы, из села Ниж. Какие обстоятельства принудили их оставить родину, перебраться в Карабах и поселиться в гаваре Гюлистан, — об этом история умалчивает. Известно только, что первый переселенец, которого тюрки называли «Кара-юзбаши» («Черный сотник»), а армяне — «Черный Абов», был человеком не простым:** на своей родине он имел состояние и правил народом. [5]

Melik Beglaryans were native utis from the village of Nij. The history does not reveal which circumstances forced them to leave their motherland, move to Karabakh and settle in Gulistan region. It is only known that the first migrant, who was called Kara yuzbashi by the Turks and Black Abov by the Armenians was not an ordinary person - he was a wealthy man and ruled the people in his motherland.

So please do not delete verifiable info. Grandmaster 11:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Utik was a province of Armenia (the 12th province, to be exact). It's people were Armenians. "Utiytsi" could mean Armenians from Utik. Your translation is biased. Please do not assume facts.--TigranTheGreat 18:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please cite your sources about population of Utik and Nij. And how my translation is biased? Provide yours then. Grandmaster 05:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please site yours. I already provided it.--TigranTheGreat 17:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. And you provided no sources whatsoever. Grandmaster 05:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Grandmaster and Tigran, your continuous arguments have led this article to be closed. I say we discuss our issues with this article below. -- Clevelander 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You provided no sources saying that Beglaryan was ethnic udi. The russian translation isn't clear whether it's "ethnic" or "from Utik." --TigranTheGreat 15:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Raffi they were native utis from the village of Nij. That's what the current version says with attribution of info to Raffi. Utik was named after the utis/udis, who composed the population of the area, and was one of the provinces of Albania, which was at times occupied by Armenia. But that's a different issue. Grandmaster 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming that everyone in Nij was udi. Without the Armenian original of Raffi's text, we cannot decide in favor of one possible meaning of the word "utiytsi" against another.

By the way, here is my translation (differences in bold):

Melik Beglaryans had their roots going back to Utik, and were from the village of Nij. The history does not reveal which circumstances forced them to leave their birthland, move to Karabakh and settle in Gulistan region. It is only known that the first migrant, who was called Kara yuzbashi by the Turks and Black Abov by the Armenians was not an ordinary person - he was a wealthy man and ruled the people in his motherland. --TigranTheGreat 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Udi-speakers in present-day Azerbaijan are located in the rayons of Qabala and Oguz. None to my knowledge live in the area of the former Utik region, which had an eastern frontier that was defined by the Kura River. Seeing as how Qabala and Oguz are located beyond the Kura, then the assertion that the Melik Beglaryans were Udis and not Armenians makes no sense geographically. Therefore, I believe that Tigran's translation is probably more accurate. -- Clevelander 20:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We won't know for sure without the Armenian original of Raffi. So I say until then, just leave out the Uti/Utik part. The Russian word "Utiytsi" can go either way. GM "tweaked" the translation here and there, which I believe moved the whole meaning away from Raffi's original meaning. E.g. he eliminated the comma between "Utiytsi" and "from Nij," whereas I think the comma seems to separate melik's birthplace--Nij, from his ancestral home--Utik. He chose "native Udi" for "korennoy Utiytsi,"--whereas simple etymology makes it clear that "native," from latin "natio," (birth), has more to do with birthplace, while "korennoy" uses the Russian word for "root"--implying ancestral roots. Similarly, he chose "motherland" for "rodina," while "rodina" uses the Russian root word "rod" for "birth"--i.e. someone's birthland/homeland (which can be different from ancestral land).

Ironically, the source here is Armenian historian Ulubabyan quoting Raffi (the one used in the article)--and I have Ulubabyan's book who states that while all the Meliks had moved in from outside of Karabakh, they all originated from Karabakh's Armenian Aranshahik dynasty--i.e. Karabakh was their ancestral land.--TigranTheGreat 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My translation: Коренные утийцы = native utis. Коренной is translated as native, aboriginal, indigenous. Родина = fatherland. Check Russian dictionaries. No need to invent the wheel. This is the link to the best electronic Russian dictionary: [6] I don’t understand how it does not make sense geographically, if they were from the village of Nij, which to this day is populated by udis. Uti does not necessarily mean that they were from Utik, a province named after Utis, as udis lived in most of the territory of Azerbaijan before the Arab conquest. Native uti means just that – native uti (or udi). Grandmaster 16:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, my point was that wouldn't make sense if he lived in Utik geographically because the Udis never lived in that region. But if what you say is true and the text indicates that he lived near Shirvan in a village known as Nij, then he most likely was a Udi. Still, the assertion that the Udis came from Utik makes very little geographic sense (despite the similarity in names). --

You live in Ohio, so most likely you are Ango-Saxon (I am just using your logic).

I'm sorry, but the United States is much more different than the South Caucasus. First of all, there isn't one predominate ethnic group in the country, it's a mix, a melting pot. If you must know, though, most Ohioans claim German ancestry (and this is because of its history). The South Caucasus are different because the region was home to numerous civilizations and nation-states. Utik could not have been populated by Udis because most Udis have historically lived beyond the former region's borders. Aside from this, there is no source that confirms that the Udis were from Utik. -- Clevelander 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree about population of Utik. Now, are you saying that, unlike in the US, no single town in South Causacus has had mixed population? If the answer is no, then we can't conclude MB's ethnicity based on where he lived. And "most likely" doesn't cut it, since otherwise you would be "most likely" German.--TigranTheGreat 08:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't doubt that there are mixed populations within the area (there certainly are). I was saying that there were points in history where areas in the South Caucasus were purely made of nation-states. I believe that the Udi-habited areas were this way at one point. In contrast, the United States has always been a diverse community. This was the case even before the American Revolution - there were English, Dutch, Germans, Scots-Irish, French, Africans, Natives etc. In fact, the largest city in the United States (New York City) was founded by the Dutch as "New Amsterdam." -- Clevelander 12:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about 14-18th cc. Do you believe after all the invasions and migrations, no other ethnicity lived along with Udis?--TigranTheGreat 13:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I never doubted that there were. I'm saying that originally that the Udis did not come from Utik. -- Clevelander 17:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if what GM says is true, the current version makes perfect sense. GM thinks Udis originated from Utik.--TigranTheGreat 22:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear up a confusion that I noticed. I don't think Raffi is saying that MB lived in Utik. I believe he could be saying that MB was originally from Utik, albeit he lived in Nij. We won't know for sure without Raffi's original Armenian text, and we shouldn't make guesses just because our source isn't good.--TigranTheGreat 23:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Utik had udi population and was named so after udis or utis, one of the Albanian tribes. It is kind of a common knowledge. Udis did not live only in Utik, they populated most of the territory of Caucasian Albania and were the largest and most influential tribe out of 26. So yes, they lived in Utik and other parts of Caucasian Albania and live in Nij to this day. You can see that udis lived in Ganja and Karabakh even in 17th century, Armenian sources attest to that:
Some man from the tribe of alvans, who are now called udis, from the alvanian town of Gandzak, went to the holy monastery of Gandzasar, where the residence of alvanian catholicos is located, and became a disciple of Catholicos Ovannes.
Zachariah Kanakertsi. Chronicles.
Некий человек из племени алван, которых ныне зовут удинами, из алванского города Гандзака, отправился в Святую обитель Гандзасара, где находится престол алванского католикоса, и стал учеником католикоса Ованнеса.
Закарий Канакерци. Хроника. [7]
But again, Utik has nothing to do with Melik Beglaryan. He was from Nij in Shirvan, which had and still has Udi population, so uti/udi is ethnicity and not reference to Utik. So interpreting Raffi’s words “native udis” as “natives to Utik” is wrong. Utik is not mentioned in the source. Grandmaster 16:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt that "Utik was populated by Udis" is a common knowledge, considering the existence of variety of views on the issue. One Udi in Gandzak in 17th c doesn't mean it was choke full of Udis. As to whether Raffi mentions Udis or someone from Utik, it is not clear from the translated source, and we can't assume "Udis" unless we have the Armenian original. He could be "from Nij" (living in Nij), but at the same time "originating from Utik" (i.e. he, or his ancestors were born there). I am from Los Angeles, but I am native of Armenia.--TigranTheGreat 04:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He was an uti from an udi village of Nij in Shirvan, and not from Utik. It’s quite obvious that he cannot refer to Utik, as Nij is not located in Utik. Raffi calls him a “native uti” from the village of Nij. Utik is never ever mentioned. I only suggest to provide an accurate quote from Raffi. Your current edit says: “Melik-Beglaryans of Gulistan were native to Utik”. Raffi does not use the word “Utik”, he uses the word “utiytsi”, i.e. utis. Therefore I replace your edit with an accurate translation of the source, please don’t change the wording of the original. Grandmaster 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
How did we even get into discussing Utik in the first place if it has little to no relevance to our discussion? -- Clevelander 11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Tigran interpreted the text to say that meliks of Gulistan were from Utik, while the text never mentions the region. I only provided a direct quote from the source, and I think it should remain that way. I don’t think the issue is worth of such prolonged dispute, let’s just accurately quote the source. Grandmaster 11:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He uses the word "utiytsi," which means "from Utik by origin." He could have lived in Nij, but have been from Utik by origin. Therefore, I corrected your translation. Please do not change the wording of original.--TigranTheGreat 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, your quote from Zachariah calls udis "Udini." Raffi uses completely different word in RUssian--utiytsi. Clearly they are different.--TigranTheGreat 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If he was from Nij, he was an udi. Simple. The village still has udi population. Utiyets means Utian, uti. The text does not mention Utik. Please do not distort the source. Grandmaster 07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The text doesn't mention utis either. We never assume ethnicity based on one's city of residence, especially in turbulent Caucasus. If you don't want the mention of Utik, we can exclude that whole utik/uti part altogether.--TigranTheGreat 09:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving major problems

I think that we need to re-evaluate this article. To me the most pressing issues seem to be like it needs a major clean-up and that it needs to be de-POVed if necessary. However, I have not really had much experience with this article and I'm sure that there are other more detailed issues as well. Our goal here is to highlight the problems that need to be fixed and then using User:Clevelander/History of Nagorno-Karabakh the necessary changes will be made. So, let's get down to it. What are the exact issues? -- Clevelander 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Clevelander. This article is really in a bad shape. I’m going to be away for a while and will be unable to contribute on a regular basis. But I think we may need to move article back to the version that existed before the anon added all this info which is mostly supported by dubious sources. Then we can check the info that we removed and add back those parts that are verifiable from reliable sources. Alternatively, we can keep it as it is and check the facts section by section. The current dispute between me and Tigran is with regard to ethnic origins of one of the meliks of Karabakh. I provided above a translation from the Armenian source, Raffi, where he says that meliks of Gulistan were utis (udis) and hailed from the village of Nij in Shirvan. That village even nowadays is known as the largest udi settlement in the Caucasus. You can do your own research on Nij and udis. To prevent objections of Tigran I provided a direct quote from Raffi. I think no one can object to the current wording, it attributes the information to Raffi. The info about meliks can also be verified from a Muslim source, Mirza Adigezal bey, who says the same thing as Raffi. Out of 5 meliks 4 were not natives to Karabakh and migrated there from other regions of Caucasus at different times. I will contribute more actively to resolution of this issue when I’m back. Grandmaster 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Where does Raffi mention Shirvan? Also, see above for my other comments regarding this dispute. -- Clevelander 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't. He only mentions Nij. Shirvan is mentioned by the Mirza dude.--TigranTheGreat 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he mentions Nij, which is in Shirvan and populated by udis, and Mirza Adigezal says that he was form Shirvan. Both sources agree that he was from Shirvan. Grandmaster 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The following quotes from Cornell and Walker are verifiable. And they do not contradict the Muslim sources--the Muslims simply do not mention the autonomy (for obvious reasions). Please do not remove verifiable information:

Cornell, p. 4:

In the fourteenth century, a local Armenian leadership emerged, and the Safavid Empire granted a form of autonomy to Karabakh. This arrangement lasted for almost four centuries, and a small number of influential families emerged in Karabakh, leading to conflicts of power among them.

Walker, page 40. During his time he supported the claims of Shah Tahmasp (who had fled to the Armenian wilds around Mount Ararat) against those of the Afghan invaders. An alliance was drawn up, under which David recognised the suzerainty of Persia, but was himself supreme commander in the Caucasus, with the Muslim khans subject to his orders. The value of this treaty was proved during Turkish invasions of 1723–4 and 1727.


Walker, Page 396,

Karabagh with its four Armenian principalities, achieved a wide degree of autonomy, and repelled Turkish armies on several occasions in the 1720s, notably at Ganja (or Gandsak) and Halitsor.

--TigranTheGreat 11:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Mirza Adigezal bey:
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).
The meliks were ordered to lose the chains of submission to Ganja khans, etc. Which means that they were subordinate to Ganja khans before.
Bakikhanov says the same, meliks were subordinate to Ganja khans before Nadir shah changed that :
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) 98 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 [173] 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.
Mirza Jamal Javanshir:
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.
We cannot ignore all the above authoritative sources in favor of modern and biased researchers such as Walker. Grandmaster 11:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Btw, the last source clearly states that at the times of Safavids meliks were subordinate to Ganja khans. So the current version clearly contradicts available sources. Grandmaster 11:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How? We are saying that they were subordinate to Ganja.--TigranTheGreat 11:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your current edit:
While initially subordinate to Persia's Ganja khanate (ruled by Ziyad-oglu Qajars), the Armenian meliks were granted a wide degree of autonomy by the Safavid Persia over Upper Karabakh, maintaining control over the region for four centuries,[14]. In the early 18th century, Persia's Nadir shah took Karabakh out of control of Ganja khans in punishment for their support of Safavids, and placed the region directly under his own control. At the same time, the Armenian meliks were granted supreme command over Caucasus, including over Muslim khans, in return for the meliks' victories over the invading Ottoman Turks in 1720's.
The sources don’t support the statement that meliks had autonomy, on the contrary, they say that under Safavids the region was subordinate to Ganja khans. And supreme command over Caucasus is a fairy tale, supported by no other source except Walker, which is well known for its pro-Armenian bias. To have those statements in the article you need more than one authoritative source to support them. Grandmaster 11:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can a region be both autonomus and subordinate to another power? Cornell supports the autonomy.

The fact that that David Bek established a virtually independent principalitly in the early 1700's is a well known fact. There is no rule about using more than one authoritative source. --TigranTheGreat 11:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The rules recommend to use more than one source to support the claims. And why should we take Cornell over 3 authoritative sources? I will apply for mediation as we are getting nowhere. Grandmaster 12:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

1) because he is your favorite source, 2) because he is pro-Azeri, 3) because the 3 other sources are not authoritative (they are biased Muslims), 4) because the 3 sources are published in baku, by Azeri ultranationalist historians (such as buniatov). I have agreed to their inclusing, if we include other sources as well. Both Cornell and Walker state that they are autonomous.

And by the way, we are not taking Cornell and walker over 3 other sources--we are including them all. A region can be both autonomous and subordinate.--TigranTheGreat 12:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked Francis to mediate, I hope he would be so kind as to help us resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 12:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see what is the dispute to mediate. We are saying both--that it was autonomous, and that it was subordinate. What's the problem?--TigranTheGreat 12:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This claim is simply ridiculous:
At the same time, the Armenian meliks were granted supreme command over Caucasus, including over Muslim khans, in return for the meliks' victories over the invading Ottoman Turks in 1720's
As if meliks could rule all the Muslims khans and Georgian kings without the knowledge of the latter. How come no Muslim chronicle mentions these "supreme rulers"? Grandmaster 12:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A region can be both autonomous and subordinate, however I've checked the reference and don't see where it discusses that. Could you give the quotation, in case I missed it. - Francis Tyers · 12:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"At the same time, the Armenian meliks were granted supreme command over Caucasus, including over Muslim khans, in return for the meliks' victories over the invading Ottoman Turks in 1720's. " -- can we get the quotation that supports this from the book. I'm unable to access it easily. - Francis Tyers · 12:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Here are quotes both from Cornell, and Walker:


Cornell, p. 4:

In the fourteenth century, a local Armenian leadership emerged, and the Safavid Empire granted a form of autonomy to Karabakh. This arrangement lasted for almost four centuries, and a small number of influential families emerged in Karabakh, leading to conflicts of power among them.

Walker, page 40. During his time he supported the claims of Shah Tahmasp (who had fled to the Armenian wilds around Mount Ararat) against those of the Afghan invaders. An alliance was drawn up, under which David recognised the suzerainty of Persia, but was himself supreme commander in the Caucasus, with the Muslim khans subject to his orders. The value of this treaty was proved during Turkish invasions of 1723–4 and 1727.


Walker, Page 396,

Karabagh with its four Armenian principalities, achieved a wide degree of autonomy, and repelled Turkish armies on several occasions in the 1720s, notably at Ganja (or Gandsak) and Halitsor.

Both books have been discussed extensively on the NK talk page during our prior dispute.

Christopher Walker, "Armenia--survival of a nation," London, 1990.

Cornell's work (which is quite pro-Azeri) is here: http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/1999_NK_Book.pdf

--TigranTheGreat 12:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and David Bek in one of the quotes above was the most powerful Armenian melik at the time.--TigranTheGreat 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can provide a translation of my quotes from the above 3 Muslim chronicles, they all say that Armenian meliks of Karabakh were subordinated to the khans of Ganja until Nadir shah punished rulers of Ganja for their support of rival Safavid dynasty and took Karabakh out of their control and subordinated meliks to the ruler of Iranian Azerbaijan province (or directly to himself according to Mirza Adigezal). Grandmaster 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
As for Walker, he is known for his extreme pro-Armenian bias, which is mentioned by none other than Cornell, to whom Tigran refers. Grandmaster 12:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and we are saying all that. But we are not limitted only to what the 3 Muslims say. They were first subordinate to Ganja, while autonomous. Then, Nadir subordinated the Muslims to them, while subordinating the Armenians to himself directly. Clearly, no single source is going to state ALL the events--some skip some, others skip others. Here, we combine them all.--TigranTheGreat 12:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Walker's views are your own. Cornell is pro-Azeri. the Muslims are clearly pro-Muslim. The chronicles are published in Baku by Zia Buniatov (ultranationalist Azeri historian). We are using them all.--TigranTheGreat 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Ok, good references. I don't see a problem with the following:
While initially subordinate to Persia's Ganja khanate (ruled by Ziyad-oglu Qajars), the Armenian meliks were granted autonomy by the Safavid Persia over Upper Karabakh, maintaining control over the region for four centuries,[1]
Note: removed "wide degree" as sources conflict, and they both agree on "autonomy". - Francis Tyers · 13:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Meliks were autonomous in the management of their respective constituencies (tax collection and etc) and religion but subordinate to the Khans (Gandja and then Karabakh) in their foreign policy and defence. I guess if this can be diffirentiated, we are ok. --Ulvi I. 13:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am against this new user's participation here. He is clearly biased, and just appeared here to exacerbate the dispute.--TigranTheGreat 13:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no conflict between sources. "Autonomy" and "wide autonomy" are consistent. we are using one to supplement the other.--TigranTheGreat 13:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They aren't consistent. One is more autonomy than the other — would you agree that "narrow autonomy" is the same as "autonomy" without adjectives? - Francis Tyers · 13:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but I would agree that "autonomy" is inclusive of "narrow autonomy." Just like "animal" and "cow" are consistent. " I ate a cow" doesn't contradict "I ate an animal"--TigranTheGreat 13:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the sources conflict. One says simply "autonomy" and one says "wide autonomy". We should go with the thing that is the same in both... which is just "autonomy". - Francis Tyers · 13:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And can we undo this Ulvi dude's edits here and in Shusha? Sounds like a Tabib clone.

How have you been by the way, Francis?--TigranTheGreat 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Has Tabib been editing this article recently? I'm not sure we can undo without a confirmed sock check. - Francis Tyers · 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Basically graduated my degree and am working in London while I wait to apply for a PhD in February. :) - Francis Tyers · 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ulvi has a history of getting involved in disputes and making them worse. Here is a plea by admin Sarah requesting that he remove himself from another dispute involving GM [8].

And I must say, Sara Ewart's evidence of Ulvi's sockpuppetry is pretty good.--TigranTheGreat 13:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to undo his edits here and on Shushi.--TigranTheGreat 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. How was romania?--TigranTheGreat 13:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a slightly shortened translation of the quote from Mirza Jamal Javanshir, a contemporary Muslim historian:
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, соответствующего 1743 христианскому году, когда был убит Надир шах.
During the reign of the late Safavid rulers, based in Iran, Karabakh province, ilats (Muslim citizens), Armenian mahals (quarters) of Khamse, consisting of mahals of Dizak, Varanda, Khachin, Chilabyurd and Talysh, were subordinate to the Beylerbey of Ganja. Even though before the reign of the late Nadir shah there were minor khans among the ilats of Javanshir, Otuziki, Bargushat and the others, they were all subordinate to the Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey. Even after Nadir shah conquered Tiflis, Ganja, Erivan and Karabakh provinces from the people and army of Rome (Turkey), Karabagh province for a short time remained under the authority of Elisavetpol (Ganja) beylerbey, and sometimes was subordinate to the sardar (governor) of Azerbaijan. Such situation existed until 1743, when Nadir shah was killed.
As you can see, it says nothing about autonomy. Neither do the other 2. It is strange that Muslims knew nothing about that. Grandmaster 13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They knew, they just didn't like to talk about about it. They were biased in favor of Muslims. No single source will contain a complete picture of events. We use them all to fill the blanks.--TigranTheGreat 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I cite 3 authoritative sources saying a certain thing, you cite only one unreliable source. If something really happened, it should have been noted in more than one source. The rules recommend to check multiple sources. Grandmaster 13:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Autonomy is noted in more than one source--Cornell and Walker. You find cornell authoritative. I find Walker authoritative. I also find your Muslim sources unreliable--they were biased, and they are published in Baku, editted by Zia Buniatov. I only agreed to their usage if we would use other sources as well--in this case Walker etc.--TigranTheGreat 13:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis, we bored you as usual? You should have known better before getting involved in yet another mediation between me and GM;)--TigranTheGreat 13:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just went to lunch, give me a few minutes to catch up :) - Francis Tyers · 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's for sure :) Tigran, only Bakikhanov was translated by Buniatov, and no one ever complained about that particular work. Others were translated by other people (not Azeri). Mirza Jamal was transalated by Russian A. Berje, and Mirza Adigezal bey by Russian Leviatov. They all say the same thing, so we have no reason to think that something is wrong with Bakikhanov’s translation. He says the same as the other 2. Cornell and Walker don’t say the same thing, Walker claims that Armenian meliks had a supreme command over the whole Caucasus (!), which is really fantastic and should be verified from a reliable source. It is unbelievable that Muslim chronicles knew nothing about their “supreme rulers”. Neither do Georgians, btw. Grandmaster 14:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Btw, this is what Cornell says about Walker: Armenian or pro-Armenian sources such as Christopher Walker, on the other hand, argue that the Azeris (which he terms Tatars) provoked the fighting, leading to a strong Armenian response and eventually what he terms ‘the victory of the Armenians’. Grandmaster 14:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cornell is pro-Azeri and obviously will call Walker pro-Armenian. As for your Muslim chronicles, they are published in Baku, by the Azer. Academy of Sciences. Two of the authors are definitely Turkic, all three are Muslims--they are biased, and obviously they wouldn't mention a Christial ruler.--TigranTheGreat 14:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we have some sources that mention it, and some sources that don't. I suggest we compromise. Personally, I think that Cornell and Walker are reasonable sources (albeit with their own biases). GM, can you come up with a formulation that includes both points of view? - Francis Tyers · 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the current version does already incorporate all points of views (Muslims, Cornell, Walker). It mentions that NK was suburdinate to Ganja. It also mentions that it remained so until the Nadir guy ended it. I specifically formulated it as a compromise.

By the way, David Bek (one of the meliks) was indeed placed in command of Armenian and surrounding Muslim territories. In early 1700's Turks were trying to conquer Caucasus. Armenians were the only ones who successfully reppelled their attacks (in syunik and Artsakh). Shah Tahmasp (Nadir's predecessor) recognized it, and placed David Bek (the leader of resistance) in charge of both Muslims and Armenians, and it proved even more useful--Turks were thrown out of Caucasus altogether. David Bek was even granted the right to make his own money. This is mentioned in the book by Stepanos Shahumyan, an eyewitness who is the best primary source for the anti-Ottoman campaign. He quotes Shah Tahmasp's order, which in turn is quoted by Bagrat Ulubabyan, who is the leading authority on Karabakh in Armenia, and the editor of the Armenian book (by Raffi) which has been used by Grandmaster in this article. --TigranTheGreat 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I just looked through the 3 Muslim sources, and there is another reason why they do not talk about Davit Bek (in addition to bias). Their stories start after Caucasus was liberated from Ottoman Turks--i.e. Davit Bek had been named supreme commander of Caucasus before their stories start. These sources primaly deal with the 2nd half of the 18th century--at that time, Armenian Meliks had weakened. In other words, different sources deal with different time periods, so we use them all to complement each other.

By the way, one of the authors, Mirza Jivanshir, was the vezir (deputy) of Karabakh's Panah khan, who was a sworn enemy of Armenian meliks. So, the pro-Muslim bias is even more obvious. If we are using the Muslim chronicles, it's only fair to use Walker.--TigranTheGreat 02:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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. As for the Muslim sources that I quoted, whatever is known about the history of Karabakh khanate is based on them. Like them or not, there are no alternatives. All the scholars, Azeri, Armenian and international, refer to them, as far as I know an Armenian scholar Burnatian even translated Adigezal bey into English and published his book in the US. So I really would like to see a better scholarly source than the 2 cited by Tigran to say that Armenian meliks had an autonomy, while being at the same time subordinated to the rulers of Ganja. And the statement of Walker that meliks had a supreme command over the whole Caucasus is nothing but a fairy tale and requires a better sourcing. I mean it is absolutely impossible that minor feudals of Karabakh could be in charge of all Muslim and Georgian rulers, one pro-Armenian source is not enough to have that statement included. Grandmaster 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, both Mirza Adigezal and Mirza Jamal were viziers to Karabakh khans and therefore had a through knowledge of the region and are considered highly valuable and unique historical sources. They were not anti-Armenian, as ethnic nationalism did not exist at the time. In fact, Adigezal bey was a very close friend of ethnic Armenian general Madatov, which he describes in his book. So calling him anti-Armenian is not accurate. Grandmaster 06:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it is worth noting here that leaving something out (for example of the Muslim sources) does not mean that it contradicts. Now then, I really can't see where your dispute is, we have two sources that discuss this, Cornell, and Walker. Walker is pro-Armenian, granted -- so we shouldn't just take him blindly at his word. But Cornell isn't clearly pro-Armenian and he says almost the same thing (that it was granted "a form of" autonomy). Now, two scholarly sources is quite enough for something to be included -- if we can find more, all the better, but it isn't necessary. GM, if you can find sources that clearly state the region was either not autonomous (this is kind of difficult to find a source with !x), or was under a different kind of autonomy etc. then that would be great. But we're not going to just throw away two sources. Personally, I think that "left in Azerbaijan" is fine, but we can leave that to the other article. It would be nice if we could be consistent across articles, but that would be a hell of a lot of work, and not something I'm willing to take on. Perhaps an Armenian-Azerbaijani co-operation board is in order for this to happen (like the Greek-Turkish co-operation board). - Francis Tyers · 09:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As GM omitted, Walker also states "NK was joined with Azerbaijan." I hightly doubt he would use it. We can use sources selectively, if we use the pure facts and leave out their POVs. "left in" or "annexed to" is POV. "so and so was placed under command of so and so" is a statement of fact. Unless we say Walker lies, which would be odd, considering he is a reputable historian, we can use facts mentioned by them.

Muslim fundamentalism and religios hatred was rampant in the 18th century. There is no surprise that Muslim authors (who served the enemies of meliks) were biased.

Finally, the Muslims discuss the Karabakh khanate. All this stuff happened before karabakh Khanate. And yes, tiny number of Armenians did defeat Turks and rule over much of Caucasus, just as "tiny" Armenians defeated Azerbaijan in 1990's.--TigranTheGreat 09:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bakikhanov was not a fundamentalist Muslim, quite the contrary, he was a poet who wrote an ode to Pushkin’s death and was against religious zealotry. And if Adigezal bey hated Christians, how come he was dear friends with Armenian Madatov and served as a Russian official? You are not well familiar with who those people were. From Adigezal bey:
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).
The meliks were ordered (by Nadir-shah, the ruler of Persia) to remove from the necks of nobility and common people the chains of submission to Ganja khans, consider themselves free of them and direct all their requests and claims immediately to sovereign (Nadir-shah).
Which means that they were subordinate to Ganja khans before and had no autonomy before Nadir shah removed them from authority of Ganja khans.
Also some quotes from Tigran from the discussions we had at NK article: [9]
Who is Cornell that we should rely on his opinion of historical events? He is not a historian.
Neither Cornell nor COE are authoritative when it comes to history.
Just because Cornell is published doesn't mean he is an authority in history. Dr. Phil is published too, doesn't make him a historian.
Looks like Tigran changed his opinion about Cornell, which means we can use Cornell as a historical source from now on. Grandmaster 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that they were "under submission" does not necessarily mean that they didn't have a "form of autonomy". - Francis Tyers · 12:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let’s combine the sources into one, something like:
Subordinate to Persia's Ganja khanate (ruled by Ziyad-oglu Qajars), the Armenian meliks were granted a certain degree of autonomy by the Safavid Persia over Upper Karabakh. In the early 18th century, Persia's Nadir shah took Karabakh out of control of Ganja khans in punishment for their support of Safavids, and placed the region directly under his own control.
This should be referenced to a person whom Tigran considers to be incompetent in history. But I think we should have no problem using Cornell as a historical source further on. Grandmaster 12:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable compromise. - Francis Tyers · 12:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
But I object to inclusion of the following line:
At the same time, the Armenian meliks were granted supreme command over Caucasus, including over Muslim khans, in return for the meliks' victories over the invading Ottoman Turks in 1720's.
This comes from only one source (Walker), which is not reliable. The rules recommend to cross-reference extraordinary statements from various sources. Grandmaster 12:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What are the sources which are supporting this assertion. I think "supreme command" probably needs to be toned down, but if we have the sources... - Francis Tyers · 12:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the quote provided by Tigran:
Walker, page 40. During his time he supported the claims of Shah Tahmasp (who had fled to the Armenian wilds around Mount Ararat) against those of the Afghan invaders. An alliance was drawn up, under which David recognised the suzerainty of Persia, but was himself supreme commander in the Caucasus, with the Muslim khans subject to his orders. The value of this treaty was proved during Turkish invasions of 1723–4 and 1727.
Tigran's other source, Cornell calls Walker a pro-Armenian researcher. We cannot use such a person as a sole evidence. Grandmaster 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if Tigran finds another source we can include it. - Francis Tyers · 13:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Walker's assertion should be enough. Walker is a reputable historian. If we are including assertions by Muslims, Walker is a fair game. Up to this point, GM has followed the logic that "if a fact is verifiable, then it's ok to mention," and I have respected that. No need to create a new rule (about something to be mentioned in 2 sources for inclusion). If you want to phrase "supreme command" differently, I am open to suggestions, but the basic fact that he was in charge of Muslims as well must be mentioned.

By the way, abit about how meliks became in supreme command. It's all historical facts. In the early 1700's, Turks invaded Iran. Local Muslim Shia khans were scared to death. Only Armenians were able to defeat the Turks. Karabakh meliks allied themsleves with princes of Syunik etc. The Shah was impressed and put them in charge of the resistance. Muslims were subordinated to them too, which they didn't mind, considering the Turkish threat. Meliks were even given the right to mint their own money. --TigranTheGreat 03:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice fairy tale, but we need authoritative sources to support that. I remind you that your other source Cornell considers Walker to be pro-Armenian and not an impartial researcher. So the reference to Walker cannot be included. Check Bakikhanov, who’s one of the main sources on the history of South Caucasus, he describes the reign of Nadir shah and his military campaigns in much detail, but says nothing about Armenian meliks. At the same time, Georgian rulers are often mentioned, so if Bakikhanov had a prejudice against Christians, it would have affected Georgians as well, wouldn’t it? Grandmaster 06:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
He can be included, as he is a reputable historian, regardless of his bias. Just because Bakikhanov doesn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You think Walker just made it up? I don't. Find some sources that dispute it, or we must include it (albeit after being rephrased) -- two sources is enough. And I can understand your frustration, that sometimes Tigran accepts these sources and sometimes doesn't, but for the moment that isn't my problem. If you want to start some kind of project or noticeboard for Caucasus issues in order to come up with a set of sources that can be agreed with, go ahead. But it sounds like a lengthy prospect to me. - Francis Tyers · 08:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think that it was kind of a wishful thinking of Walker. I mean, he’s the only source claiming that Karabakh meliks (very minor feudals) were made supreme commanders over the whole Caucasus, which is really an extraordinary claim that requires better evidence. I think that if that indeed was the case, the Muslim people would have known about it and Muslim chronicles would have mentioned it, but none of the three that I quoted knows anything about it. One cannot say that it was because of the Muslim bias because they have no problem mentioning Georgian conquests, etc. So as you said above, if Tigran can provide another source to support Walker, I think that we can include that. In any case, Tigran has a very selective approach to quoting sources, he rejected Walker when he said that NK was left within Azerbaijan, and rejected Cornell claiming that Cornell cannot be used as a historical source, but now he quotes the same Cornell as a reference for the History of Karabakh. I don’t think that it is a fair play, and I don’t think that such approach can help resolve the disputes. We should agree that we include only the facts on which more that one reliable source agrees. We had some sort of a deal with Clevelander about sources on Nakhichevan, which helped resolve many of the problems. It may work here as well. Grandmaster 11:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
We can (and probably should) change the wording of "supreme commanders". Tigran accepts this. I would love another source, but Walker is reputable so should probably go in. Try and make a formulation that includes both points of view. Perhaps something like "according to Walker, Armenian meliks had command ..., however this is not mentioned in other texts of histories of the region, for example in Bakikhanov, foo, bar." - Francis Tyers · 11:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis, you noticed GM's "frustration" with my choice of sources. I am quite frustrated with his application of double standard, which has reached its highest level in this dispute. Cornell has been his favorite source throughout Wikipedia, and now it's my source? He has relied on both Walker and Cornell before, and now he wants to preclude it just because he doesn't like what they say? He has been adamant about copying quotes verbatim, and now he doesn't like the wording of the sources? Come on.

About my choice of sources--the reasonable rules to be followed are these:

  1. If a reputable source mentions a fact, and others don't deny it, we mention it. (the whole "standard of inclusion on Wiki is verifiability" rule).
  2. If sources conflict, we present different sides as positions (with "according to etc.")
  3. If a source has POV, we either neutralize it, or present it as POV, along with other POV's.

Here, we have 3 unconflicted facts--autonomy, that it was wide, and that Armenians were placed in command over Muslims. I haven't asked the "according to" part to be attached to GM's Muslims sources, so there is no need to attach it to Walker's fact. Beyond this, I will agree to different wording (which is more than GM has agreed to in the past). If you want to tone down "supreme commanders" and "whole of Caucasus" part, we can say "they were placed in command of Armenian principalities and surrounding Muslim khannates." But the basic facts should be included. This shouldn't even be a dispute. The dispute on Shushi has some merit--this one doesn't.--TigranTheGreat 10:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First of, you yourself previously rejected Cornel as a source on the history of Karabakh, now you refer to him as a source on the same History of Karabakh. You rejected Walker as a source when he said that NK was left within Azerbaijan, now you refer to him as a sole source for a highly dubious statement. You use a double standard rejecting sources when they don’t support your position and referring to the same sources when they do. This is not acceptable. We cannot include the statement that meliks of Karabakh were in charge of the Muslim khans, because no other source supports this statement and it contradicts the Muslim sources, which all say that meliks were subordinate to the khans of Ganja. You should find something better than Walker. Grandmaster 10:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
We can include it, because it is sourced. Now GM, please start suggesting alternative wordings if you are unhappy with the current ones. The absurd thing is that you would be guilty of the same double standards if you rejected them! To be honest I think you are both guilty on this front, and I would like to see a centralised discussion of reliable sources for NK related articles. On the other hand, seeing pigs fly would be pretty neat too :) - Francis Tyers · 12:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don’t remember myself completely rejecting the source and then using it as a sole reference for my edits. This is what Tigran does here. On Nakhichevan page we had some sort of an agreement with Clevelander, according to which we included only the information supported by more than one reliable source. I think it should work here as well. I think I proposed a reasonable compromise with Cornel, the first source, but the second statement included by Tigran is problematic, as it contradicts the 3 historical sources provided by me. My sources say that meliks were subordinate to Muslim khans, while Tigran’s source, well known for his pro-Armenian bias, claims that meliks had a supreme command over the Muslim rulers of the region. We cannot reject 3 historical sources in favor of one modern unreliable one. So I suggest completely rejecting the reference to Walker, as it is not supported by any other source. Grandmaster 12:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. Muslims and Walker talk about different eras. First, NK was under Muslim control. Then it controlled the Muslims. Nothing surprising. The 3 Muslim sources are baised too, so no need to take them as 3 independent sources. If we use the Muslims, we use Walker. IF you don't want the "supreme" and "all of CAusasus," we can drop those.

Now, francis, are you again being neutral just for the sake of being neutral? Where have I been guilty of double standard?--TigranTheGreat 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good solution: While initially subordinate to Persia's Ganja khanate (ruled by Ziyad-oglu Qajars) (Muslim source), the Armenian meliks were granted a wide degree of autonomy by the Safavid Persia over Upper Karabakh (Cornell + Walker + Allen (Fadix' source) + Raffi), maintaining control over the region for four centuries (Cornell). In the early 18th century, Persia's Nadir shah took Karabakh out of control of Ganja khans in punishment for their support of Safavids (Muslim source), and placed the region directly under his own control (Muslim source). At the same time, the Armenian meliks were placed in command over the Armenian principalities of Caucasus (Walker) and surrounding Muslim khannates (Walker), in return for their victories over the invading Ottoman Turks in 1720's (Walker). --TigranTheGreat 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've attached citation notes, could you replace them with the citations you propose to use? - Francis Tyers · 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section for Grandmaster

My sources say that meliks were subordinate to Muslim khans, while Tigran’s source, well known for his pro-Armenian bias, claims that meliks had a supreme command over the Muslim rulers of the region.

Please give quotations and citations for "meliks were subordinate to Muslim khans". Thanks. Btw, no-one else respond here. - Francis Tyers · 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That is becoming a waste of time

Is Grandmaster really denying the Meliks autonomy over mountainous Karabakh? Francis, how many sources you want? Here one.

These Qarabagh Armenians are a particularly fine type, renowned throughout the Caucasus, and indeed in Russia, for their military qualities. Until the middle of the eighteenth century they maintained their independence under their own Meliks, who took part in the Trancasian Campaign of Peter the Great (1722). (New Political Boundaries in the Caucasus by W. E. D. Allen, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 69, No. 5 (May, 1927), p.436)

If you want any other sources, request them. Fad (ix) 18:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that the autonomy is disputed. We have Cornell and Walker who both say a similar thing. The dispute revolves around the "supreme command" over the "whole Caucasus", and I would be grateful if you would provide alternative and additional sources for that. Thanks for the reference though, we can add that in. - Francis Tyers · 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_6be1.html"