Talk:Nakhichevan/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

How come there is no mention of the destruction of Armenian Khatchkars in Nakhichevan?

I dont understand why there are armenian hackers in this page. This is not an armenian page, it is an azerbaijani page. we do not come to armenian pages and place our propoganda there, so keep out armenians. Enough of armenian hate propaganda!!! Also, one more think, who has alledged that I was a cambridge professor??? I am not a professor, let alone cambridge. I strongly urge armenians to keep out of anything azerbaijani and mind their own business.

Previous material on the discussion page has been archived to Talk:Nakhichevan/archive; please go there to see earlier discussion (prior to medcab; April 2005 onwards.) Sdedeo (tips) 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've moved everything else involving Sdedeo's mediation to the archive page as well. --Golbez 20:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1 Archiving
2 Census of 1897
3 Resettlement of Armenians
4 Golbez
- 4.1 On demographics
- 4.2 Any other immediate conflicts?
5 European Parliament condemnation
6 Karki village

Archiving

Is it possible to archive some of the older discussions on this page? The page takes time to load, archiving could help. Thanks. Grandmaster 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be able to help. How much would you like archived? --Khoikhoi 06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think everything up to my discussion with Raffi can be archived. Thanks for your help. Grandmaster 07:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just keep (for now) everything from the "medcabal" para on down (and possibly more if someone wants!) Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 15:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, please have the page archived. If the negotiation is to move fast, the page has to load fast.--TigranTheGreat 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Done! Sdedeo (tips) 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Census of 1897

After the February Revolution the region was under the authority of Special Transcaucasian Committee of the Russian Provisional Government. In 1918 Musavat Party proclaimed in Nakhichevan the Republic of Araks, while the Armenian Republic claimed Nakhichevan for itself, as 57% of the population were Azeris, and 42% were Armenians[2]. At the same time, Azeris constituted plurality (49%) of population of Erivan, which became capital of Armenian Republic, while Armenians were 48% [3].

I fail to see how the census of 1897 could represent 1918. I don't know who placed this sentence there, but it is totally misleading. 'Erevan' had a population of 29 thousand in 1897,(Tartars popularity over the Armenians was less than 1%) the next population records of 1926 presents 64 thousand, and the increase of population was only for the ethnic Armenians. In 1918, Erevan recieved thousands of Armenian refugees survivors of the Armenian genocide, the city became pratically a giant orphanage, and anyone here could run a search on google and I doubt they will have any problem finding such photos. Examples [1]. During that period (1918), the Armenian population was clearly outnumbering the Tartars by the thousands, as Erevan recieved over 20 thousand Armenian refugees, to not say that from the period between 1897 to 1915, many Armenians crossed to borders while the empire was declining and the Armenians situation worstning in the Ottoman Empire. There is no way that the same % was kept in 1918 and very far from it. Fad (ix) 01:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The figures represent the situation before the collapse of the Russian empire. I can add the line to reflect this. After Erivan became the capital of the Armenian republic most of the Azeri population had to flee for their lives, so the sensus held in first years of Soviet rule in Armenia shows decrease of Azeri population in that terrritory. Grandmaster 05:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not true, those figures are according to the census as the one of 1897, which dumped also most of the Kurdish population as Tartars too. It does not represent the population of 1918. I have visited the link of the reference, yet the figures are those of 1897. In 1914, the Armenians already started constitution the majority on the land. As for the Azeris fleeing, this is also not accurate, there is no credible sources that shows that the Azeris population left Erevan after, in fact, the Azeris population statistics for Erevan remained about the same, what happened on the other hand was that Erevan Armenian population increased, for instance, the 1926 records shows that the increase of population was from the side of the Armenians. Keep in mind that when you have less than 30 thousand people, and that nearly half are of one ethnic group, when you add 34 thousand more people from that ethnic group, an increase that represent more than the actual population you clearly get a majority. Just for comparaison, in 1939, the population jumped to about 200 thousand. Fad (ix) 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn, Fadix, you know Russian too :)? You are a genius :) You are right. The current dates in that edition of Encyclopedic Dictionary are 1897-1900.--TigranTheGreat 18:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know Russian, but I know all the census and statistics taken on the region, and the figures there were exactly those of the Census of 1897. Also, I have Systran Premium with many languages and translate the materials. :) Fad (ix) 18:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, the problem is that you provide the information that is impossible to check right away. You can check my source of info, but I can’t check yours, since you don’t name it.

Brockhaus Encyclopedia provides the following figures: Population of Erivan uyezd consists of 69588 men and 57484 women, of them 53,5 % aderbeijan tatars (Azeris), 37 % Armenians, 8% kurds, 1% aysors and 0,5% Russians. 62% Muslims (52,5% Shiah), 37% Armeno-Gregorian and about 1% orthodox. Population of Erivan town was 17345 men and 11688 women = 29033. Russians 2 %, Armenians — 48 % aderbeijan tatars — 49 %; others — Georgians, Jews etc.

Now, where did you take the 1926 census figures from? It’s good when we can check each others figures to establish the facts. As for the kurds, apparently they did not live in significant numbers in the town of Erivan, because there are numbers for Erivan uyezd, and if so, what was the point for Russian administration in hiding the numbers for the town? As for the date the figures represent, the current version is a result of uncoordinated edits. It should be amended to read “before the collapse of the Russian empire the population numbers were such and such”. Grandmaster 07:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are not the same localities, Erevan of today, was the Erevan that the census of 1897 has recorded 17345 men and 11688 women, the census figures for the Uyezd of Erevan, is more exactly the district of Erevan, also the former so-called Khanat which did not entirely border the slice of the 'Erivan' Guberniia that gave birth to the current republic of Armenia. Presenting such figures when they cover lands that are not part of the actual republic of Armenia is misleading, because every piece with a considerable Muslim population of above 35-40% in 1918 were sliced from what was to become Armenia. So the district of Erivan is not to be compared in any way to the city of Erivan, but rather the fortified city AKA town that is the current ‘Erivan.’ As for my sources, are you kidding me? They are the official census records, they are published in every major works of population datas, that you don't know those basics I hope does not represent your overall knowledge of the region. BTW, the census from that encyclopaedia are those of 1897, Universalis also present the same for Erivan, and all the datas from the past to the records of the 90s(1990s). The same could be said about Baku.

If you really want the records so that you could check, Общий свод по Империи результатов разработок данных первой всеобщей переписи населения, произведенной 28 января 1897 года, you can order the CD-ROM, if you have access to an inter-loaning program, you could try having a microfiche, as I didn’t myself had a problem having it. For the 1926 census, the original is more difficult to obtain if you don’t have interloaning access they will probably make you pay over a thousand $$$ to get it. (Всесоюзная перепись населения 1926 года). Since you know Russian, maybe you could find a site from the web in Russian.

Also to note, that don’t forget that Baku was in the same situation in the 19nt century, in 1860 for instance it hadn’t a recorded more than 15 thousand as population, and many were mostly investors as the oil flowing there was half of the world petrol production. How many were Azeris Tartars? You should use the same standards there Grandmaster. Fad (ix) 19:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Baku and Erivan is not the same. Yes, in the beginning of the century Azeris were not the majority in Baku, though they still were the largest ethnic group and the majority in Baku uyezd and governorate. When Baku was made a part of the Russian empire, its population was less than 30 000 and they were all Muslims. After the oil boom the population rapidly grew and reached 200 000, as many people from all over the Russian empire moved to the city. During the Soviet times the Azeri population grew and became overwhelming majority, Armenian population also grew, and only Russian population started slowly decrease, as elsewhere in the USSR, because migration stopped, and the birth rate was low. If we look at Erivan, it had something about 15 000 Azeri population in early 20th century, by the late 70s Azeri population was almost equal to zero. Azeri population was being forced out from Armenia, and even physically deported in Stalin times. Many of those people settled in Nakhichevan. So decrease of Armenian population in Nakhichevan was part of the migration processes in the region. And please don’t remove any information without my consent, even if you think that it is not appropriate here. Grandmaster 06:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are irrelevent to justify your reintroduction Grandmaster, in 1918, there was over 175 thousand Ottoman Armenians crossing the borders, plus those of Kars etc., Erivan Armenian population was representing over 65% of the population of what was to become the city in 1918. As for your consent, you still persist keeping what you now know to be a wrong information. I will remove that, both you and I know it is not true, why then you persist keeping it?

It does not say 1918 now, it says the beginning of 20th century. You can’t say it is not true, information is taken from a reputable source. Grandmaster 07:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What reputable source? Already in 1897, the year of the census, Armenians already became a majority in Erivan(the immigrants were excluded). The population count started in 1896 the years when thousands of Ottoman Armenians who were persecuted crossed the border to escape the Hamidian regime which costed the live from 1894 to 1897 to over 150 thousand Armenians. The Armenians did not constitute a majority because of Nakhichevan Armenians leaving for Erivan, this is your claim, it is personal research, but rather because of the concentration of Armenians in a tiny region while the Azeris population was left intact. Also, anyone having a clue of the process of this census know that nomadic Kurds were mostly dumped with Azeris Tartars in such population counts.

Also, the reason I decided to shut about Baku is because it has exposed your double standard and you have even not understood what my silence meant. In 1905, when the population there jumped, 74 thousand were Russians, 72 thousands were Azeris Tartars and Persian Tartars(but of course you'd rather only include Persian Armenians as immigrants) and 34 thousands were Armenians.

So here is where we are at, the beginning of 20th century is wrong, because Armenians were the dominent groupe at that time in Erivan.

Also, the claim of Armenian immigration is simply maintained by the Azerbaijani Academia of Science.

With the onset of Russian rule, Russian government organized massive resettlement of Armenians from Persia to the Caucasus with the purposes of changing the demographics of the region. This process was described in the letters of Russian envoy to Persia A.S. Griboyedov

The records don't show any massive resettlement, neither as a singular purposes to change the demographic, in fact the decision of immigration was taken after the losses of 20 thousand Armenians from 1795 to 1827 who left for Georgia. The differences of population makes 30 thousands to compensate Armenian immigration in Georgia and elsewhere in the future. The numbers Ivan Shopen provides (Istoricheskii pamiatnik sostoianiia Armianskoi-oblasti v epokhu eia prisoedineniia k Rossiskoi-Imperii (St. Petersburg: V tip. Imp. Akademii nauk, 1852)) are far from massive immigration, also given that some of the regions from where Armenians immigrated from became also part of the current republic of Azerbaijan. Not to forget that many Persian Azeris also immigrated, and I already provided one example with Baku. 30,000 differences of population that also compensated the future immigrations doesn't change the demographic of the region, when also in the same time Persian Tartars were immigrating too, don't forget that Tartars were nomadic for the most part and that the only way for the Russians to bring some stability in the demographic of the region was to compensate the possible losses of Armenian population in the profit of other regions, because when Armenians leave they leave, they do not change places and return seasons to seasons as nomads do.

Grandmaster, honestly, the relevance of the population in Erivan at the time is a big question mark here. If you can show that the Armenians of Nakhichevan went to Erivan, and the Azeris from there were moved to Nakhichevan, then nobody is going to remove it. But you aren't showing that. You have added what amounts to a random and out of place number. So basically you need to tie this into the article in a meaningful way or it must go. I am not removing it this moment to give you a chance to respond and tie it in, even though it does not belong on the page until you can tie it in (which I wonder if you have any sources for this), but you have in the past been VERY fast to take down things which in fact did belong, so I hope you appreciate the difference and begin to work in the wiki way. --RaffiKojian 10:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raffi. I refer you to Tigran’s post above. He said:

Under Wikipedia guidelines on Abundance and Redundancy, inclusion of the same information in more than one article is perfectly permissable and even encouraged. "In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content."

Grandmaster 10:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What would you say that I also add the records of 1905 for Baku placing the Azeris Tartars as a minority? The claim you make is not accurate beside being irrelevent to be included, that is why I have deleted it. -Fadix

Grandmaster, nobody ever said information CANNOT be relevant in more than one article, I myself said this to you in regards to Jugha, which is relevant to Jugha, Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Persia, Russia and the Ottoman Empire! That doesn't mean everything is relevant on every page. So again, either make this information relevant by tieing it into Nakhichevan or it doesn't belong here. You don't seem to be able to tie it in, so I am taking it off now. You are welcome to add it again when you can show some relevance to the article, or else, as Fadix said, we are going to put the Baku population figures as well as Karabakh and Tblisi if we feel like it, which would be just as ridiculous unless they are tied into the article properly. --RaffiKojian 22:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first, Grandmaster, regarding Abundance and Redundancy. Any information added to an article has to be relevant. Under the Abundance and Redundancy rules, we can repeat the same information in multiple articles, but it still must be relevant to the article. For example, in the case of Raffi's khachkars, they were relevant to the article, so it was ok to include them, and the Abundance rules allowed to included it in other articles as well (as long as it's relevant). Otherwise, we could add info on Santa Clause here. In sum, we can be redundant, but not irrelevant

Second, any editor can remove an information that is not supported by a source.

Now, how these rules apply to the section in question. Saying "in the beginning of 20th century" is misleading since all the current dates given in Brockhause encycl. are either 1899, or 1900. 1900 is still in the 19th century (centuries start with x01), so none of the dates go beyond 1900 and into 20th century. For example, in the Erivan part, the encycl. says:

Население Э. (17345 мужчин и 11688 женщин) слагается из русских — 2 %, армян — 48 % и адербейджанских татар — 49 %; остальные — грузины, евреи и проч. Фабрично-заводская промышленность в Э. развита слабо; преобладают кустарно-ремесленные промыслы, обороты которых достигают 157300 руб. (1900 г.). [2]

The current population is given, then the part talks (in present tense) about the current economy, i.e. "guilds prevail, and their business reaches xxxx rubles" (I paraphrased), and then the date is given for that current situation--1900. The both articles (Erivan [3] and Nakhichevan [4]) are filled with such current, present-tense descriptions, followed by either 1899, or 1900. Therefore, the only thing that your source supports is "around 1900," which includes 1899 or 1900.

Second, saying

Armenian Republic claimed Nakhichevan for itself, as in the beginning of the 20th century 57% of the population were Azeris, and 42% were Armenians[2]. At the same time, Azeris constituted plurality (49%) of population of Erivan, which became capital of Armenian Republic, while Armenians were 48%

is unsupported material. In other words, your sources support that Armenia claimed Nakhichevan, they support that around 1900, the population was so and so, but they do not support that Armenia claimed nakhichevan *because* the population around 1900 was so and so. (In fact, Armenia claimed Nakhichevan for a variety of reasons other than population, including primarily administrative (N. was part of Erivan province), historical (Arm saw N. as its historical part), geographic (proximity) etc.). Since your *connection* is not supported by your sources, it can't be here. Therefore, the population records should go to their chronological places--before the 1917 revolution.

Third, since we can't establish that Arm. claimed Nakh. *because* of population data given in Brockhouse, the Erivan population is irrelevant on this page. E.g. on California article, we don't give the population of Washington DC, and in LA article, we dont' give population of Sacramento. --TigranTheGreat 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the figures in that work are the ones of the 1897 census even thought the book was written later, they don't even represent 1899 or 1900. Also, already the year of 1897, which the data included also those of 1896, yet the new Armenian refugees escaping the Hamidian regime in late 1896 and 1897 are not included. Also, one should not forget the nomadic Kurdish population included with nomadic Tartars. -Fad(ix)

I totally agree with you and believe you. Now, if you can copy relevant segments from your source, and provide the citation information (publication date, name, etc), we can include it. It doesn't have to be available online, we trusted GM with his Washington Times article though I never felt like paying $3 to check it, he shall trust us as a matter of good faith. --TigranTheGreat 22:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Brochauz encyclopaedia was published in 82 volumes during 1890—1907, so how can you prove that this info relates only to 1900? Plus, it’s the only verifiable source of information on the population of the region. Also note that Muslim population figures were much higher than those stated in the official data. You can see from the figures, that the number of men is much higher than the number of women. Normally it should be the opposite way. Russian officials complained that many Muslim people didn’t allow to register their wives and daughters because of religious reasons (they didn’t want to show their women to strangers). Also read carefully Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy, your interpretation is highly disputable.

Nakhichevan and Erivan were part of the same governorate, why can’t we include info about the capital of the governorate Nakhichevan was part of? It’s relevant to the article and it shows how Armenians laid claims to the lands of Nakhichevan, while Azeris prevailed even in the town that became the capital of their country. Of course this information should also be included in the article about Erivan, along with information about destruction of Azeri cultural heritage there. The same Brochauz article says that there were 7 mosques in Erivan, currently there’s only 1 left. De Waal [5] describes destruction of an Azeri mosque in Yerevan in 1991. After all this hoopla with alleged destruction of the grave-stones I don’t see why this should not be included in the article about Armenian capital. Grandmaster 06:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also I’m going to remove the picture of the grave stones. It clearly violates the Wikipedia rules, because it contains the advertisement of another resource. See Wikipedia:Image use policy:

user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. I hope everyone is OK with this. Grandmaster 07:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't know when the particular articles where you took your info were published, what we do know is that the current dates in the articles do not go beyond 1900. Since that's all we know, that's all we can use--going beyond what we know from the source would be using unsupported information, which is forbidden in Wikipedia.

I have read Abundancy and Redundancy rules, and there is nothing there to suggest that we can include irrelevant information. The Yerevan figures would be relevant if you could establish that Armenians claimed Nakhichevan because of those particular (i.e. around 1900) figures, with a reputable source. You cannot establish that connection--in fact, the population could have changed between the date of the Brockhaus statistics and 1918 (actually they did change, due to the Armenian genocide). Since you cannot establish the connection, you cannot imply the connection. Without the connection, the Yerevan data is irrelevant. I understand that Nakhichevan and Yerevan were part of the same governance, but this article is about Nakhichevan, not about the entire Yerevan governance, hence the population of a city outside Nakhichevan does not count. Otherwise, we could have Baku's population just because Baku and Nakhichevan were part of the same vice-royalty (the Caucasus Viceroyalty). Or we could have the Washington DC population in the article about California, which would be equally absurd.

Do not remove Raffi's pictures. Sdedeo spoke to Raffi about the watermarks, and you can ask Raffi, but from what I recall, he found pictures to be ok.--TigranTheGreat 09:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Read again:

Abundance and Redundancy is an informal policy dealing with similar material being shared among separate articles, and debates over the removal of said materials on the basis of context: It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war. In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.

So stop removal of my edits, I’m going to develop this particular paragraph, and your attitude is simply not justified by any rules. Grandmaster 10:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also if in some places reference is made to 1900, it doesn’t mean that every information contained in the article relates to the same date. It’s simply your assumption, and we don’t make judgments on the basis of somebody’s assumptions. Grandmaster 10:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

IT. MUST. HAVE. RELEVANCE. Nobody here has said that information cannot easily belong on two pages, we are the ones who taught you that. We are saying THIS information does not belong here. You are really trying our patience. We will start adding material about the Armenian Genocide next and then tell quote you the Abundance and Redundancy rules. Can we cut out all of this nonsense and just work on the basis of common sense? If you cannot tie this information into the article properly, it does not belong. If you can, then nobody will mind it. Simple enough for you? Ufffa. --RaffiKojian 13:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Raffi, let's not use the term "belong here," otherwise Grandmaster will copy the same word from the "Abundance" rules and say "you can't use that argument," ignoring the fact that the whole point of "Abundance" rules is relevance. Saying "it's not relevant" shall be enough. It's best to choose words carefully to avoid confusion. I will explain to him how the "Abundance" rules don't mean "include irrelevant stuff."

By the way, Raffi, what's the whole deal with the watermarks on your pics? I think Sdedeo said the pics were ok, but you may want to explain more just to ease GM's mind here.--TigranTheGreat 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Grandmaster, back to you. Stop distorting the rules and reading only what you want. The "don't exclude, include" rule applies to relevant material, not irrelevant one--that's the whole point of the "Abundance" rules. Here is the paragraph immediately following the one you quoted:

Since most articles are very small (under 10k), and size, therefore, is not an issue, there is no valid reason to exclude material on the basis of its redundancy of external material alone. Ease of reading is facilitated by the inclusion of relevant material, rather than disinclusion. In fact, if we weren't "redundant", following this logic, every article would be chopped up into tiny little bits - each of which would link to very specialized articles that you had to piece together.

This and the rest of the "Abundance" page make it clear that "relevance" is needed when we include stuff on multiple pages. The paragraph that you quoted, the whole point of the paragraph is that we should avoid edit wars by not excluding relevant material on multiple pages. I am not saying your information belongs somewhere else, and not here--I am saying it's not relevant here--it makes no contribution to any point that the article is trying to make. The "it doesn't belong here" argument was used by you and other Azeris here to exclude Raffi's photoes, by arguing "it appears on other pages, so it does not belong here." The reason that argument failed is because the pictures were relevant on this page as well. Your info on Erivan is not relevant on a Nakhichevan page, and the rules don't say "include irrelevant stuff." Otherwise, as Raffi said, we could include info on Armenian Genocide, Baku, etc. Now, if you are developing the paragraph, you are more than welcome to include the info if your paragraph can make it relevant. For now, it's irrelevant, and it shall go.

As for 1900, the references to it aren't made just in "some" places, it's in the very same paragraph where the population data are given, and the date is given as the *current* date, after giving the population data and economic situation in *current* *present-tense* format, meaning that the 1899 and 1900 are the latest current dates available to the publishers of the article. That's all we have, we do not have any other dates there, so you cannot imply any other dates. --TigranTheGreat 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, they are the official census of 1896/97, they are available on microfiche and I have presented to Grandmaster what to search. It is also included in Universalis. -Fad(ix)

Fadix, do you now have access (without having to pay anything, I wouldn't want you to spend your hard earned dollars, especially those Canadian ones:) ) to the relevant 1897 stats either on microfiche, or Universalis, or that CD-ROM you talked about. If you have, could you please copy the relevant paragraph here, and provide the citation information (if it's CD, state that info, and the date of issuing, the issuer, the menu/article name etc.). That would be great.--TigranTheGreat 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, why don't you check Britannica 1911 online edition? [6] Here is what it says: ERIVAN, or IRWAN, in Persian, Rewan, a town of Russia, capital of the government of the same name, situated in 40 14 N., 44 38 E., 234 m. by rail S.S.W. of Tiflis, on the Zanga rivera from which a great number of irrigation canals are drawn. Altitude, 3170 ft. Pop. (1873) 11,938; (1897) 29,033. And it is EXACTLY the same number Grandmasters source provides when you add the women and male populations(17345 men and 11688 women = 29033. Russians). This census is an official one, you can find it in most major encyclopedias, as I have already said, Universalis. Why would Britannica lie on this? Still Grandmaster persist on this after I made it clear that those figures represents 1897 and yet excluded the Armenian refugees of 1896 that were yet not still registered. Also, this article clearly say that Armenians in Erivan proper were a majority. Grandmaster has a point thought, it is true that women were undercounted, but this was not proper to Muslim, in fact in statistic datas based on half pyramids, it is better to use the women half pyramids. But also, Armenians for instances who immigrated for work in Erivan were not registered, also a phenomen proper to Armenians and also Jews, was that many Armenians not only in the Russian empire but also in the Ottoman Empire were registered as foreigners. Also to not forget that since Tartars were mostly nomadic, they had to have a registering place and this is open to double counting dependending of the different dates of the census in different regions.(people are not all counted in one shut) -Fad(ix)

Excellent. The official 1897 Britannica numbers equal the Brockhaus numbers to the very last man, so the date for the Brokhaus numbers must be 1897.--TigranTheGreat 23:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Brokhaus uses the 1897 official census its for population data. This is from the article "Erivan Governance":

Население Э. губернии (429689 мужчин, 375068 женщин, по переписи 1897 г.) слагается из армян (56 %), адербейджанских татар (37,5 %), курдов (5,5 %) и русских (0,6 %); остальные 0,4 % приходятся на айсоров, греков, грузин, евреев и цыган

Population of E. governance (429689 men, 375068 women, according to 1897 census) consists of Armenians (56 %), Azerbaijani Tatars (37,5 %), Kurds (5,5 %) and Russians (0,6 %); the remaining 0,4 % consist of Aysors, Greeks, Georgians, Jews, and Gypsies.[7]

Another important info from the article:

Территория Э. губернии вошла в состав России в 1828 г., по Туркменчайскому трактату, в виде ханств Эриванского и Нахичеванского, получивших первоначально название Армянской области. В 1850 г. из Армянской области, с присоединением Александропольского уезда, была образована Э. губерния.

Territory of E. Governance became part of Russia in 1828, according to Turkmenchai Treaty, in the form of Erivan and Nakhichevan khanates, which were named Armenian region (oblast). In 1850 Erivan governance was formed from the Armenian region and Aleksandrapol uyezd.

The relevant parts about history Nakhichevan khanate and Erivan governance need to be changed accordingly in the article.--TigranTheGreat 00:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also from the Soviet Encyclopedia

В 1828 была образована Армянская область, переименованная в 1849 в Эриванскую губернию. (In 1828 the Armenian oblast was formed, which was renamed Erivan Goverance in 1849). http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/057/375.htm

--TigranTheGreat 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Resettlement of Armenians

I read the entire letter by Griboyedov (http://feb-web.ru/feb/griboed/texts/fom88/ps88_150.htm), and there is nothing there saying that Russia's goal was to increase the percentage of Armenians and decrease that of Muslims (actually, the notorious Russian policy was "Armenia without Armenians," and the settlement of Russian cossacks in the lands instead of Armenians). All that Griboyedov's letter says is that Armenians moved to Nakhichevan (which, according to Soviet Encyclopedia, was allowed to Armenians under the Turkmenchay Treaty, [8]), that Muslims didn't like it, and Griboyedov was recommending Paskevich to be nicer to Muslims and move some Armenians from the "angry Muslims" areas to Daralagyaz (a bordering area between Nakhicehvan and modern Republic of Armenia). Therefore, the whole statement with "Russia's goal was to change demographics" is unsupported (and actually false). The whole purpose of the paragraph is to serve the notorious Turko-Azeri propaganda that "Armenia was created by Russia at the expense of native Muslims," which is false. I have therefore modified the paragraph to make it more supportable by the sources.--TigranTheGreat 22:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As I previously said, there was no massive resettlement of Armenians, this information first appeared from publications of the Azerbaijani academia of science. I have presented the official data, and it clearly show a differences of population of 30 thousand supposed also to compensate for the future Armenian losses of population. -Fad(ix)

Where did you say it?--TigranTheGreat 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am reposting it.

Also, the claim of Armenian immigration is simply maintained by the Azerbaijani Academia of Science.

Very interesting interpretation of the source. It is not just about Azeri population not being happy, he says that indigenous local population was expressing their discontent with the region being overfilled with Armenians and that local Azeri (Tatar) people had to suffer and live in difficult conditions because so many Armenian settlers moved to the region. Griboyedov also said that their complaints were justified and recommended to move some of the newcomers further to Daralagez. As for the claims that Russia did not want to change the demographics, why then a special clause that allowed resettlement of Armenians from Persia was included in the Turkmanchay treaty? What was the purpose of it? This is even accepted by Armenian historians, read Armenian websites.

В ходе дальнейших русско-турецких войн в 1853-1856 г.г. и 1877-1878 г.г. кампания по переселению армян из Турции в Закавказье, преимущественно в Эриванскую губернию и на Черноморское побережье Кавказа, продолжалась и носила широкий размах. Заселением русскими и армянами завоеванных земель Россия намеревалась окончательно закрепить за собой эти края.

Russia intended to permanently secure this region as its possession by resettlement of Russians and Armenians in the conquered lands. [9]

Интересы царского правительства требовали увеличить численность населения присоединенной к России части Армении, восстановить ее экономическую жизнь и сконцентрировать в этой пограничной области как можно больше армян, у которых особенно сильно выражалась русская ориентация. Был выдвинут план переселения в Восточную Армению армянского населения, оставшегося под турецким и персидским владычеством. По требованию России как в Туркменчайский, так и Адрианопольский договоры были включены статьи, разрешающие переселение армян в русские пределы—в Восточную Армению и Закавказье. Для осуществления репатриации армян была создана специальная комиссия.

And this is from the book Переселение армян аддербиджанских из Персии в пределы России by S.Glinka, the author cites the order of Russian general Paskevich:

13. Вообще соглашать Христиан, дабы они следовали в Нахичеванскую и Эриванскую области, где предлагается увеличить, сколько можно, народонаселение Христианами. Впрочем жителям деревни Узумчи и 3-х близ ея находящихся Армянских селений, позволить следовать в Карабах, так как сия провинция к ним ближе…

Grandmaster 07:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, nothing about changing demogrpahics. It just says the government wanted to icnrease the population for the skae of a stronger economy and work force.

Why didn't you translate the whole quote you have there? You left this out: A plan was put forward to resettle Armenians that remained under the Turkish and Persian yoke to Eastern Armenia. Under the requirement of the Turkmenchai and Adrianople treaties, Armenians were allowed to resettle to Russian controlled regions of Eastern Armenia and Transcaucasus. For the realization of the REPATRIATION of Armenians a special commision was created.--Eupator 15:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So concentration in the region as many Armenians as possible was not intended to change the demographics, right? The purpose of that was to keep the demographics the same, wasn’t it? Grandmaster 19:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you simply have no reputable sources stating that either the Russian government organized the resettlement, or that it was especially done with the purpose of changing "demographics." The Griboyedov letters don't state either, and the only semi-reputable sources here--the Soviet Encyclopedia, simply states that Armenians were allowed to resettle to Russia:

правительство Ирана обязалось не препятствовать переселению армян в Россию. (government of Iran was obligated (by the treaty) not to hinder the resettlement of Armenians to Russia)

[11]

Therefore, saying "Russia organized resettlement" and then "THIS was allowed by Turkmenchay treaty" is an unsupported information--Turkmenchay treaty didn't allow the organization of the resettlement by Russia (in fact it didn't say anything about how it would be done), it merely allowed that Armenians can leave. I said semi-reputable since the historical sciences in USSR were under tight communist control, which means that the Soviet Encyclopedia was pro-USSR-policy therefore pro-imperial-ethnic-policy therefore pro-"let's maintain the status quo" therefore pro-"let's keep Nakhichevan and Karabakh with Azerbaijan" therefore pro-"don't let Armenians remember too much of their history" which naturally made it pro-Azeri regarding these issues (the stance of Soviet Encyclopedia can more briefly be described anti-Armenian-national-revival). But, given that it's the most "authoritative" in USSR, I will agree to its use in this case. At any rate, as I said, it says nothing about Russian sponsorship, or hidden agenda.

You say "why then a special clause that allowed resettlement of Armenians from Persia was included in the Turkmanchay treaty? What was the purpose of it?" For you the answer is "because Russia wanted to change demographics," for me it's "to prevent another Armenian Genocide, this time in Persia". Actually, Russia preferred to populate the new areas with cossacks, malakans, and other Russian groups, the Tzar feared rise of Armenian nationalism and didn't look favorably to many of the requests of Armenians (to establish Armenian autonomy etc.), and obviously populating the area with Armenians might promote such nationalistic feelings (hence the famous "Armenia without Armenians" imperial policy). That's besides the point, however, under the rules of "No Original Research" (WP:NOR) we cannot impose our interpretations (either yours or mine), we can just report what reputable sources state. And all we know is that:

the treaty allowed Armenians to resettle from Persia to Russia,
many Armenians moved accordingly (presumably to avoid Persian reprisals), and
the local Russian government perhaps helped the newcomers with the settling once they arrived there.

We don't know (without reputable sources) whether the entire process of moving (from Persia to Russia) was organized by the central Tsarist government, or whether it was organized by local Armenian activists, whether the local Russian generals delegated the task of organizing to local Armenian activists (which is not the same as the Russians organized the resettlement: when I tell you organize your desk, I delegate, and you organize), or whether leaving of Persia was organized at all: after all, Armenians could have just left Persia to avoid reprisals, and once they arrived, then the settling could have been organized there. In this case we wouldn't say X organized the resettlement of Armenians but Armenians resettled from P to A, and X organized the settlement of the newcomers in A.

Finally, I don't care if it's 30,000 Armenians or 100,000, "massive" is a subjective characterization and therefore prone to POV. "Many" is much more neutral. Let the readers check the sources to decide whether it's massive or not--we don't impose our subjective interpretations on readers.

As for the sources that you quoted, none of them are reputable, or even what you made them look like. You said This is even accepted by Armenian historians. There was not a single Armenian historian in any of the sources provided by you. The first article is written by some "Ivan Semonov," whose caption says nothing about him being a historian, much less a reputable one--he is "head of the Fund of Assistance to "Russian compatriots" in Armenia." His concern is to improve relations between Armenians and Russians, and from what I read in the article, it's filled with the message "we Russians did so many favors to you Armenians"--therefore his interpretation of the resettlement is suspect. At any rate, he is not a reputable source, and we can't use him.

The second source is an Armenian-Russian website, and there is no information (not even a name) for the author of the text--we dont' know if it's a historian (much less a reputable one) or some guy just writing out of his rear. I have never heard of this http://armenia.h1.ru website, there is no author--it can't be reputable. Normally, you don't find Armenian websites reliable here--you can't consider them reputable when they favor your POV, and non-reputable when they don't. By the way, there is much information on this site about how Armenians were being expoited by Muslim khans etc, obviously you wouldn't want to include that information. There are dozens of such Armenian websites, some of them claiming that Armenians have been in Transcaucasia for over 5000 years--again, you wouldn't include that kind of info, no reason to find it reputable just because in this case they happen to favor your POV.

As for your third quote (to which you didn't provide a link), it's found in every single azeri website out there, including this: http://karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/armyanstvo/arm24-2.php. When you actually find the book and copy from there, then we can talk about including info from there--otherwise, it's info from an azeri site.

By the way, even if those sources were reputable (which they are not) they still don't say that Russia organized a massive resettlement, much less with the purpose to change the demographics. Your first quote (from Semenov) talks about 1853-1856 and 1877-1878, not 1828. Second, when talking about 2nd half of 19th c., the quote sentence says:

Заселением русскими и армянами завоеванных земель Россия намеревалась окончательно закрепить за собой эти края.[12]

The correct order of clauses in the sentence is this:

With settlement of the conquered lands by russians and armenians Russia intended to finally secure these areas.

In this order, the sentence could mean that once russians and armenians settled there, Russia said "this is good, we will use this fact to secure these lands." Which is different from "Russia did it with the purpose of so and so"

In your second quote, you omitted the sentence immediately preceding your quote, which actually supports Fadix' idea:

Следует отметить, что в начале XIX века, в результате беспрерывных разорительных войн и усобиц между ханами, бесконечных набегов разбойничьих банд и т. д. значительная часть деревень и населенных пунктов Восточной Армении и в особенности Араратской равнины была разрушена и покинута жителями. Интересы царского правительства требовали увеличить численность населения присоединенной к России части Армении, восстановить ее экономическую жизнь и сконцентрировать в этой пограничной области как можно больше армян, у которых особенно сильно выражалась русская ориентация.[13]

Which reads:

One needs to note, that in the beginning of 19th c, as a result of incessant destructive wars between khans, endless raids by bands etc, significant portion of villages and towns of Eastern Armenia and especially the Ararat valley was destroyed and abandoned by its residents. The interests of the Tsarist government required increase of population of the part of Armenia, that passed to Russia, rehabilitate its economic life and concentrate in this frontier oblast as many Armenians as possible, among whom Russian orientation was expressed especially strongly.

The text doesn't directly state what was the purpose of the government, it says what would suit its interests, and consequently it at most suggests that those could be the purpose. And the suggested purpose, as opposed to ambiguous "change of demographics", were:

restoring the depleted population
restore economics
concentrate in the frontier oblast (i.e. the Armenian oblast, not the entire Caucasus) Armenians.

Saying "change the demographics" is too vague and prone to various POV interpretations not supported even by this source, including "achieve domination of the region by Armenians," "assimilate the Muslims" etc.

Finally, your third quote sounds more like a recommendation by a Russian general (to settle Christians, remember Russians wanted to settle Cossaks and Malakan Russians), instead of a plan by Russian government to organize the resettlement.

But, we don't need to worry about the above, since these sources aren't reputable first place.--TigranTheGreat 06:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Golbez

Hi Golbez. To me it's very amusing that Armenian editors resist so hard to inclusion of this short sentence. Why are you guys so ashamed of this fact? And what’s so wrong with inclusion of information about the centre of the province this region was part of? I mean there’s so much irrelevant information in the articles about the region, I don’t see how this short piece of info can do any harm to the article. Obviously, ethnic picture of the region significantly changed after Azerbaijan and Armenia became independent countries in 1918. There were massive shifts of population in both directions. Situation in Nakhichevan cannot be viewed separately from the whole picture. Basically, I have Azeri sources that claim that Azeri population was forced out from Armenia and particularly its capital, and many of the refugees fled to Nakhichevan, and some of them were living in the open air along the river of Araks in Nakhichevan. I’m currently looking for good independent sources, as population movements between two countries were part of the history of the region. That’s why I asked to keep this info for the moment, as I’m going to develop this section. Grandmaster 10:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the fact that they are even azeris is disputed. Be their designation tatars, tartars or azerbaijani tatars. As far as Erivan goes i'm quite certain that the majority of those tatars were Kurds. All muslims were branded as tatars. To suggest somehow that they were all a people that will be called in the future as "Azeris" is absurd.--Eupator 13:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian authorities knew the difference between Kurds and Azeris (or as they called them aderbeijan tatars). They are registered as two different ethnic groups, and there’s no proof of the opposite. Grandmaster 13:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

From your lips to God's ears. I'm sure they knew the difference on some level; however, all muslims whatever their tongue or ethnicity were known as tatars, that includes the people who would later call themselves Azerbaijani. Yerevan in those years had a significant Kurdish population. See: Kurdistan, In the Shadow of History by Laura Hubber and Meryl Levin. --Eupator 14:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I ask you: Why do you fight so hard for it? I have allegiances with neither side, being a decadent American, so I figure I'm pretty neutral in this conflict. (I would say I'm slightly more familiar with Azerbaijan, solely because of all the research I did making the maps, which is why this got on my watchlist to begin with) You're asking the Armenians why they don't want it - I'm sure they're asking why you do want it. Mediation tends to require compromise, from both sides. You say "How can this small piece of info hurt the article?" Exactly as I explained in the edit comment, it seems to be (again, being unfamiliar, I can only look with an objective eye) an attempt to shoehorn a POV about the racial makeup of the area. If it's just a benign piece of info that's not about Nakhichevan, then how can it help the article?

If you're going to expand it, then you're welcome to - but try not to put it back in until you've managed to expand it. Keep a personal sandbox or something. Putting back in a disputed line with the reason of "I want to expand it" doesn't cut - expand it first, then try it out and see how it's received. --Golbez 16:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I’m working on expansion of this paragraph, so I’ll get back to that later. Thanks for your opinion, Golbez. Grandmaster 19:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. What do you think of the picture of the grave-stones? It contains watermarks with advertisement of another resource, which clearly violates the rules of Wikipedia. Grandmaster 20:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It does? Which rules? We've seen far worse watermarks. Also, Sdedeo asked him about it, and he responded [14] that he would attempt. --Golbez 21:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Image use policy: user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. If you think it’s OK, then fine. Grandmaster 06:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I had just uploaded a version with a much more subtle watermark when I saw this policy you linked to - so now I uploaded it again, completely clean, even though the policy says no credits "that would hamper their free use", and I don't see how this would. I had originally released it for unlimited use "with attribution", but have had way too many instances of my photos being stolen without any attribution at all - that is why I waste my time adding watermarks. Anyway, issue resolved either way in this case. --RaffiKojian 07:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. Grandmaster 07:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Golbez, you wondered which POV is that sentence shoehorning. The POV is one that has been advanced first by Soviet Azeri historians for the past several decades, and then adopted by Turkish sources, and is contained in pretty much every Turkish and Azeri website out there. Namely, the idea is that "the Armenian state is not legitimate, since even before its establishment Armenians were a settled minority on a native Azeri land, the whole concept of Armenian statehood was fabricated by Russia to subjugate native Azeris."--quite similar to the conspiracy theories in anti-semite websites regarding the creation of Israel. Now, unlike Grandmaster, I am not saying that this is his own purpose, but this is the background behind such statements. Now, if Grandmaster can provide reputable sources connecting 1918 Armenia's claims and 1897 population, he is welcome to include the statement. He is not welcome, however, to state that the Armenian editors are "ashamed" (!?) to include an accurate information on the website, or that they are trying to spread propaganda.--TigranTheGreat 06:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, not once I have used your Azeris background as a slander, and while I have ignored your repeated antagonism by using the term Armenian as a slander, from now on this won't go unnoticed anymore. Stop using there and here peoples background to reduce their participation as a matter of nationality. And here, I repeat so that it is clear for anyone. I was neither born in Armenia, neither ever visited that country. I lived most of my life in Canada and studied in French schools from the beginning. I did even not learn to read in Armenian in an Armenian school but at home. As far as I am concerned, I am at least as a Quebecer as an Armenian, and voted yes during the 1995 Quebecs referundum for independence, and I already made it clear that if Cyprus Turks want their countries that I can't do anything but accept their choice even thought Karabakh demographic was already advantaging the Armenians while it took to the Turkish army the evacuation of a people to justify such a choice. Why am I saying all this? It is simple, I have enought of having to justify positions that I have even not vehiculated in those talk pages, while you would always start making comments about peoples origine and nationalisty, but if ones ethnicity can be used to discard him, according to your standards you are more of an Azeris than I am an Armenian.

Also, I have noticied that you make up many things to support your positions, while I have remained silent for those to not embarace you, I won't hold to that position anymore. For example, you claim that the Russians could make the differences between Kurds and Tartars. This is not true, you make up this to support your argument. Kurds were included as Kurds when they had an established community in a village with a distinctive qualification, while Nomadic Kurds who were living with the Nomads with the same way of life, leaving and comming back seasons from seasons, were dumped as Tartars. In fact, when a Kurdistan was prepared during the Peace conference, it was clear that in the drawing of the borders the Kurds were considered to get their homelands in lands that were considered in typical census as Tartars or Turks and the subsequent Kurdish revolts point to the fact that out of a region where the population were recorded as Tartars, a considerable part of the population were in fact Kurds. I am even not talking about the Zaza or other groups who were discarded from any possible population records in those regions and even dumped as Muslim Turks or Tartars proper.

For all those reasons, and also for the fact that many Armenians were registered as foreigners or that the majority of the refugees from the Hamidian regime were even not still registered in 1896/1897, neither your claim of 1918 was true, neither the claime of the beginning of 20nt century, or what have you? Also, there was not major Armenian resettlement, the official total figure was under 50 thousand and mostly officially it was to compensate the 20 thousand Armenian immigrants to Geogia. 30 thousand people can hardly be considered as a major ressetlement while the Persian Tartars were also moving to the North. But I wonder why I am wasting my time, again you will simply ignore what I just wrote. -Fadix

Hi Fadix. When did I use anyone’s ethnic background as a slander? You’ll have to prove that. Yes, I referred to you as an Armenian editor, I did not think you would find it offensive to be called an Armenian, I personally don’t mind being called an Azeri editor and I’m even proud of this fact. How can anyone’s ethnic background reduce his participation? Your accusations are absolutely baseless and are nothing but an attempt to take it to the personal level. Also, you claim that I’m making up things, but that’s exactly what you do. At least I cite my sources and provide links to them, so that anyone can check reliability of the info. You’ll have to prove what you say about Kurds being registered by Russian authorities as Azeris, otherwise it’s nothing but your personal opinion. As for the claim of the population statistics being from 1918, in fact it was Raffi who put that line in, he said half of Nakhichevan’s population were Armenians, and I just changed that to 42%, as that was the only verifiable number. It was a result of uncoordinated edits. And regarding your claims that resettlement of Armenians was not massive, even Armenian sources claim otherwise.

Таким образом, в течение 1828—1830 гг в Восточную Армению и вообще в Закавказье переселилось более 130 тысяч армян. [15]

Thus, during 1828 – 1830 (only 2 years) more than 130 thousand Armenians resettled to Eastern Armenia and Transcaucasia in general.

Note that resettlement continued until the collapse of the Russian empire and was sponsored on the state level. Some Russian sources claim that Russian government resettled up to 1 million Armenians. Grandmaster 19:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

YES IT IS offensive to repeat in ANY given occasion the ethnicity of those that opposes your position. Just search on this page the term 'Armenian editors' and see by yourself how many times you have used that. You are stygmatizing the editors with who you are working with, Wikipedia is a community and you still fail to understand what a community means. People who contribute here are before anything else WIKIPEDIANS and are with you part of this very same community, so your repeated uses of 'Armenian editors' is clearly against this spirit. As for Russians registering Kurds as Azeris, there was no such thing as being registered as Azeris, people were registered as Tartars. This is really amazing how you twist things. Not so long you ignored the census of 1897 and asked me to prove it and now you talk about how people were registered. Do you even know how people were counted? It was according to the Hollerith punched card system. The December 1896 and January 1897 households were visited and there was no question about if someone was a Tartar or a Kurd... they based this classification on the Faith of the person and the Households declared thong. Do you even know how many Kurdish dialects there are? Still in the last century it was controversial whatever or not Zaza was Kurdish, it is easy to report Yezidi Kurdish, but how do you report a Kurdish nomadic thong heavily influence by a Turkish dialect like Kurmanjî Kurdish or various other Kurdish dialects heavily being influenced by Tartar dialects? What you do then, when both are nomads, both have the same faith and both use very similair languages and that this Kurd want to be registered with a language that is EVEN NOT in the list???? Fad (ix) 21:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the 1 million figure, be glad to provide such a source, given that the Caucasus Armenian population according to 1897 Census was about 1.2 million, anything above 100 thousand is simply near to impossible. I have already provided official records, which make up of a difference of emigration immigration, of about 30 thousand. Fad (ix) 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First of, I don’t mention ethnicity of my opponents in any given occasion. I just need sometimes to refer somehow to the people, who represent Armenian position here. It’s much easier and quicker to type Armenian editors, than to type people, who represent Armenian position or something to that effect. So far no one complained when I said Russian editor, Iranian editor, Turkish editor, etc. Neither did I complain when someone referred to me as an Azeri editor. If you consider any mention of your ethnicity to be offensive, I won’t be referring to you personally as an Armenian editor any more. End of story. As for the Kurds, you have not presented a single proof of your statements. Russian census makes clear difference between Kurds and Aderbeijan Tatars, if you insist that some of Kurds were counted as Aderbeijan Tatars, you’ve got to prove that by reference to sources, you know the Wikipedia rules.

As for 1 million Armenian settlers, Russian ethnographer Shavrov said in his book Новая угроза русскому делу в Закавказье: предстоящая распродажа Мугани инородцам: Of 1 million 300 thousand Armenians living nowadays in Transcaucasia, more than 1 million don't belong to the indigenous population of the region and were settled by us (i.e. Russians). So by the time of collapse of the Russian empire Armenian population was resettled in the region in vast numbers. But even Armenian sources clearly contradict your statements about resettlers numbering 30 000. For example:

В течение трех месяцев сюда из Персии перебралось 8 тысяч семейств общей численностью около 40000 человек. Спустя короткое время, после заключения мира с Турцией Адрианопольского мира, сюда перебралось еще 13000 армянских семейств из Эрзерума, Баязета и других турецких территорий. Общее число армян, переселившихся из Персии и Турции за 1828-1829 годы, достигло 105000 человек. В ходе дальнейших русско-турецких войн в 1853-1856 г.г. и 1877-1878 г.г. кампания по переселению армян из Турции в Закавказье, преимущественно в Эриванскую губернию и на Черноморское побережье Кавказа, продолжалась и носила широкий размах. Заселением русскими и армянами завоеванных земель Россия намеревалась окончательно закрепить за собой эти края.

Within 3 months 8 thousand families with total number of 40 000 moved here (Transcaucasus) from Persia. In a short while, after signing of Adrianople peace treaty with Turkey, another 13000 Armenian families from Erzerum, Bayazet and other Turkish territories moved here. The total number of Armenians, resettled from Persia and Turkey during 1828-1829, reached 105000. In the course of further Russo-Turkish wars of 1853-1856 and 1877-1878 the campaign for resettlement of Armenians from Turkey to Transcaucasia, predominantly to Erivan governorate and Black Sea coast of Caucasus, continued and took a large scale. Russia intended to permanently secure this region as its possession by resettlement of Russians and Armenians in the conquered lands. [16]

Russian government resettled more than 100 000 Armenians within just 1 year. And it was only the beginning. Grandmaster 06:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, when you refer to the ethnicity of editors in a negative context, then you violate the "assume good faith" and "civility" rules of Wikipedia. You are welcome to say that you admire Armenian editors, that you enjoy working with Armenian editors, that you value the progress made between you and Armenian editors. You shall not:

claim that Armenian editors are "ashamed" (!!?) to include accurate info
complain of being outnumbered by Armenian editors (as if they are out to get you)
accuse them of "using the site for propaganda"

And by the way, the source that you use (brokhaus) states that 57% are "Aderbeijan Tatars." You write what your source says, you do not impose your interpretation--let the readers decide whether these are Azerbaijanis or not.

As for Shavrov, in the Talk page for Shusha [17] you made it clear that you copied it from a web-article by an Azeri author (Mamedli) posted on an Azeri website (http://karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/azerpeople/ap020.htm). Again, when you have the source that you purport to use, then we can talk about it.--TigranTheGreat 06:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, you are not the one who can talk about civility. Look at you discussion with Sdedeo first. Second, why you removed the phrases about massive resettlement of Armenians, which are confirmed even by Armenian sources? That is nothing but POV push. Grandmaster 07:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Because they are not supported by any reputable sources provided so far. The argument "they are confirmed even by Armenian sources" doesn't count. You wouldn't use those sources for other purposes, you can't all of a sudden consider them reputable just because they favor your POV.

I and any other editor can talk about civility when you violate the rules. I have always been civil with fellow editors. My criticism of Sdedeo was my moral duty as an editor to make sure that the fatal mistakes committed by him would not happen again in the future.--TigranTheGreat 07:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the article about Tatars. It says: Before the 1920s Russians used the name Tatar to designate a numerous peoples from the Azerbaijani Turks to tribes of the Siberia. It’s obvious that Aderbeijan Tatars were Azeris, as Russians used to call all Turkic people Tatars. There were no other Turkic people in Nakhichevan. And also see Fadix’s post about unacceptability of discrimination of sources. These are Armenian sources, and they support my info. Grandmaster 07:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't use Wiki articles as sources. Second, that sentence doesn't mean that *all* Tatars in Azerbaijan were Azeris. It says "numerous peoples" and doesn't limit just to Azerbaijani Turks. As far as we know, some Kurds could have been called Tatars as well. What we do know for sure is that your source states "Aderbeijan Tatars."--TigranTheGreat 10:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How do we know that some Kurds could have been called Tatars? It’s your assumption, not supported by facts. With regards to who those Aderbeijan Tatars were see the relevant article in Brochaus encyclopaedia. It’s pretty obvious that Azeris and Aderbeijan Tatars are the same people.

Некоторые ученые (Ядринцев, Харузин, Шантр) предлагали видоизменить терминологию некоторых Т.-татарских народностей, которые в соматологическом отношении мало имеют общего с тюрками, назвав, напр., адербайджанских татар (по типу — иранцев) адербайджанами, алтайских татар (скорее финнов, чем тюрков) — алтайцами и т. д.; но это пока не привилось, тем более, что по историко-этническим судьбам тюркского племени язык является главнейшим расовым его признаком; иначе пришлось бы исключить из его состава и турок-османов, часть туркменов и многие другие народности.

Татары адербайджанские, тюрки по языку, по расе иранцы, занимают большую часть Южного и Юго-Вост. Закавказья, почти всю русскую Армению. Численность их 1168025 д.; около 40 тыс. их в Персии. По обычаям и внешнему быту напоминают персов, влияние которых сказывается во всем. Они бреют головы, но оставляют два локона на висках. Подобно армянам и курдам, уродуют головы детей, придавая лобной кости покатое направление назад. Головной указатель, по Эккерт, 79,4 (мезоцефалы), по Шантру — 84 (брахицефалии). Глаза темные, горизонтально разрезанные, нос длинный с горбинкой, губы часто толстые, выражение лица серьезное, важное. Славятся трудолюбием, прямотой, честностью. Они моногамны; женщины пользуются свободой, ходят с открытым лицом. В религии они хотя и мусульмане, но очень толерантны. Их язык, наречие Т.-джагатайского, отличается простотой и легкостью изучения, почему он среди кавказцев общераспространен и считается модным. [18]

By the way, I laughed a lot while reading this. It says that Azeris disfigure the heads of their children just like Armenians and Kurds do to give them a certain shape. Grandmaster 12:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, scientists in those times were pretty much racist/imperialist, so it's not surprising. The segment says that the term "Azerbaijanis" was proposed by a few scientists, doesn't say it was adopted at the time. It says that Aderbaijan Tatars are Turkic in language and Iranian by race. Doesn't say they are Azeris. We don't call Gauls and Franks "French" just because they later became French. The formation of Azeri nationality was an ongoing process that continued into the 20th century and perhaps even to the Soviet Era. Even now the sense of nationhood among Azeris is underdeveloped [19], even now there is a whole debate among Azeris whether they are Turkic or Iranian.--TigranTheGreat 00:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s obvious from the source that Aderbaijan Tatars numbering more than 1 million and Azeris are the same people, which should be reflected in the article. All other things are irrelevant and lead us to another offtopic debate. Grandmaster 06:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. The source calls them Tatars--that's what we use.--TigranTheGreat 02:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Aderbeijan Tatars = Azerbaijanis. We should include modern day name. Grandmaster 07:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Aderb. Tatars=Azeris" is your POV. Your source states Tatars, that's the undisputed fact, we should use that.--TigranTheGreat 22:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree that it's POV, but I definitely agree that the term of the day should be used. When talking about 1900, use the terms that existed in 1900. --Golbez 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, Golbez, I suppose I misspoke. When I said "it's POV," I didn't mean "POV pushing" but "interpretation" of the text of the source. Generally we should report what the sources say and leave the interpretation to the reader. And I agree, we generally use the term of the day.--TigranTheGreat 09:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Why can’t we make it clear that Aderbaijani Tatars from Brokhaus encyclopedia and people called Azerbaijanis today are the same people? The article on Tatars explains that in tsarist Russia almost all Turkic people were called Tatars. Azerbaijanis were not an exception. We can say that according to Brokhaus encyclopedia the majority of population in the province were Aderbaijani Tatars (Azerbaijanis). We can use the term of the day and also explain who those people were, since this is an encyclopedia. Grandmaster 14:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

First, because it's not true. Tatars of 1900 have died out, so they can't be modern Azeris. Second, the formation of Azeri nationhood from some of those Tatars, as well as other groups in Azerbaijan (part of Talishes, Utis, Kurds etc), was an ongoing process after establishment of the state of Azerbaijan and its sovietization--so they can't be the same people. Third, as Golbez noted, we use the term of the day, and your version would make it sound as if Brokhaus calls them Azeris. We don't call Gauls and Franks French, or Anglo-Saxons as Englishmen.--TigranTheGreat 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

On demographics

OK folks, I saw that and I just droned off. I was sitting back and waiting for someone to actually speak the subject of the Erivan statistics sentence fragment, but apparently I was supposed to be getting involved in this fight. I am concerned with the article, not the talk page. You folks were arguing with each other, instead of presenting me with arguments.

Second of all, thank you Raffi for removing the watermarks. It's a lovely picture.

Third of all, Grandmaster, I must ask this - Is this a hill you want to die on? Is this fragment much more important than anything else in the article that you disagree with? (Or, is it the only thing?) Being an objective party, to me it seems the burden of proof is on the person putting the fragment in, rather than those taking it out. If you want to, present me with arguments, don't everyone get involved in yelling at each other.

Part two: The new sentence fragment there seems to be a fight over, "with the purposes of changing the demographics of the region." Having refused to read the above discussion, I ask for (concise, please) arguments here. The burden of proof again seems to be on Grandmaster, since this is a rather important distinction and therefore should require a citation from a primary source. All things considered, this looks like a much more important fragment than the previous one we were discussing. --Golbez 07:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Golbez. The issue with Erivan statistics is resolved. I agreed with you about removal of that part. As for the current debate, first of all, the common logic says that if the Russian government insisted on inclusion of special clauses into the peace treaties with Persia and Turkey to allow relocation of Armenian population to the conquered region, there was a hidden agenda behind that. But leaving that aside, I’m referring to Armenian websites. They are both in Russian, but my fellow editors will correct me if I’m wrong with translation.

The interests of the Tsarist government required increase of population of the part of Armenia, that passed to Russia, rehabilitate its economic life and concentrate in this frontier region as many Armenians as possible, since they had the strongest Russian orientation. A plan was put forward to resettle Armenians that remained under the Turkish and Persian yoke to Eastern Armenia. By the insistence of Russia special clauses were included both in Turkmanchay and Adrianople treaties, which allowed to Armenians to resettle to Russian controlled regions of Eastern Armenia and Transcaucasus. For the realization of the repatriation of Armenians a special commission was created. [21]

This basically shows that Russian tsarist government was trying at the time for certain reasons to increase Christian and especially Armenian population, i.e. change the demographics of the region. If this is not disputed by Armenian sources, why this fact cannot be accepted by some people? Grandmaster 08:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To comment first on your statement about common sense - that may be so, it may not, it is not our place to present an argument as common sense without verification. If we say 2 + 2 is 4, by god, we need references. :) But more on this in a moment...

Secondly, without knowing the veracity of that reference, it seems sound. Unfortunately, based on edit summaries, it seems some doubt the veracity of the reference. Not being a scholar of Armenian, Azeri, or Russian history, I can't objectively determine the veracity for myself. If or when this fragment gets reintroduced into the article, though, be sure to include an immediate citation of the relevant references.

Thirdly, the entire sentence, with the fragment, is: "With the onset of Russian rule, Russian government organized massive resettlement of Armenians from Persia and Turkey to Nakhichevan and other areas of the Caucasus with the purposes of changing the demographics of the region." Now read it without the fragment: "With the onset of Russian rule, Russian government organized massive resettlement of Armenians from Persia and Turkey to Nakhichevan and other areas of the Caucasus." The undisputed sentence already states that the Russians organized a massive resettlement. Is it required that we have a reason why it happened? The Russians did it - it can be safe to assume they had a motive in it that was in their own self-interest, am I correct? Or is there a deeper motive here that isn't expressed by the current sentence alone?

Finally, you say it's common sense - if it's common sense, then we don't need to put it there, do we? I'm a big fan of letting the reader read and think for themselves - they have a brain, let them use it. Yes, a particular dictator may be evil - but don't beat the reader over the head and tell them so. If it's common sense, then it doesn't need to be said. --Golbez 08:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Long story short: Why would Russia resettle if it wasn't to effect the demographics of the region? If it goes without saying, then there's no need to have a fight over the sentence. --Golbez 08:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

But if the Armenian sources say:

Russia intended to permanently secure this region as its possession by resettlement of Russians and Armenians in the conquered lands.

It’s not like it is my personal assumption or POV. I’m referring to the sources. And also, my opponents object to the word massive resettlement, while it’s obvious from all the sources that the resettlement resulted in significant change of the ethnic picture of the region. The numbers, even those from Armenian sources, speak for themselves. Grandmaster 08:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. Any arguments from the other side? --Golbez 09:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, first, we include information from reputable sources: "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor." (WP:V). To evaluate reliablity and reputability of a source, Wikipedia provides guidelines:

Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.WP:RS

The two sources where Grandmaster quotes from are not reputable. The first quote is not even from an Armenian author--it's from Ivan Semenov, a Russian "head of the Fund for assistance to Russians in Armenia"--he is not a historian, much less a reputable one. The second source used by GM is an anonymous text, without any author, posted on an Armenian website that I have never heard of (armenia.h1.ru). This can hardly be reputable. So, GM's arguments do not hold on several counts--it's not "Armenian sources", but one Russian author, and one anonymous text on Armenian site. Second, these are not reputable. Third, they may not represent the official Armenian POV (since we have only 1 Armenian source). Forth, Wikipedia is not a compromise between two POV's--Armenian and Azeri--it is an encyclopedia where we put info from reputable sources (and if its' not reputable, we attribute it as a POV held by some site or group). The two sources here seem to be concerned with improving relations between Russians and Armenians, and the text seems to further this purpose by making interpretations of historical facts that pretty much say "Russians did so many favors for Armenians etc. etc." We don't know whether these interpretations are supported by reputable historians or scholars.

Furthermore, as I have explained earlier, these sources do not necessarily support either that resettlement was organized by Russia, or that it was with the purpose to change demographics. One reason could be that Armenians wanted to leave Persia in fear of reprisals (for helping Russians), and Russia, to appease the very Armenians who aided her, and to reward for their sacrifices, allowed them to move in.--TigranTheGreat 09:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What has me most interested in this is the veracity of the source. The situation being what it is, it's understandable that there won't be as many Armenian or Azeri sources online as, say, Irish or German. This thus makes it more difficult to determin reputability. As I, again, am not a scholar of the regional history, I can't tell this on my own - I must rely on others. So far, I find Tigran's arguments compelling. Furthermore, he's absolutely right - this isn't about giving equal time to both POVs, it's about expressing a single neutral POV. Express objective fact, and let the reader create their own point of view. GM, response? --Golbez 10:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

First of the cites http://armenia.h1.ru/ is called Armenica and claims to be the Best site about Armenia in Russian. The other one is apparently the most popular Armenian newspaper in Russia and it publishes an interview with the guy who is the head of the Fund for help and assistance to Russian compatriots in Armenian Republic. So why can’t we refer to them for quotation. As for the resettlement not being sponsored by the Russian government, it is obvious that it was, letters of the Russian envoy Griboyedov are a proof of that. Also insistence of Russia on inclusion of special clauses to the peace treaty speaks for itself. Grandmaster 10:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Because I can say "I am the best editor on Wikipedia" and that won't mean that I am. Because noyan-kovcheg is a news site and not a history source (There is a whole article in Wiki rules on false authority--we don't go to doctors to learn about law). And because Semenov is not a historian, he is just another Russian trying to make Russians look good to Armenians (so Armenians will be nice to Russians in Armenia).--TigranTheGreat 10:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to sound dense here, but are there any Armenian sources (that is, sources IN Armenian) that corroborate these statements? Being written in Russian means being intended for a Russian audience, which can sway a point of view. Also, what letters? --Golbez 10:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, for your earlier comment--one remark. We (and Wiki) do not require online sources. In fact Wiki rules state that we should not be lazy--most good sources are printed. There must be huge literature on Russian Persian wars. If GM can get a book (instead of copying from Azeri website), and state that he got it from a book with so and so publication, we will honor his word as so far (as far as I am concerned) he hasn't really forged his source (there have been some disagreements on translations). As to Russian language sources--you are right, these sites are created by Armenians living in Russia, and are intended to improve relations between Armenians and Russians, not to provide historical analysis. As to your question, I am not aware of Armenian sources corroborating what GM says.--TigranTheGreat 10:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I said we need references; I don't think I required online ones. --Golbez 15:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The letters are all in Russian. They were sent to Ivan Paskevich, Russian general who was in charge of the region, and Nesselrode, Russian foreign minister. This one is about resettlement in general. [22]

This one is about resettlement to Nakhichevan. [23]

This one is available in French as well. [24] Grandmaster 10:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, with regards to Armenian cites in Russian, it is strange to hear that they all would lie or forge information about resettlement of Armenians just to improve relations with Russians. I’m not saying that they are 100% accurate, they obviously have their huge POV problems, but there are things they would never lie about. It’s not logical. It’s the same as saying that Armenian webcites in English are intended for improvement of relations with Americans and therefore would deliberately lie in their own prejudice just to please Americans. Grandmaster 11:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say they would lie. I said there could be a sway in the point of view, conscious or not. OK, so he's supplied the letters. Comments from the other side? Also, does anyone on the other side have sources, online or not, that specifically contradict the assertions made in GM's sources? --Golbez 15:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The letters prove that the resettlement was organized and coordinated by the Russian government. In response to Paskevich’s request about the progress with resettlement of Armenians Griboyedov informs him that the resettlement was not well organized, the resettlement committee made many mistakes, cash allowance that Russian government paid to the settlers was wasted, Armenians settlers were mostly settled in the lands of the Muslim landowners, who were not happy, and rightfully so, in Griboyedov’s words. The letter about Nakhichevan contains a table with numbers of local Azeri and resettled Armenian families to illustrate the difficulty of the situation, and Griboyedov recommends to move some of the newcomers further to Daralagez region, because the situation was very tense. The last letter provides the number of 8 000 Armenian families, or 40 000 people, that were resettled to the Russian provinces. Also Big Soviet Encyclopedia states in the article Armenian SSR that 40 000 Armenians resettled from Persia in 1828 and 90 000 Armenians resettled from Turkey in 1829. This corresponds with dates of Turkmanchay and Adrianople treaties, and supports the other sources, even exceeds the numbers given by them. Grandmaster 17:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also Golbez is it possible to archive the older discussions? The page takes forever to load. Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 17:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I moved everything involving the previous mediation to the archive. This was *260k!* --Golbez 20:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith has limits, when someone still persue with a claim vehilcuated by the Azerbaijani Academia of science and still persist on it, it is not possible to make compromise with someone that refuse compromise. The only Western historian who researched the question in archival records is an Armenian, whos sources have also been used by Azeris authors. George A. Bournoutian is a notable researcher in his field and probably the only notable in this field (records of Armenian population in the last centuries in the region). Golbez requested an official Armenian position, I will do more than this, I will link to one of Bournoutian articles, this author is also very criticle of many official Armenian positions and far from being the nationalist Grandmaster consider « Armenian editors » to be. Here I link to the article. [25]. While it is mostly about Karabakh, it also covers the said massive restlement of Armenians from archival materials.

Nice source. --Golbez 20:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have decided to research in old articles about the Caucasus to see if there is anything about that. The Southern Russian and the Caucasus Montains by Edmund Otis Hovey published in the Bulletin of the American Geographical Society Vol. 36, No. 6 (1904), pp. 327-341, says nothing about it, but rather talk about the way Armenia was sliced through the centuries.

The book, Baku. An Eventful History by J. D. Henry, Archibald Constable & Co., Ltd., London, 1906, does not talk about such a thing but rather replacements of Armenians by Tartars the destruction of Armenian properties in Baku and their massacre.

I have searched other references about such a massive restlement to not find anything about it.

Comming now to Grandmasters request to 'prove' that many Kurds were counted as Tartars. Again, I am amuzed to see how he ask for hundreds of evidences from one side, and when a reference satisfy him, it becomes an established truth. I don't HAVE to provide anything for something that I AM NOT requesting to be in the article, this discussion is about something I say should NOT BE in this article. And I repeat, there is no way that Circassians, many Kurdish tribs etc. would constitute a fraction of the Muslim population and if you know anything about the Kurdish revolts you'll know that there is no way that the Kurds would have represented less than 1% of the population in those regions. Also, what you do about the hundreds of thousands of Circassians who faced massive forced immigrations from their homeland and ended up in the South during and between the two wars? That you ask for evidences that all those Muslim populations were not constituting 1% of the population and that nearly all Muslim (something like 98%) were Tartars clearly depict you as someone that ignore the region.

This is where I droned out in the above section; It hasn't been demonstrated to me how this is relevant to the sentence fragment we are discussing, and this is again turning into arguing with each other instead of presenting me with arguments. Remember, I'm a layman here, which probably makes me the best (or is it worst) kind of mediator, since I have no ingrained prejudices, either to people or to knowledge. --Golbez 20:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I said, people were not asked in which group they were, they were classified according to their Faith and the reported language of the household, the languages WERE listed. Most Kurdish tribs there didn't even recognize the term Kurdish and its varients and have their proper terms. I ask you again, and this time answer, what happens when their language is not listed? I will answer to this with the most probably answer, they end up classified based on their faith in the majority group sharing this faith. Fad (ix) 18:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fadix. Thanks for the link, it’s very useful. It basically proves what I was saying. Quote:

All documents relating to the Armenian immigration make it clear that Russia, for political, military, and economic reasons, strongly encouraged the Armenians to settle in the newly-established Armenian province, especially the region of Erevan, which between 1795 and 1827 had lost some 20,000 Armenians who had immigrated to Georgia.

This does not seem to be in dispute - the motivation is. It's one thing to say it was to influence demographics, it's another thing to say it was to influence politics, or military, or economy, etc. To tie it down to demographics makes it sound like it was an ethnic thing, picking one group over another, when based on this passage, it could simply be that, at the time, they considered the Armenians more politically agreeable to Russia, a useful buffer militarily, and more skilled economically. I guess what I'm saying is, saying that it was to shift the demographics of the region is ascribing a motive that could (and obviously does) seem bad to some. --Golbez 21:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If they encouraged resettlement of one ethnicity and prevented that for other, it was obviously aimed to change the existing ethnic balance in favour of the people they trusted more. What do you think? Grandmaster 21:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw nothing in that about picking one at the expense of others - simply promoting one. Nor do I see it in your earlier translations. --Golbez 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also if you look at the current version, you’ll see that Tigran completely removed any mention of the resettlement being organized by the Russian government. I think it is obvious that this was organized by the Russian tsarist government; the letters of Griboyedov are a proof of that. Hundreds of thousands people couldn’t have crossed the borders without the knowledge and encouragement of the authorities. Grandmaster 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I see. So it is in dispute. And yes, this is a major issue now - did they resettle, or were they resettled? There is a massive difference here. --Golbez 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I hope nobody’s going to debate now that Russia sponsored on the state level the resettlement of Armenians to Caucasus. As for the figures, Russian scientists provide the figures that show the scale of this event. I already mentioned the Big Soviet Encyclopedia, here’s some more details. This source is also sympathetic to Armenians, and here’s what it says:

Появление значительного армянского населения в России относится к концу 20-х годов XIX века, когда в состав империи вошли армянские земли, до того принадлежавшие Персии или Турции. Эти перемены сопровождались массовыми переселениями персидских и турецких армян на теперь уже российские территории. До начала переселения в российском Закавказье было зарегистрировано 107 тыс. армян (а всего в России их насчитывалось 133 тыс. - примерно 6-7% всех живших в мире армян, тогда как более 80% их общего числа находилось в Турции). По оценкам, только в конце 20-х - начале 30-х годов XIX века в Закавказье прибыло около 200 тыс. армянских эмигрантов. Затем поток резко уменьшился, но все же не прекратился, и к 60-м годам XIX века в России проживало уже более 530 тыс. армян, из которых почти 480 тыс. - в Закавказье [3, с. 104, 105].

Середина 90-х годов ознаменовалась трагическими событиями в Турции. В 1894-1896 годах вспышки геноцида унесли жизнь около 200 тыс. армян и подтолкнули их к новой массовой эмиграции в Россию. По оценкам, в 1897-1916 годах в Россию прибыло около 500 тыс. армян [3, с. 203]. Накануне Первой мировой войны в пределах Российской Империи жило 1, 8 млн армян - немногим меньше, чем в Турции (2 млн). [26]

I’ll provide the translation later, if required. Grandmaster 21:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Translation of this small section for Fadix:

Just in late 20s – early 30s of the 19th century about 200 000 Armenian emigrants arrived to Transcaucasia. Then the flow reduced, but did not stop, and by the 60s of 19th century 530 000 Armenians lived in Russia, of them about 480 000 in Transcaucasia.

The guy who wrote this is the chief of the Center for Demography and Human Ecology at the Institute of National Economy Prognostication of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Grandmaster 21:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Right now, my general feeling is leaning towards removing the fragment, since it seems to cause a disproportionate amount of conflict for the little it adds; having the second sentence with a link to the letters helps immensely. (the benefits and pitfalls of tunnel vision, I never noticed it there) --Golbez 20:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant now that the entire sentence is in dispute. I missed that somehow. --Golbez 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, the original phrase that my opponents want to remove looks like this:

With the onset of Russian rule, Russian government organized massive resettlement of Armenians from Persia and Turkey to Nakhichevan and other areas of the Caucasus with the purposes of changing the demographics of the region.

Now what is your opinion? Grandmaster 21:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We have several sources of various possible veracity from GM stating that the Russians encouraged, implemented, or caused the resettlement; Tigran says that they simply resettled when they could, without Russian involvement. Tigran/etc., comments on this? --Golbez 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Even Fadix’s source claims that Russian government strongly encouraged resettlement. Grandmaster 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This part: "...with the purposes of changing the demographics of the region." is not acceptable. It also needs to be said that those that were resettled from Persia where deported to Persia from the same area by Shah Abbas.--Eupator 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There’s no proof of that. Even if Shah Abbas resettled people from the area, they all died 200 years ago, so there’s no connection. Grandmaster 06:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to be careful with terms such as "encourage," "organize," etc, as they do not necessarily mean the same thing, and inaccuracy result in misleading (and often POV) interpretations by readers. When we say "Russian government organized the resettlement" it sounds much like a grand conspiracy to create an Armenian base in the Muslim lands in order to subjugate them, which is the basis of the official Azerbaijani claims. The reality, however, is not as simple. Let me explain what I mean.

GM's Griboyedov letters don't say the government organized the resettlement, they say they assisted with the settlement of Armenians (after they arrived)--e.g. by providing them money, land etc. By the way, Fadix Burnatyan is considered by Armenia's historians as anti-Armenian and pro-Turkish. So, it's ok to use him as a non-Armenian-POV source.

Now, Golbez asked whether there were Armenian sources on this matter. I looked into Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia and found something. I find ASE reputable source since its the most authoritiative source in Arm. SSR and was published under Soviet rule, when scholarship was under tight control of Moscow's communist center, which suppressed any expression of Armenian nationalism (they were more lenient to Azeri nationalism for variety of reasons, including future president Aliev being member of Politburo (which had no Armenians), as well as Azeri nationalism supporting the existing status quo (i.e. Karabakh and Nakhichevan staying inside Azerbaijan)). Also, Golbez, if you live in the US, you can find its 13 green volumes in any major university library. Here is what ASE says (v. 13, Yerevan 1987):

"The Tsarist government, aware of Armenians' intention to restore Armenian statehood, create a special committee in St. Petersburg, to determine the future condition in Erivan and Nakhichevan khannates. First, Tsarist government intended to settle 80,000 Russian cossacks to Eastern Armenia, to secure the defense of the borders and appropriate the area. Contrary to taht, Armenian activists Lazaryan presented the Russian government with a plan that completely expressed the desires of the Armenian national-liberationist circles. The plan envisioned creation of an Armenian kingdom, within Russian empire, having an internal autonomy. (TGT--detailed description of the proposed kingdom). In this situation, Tsarist government had to abandon its own plan and partially meet Armenian expections. In March 21, 1828, Nicolas I signed an order, which established the Armenian oblast in the newly conquered areas of Eastern Armenia. (p 136)

Then it talks how "in reality the tsarist government wanted make the area its colony," and how it later abolished the Armenian oblast.

Now, about the details of the "organization."

"The task of organizing the resettlement was given to colonel Eghiazar Lazaryan, whose assistants were colonel M. Arghutyan (Dolgorukiy/Erkaynabazuk), majors Ivane Melikyan, Isahak Ghamazyan, Davit and Aleksandr Ghorghanyans." (p 134).

The article on Lazaryan states

In 1828 Paskevich appointed Lazaryan the head of the committee of the immigration of Armenians. (v. 4, p 469, Yerevan 1978)

Paskevich was the general of the Russian troops in the Eastern Armenia and he was the one establishing the local government of Erivan in 1828.

So, we can take the following from the above

The central Tsarist government wanted to settle Russians in Armenia. They weren't too thrilled with the idea of Armenian resettlement (and for a good reason--having strong nationalistic feelings, Armenian revolutionaries would later play a crucial role in the overthrow of the Tsarist regime).

Armenian activists lobbied the government (central and local) to favor Armenians. The government did this partially (no kingdom, temporary Armenian oblast).

The organization of resettlement was carried out by the Armenian activists (Lazaryan and his committee of Armenians). This task was delegated to them by the local government (Paskevich etc).

Note that this does not contradict Griboyedov's papers--who talks about the assistance of Armenians when they arrived there. Also note that it doesn't contradict Burnatyans "Russia encouraged resettlement," as it doesn't specify who exactly in Russia did it--it could be done by the Armenian officers of the Russian Army, as acquiesced (and not necessarily encouraged) by Russian generals. Note that it's perfectly ok to provide specifics in Wikipedia to make things more clear and avoid misleading and POV interpretations:

Therefore, I propose the following paragraph (modification of the existing one):

After the two Russo-Iranian wars and the Treaty of Turkmenchay, Nakhichevan khanate passed into Russian possession in 1828. It was dissolved the same year, its territory was merged with the territory of the Erivan khanate, forming the Armenian oblast (region) of the Russian Empire. The treaties of Turkmenchay and Adrianople allowed Christians living in Persian and Ottoman Empires to resettle to Russia. At the order of the local government of the Armenian oblast, Armenian colonel of the Russian Army E. Lazaryan organized resettlement of 50,000 - 130,000 Armenians to Caucasus, 3,883 of whom settled in Nakhicehvan.[27] [28]. The resettlement partially replenished the loss of 20,000 Armenians who had emigrated to Georgia in 1795 - 1827 as a result of wars. [29] The process of resettlement was described in the letters of the Russian envoy to Persia A.S. Griboyedov.^[30] The Armenian oblast in 1849 was renamed the Erivan governorate of the Russian Empire. Nakhichevan became the Nakhichevan uyezd of the governorate. [31], [32]

This does not make any interpretations as to who encouraged what for what motives, but gives pure facts, letting readers draw their conclusions by visitting the sources. --TigranTheGreat 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This clearly contradicts the other sources, who said the Russian government encouraged the resettlement. It’s not our interpretation, it’s an Armenian source claiming that, 3rd in a row. From your version it looks like one person organized the whole thing without knowledge of the Russian government, only local authorities had some knowledge. I think my version is better and is supported by the facts, yours is based only on a POV source. Indeed, how could hundreds of thousands people cross the Russian border without knowledge of the Russian government? Also, if Russian envoy Griboyedov was involved in the resettlement process and reported the progress to Russian commander-in-chief in the Caucasus and Russian foreign minister, it shows involvement of the Russian government. And I don’t think we need to get deep into details of this resettlement anyway, because the article is about Nakhichevan, and not Armenia. It is enough to say that Russian government organized the resettlement, as it is clear that it was done on Paskevich’s order, who established a special committee and appointed Lazarev it’s chief, which is confirmed by your sources. The first line of the letter addressed to Paskevich says it all. Your Excellency wished to know about the measures, implemented for the resettlement of Armenians from Azerbaijan (Persian province) and their current settlement in our provinces. Here is the truth on this matter, as it is known to me. Grandmaster 05:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this version: With the onset of Russian rule, Russian government organized massive resettlement of Armenians from Persia and Turkey to Nakhichevan and other areas of the Caucasus, which resulted in the change of the demographics of the region. Grandmaster 13:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict anything. No source stated "Russian government encouraged." We are not saying the government didn't know, we are just saying who did what. If you do'nt want to include the info on resettlement because "this page is about Nakhichevan," we can exclude it. If we put it here, we must provide specifics to avoid misleading the readers. Sure, Griboyedov was involved, but not in organizing, but in providing assistance and reporting on the state of affairs. --TigranTheGreat 02:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, do you actually read sources before saying something? You say “No source stated "Russian government encouraged."”. How about this one: All documents relating to the Armenian immigration make it clear that Russia, for political, military, and economic reasons, strongly encouraged the Armenians to settle in the newly-established Armenian province. Doesn’t it say just that? Grandmaster 14:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I refuse, you are being hypocrit there, there was NO Armenians in Persia before the Shah forcedly removed the Armenians from their homeland to replace them by Tartars that they have resstled from the other side. Before the end of the 15nt and beggining of 16nt century Armenians were removed from Jolfa and the suroundings of now what is part of Azerbaijan, REPLACED by Tartars... the Shah even removed the Armenians of Van, Kars and the rest of those towns which ended up under Persian power to REPLACE them with Muslim setters on the East mostly Tartars. Those unlike your so-called massive Russian resstlment are, and this even at least a century before, well documented in history books. Only in 1603 between 25-30 thousand families were simply removed. While the Shah did it because he considered the Armenians as hard worker and to compete by getting the Armenians there, with the Ottoman Empire... the result was what is today the republic of Azerbaijan and Turkey, by slicing Armenia demographically, when before the Shah action the Armenians were CLEARLY a majority in Nakhichevan, Karabakh a large section of Ouestern Azerbaijan. I tried to make you understand by the genetic tests, that Armenians could not have come from the South, but obviously you still don't get it. Erivan did not become majority Armenian because of resstlements of Armenians, but rather Nakhichevan and many disputed territories BECAME majority Tartar because of Tartar resstlement and removal of the Armenians, it was the other way around. And I can load here various works here, if you have a proxy with your password of any institution you can load from setvers such as the jstor.org various articles to that effect. Either you remove that, or you include how Azeris ended up being a majority. Fad (ix) 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, cite your sources. Provide your figures for the population of the region in 16th century, and how many was resettled, if any at all. Right now we are discussing a different period in the history of the region. We are talking about the resettlement of Armenian population to the region by the Tsarist government. The source that you cited yesterday confirmed that Russian government “strongly encouraged” the resettlement of Armenian population. So this should be reflected in the article. Grandmaster 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

*http://www.iles.umn.edu/faculty/bashiri/Esfahan/Julfa.html

Good. See citation needed mark in the article? You know what to do. This issue has nothing to do with the resettlement to Caucasus in 19th century. Grandmaster 21:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does, it means they were repatriated under the auspices of the Armenians of Russia, Russians merely aided Armenians in repatriation back to their lands temporarily under tatar occupation who were settled there by Persians.--Eupator 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Russia resettled Armenians from Azerbaijan province of Persia, and not Isfahan. See the letters. Also see the name of one of the sources Bournoutian was referring to: S. Glinka, Opisanie pereseleniia Armian Adderbidzhanskikh v prediely Rossii (Moscow: V Tip. Lazarevykh In-ta Vostochnykh Iazykov, 1831). Grandmaster 07:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Any other immediate conflicts?

Are there any other passages that people have a conflict about, while I'm here? Nothing like a little multitasking to get things going in the morning. --Golbez 20:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement, I will have to leave right now and will be answering later. I will just provide for now the argument about why there could not have been more than 100 thousand Armenians having immigrated. I'd consider genetic tests in the region the strongest possible evidence.

There has been a research on the support of the theory of language replacement, which shows that genetically speaking when trying to differenciate an Azeris from an Armenian by some markers they can not be separated. [33] pay attention to the map, there is genetic basis for the North and Caucasus language replacement, so most Armenians could not have come from the South (Persian region). Had there been a differences of over 100 thousands to not measure such a 'drift' we will have to suggest that culture is geneticly based which is ridiculous and would be paradoxal whemn considering the conclusion of the research. Either Armenians were settled to the South and than were settled back, either there was no such massive settlement. Fad (ix) 21:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We just report the sources. Great Soviet Encyclopedia states in the article about Armenian SSR that 40 000 Armenians resettled from Persia in 1828 and 90 000 Armenians resettled from Turkey in 1829. This makes in total 130 000. Resettlement continued after that. Grandmaster 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That genetic argument is weak. Anyone can conduct tests and get the results they want. The point is any Armenians that were resettled from Persia where natives who were taken to Persia by force by Shah Abbas during which time Tatars moved to Armenian territories. The Russian government merely resettled Armenians back to their homeland from Persia.--Eupator 22:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I will trust a genetic test before anything else. The test clearly shows that Armenians could not have comme from Persia and either they lived in the region now part of Armenia, or either they were settled from there than resettled, in both cases it would mean that Armenians were in fact NOT from Persia. Fad (ix) 03:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ya know, right now, considering the availability of sources (reputable or not, I cannot say, though some seem better than others - the letters and the ASE seem good) on both sides, my general feeling right now is to have a neutral statement "The Armenians resettled" with a link to an endnote expressing that some think the Russians encouraged/implemented resettlement, with proper sources, and also that some think the Armenians resettled on their own, without Russian encouragement/implementation, with proper sources. It is not a solution, but it is a temporary fix for what clearly needs a more familiar committee to resolve. This should not be this difficult to resolve - either it happened, or it didn't. --Golbez 21:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Who could be such a familiar committee? How can we apply for resolution of this issue? Grandmaster 22:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If so than it needs to be said that resettled folk were primarily the descendants of those Armenians who were deported to Persia from Nakhichevan by Shah Abbas.--Eupator 21:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I never opposed to the inclusion of the resttlement of Armenians by the Russians, what I have opposed was opinions and intentions attributed to this decision also the inclusion of the word massive. But I also believe that the resstlement of Armenians by the Shah should also be included, because the territory now being Nakhichevan was if not one of the place most affected by this, it was the most. Before that, there was no question that the Armenians were a very string majority there. Fad (ix) 00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need to make clear that these guys were descendants of Armenians previously removed from their lands.

Golbez, I think your proposal is one good solution--state "resettlement," and then give views. Another way to go, which was my proposal, is not give views, give basic facts--local gov't ordered, Armenian officers organized--and let the readers draw their attention. What my paragraph states doesn't contradict the Letters, it merely gives specifics, so readers don't get misleading impression of some grand conpspiracy by the Tsar. All the facts in that paragraph are contained in the sources provided so far, which were made available to you. None of the sources said "Russian government encouraged." Saying "Russia encouraged" is not the same as "Russian government encouraged"--it could be "an officer charged with organization encouraged." When we say "US exports 1 bln pounds of wheat," we don't mean the US government, we mean individual companies. When we say "Japan invested in high tech manufacturing after WWII," we don't mean the gov't, we mean again corporations. In fact, the very fact that GM assumed that it meant the central government means that it's necessary to provide specifics to avoid misleading info. But again, we could choose your version.

By the way, I don't think we need knowledgable committee to make such edits. the No Original Research policy basically says that we should pretend not to know stuff about what we contribute, and at the same time be able to read the sources. You don't even have to pretend--you are blessed with it, which is perfect. The sources are given, as an outsider, you can just look at what they say, ask questions if necessary, and see for yourself how to phrase things. Your use of that principle in mediating this issue I think has been quite positive.--TigranTheGreat 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There’s no proof that Russia resettled Armenian people, who were resettled from Julfa. Only Armenian POV sources claim that, and it is absurd. All the people who could have been resettled died 200 years ago. And Russia did not select their descendants among those who wanted to migrate. Nothing in Griboyedov’s letters suggests that. Also, Griboyedov says that people were resettled from Azerbaijan province of Persia, and not Isfahan, so they were completely different people. Read again the letter: Your Excellency wished to know about the measures, implemented for the resettlement of Armenians from Aderbaijan (Persian province) and their current settlement in our provinces. Here is the truth on this matter, as it is known to me. I cited Armenian sources to show that they don’t contradict to what Azeri sources say, when two POV sources agree on something, then it can be accepted as a fact. And when Bournatian says Russia encouraged resettlement, he means Russian government. Indeed, Paskevich, Griboyedov, Nesselrode, and even Lazarev, who headed special committee created by the Russian government, were all Russian officials. None of them was a private person. And the fact that hundreds of thousands of people could cross the border, when others couldn’t speaks for itself. I mean it’s obvious what Bournatian meant: All documents relating to the Armenian immigration make it clear that Russia, for political, military, and economic reasons, strongly encouraged the Armenians to settle in the newly-established Armenian province. If Armenian scholars don’t deny the fact, why should we? Grandmaster 07:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also for comparison see Azeri sources who describe the same process. [34] Both Azeri and Armenian sources agree that tsarist Russia encouraged the resettlement, but while Armenian sources see it as a positive process, Azeris see it in negative. However we don’t judge, we just state the facts and let the readers judge themselves. So we won’t say whether it was good or bad, we just need to state that this process took place at a certain period of time. Grandmaster 13:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is again, double standard, you claim that in Erivan the Muslim were a majority before such a resstlement of Armenians, but all those Tartars who were forming a majority are now dead for 100 years. Do you see how hypocritic you sound with such weak arguments? This is called double standard. Also, I repeat again, before any resstlements Armenians were a clear majority in the region, while the Azebaijani Accademia of Science still denies that, before the resstlement all that region in any world maps drawn indicated Armenia those regions and placed its inhabitants as Armenians. So again, it is simple, either both resttlements are highlined in the article, either none of them... since if one must stay, the other should be added. Fad (ix) 17:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you call double standard. Yes, Azeris were a majority or plurality, and that was 100 years ago. So what? I’m not trying to relate it with something that happened another 200 years ago. Have you actually read the article? Resettlement from Julfa is mentioned in the article. Why resettlement by the Russian government should not be mentioned as well? As for Armenians being a majority, such statistics are not available. Grandmaster 18:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Burnatyan says Russia encouraged Armenians to settle in Arm. oblast as opposed to Karabakh and other areas, once they crossed the border. Not necessarily (though possible, that's why we provide specifics) to move from Iran. The whole point of his thesis is that Krabakh Armenians were native. Plus, he/she could have meant the officer in charge of resettlment (Lazaryan) encouraged (which actually is what your other Armenian sources said). We are not saying they acted in private, we are just giving facts--local gov't ordered, and Lazaryan organized. ASE, Burnatyan, and Letters all are consistent with that.

As for Julfa, it's abvious that we are talking about descendants of these deported Armenians, and clearly not all were deported to Isphahan. When you move 300,000 Armenians to Atropatena and other areas, and 200 years later 40,000 (or 3800 to Nakh) move back from the same area, it's clear that they must be descendants. --TigranTheGreat 22:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear at all, you need to provide a proof of that. They were resettled from a completely different place. Grandmaster 07:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter what the point of the thesis could be, what matters is that Bournatian confirms that Russia strongly encouraged the Armenians to settle in the newly-established Armenian province. If an Armenian scholar says that, why there should be any dispute about this issue? He does not say Lazarev encouraged, ha says Russia encouraged, and Lazarev and Russia are not synonymous. Plus, your own source also confirms this fact. You quoted your source that said that In 1828 Paskevich appointed Lazaryan the head of the committee of the immigration of Armenians. OK, if this resettlement committee was subordinate to the Russian authorities (commander-in-chief in Caucasus), and he personally appointed the chief of the committee, it clearly shows involvement of the Russian authorities in the process.

As for Julfa, it’s absolutely not obvious that the resettled Armenian people were descendants of Armenians from Julfa. Griboyedov never says anything about Armenians being descendants of people from Julfa, and he also said that the Armenians were resettled from Azerbaijan province of Persia, and not from Isfahan. It’s quite obvious that they were different people.

I think we should restore the statement that Russia organized/encouraged resettlement of Armenians from Persia. All the sources prove that. It is also clear that the resettlement was massive, because within just two years more than 130 000 Armenians were resettled, and that was only the beginning. Now I would like to ask Golbez who could be a familiar committee to make final decision on this issue? Grandmaster 14:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Armenians have been pushing Russia to help Armenians resettle back in their lands since Peter the Great. To say that Russians encouraged this is just absurd and funny. Ever heard of Joseph Emin? Is it a mere coincidence that almost all Russian Generals during the Russo-Turkish and Persian wars in the Caucasus were Armenians? Five of them being born in Karabakh.--Eupator 16:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s not me saying that. We’ve got sources, including Armenian ones that claim Russian government organized/encouraged resettlement. Of course Armenian people also preferred to live under Russian authority, rather than Persian or Turkish. One does not exclude the other. Grandmaster 17:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, once again, there are a few factual inaccuracies in your statement:

No Armenian source said Russian government encouraged or organized resettlement.
Burnatian is Armenian-American, member of US educational institutions. If you call him Armenian source, you must consider general Lazaryan Armenian officers (of course serving in the Russian army, a fact reflected in my version). Good faith requires consistency.
Just because Burnatian or any other Armenian says something doesn't make it a fact--otherwise you must accept as a fact that Armenians in Karabakh have always been a majority (he says that). At any rate, Burnatian says none of the stuff you ascribe to him.
Armenians didn't just prefer to live in Russia, they were scared of reprisals from Persian and Turkish authorities--hence the large resettlement. By the way, millions of Mexicans resettle to US every year--US agencies provide them with welfare, doesn't mean US government encourages them.
Burnatyan doesn't say Russia encouraged Armenians to resettle from Persia to Russia. He says Russia encouraged them to settle in Armenian province, as opposed to other areas of Caucasus. Obviously the Lazaryan would want Armenians to settle in and prosper his province (i.e. Armenian oblast), as opposed to, say, eastern Caucasus.

Now, all sources are consistent with "local government appointed, and Lazaryan organized" version. When Burnatyan says Russia encouraged, it could very well mean "an officer charged by a Russian general with organizing resettlement encouraged". We can, and should provide specifics. All sources are consistent with these specifics. By the way, the sources previously quoted by you (the ones in Russian language) confirmed that it was Lazaryan who encouraged Armenians to move.

As for this argument of yours:

"if this resettlement committee was subordinate to the Russian authorities (commander-in-chief in Caucasus), and he personally appointed the chief of the committee, it clearly shows involvement of the Russian authorities in the process."

if it's clear from the facts that Russia was involved, then the readers will conclude that Russia was involved. We just present the facts, and let the readers decide.

So, we should include the version with specifics, or include the one proposed by Golbez--just say "Armenians resettled" and then provide POV's.

As for the immigrants from Julfa, if 300,000 moved to Persia in 1600, and then they multiplied, and say, reached a number of million in 1828, and if out of that million Armenians, 40,000 immigrated to Russia, it's clear that the resettlers must be from the large population of Armenians descending from 1604 ones.--TigranTheGreat 01:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need a special committee, Golbez can read the the sources and arguments and decide (having more knowledge of the events actually hurts).--TigranTheGreat 01:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

First off, Bournatian is an Armenian source, since he is an ethnic Armenian and has a strong pro-Armenian POV. It is apparent from his article. Second, I don’t have to agree with everything that Armenian sources claim, I just cite the Armenian sources to show that they agree with what Azeri sources claim with regard to this issue. As for Lazarev, see Griboyedov’s letter. Russian envoy describes him as an absolutely useless person (пустой человек), who thought that he was the main driving force behind the resettlement process, while according to Griboyedov most Armenians didn’t even know who he was. According to Griboyedov he did nothing but wrote useless proclamations and boasted, while other officers did the work on resettlement. Now Tigran says this man was the mastermind behind all this and did it without involvement of the Russian government, while it contradicts the original sources, which prove that Russian authorities did encourage the resettlement. They gave Armenian people lands, cattle, money, while they did not do the same for Muslim people. Griboyedov even complains that brothers of Marand khan, who helped Russia in the war with Persia, cannot get a peace of land to settle, while he also says that Armenian people were settled in the lands of Muslim landowners. It is obvious from the letters that Russian government opened the borders for the Armenians and purposely settled them in certain areas of Caucasus. Bournatian does not dispute this fact, he only disputes that Armenians were settled in Karabakh.

Also, according to Griboyedov, Armenians were resettled from Maraga, Salmas and Urmiya, and if you have any proof that those people were descendants of the emigrants from Julfa, you can present it here. Otherwise it is not worth talking about. Grandmaster 11:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Burnatyan is an American historian of Armenian ethnicity. He has been criticizied heavily by Armenian historians. Some consider him pro-Turkish. "Armenian POV" is your interpretation, a disputed one. If one tries to push his ethnic POV in US schools, he gets fired.

Armenian sources don't agree on Azeri sources. They don't say Russian government encouraged Armenians to move from Persia to Russia. They say Armenian officers, charged with resettlement by the local government, organized the resettlement, and encouraged Armenians to settle in Armenian oblast as opposed to any other place. This is consistent with Griboyedov.

Griboyedov obviously dislikes Lazaryan and badmouths him, trying to minimize his importance. This is criticism of an existing official, doesn't mean Lazaryan wasn't in charge of organizing the resettlement--when I say "George Bush does nothing," doesnt mean he is not the president of the US. Griboyedov confirms what ASE said--that Lazaryan was charged with organizing, he wanted Armenians to settle in Russian Armenia, and he was assisted by other Armenian officers--colonel M. Arghutyan (Dolgorukiy/Erkaynabazuk), majors Ivane Melikyan, Isahak Ghamazyan, Davit and Aleksandr Ghorghanyans. Griboyedov said these other officers (Lazaryan's assistants) were "weapons of action" through which the settlement occured. Lazaryan was still in charge.

I am not saying the Russian government was not involved. The involvement of the local government and Paskevich was limitted to ordering Lazaryan to organize, and getting reports from Griboyedov. These facts are all reflected in my version--basic facts--the local gov't ordered, and Lazaryan, with his committee of Armenians organized.

Griboyedov never says Russia purposely put Armenians on Muslim lands. In fact he calls these "irregularities/mistakes in the process", and asks Paskevich to correct the situation. This tells me Paskevich didn't know these things were going on. And Griboyedov never says "no Muslims got lands." There were examples of such instances, doesn't mean it was the general policy.

Griboyedov never says Armenians resettled only from Urmia and surrounding areas. And in 1604, Armenians weren't just deported to Isfahan. When you have close to million descendants of 300,000 settlers, and only 40,000 come back, it's clear that the tiny portion must have come from larger portion. Especially considering Fadix' genetics evidence.--TigranTheGreat 02:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t understand what are you arguing about. You just accepted that Russian government was involved. Here are your own words:

I am not saying the Russian government was not involved. The involvement of the local government and Paskevich was limitted to ordering Lazaryan to organize, and getting reports from Griboyedov. These facts are all reflected in my version--basic facts--the local gov't ordered, and Lazaryan, with his committee of Armenians organized.

You just agreed that the resettlement was carried out by the orders of the Russian authorities. You just try to say now that Paskevich was the local government, while he was commander-in-chief of the Russian army in the region, appointed by the Russian tsar. And Griboyedov also reported to Nesselrode, Russian minister of foreign affairs. So Russian foreign office was following the process too, which is not surprising, since Russian government included special clauses to the peace treaties with Persia and Turkey. So I have every right to say that Russian government organized massive resettlement of Armenians from Persia. Lazarev, who wrote silly proclamations and wasn’t really useful, was just executing the orders, given by the Russian commanders. Looks like we have a consensus on that. And 90 000 Armenians from Turkey were resettled without Lazarev. Also, why do you change the real names of the people from Griboyedov’s letters? He never mentions anybody with the name of Lazaryan, he refers to Lazar Lazarev.

As for resettlement, you again trying to avoid the answer to my question. Griboyedov clearly states that Armenians were resettled from Aderbeijan, Your Excellency wished to know about the measures, implemented for the resettlement of Armenians from Aderbaijan (Persian province) and their current settlement in our provinces. He also says that Армянский архиепископ Нерсес, прибывший из Эчмиадзина, говорил мне много насчет переселения 8000 семейств армян, которые пришли из-за р. Аракс, чтобы поселиться в наших провинциях; вследствие этого Марага, Салмаст и Урмия, почти обезлюдили. According to Griboyedov, Maraga, Salmas and Urmiya almost became depopulated because of resettlement of 8 000 Armenian families. No mention of Isfahan, where about 20 000 Armenians or even less were resettled from Julfa. I asked you to prove the connection between the people from Julfa and these 40 000 resettled Armenians. You failed to do so. So it’s not worth discussing. As for Bournatian, Armenian or not, he was the source, presented by Fadix, and he says the same thing. All documents relating to the Armenian immigration make it clear that Russia, for political, military, and economic reasons, strongly encouraged the Armenians to settle in the newly-established Armenian province. I know you would be arguing even if Griboyedov personally raised from his grave and told you that Armenians were resettled by the Russian government, but this can’t go on forever. Grandmaster 05:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Here’s another report of Griboyedov, this time to the director of Asian department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Constantine Rodofinikin. Griboyedov reports:

Хойская провинція еще занята нашими войсками, и более 8000 семействъ Армянскихъ переселены уже по сю сторону Аракса, остальные за ними вследъ выводятся. — Вотъ что съ нашей стороны. [35]

The province of Khoi is still occupied by our troops, and more than 8000 Armenian families have already been resettled to this side of Araks, the rest are being resettled after them. This is what’s done by our side. Grandmaster 10:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you sound angry, which damages the effectiveness of your arguments.

I’m not angry, I just find it ridiculous that you waste so much everybody’s time to deny obvious things. Even you fellow editors agreed with the fact, but you’re still in denial. Grandmaster 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

First of, no one here denied that Armenians were restled, where things diverge is that you claimed that the Russians did this to change the demographic of the region. You POVed a purpouses to an act, which you can not do in Wikipedia. Second of, the term massive is relative it doesn't mean much, this was where we also diverged, third of, you again are taking from sources what you want and inperpreting them as you want. The first thing you do is to throw the author I present as an Armenian(again you pick ones ethnicity, and if you continue in this direction I will start to believe that you are a racist) and attach to this some negative traits, such as an Armenian POV presenter. Have you even read a single of his books? No, you have not... so unless you have read his works and have a valuable comment about what he has to say or what he document, please stop assassinating ones character. Fad (ix) 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said Russian government organized the resettlement. I know English is not your first language--you seem to be blurring the difference between "involved" and "organize." When you witness a murder, you are involved in it (as a witness). Doesn't mean you did the murder. The birds flying overhead are involved just because they saw it. "Involve" is a very vague, general word.

If Russian officials gave orders for resettlement, it means that they organized it. You may call it involvement, if you wish, but the fact remains the fact. Grandmaster 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a weak logic, ordering something doesn't necessarly means one organize something. Fad (ix) 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying "Russian government organized" makes it sound like the Tsar purposely organized it as some kind of grand conspiracy to create an Armenian majority, which actually is against Tsar's desires. My version, which states "at the order of the local government, Lazaryan organized the resettlement" is more specific--it clarifies who organized (Lazaryan), and who delegated the organization (the local government).

What do you know about Tsar’s desires? Lazarev was simply implementing the orders, not that he did it against his own will, of course, but he did not do it on his own accord. He was ordered to do that. And also, he was involved in resettlement of the first 40 000 only. Grandmaster 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

First of, you have yet to document anything more than the official 40,000 figures, but until now, what you have done best is to pressupose and project it as uncomplete and mix it with other unofficial ones, and than taking the tone such as: "They resettled that much just in a year..., now imagine how much they did..." First, you have nothing to say about the Armenians LEAVING the place, neither have you anything to say about Persian Tartars immigrants. There were first in the records to set of datas, one for simple Tartars, others as Persian Tartars..., Fad (ix) 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Paskevich was the head of the local forces and he carried out the administration of the local government provisionally--he appointed the members of the local Yerevan administration, so it's ok to say the local government of Armenia oblast ordered Lazaryan to organize.

Paskevich was commander-in-chief of the Russian army in the Caucasus and led Russian army in the wars with Persia and Turkey. He was not a mayor or governor, he was much higher in position. So he cannot be called a local authority. Plus, Griboyedov reported the progress to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs and the director of the Asian department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which also shows involvement of the central authorities. Grandmaster 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not changing names--Lazaryan was Armenian, so were his assistants who helped him with organization--Arghutyan, Ghamazyan etc. I picked the names from the ASE. It was a common practice for Armenians to maintain their Armenian names, while the Russians changed the endings to Russify their names when talking about them. Composer Aram Khachaturyan is one example--some called him Khachaturov.

You yourself were insisting on using the language of the date. None of the original Russian documents refer to him as Lazaryan, only Soviet time Armenian publications. If you disagree with that, show me at least one original document of the date. Grandmaster 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Griboyedov's personal opinions of Lazaryan are not proof that Lazaryan did not organize the resettlement. Actually they confirm that it was Lazaryan making the behind-the-desk decisions about organization, while the other Armenian officers were executing the orders. Griboyedov seems to have more respect to the "hands-on" field agents instead of the behind-the-desk mastermind, which is common perception. But it was Lazaryan who invited the Armenians form Turkey and Persia, and who responded to that invitation. This was mentioned in your Russian sources that you selected earlier.

As a chief of the resettlement committee, established by the Russian authorities, Lazarev was involved in resettlement of Armenians from Persia only, but there was even more massive resettlement from Turkey as well, and the process continued until the collapse of the Russian empire. We are not talking about the first 40 000 only. Grandmaster 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to provide any official records for that, if the official records from archival materials can support the figure of 40 thousands, where are the rest dating after that date? Fad (ix) 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Griboyedov never says that Armenians came only from Atropatena. And Abbas didn't just deport Armenians only to Isfaphan. When you have large population (perhaps 1000000) deported from Caucasus, and 40,000 return, its clear that the returned Armenians had to come from much larged group. Fadix genetic proof further confirms this.--TigranTheGreat 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is simply not true. Griboyedov’s letter unambiguously states: Your Excellency wished to know about the measures, implemented for the resettlement of Armenians from Aderbaijan and their current settlement in our provinces. He also says that the Armenians were resettled from Maraga, Salmas and Urmiya. Armenians and Muslims from Julfa were resettled to Isfahan. As for 1 000 000, the number keeps on growing? Bournatian said 250 000 were resettled. According to sources, they were resettled mostly from Turkey (Van, etc) and only some of them were from the Caucasus. As for genetic prove, it cannot be taken seriously. Grandmaster 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming more and more ridiculous, be glad to provide your credentials so that we know that you have them to dispute a research published in a reputable journal of genetics. Shah Abbas devastated his frontier areas, which included parts of Armenia, as a defensive measure and so displaced nearly all the population. [from it] He settled some 13,000 families in the silk-growing northern provinces of Gilan and Mazanderan bordering on the Caspian. (Source: The Armenians and the East India Company in Persia in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries by R. W. Ferrier, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1973), p. 39) Now, PLEASE stop talking about things which you ignore, and take a map of the period and see which territories Abbas invaded during its war with the Ottoman Empire so that you understand of what Armenia he was talking about. During that period Armenians were CLEARLY a majority before the Shah displaced most of them in every lands he was able to conquer to than send them anywhere possible to have at least one Armenian community as far as the Caspian. Also, it is abvious that neither do you know the whole affair with Griboedov's last years in Persia and what is reported contrary to your massive resstlement. I will be glad to send you a PDF format of David M. Lang paper(Griboedov's Last Years in Persia, American Slavic and East European Review, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1948), pp. 317-339). I am answering you because patiences have limited and that I had to ask you to stop making up things about things which you ignore. And also, maybe you should pay a closer look at the paper about the genetic tests which you considered as worthless and not asking others [which you do not consider as your opponments simply because they are Turks] to comment about it. I rest my case. Fad (ix) 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fadix. Your sours talks about Gilan and Mazanderan, it’s not Azerbaijan, specifically Khoi, Salmas and Urmiya. Here’s a quotation from one of the links, provided by Eupator, it is more or less NPOV, since it is written by an Iranian researcher:

Early in his reign, Shah Abbas moved Iran's capital and seat of government from vulnerable Tabriz to the security of Isfahan, an already existing city well-known as a commercial center on the Silk Road. Then, encouraged by Iran's increasing economic, military, and political relations with the west (read the Papacy and Spain), he transferred the entire Armenian population of Jolfa, Azerbaijan, to the town of New Julfa on the south bank of the Zayandeh-Rud, a little upstream from Isfahan. Before long, Armenians living outside Iran as well as Christian missionaries, traders, and industrialists flooded the recent addition to Isfahan, making Julfa a showcase for Safavid achievements in economic, social, and religious spheres as well as an example of tolerance and understanding among diverse ethnic and religious groups in the region.

Shah Abbas also moved the entire Armenian inhabitants of Van, Kars, Alashkert, Manezkert, and eight other towns and villages that had come under Persian jurisdiction to Isfahan; some of these new arrivals settled in a cluster of villages nearly 90 miles west of Isfahan. This new community, about which little information is available, has lived in and around Namagerd, Daran, and Ashgerd in the Feirdan region for the past four hundred years. The total population uprooted in the autumn of 1603 consisted of some 25,000 families or, by some accounts, 30,000 individuals. [36]

It says nothing about Caucasus, except for Julfa. As for Griboyedov, I don’t need a secondary source to describe Griboyedov’s activity in Persia, his whole correspondence with Russian authorities is available online at a very good Russian website about classical Russian literature, as Griboyedov was not only a diplomat, but also a prominent Russian writer. Remember, Griboyedov is a primary source, while all the other sources we quoted here are secondary ones. With regard to genetic tests, their reliability is questionable, because there were a number of them and they gave different results. Historical sources are better and more reliable evidence. Grandmaster 06:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to discuss any further with someone that maintains the official position of Azerbaijans accademia of science. The source I provide talk about the part of Armenia that Persia controled, which INCLUDES the Caucasus. There are uper range estimates of Erivan 'town' before Abbas depopulation and dissolution of the Armenians, of 25 thousand as population. But of course for someone that still adhere to the Accademia of Science which even deny the existance of the name Armenia attached to that territory it is impossible to admit that the only reason why there was pratically no people living in Erivan in 1827 while there was few thousands more in the estimates of pre Abbas, and that the only reason why there was no higher differences was that the Tartars immigrated in the lands vaccated by Armenians. When people leave, they leave with them agricultural zones they have created, and it doesn't take time for others to profit and immigrate there, it is natural. As for Griboyedov, had you read more about him, you would not have brought him the way you did. So no, I doubt you know much about him and what was he doing in the region, my proposition still stend. Fad (ix) 16:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Comming to the genetic article, I don't know of any scientist who will rely on a historian against a geneticist to trace the genetic-ethnicity makeup of a historic figure. Also, to end this there, that you call someones position NPOV, because of his ethnicity shows still you don't well understand what POV is. There is no such thing as NPOV for a thesis, a thesis by nature is POV, because someone defend a position... NPOV is what encyclopedias should be, and not the text of an author who support a thesis. Fad (ix) 16:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

European Parliament condemnation

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM - The European Parliament today overwhelmingly adopted a resolution condemning the Azerbaijani government's destruction of the Armenian cemetery in Djulfa, a unique archaeological treasure located in the Nakhichevan autonomous republic administered by Azerbaijan.

The resolution, which was approved by a vote of 85 to 5, noted that, "serious allegations have been raised about the involvement of the Azerbaijani authorities in the destruction of these monuments" and stressed that " Azerbaijan has not provided answers [on this matter to] the former special rapporteur of the United Nations." Based on these and other findings, the European Parliament "strongly condemns the destruction of the Djulfa cemetery [.]" and "demands that Azerbaijan allow missions dedicated to surveying and protecting the archaeological heritage on its territory, especially Armenian heritage [.]." The measure also asks Azerbaijan to "allow a European Parliament delegation to visit the archaeological site at Djulfa."

"We extend our warmest congratulations to the Members of the European Parliament for the principled and comprehensive nature of this condemnation. We regret, however, attempts, especially from the European Greens, to obscure Azerbaijan's crime by drawing fake parallels with alleged destruction of cultural sites by Armenia," stated Hilda Tchoboian, the Chairperson of the European Armenian Federation.

The European Armenian Federation calls upon the presidency of the European Parliament to promptly send the parliamentary delegation called for in this resolution to survey the destruction of Djulfa.

The Federation also expressed its hope that this European initiative will encourage other national, multilateral and international bodies to condemn the Djulfa destruction with the same energy that they devoted to their protests in 2001 of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=900

From the EP site:

1. Condemns strongly the destruction of the Djulfa cemetery as well as the destruction of all sites of historical importance that has taken place on Armenian or Azerbaijani territory, and condemns any such action that seeks to destroy the cultural heritage of a people;

5. Demands that Azerbaijan allow missions dedicated to surveying and protecting the archaeological heritage on its territory, especially Armenian heritage, such as experts working with ICOMOS, and also allow a European Parliament delegation to visit the archaeological site at Djulfa;

More here: http://www.europarl.eu.int/news/expert/infopress_page/015-5220-47-2-7-902-20060210IPR05183-16-02-2006-2006--false/default_en.htm

--Eupator 17:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

So this time European parliament condemns both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but does not specify the destruction committed by the Armenian side. They were probably reading our discussion :) When we were discussing their previous resolution, I expressed my surprise that destruction of Azeri monuments was not mentioned. It is this time, but without going into details. Grandmaster 18:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Parliament strongly condemns the destruction of the Djulfa cemetery as well as the destruction of all sites of historical importance that has taken place on Armenian or Azerbaijani territory, and condemns any such action that seeks to destroy the cultural heritage of a people. It calls on the Council and the Commission to make clear to Armenia and Azerbaijan that all efforts must be made to stop the practice of ethnic cleansing which has led to such actions, and to find ways to facilitate the gradual return of refugees and displaced people. Grandmaster 18:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes exaclly its not like Armenians have stood there quitly, more then 900 ancient Azeri graves have been destroyed in the Karabakh region.

900 Azeri historic sites destroyed by Armenians

Baku, February 22, AssA-Irada

Armenians destroyed Azeri burial mounds dating back to the Middle Ages during their vicious attack on the town of Khojaly 14 years ago. Thousands of Azeri civilians were brutally slain by the Armenian forces in the Khojaly district on February 25-26, 1992, which went down as one of the bloodiest pages in the country’s history. Senior scientific scholar at the Academy of Sciences Architecture and Arts Institute Rizvan Garabaghly told a roundtable organized by the Organization to Protect Azerbaijani Monuments Wednesday that Armenians destroyed some 900 monuments that belonged to Azeris in the occupied areas in the late 20th century. Prior to the outbreak of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, the leadership of Upper Garabagh’s Asgaran district destroyed a 50-hectare Azeri graveyard and sowed vegetables there. Eight mosques built by Azeris at the Irevan fortress were burnt down by Armenians, he said. The roundtable participants said the destroyed sites included 17 historic monuments in the seven Armenian-occupied villages of the northwestern Gazakh District, as well as towers, bridges, etc. dating back to the 17th century, and all tombstones. The photos taken prior to the occupation of these areas are kept at the Ministry of Culture. The event attendees also noted that the mentioned territories are currently not settled, as Armenians planted mines there. Baku87 13:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Karki village

I took a look at the disputes and it said that Armenia has occupied Nakhichevan's exclave village of Karki since 1989. I have heard about this before, is it possible to place more information about this in this article?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/k/Talk%7ENakhichevan_Archive_2_76e6.html"

Category: Talk archives