Talk:Nakhchivan/Archive

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.

Can anyone tell me if Nakhichevan is still holding firm to its 1990 UDI from the USSR?? Worldstatesmen.org and other sites are unclear. Also any info on Vasif Talybov or Heidar Ali Riza-ogly Aliev could help to clear things up. User:Vital Component 4:16 AM E.S.T. April 27, 2005

Contents 1 Message from User:Parap 2 Question 3 Factual accuracy tag 4 Armenian Information 5 Shah Abbas 6 Protected 7 medcabal (old) 8 first paragraph in dispute 9 medcabal 10 compromise first paragraph 11 Removal of large blocks of text without discussion by grandmaster 12 my 2 remaining issues 13 continuing discussion of 2nd para 14 replacing material 15 resolution of dispute 16 resolution of dispute #2 17 final para 18 TigranTheGreat's proposal 19 yet more debate 20 stopping mediation

Message from User:Parap

Moved from the "History" section of Nakhichevan:

"Note: the sources for my addition are all over the internet. Considering that the original author has made no use of sources either, I do not see why I should add sources for something so obvious. Only someone who does not speak Armenian or has entirely ignored the Armenian element in Nakhichevan would not know that Nakhichevan is an Armenian word and that until the 20th century Armenians abundantly lived there with hundreds of churches and monasteries and even more cross-stones. Search for Nakhichevan on the internet as source number 1."

-Nameneko 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Be specific about Persian destruction in one of theit holiest lands. Amir58 10:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

We should add how the Azeris are now destroying Armenian monuments in the region, in effect its cultural genocide.--MarshallBagramyan 23:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any proof to such allegations from independent sources? Armenian propaganda is trying to distract the attention of international community from destruction of Azeri monuments in Armenia and occupied Azerbaijani territories by spreading disinformation like that. Grandmaster 10:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Shameful information about Nachijevan taken from Azeri internet sources. Naxijevan and not Naxchvan is a historic armenian homeland with Armenian toponim.

Propaganda? That is a shameful word to use. Here is a video documenting Azeri soldiers' shameful acts: [1] And here is another source from the International Council of Monuments and Sites [2] This is very real so don't label the Azeris' acts of cultural genocide as "propaganda".--MarshallBagramyan 21:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You call this a proof? The video is extremely bad quality, it’s hard to understand anything from it. As for the report, it is written by some Armen Haghnazarian. How about some neutral sources confirming your allegations? By the way, maybe you have some information about how Azeri cultural monuments are protected in Armenia and occupied Azeri territories. For example, the grave of great Azeri poet Ashig Alesker was leveled with bulldozers in Armenia. Is this a “cultural genocide” or not? Grandmaster 05:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You are truly playing the role of an apologist. Regarding the video, what can Azeri soldiers be possibly be doing that would require bulldozers and dump trucks and the constant noise of breaking rocks? Humanitarian work? That website is co-written and is not the just the work of an Armenian. Click on the photographs page of the website and see the shattered khatckars. Those are centuries old monuments and the Azeris are simply attempting to rewrite history. This isn't something new. They have been doing this for years until the United Nations (UNESCO) intervened and temporarily stopped it several years back. US Congressman have personally condemned the event and yet you are still playing deaf and blind that of course, this is some sort of black propaganda originating from the Armenians.

And any searches on the internet for "Ashig Alesker" comes up to zero. Do you have any proof to back up your claims then that the bulldozing of a burial ground constitutes as cultural genocide? Or do they originate from Azerbaijan's government?--MarshallBagramyan 07:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it’s not clear from the video where it was shot and what it actually depicts. The same with photographs, it’s not clear whether tombstones were deliberately broken or they broke from the old age. As for the US congressman, we all know the way Armenian Diaspora sponsors some of them, so his position is no surprise at all. The only prove to such allegations would be an independent inspection of the area. As for the destruction of Ashig Alesker grave, the information is from Azeri sources, but I saw videos on Azeri TV, showing broken tombstones in old and new Azeri cemeteries in Armenia and Karabakh. The videos were shot by Iranian journalists. You can also check out the ruins of mosques and old buildings in Shusha.

How about monuments of great Azeri composer Uzeyir Hajibeyov, poetess Natavan and singer Bul-Bul in Shusha, which were shot from machine guns by Armenian soldiers and sold as scrap metal to Georgia? They are exhibited now in the courtyard of Museum of Arts in Baku. Is this cultural genocide or not? Grandmaster 13:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Where it is and what it actually depicts? Do you expect to see the Sears Tower and Azeri soldiers waving back to the cameramen? Do you speak and understand Armenian? Are you Azeri? That film is being taken from Iran near the Arax river which borders the region. How convenient, all those stones simply broke in half because of old age? If you wish to use an excuse, use a better one. Stones will not break so neatly like that. They will deform but they will not shatter in half. These images are verified by the organization and this matter was important enough for the UNESCO to interfere. What more do you want?

Those images of Shushi display nothing but something that is already prevalent in Karabagh. Its not just mosques but its also Armenian churches that are decaying in form and structure. That's government neglect, not the intentional destruction of structures.

This is amazing, you are going to extreme lengths to defend Azeri actions of cultural genocide. Everyone who has verified this evidence has an ulterior motive don't they? US Congressmen are doing this for personal gain, the video cannot identify if the soldiers are either breaking stones or helping out in humanitarian work. Likewise, your website is from an Azeri one so how can I know that they are not trying to advance their propaganda? (plus the link is a dud) I have proof from Congressmen, the United Nations and the ICOMOS and all you can use to cite your proof is Azeri state-run TV?

Please adduce your proof. You are telling me that my evidence is not objectional yet you cite Azeri television as your evidence. You are hardly being objective and I can only assume which side you are cheering for.--MarshallBagramyan 17:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s enough evidence to pass final judgment. Only an independent inspection can make the matters clear. As far as I know the Council of Europe formed a commission to investigate the situation by insistence of Armenia, but there’s no information about its findings so far. As for the US congressman, if he cared so much about protection of cultural monuments in the region, why he showed no reaction, when Armenian militants used statues of Azeri composers, poets and singers in Shusha as targets for shooting exercises, and then sold them as scrap metal to Georgia? Azerbaijani government bought the statues from Georgian metal dealers and everybody can see now those statues with bullet marks on the faces in Museum of Arts in Baku. I’ll get you the photographs. Grandmaster 21:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Militants? There is a clear difference between "militants" and soldiers. Militants are not under the control of the government and hence cannot be held accountable for actions committed by several miscreants. So who done it? Militants? Soldiers? The images on that video show Azerbaijani soldiers who are destroying historical structures which mean it leaves the Azeri government to be held culpable. Perhaps there have been no reaction by the Congressmen because there is so little proof for Azerbaijan to stipulate in the first place. Azerbaijan wildly lashes at the world for failure to recognize the genocide of "2.5 million Azeris" yet is unable to convince any scholarly bodies or genocide organisations that it even occured. So little proof stems from Azeri claims which explains why anyone in the Intl. community is so skeptical to denounce the events they are claiming is occuring.

Racism is very prevalent in Azerbaijan towards Armenians and that's why I am finding your view of this event as unconvincing so condescending. Waiting for the COE to decide on what is happening in the region is analgous to waiting to call the police while a murder is taking place. --MarshallBagramyan 21:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don’t know if it were militants or soldiers, but the fact that Armenian authorities did nothing to prevent vandalism speaks for itself. And destruction of statues couldn’t have happened without knowledge of Armenian leaders. You can see the pictures here and here

No proof is required in this case, everyone can go to the Museum of Arts in Baku and see the statues in the courtyard. Your talking about racism in Azerbaijan is like pot calling kettle black. If Armenia is so racism free, why the population of Armenia and occupied Karabakh consists only of Armenians? What happened to other ethnicities? Grandmaster 05:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The Armenian government barely has sufficent funds to repair churches and construct roads much less to spend money on reparing tombs and statues. I really cannot deduce anything from those pictures nor identify them except by taking the Azeris' word for it. Is there any other proof you can provide to show Armenian culpability? Karabagh isn't the topic here but since you mentioned it Karabagh has always possessed Armenian majority for decades now and that includes before the war. The lack of Azeris in the region doesn't really connect to racism but to war. Its exactly the same reason why there are virtually now Armenians left in Nakhichevan. Ever since 1988 and the ensuing war in the 90s, refugees and populations shifted. After the pogroms and massacres in Sumgait and elsewere in Azerbaijan, the Armenian population fled into Armenia while the Azeris in Armenia returned to Azerbaijan. Its a warzone, a sane person would want to come back and live under such volatile conditions. --MarshallBagramyan 07:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I’ll find some time and take my own high resolution pictures of the statues. As for the rest, Azeris and muslim kurds in Armenia left after the same sort of violent actions and killings. You accuse Azeris of racism, but how come that Azeris, who were majority in Yerevan and territory of modern day Armenia before the Russian revolution constituted a small minority before the start of the conflict? That was not the result of war. I think your side of the conflict is not as innocent as you trying to prove here. Grandmaster 08:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You can blame Lenin and Stalin for meddling in both our regions. I don't like it and I never liked those two figures. They took Armenia and gave some of our land to Turkey and the other half of it to the Azerbaijan. Its true Yerevan had a small Armenian population during the war but after the 1915 Genocide there was a large influx of the deportees into the country which thus made the Azeris the minority. No Armenian wanted to remain in the Ottoman Empire and the newly created Republic in 1918 became a haven for Armenians.--MarshallBagramyan 18:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It’s true, Bolsheviks made some wrong decisions in the region, trying to promote their crazy ideology, but they also helped Armenia to regain some of the lost territories after it was defeated in war with Turkey (by denouncing Aleksandropol peace treaty, signed by dashnak government). The role of the Bolsheviks in our problems is actually a highly disputable issue and requires a separate discussion. Grandmaster 19:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The Soviets did nothing but appease the Azeris and Turks in hopes for consolidating a larger Soviet commonwealth. This did include redistributing most of the land from new Armenian Republic and giving it to the Turks. Armenia was practically coerced to sign nearly all the treaties following Sevres. With the Turkish invasions in the west and Soviets' in the north, it had no choice but to sign treaties and therefore involunarily cede territories to other countries in the region. That is why we Armenians only recognize the Sevres treaty and inveigh against the consequent accords.--MarshallBagramyan 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

According to you personal page you speak pretty good Russian, so this is what I’m talking about:[3] Dashnak government signed peace treaty in Aleksondropol after defeat in the war Armenia had declared to Turkey in 1920, but interference of Bolsheviks prevented its implementation. According to that treaty territory of Armenia was limited to Yerevan and its suburbs, but Soviet Russia denounced it. My point is that commies were not all that bad for Armenia. But anyway, we deviated from the subject of the article. Grandmaster 06:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but the website doesn't produce the Russian letters correctly, I can read the title but the rest looks like errors by my browser. Armenia was attacked by Turkey and the Soviets did indeed help out Armenia but as far as Stalin and Lenin I think we can both agree brought more destuction than good. I'll repost here if I hear any news concerning the region or the status of those stone crosses....of course with "reputable" sources.--MarshallBagramyan 19:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I actually don’t have much sympathy for those two communist leaders as well. Take care. Grandmaster 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

I hope I won't hurt any national sensibilities by asking this, but I feel it may be warranted. Would any one object to the addition of the category Category:Regions of old Armenia to this article? This is based on the Vaspurakan article that lists it as one of its former constituent districts.

I wish to remain neutral on whatever argument you're having already, and it really isn't any of my business. I'm just an outsider who happens to be mildly interested in Medieval Armenian history (and not at all in modern nationalistic conflicts). A simple "yes" or "no" consensus will do. Many thanks. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don’t think it would be appropriate. It’s a disputable question. Thanks for your interest, but it’s better not to start another controversy on this subject. Thank you. Grandmaster 09:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag

I'm adding the tag. The article currently has a huge gap in the history section when it comes to Classical and Mediveal eras. Virtually no mention of Armenian rule of the territory.--Eupator 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Information

Like it or not, Nakhichevan has a long, rich Armenian history and connection - which this article was completely missing and I have not even begun to touch upon. I made some tiny additions and corrections and ignored the rest of the article for the time being. I find the reversions of my work very unwiki and hope you (Grandmaster) are not starting a reversion war here. To address the issues you have changed and removed, I will DISCUSS them here. First is the name in Armenian - it was already there in Russian which did not bother you, but the addition in Armenian suddenly made you decide only Azerbaijani was relevant. Well sorry, but considering the location and history of the land (which was emptied of Armenians by Shah Abbas II once, though the Armenian population increased to ALMOST half by 1920, and was a center of art and culture) which so far have been completely ignored in the article, it is fitting to have the Armenian spelling in there. Next, perhaps I was off by 8% in my saying "half the population", but you could have changed it to 42% or changed it to "nearly half", completely removing that information seems to me like you want to hide that info - again, very unwiki. Removing the link to the work "Armenia" at the same time, when Azerbaijan is linked throughout the article, again, not cool at all. Under "Disputes", your change of wording is absolutely unacceptable! Amazing that you could leave that lie on the page for who knows how long, blaming Armenia for the blockade, when in fact it was Azerbaijans fault. When I correct it, you REMOVE THE FACTS?!?!?! And why? Because "It’s hard to expect any economic relations between two countries, while the conflict not resolved". Well sorry charlie, but that is NOT good enough, understand? You have clearly removed a more informative statement with a less informative one, ROBBING people of what this site is here for. STOP IT. It is not relevant what YOU expect here - I expect the truth and when I add it, I expect it to remain. A country shouldn't close it's borders with another country and then cry that it's not getting supplies. --RaffiKojian 11:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed Armenian spelling to prevent endless edit wars, because somebody replaced it with Turkish spelling, then someone reverted, so I don’t think there should be any spellings other than Azeri, because it’s a territory of Azerbaijan Republic, and not that of Armenia, Iran, Turkey or Russia, even though it could have been at some time in the history. We can add all other spellings as well, because some people may and definitely will include them, or we can keep only one. Let’s think about it.

As regards to the proportion of Armenian population before the Russian revolution, it’s OK the way it is now, but the information you included before was inaccurate. This is encyclopedia after all, and we should add only accurate info.

As for the blockade, Azerbaijan and Armenia are waging a war with each other, so it is strange to demand that Azerbaijan should maintain economic relations with a country that occupies a part of its territory. Your new edit is far from being NPOV, and my neutral wording was a lot better. I put my version of this phrase back in for the moment, let’s discuss the better wording.

As for the links, I did not delete any of them. Ask the person who did. Grandmaster 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what is "NPOV" about what I wrote about the blockade, and certainly find it odd that it only came to your attention when I corrected the deliberate lie someone had inserted into the article saying there was an Armenian blockade. The borders are closed, yes. The Azeri government closed them, yes. Where is the POV? This is a simple matter, it is true, nobody is inserting opinion about whether it was a good or bad idea, whether it is illegal or legal, whether George Bush likes it or dislikes it... it is a very simple truth, and is being stated very simply. What is the issue? Who here demanded that Azerbaijan maintain ecomonic relations? Who here mentioned that Turkey is blockading Armenia as well? Nobody. So there is no POV and there is no problem, and the edit should NOT be removed, depriving people of legitimate facts. It's really that simple. --RaffiKojian 21:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It’s not a legitimate fact, it’s just your personal opinion. The railway was blocked since 1989, because Armenian militants attacked the trains passing through Megri (the station at the strip of Armenian territory between Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan proper), and now they are closed because Armenia occupies districts along the border with Iran. Azeri government offered to resume railway communication, if Armenia withdraws its troops from those areas, but Armenia refused. So it’s a fault of Armenian side, and I’m going to revert to a neutral version. Grandmaster 16:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal opinion? Armenia has repeatedly called for an opening of the border with Turkey, and has said it is willing to open the border with Azerbaijan immediately. That is a fact, and Armenia would be willing to go ahead with it, just like it has participated in many activities which Azerbaijan has been involved in, and allowed Azeris and journalists to come to Armenia without any problems. It is my OPINION that Azerbaijan does not allow the border to be opened since it thinks it is hurting Armenia more than itself, and so it is willing to allow Nakhichevan to suffer. It also uses great pressure on Turkey in order to keep Turkey from opening its border, something which Turkey appeared ready to do in the past. The reason I think Azerbaijan allowed a direct flight from N Cyprus was in return for Turkeys continued blockade. But those are my opinions and I keep them to myself in the article. If Azerbaijan wants to open that railroad they could do it today, without Armenians handing it over to them along with hundreds of square kilometers of land which then the Azeris could use to again surround Karabakh and close down the railroad whenever they feel like it. That also is my opinion. However, as I said, Armenia is willing to have open borders, Azerbaijan is not, and that should be reflected in the article just like the previous lie was which did not bother you one bit apparently. --RaffiKojian 23:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, Azerbaijan made a proposal with regard to resuming of railway communication, and since it’s not accepted by Armenian side, Azerbaijan cannot be blamed for that. Stop including inaccurate information and trying to use this resource for propaganda purposes. Grandmaster 05:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, Azerbaijan did not say, "let's open the railway", they said if you do something (in this case give up your only bargaining chip in a major territorial dispute), we promise to open up the railroad line you give back to us (which we can then close again). So no, Azerbaijan did not propose to "open the railroad", if they wanted to do that the railroad could be opened without Armenia giving land back, they proposed for Armenia to give them land back. These are two different things, and for you to leave a lie on the page for so long, saying that Armenia was the one doing the blockading, and then when I correct it immediately jump in the issue and try to blockade the truth being shared is what I call propaganda.... --RaffiKojian 11:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, your actions here are very questionable. I am adding information about the rich Armeian history and legacy in this land, as well as information about attempts to wipe out that history, and here you are trying to wipe out that information. This is a wiki, you ADD information, you do not remove it. This page had a lie about Armenians, you did not care, but when I corrected it, you suddenly got very sensitive about the new wording. This page had no picture, when I added a nice one of the Armenian khachkars, you removed it without discussion, suddenly finding an Azeri picture you wanted to put up. I put info about pictures clearly showing the destruction of the khachkars in Jugha by Azeri soldiers, in a strict military zone that nobody is allowed to visit, and you say that no outsiders have verified the information. What you are doing is not cool at all, and I am going to call you on it every time. This is the TALK page. So talk here, don't simply remove or alter facts which mention Armenia or Armenians. --RaffiKojian 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn’t remove any Armenian information except for the picture of the tombstones, which you tend to insert into every page about Nakhichevan. You have that picture in the article about Julfa, and that is enough. No need to include it in every single article about Nakhichevan. There are better things in Nakhichevan than the tombstones, and this mausoleum is one of the better known landmarks of Nakhichevan. As for the info you try to insert into the dispute section, it’s inaccurate and violates NPOV rules of Wikipedia, and I’m going to revert it every time you put it in. I edited it to make it neutral, but did not actually delete anything. It’s all about wording. By the way, you add and edit information without discussion yourself, and that’s not cool either. Probably it’s time to apply to arbitrary committee. Grandmaster 12:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

European Parliament reputable enough for you Grandmaster?

,Calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to put an end the demolition of medieval Armenian cemeteries and historic carved stone crosses in southern Nakhichevan, which is in breach of the terms of its 1993 ratification of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention; http://www.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade3?TYPE-DOC=TA&REF=P6-TA-2006-0028&MODE=SIP&L=EN&LSTDOC=N Raffi, this alone is enough for you to put the picture back and revert the current version.--Eupator 14:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it’s European parliament. Some of the countries there are very sympathetic to the Armenians. By that I mean that they say nothing about barbaric destruction of Azeri monuments in Armenia and Karabakh, especially in Shusha, and then mention this thing without even investigating the facts. I’m still waiting on Council of Europe mission to actually travel to the region and investigate the situation. Grandmaster 17:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, what "barbaric destruction" do you speak of? I have pictures of the mosque in Aghdam, and one or two of the three in Shushi (and have seen all three, at least from the minarets of one or another... I believe those are all the mosques in Karabakh. They are obviously not in mint condition, but they are intact, standing, and can be easily restored to better than ever - nothing like the crushing of thousands of intricate carvings. I also have pictures of a large old Azeri cemetary with monuments and gravestones right next to the main highway in Karabakh. On top of that, you are welcome to go there yourself, nobody will try to stop you, no council of europe mission is needed, there is no eventually.... ANYBODY can go and see them. All of Azerbaijan is off limits to me however, because even as a US Citizen I am not permitted to go due to the -ian at the end of my last name. On top of that, nobody else can go to Jugha anyway, since it is in a "military zone". So why am I explaining all this, since I am sure you know all this already? For the benefit of those observers who might actually read your comments and believe there is something to them. Armenia and Azerbaijan are not behaving the same in these matters... Azerbaijan is carrying out state-sponsored "barbaric vandalism" of some of the best examples of a unique, world-class art. It is absolutely unforgivable. Stop making excuses for it. --RaffiKojian 10:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting note from Radio Liberty this week: "Oskanian (Armenia's foreign minister) told reporters that Armenia is even ready to avoid shipping any cargo through the Gyumri-Kars rail link and put it at the disposal of Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan only. `The international community, Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan know that Armenia is ready to let that railway function without its participation,' he said." There you have it Grandmaster, Armenia is even willing to open the railroad to Azerbaijan WITHOUT EVEN USING IT FOR IT'S OWN SHIPPING. And what do Turkey and Azerbaijan reply????? I bet they reply NO. As they reply to everything that comes out of Armenia - no matter how incredibly reasonable, just, sensible or any other quality it might have. --RaffiKojian 11:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And for my third comment in a row, I now noticed Grandmaster's comment before Eupator's, not just after. First let me say, it is one thing to add information to a page, another altogether to remove it. I only added that which was solid, and did not word it in any inflammatory way. You on the other hand are "rewording" things in a way to remove information and photographs. Now for you to say I am adding that photo of khachars to "every Nakhichevan page", when I've added it to 2 pages, seems like a bit much, don't you think? And I think it is appropriate on both. For you to remove it from the Nakhichevan page without discussion is certainly not appropriate. This is a wiki, you can ADD YOUR PICTURE WITHOUT DELETING MINE. You can DISCUSS BEFORE REMOVING. Are these concepts so foreign to you that you can sit here and try to explain as if it is perfectly reasonable for you to remove my information? The photo is information. The fact that it is Azerbaijan that is not allowing goods to flow is information. The way you reword it completely obscures that fact and you know it. You also at first tried to remove the Armenian spelling for Nakhichevan. So yes, I feel like you are conciously making an effort and coming up with excuses to remove Armenian information and to make Azerbaijan look good instead of welcoming the corrections and additions about this territory which make the article much richer and more interesting. Keep reverting all you like. The more you keep me coming back to check the page, the more I will work on it and add to it. So go and call the arbiters now and save yourself a lot of time and let me work in peace. --RaffiKojian 11:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring me, eh? Well you have added new material, and unlike my material which is nice and solid, yours is opinion and questionable at that.

• Russian government organized massive resettlement of Armenians from Persia to the Caucasus with the purposes of changing the demographics of the region. -where is your proof of this? You have no citation, you are not only saying Russia organized it (which I have never seen or heard of before), but saying they specifically wanted to change the demographics in favor of Armenians back then, as if they cared.
• You also added some interesting text about the population of Yerevan and forced population exchanges. Do you have any references for this information? (I mean the forced exchanges, not the population figures for Yerevan). And who forced who? I would like to know since if you do, then it is relevant, but if there was no population exchanges, then why is the ethnic breakdown of Yerevan's population discussed (and for that matter then why not Karabakh and Baku, which was an independent Christian ruled city state briefly after WWI).

Again, please answer my questions - I am interested to see where this material comes from. If it seems solid, I have no problem with it. Please note I am not automatically removing it just because you added it. --RaffiKojian 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raffi. I’m glad you’re becoming more constructive. You say that your material is nice and solid, but didn’t provide any independent source as a proof of say, resettlement of Armenians by Shah Abbas. I have no problem with citing my sources.

1. See the reports of Russian envoy Griboyedov. They are pretty informative. Of course, Russian government didn’t care much about Armenians, they just wanted to increase Christian population, as they didn’t trust Muslims, and thought Armenians would be more loyal.

This one Griboyedov even titled Report on Resettlement of Armenians from Persia to our provinces:

http://feb-web.ru/feb/griboed/texts/piks3/3_4_v3.htm

this one is specifically about Nakhichevan.

http://feb-web.ru/feb/griboed/texts/fom88/ps88_150.htm

this one is both in French and Russian:

http://feb-web.ru/feb/griboed/critics/enik.htm

2. I will cite my sources for population figures anyway, I’ll include the footnotes into the article. I took the population figures from Russian Brokgauz and Yefron encyclopedia, the best Russian encyclopedia at the time. As for population exchange, what happened to Azeri majority in Erivan, in your opinion? Armenians forced it out, and most of them moved to Nakhichevan. There are paintings of Azeri artist Behruz Kengerli, made in early 1920s in Nakhichevan, which were showing these refugees. I’ll try to find them and upload here. Grandmaster 06:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster - thanks for the links, but since they are in Russian, I have no idea what they say. Oh well, hopefully someone else will come along and confirm this. The Shah Abbas information has an online reference to a book which was published on paper by Argam Ayvazyan, which is now online. Yes he is Armenian, though why he'd make up that story again I don't know. I also googled "Isfahan Armenian Quarter" and got a few including: http://remmm.revues.org/document2826.html or http://www.isfahan.org.uk/jolfa/jolfa1l.htm - which pretty much say the same thing. If you have contradictory information on where the Armenians of New Julfa came from, feel free to share it. Now, for my opinion on the Azeri population of Erivan... well first, I can't access any books right now, so I don't know what the population fo the entire province - I can tell you the population of Erivan town in 1890 was 12,500 - so 48% of that is not many people... what was the population of the entire province? I do know that hundreds of thousands of Armenians moved to Armenia and especially Yerevan during Soviet times - from all over the Soviet Union and the world, and hundreds of thousands probably came from Western Armenia during and just after WWI due to the Armenian Genocide. And there were what - 200,000 Azeris in Armenia in 1988? So I am not sure how many would have been pressured to leave before that, or by which authorities either (Armenian vs. Moscow), and from where. As you know Meskhetian Turks, Volga Germans, and other nationalities were uprooted en masse by the central authorities. I have not heard of any local plot to remove Azeris from Armenia (but as always am open minded on a good source), but do know from numerous Armenians I have spoken to in Karabakh or from Nakhichevan that this was their perception of what was going on around them. I do know however that huge numbers of Armenians were left out of the Armenian state in neighboring lands (and that Armenian populated lands in the Ottoman Empire, plus Kars and Ardahan were emptied of Armenians who were either killed, starved or fled to Armenia)... with As many Armenians outside of Armenia as inside it. So because the Armenians were not quite as concentrated at that time, they were severly shortchanged if you look at the big land distribution picture. --RaffiKojian 10:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Where do you take your figures from? This is from the same Russian Brokgauz encyclopedia: 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. More tan half of it was Azeri, and by the beginning of the conflict in 1988 it was almost equal to zero. So what happened to 15000 Azeris? According to the same source there were 7 mosques and 6 Armenian churches, as far as I know only 1 mosque is left now. After the World War II this time Soviet government organized resettlement of Armenians to Armenia from foreign countries. Soviet cabinet of ministers, chaired by Stalin, adopted the decree # 4083 about resettlement of 100 000 Azeris from Armenia to Kura-Araks valley in Azerbaijan. Allegedly it was influenced by Anastas Mikoyan, who was close to Stalin. Full text is available here, it’s an Azeri website, the text is in Russian. I hope Russian speaking Armenian guys will check the Russian links. As it is obvious from the decree, the purpose of this decision was to clear space for Armenian settlers. This decision seriously decreased the number of Azeri population in Armenia. That was later, but in the beginning of the century there was a massive exchange of population in the region. Grandmaster 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi - I just don't understand what you are saying. You are asking for a better source than "some Armenian POV website", but I have not given any source at all for border. That Azerbaijan has closed it's border with Armenia is not a matter of dispute, just as the fact that the US border with Canada is open. The Armenian government has always been willing to open the border with no preconditions - and just this week (see a few messages above from me) offered even to let Azeri rail traffic go from Turkey through Armenia and Georgia - EVEN WHILE NOT ALLOWING ARMENIAN TRAFFIC to pass to Armenia itself! I find it remarkable how constructive and reasonable the Armenian position has been, how they have always said they are willing to return the lands outside of Karabakh immediately if self-determination was allowed for Karabakh (something the Soviet constitution guaranteed, and which many believe is a basic human right, including the Azeris when it comes to Northern Cyprus!). There was even a US law passed, called Section 907 (google it) that forbade aid from going to governments blockading Armenia - that is why the Azeri government got no aid until Section 907 was waived after September 11, 2001 in order to get permission to fly over their country... There is also an article today saying Aliev is threatening to withdraw from peace talks with Armenia IF TURKEY OPENS ITS BORDER WITH ARMENIA[4], so it is all quite clear and that I have to fight to keep people from deleting such a simple black and white truth amazes me. Same goes for the photos you want to say "allege". Have you looked at them? They are incredibly clear! And the European Parliament just called for an end to the demolition (see the link on the Nakhichevan page to the EU Parliament page). You ask for NPOV, well go on and show it already. --RaffiKojian 10:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Section 907 is waived by now, and it was considered unjust by both Clinton and Bush administration. It was adopted because of influence of Armenian lobby, we all now the way things work in the US congress. As for European parliament, they never traveled to the region or investigated the facts, so how could they pass such a resolution is beyond me. And it makes virtually no mention of destruction of Azeri monuments in Karabakh, which doesn’t make it a balanced view. Check this out: Azeri historical monuments in Shusha.

Another fact. Armenian militants used statues of Azeri composers, poets and singers in Shusha as targets for shooting exercises, and then sold them as scrap metal to Georgia. Azerbaijani government bought the statues from Georgian metal dealers and now those statues with bullet marks on the faces are kept in the courtyard of Museum of Arts in Baku. See the pictures here and here.

The mausoleum of great Azeri poet Vagif in Shusha is ruined. All the marble lining was stripped from the walls, etc. I have no pictures for the moment, but saw a video. All the museums (there were several) in that town were ruined and looted. It’s strange that all this is never even mentioned in this Europarlament resolution. This makes me doubt their impartiality. And also, this is your 3rd revert today, it's time to stop. Grandmaster 11:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, take it up with the EU. It's not our business to comment on their actions and condemnations. We can only add the facts.

So some modern Soviet era statues were damaged during the war, for all we know by Azeri bullets themselves. It is not comparable to a government ordered destruction of ancient cross stones by any stretch of imagination.--Eupator 20:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Very busy (till the weekend)- but in any case "it was considered unjust by both Clinton and Bush administration" is not true, it was considered INCONVENIENT, very different. What do you mean about the law not being investigated properly? I never heard one complaint from Azerbaijan EVER about the law not being fair because they weren't blockading Armenia - only you seem to want to avoid that terminology! Also I know it is a very bad crime for the marble to be stripped, and mosques to be vandalised (but NOT destroyed!), but these can be repaired. The khachkars of Jugha are many centuries old, and you can see the photo of the type of masterpieces of art each one was... absoultely irreplaceable. You have to see that there is a big difference. It is like comparing Khojalu or Sumgait to the Armenian Genocide. One was a massacre, one was a predetermined plan to eliminate a race from its historic homeland once and for all (and successful at that it would appear). So please, let's keep things in proper perspective and not compare apples to oranges. -Raffi

Still no answer from Grandmaster, and Kholkhoi is silent too despite taking the Azeri side in these matters. What we have are SIMPLE truths that are being ignored and obscured, first by Azerbaijan, then by Grandmaster, and now by Kholkhoi. This is a place for fact, and clarity. If something is unclear, by all means say so, but there is proof of khachkars AGAIN being destroyed, the European Parliament felt the proof was sufficient to say sao, and Azerbaijan lies about the truth complains about Shushi. Here again we have apples being compared to oranges, truth to lies. There is a deliberate government policy, with soldiers carrying out utter destruction of stunning artwork in Jugha - a zone off limits to civilians. In Shushi you have a city which was burned down after capture. There was no deliberate targetting of someone or others house, and the mosques are glaringly intact, as anybody who is free to go there can see. True, they mosques do not have guards, and have been vandalised, as anyone can see, but also it is true that they are quite intact, the government has taken no measures to harm them, destroy them, or cart them away. They are just sitting there, like the mosque in Aghdam, like the huge cemetary with funerary monuments like the one pictured in this article, just off the main highway north of Stepanakert. These are simple, obvious, clear truths. All Grandmaster is doing is try to take the edge off the truth, and cast doubt on it. That is what Kholkhoi is contributing to. The whole thing stinks of people knowing doing and justifying wrong. It has no place on Wikipedia. I am not typical of the region. If Armenia(ns) do something wrong, it is wrong. I will not defend it, and I will not condone it. I will condemn it. So Grandmaster, stand up, be a man, and do the right thing. --RaffiKojian 00:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What kind of an answer do you expect? I don’t mind discussing things with people, who want to listen, see other talk pages, related to Azerbaijan. There’s a simple rule when discussing things in such places - you should support your argument with references to independent sources, which you fail to do. You try to insert phrases like “Azerbaijan blockades Armenia”, etc, which is very far from NPOV. And links to Armeniapedia cannot be considered sufficient proof, sorry. I don’t condone acts of vandalism, regardless of who commits them, but I don’t consider the issue in question a proven fact. It cannot be proved, unless there’s an investigation by third parties. As regards to Shusha, I provided enough proof of barbaric destruction of this old town, see the pictures of 18th century mosques, which were among the oldest buildings in the town and its landmarks. The interiors are ruined and burned, intricate decorations and ornamental paintings cannot be restored in their original beauty. The exteriors are also damaged. House-museums of poetess Natavan, composer Uzeyir Hajibeyov, Mir-Mohsun Navvab, museum of the town’s history were looted and burned, this list goes on. I already mentioned mausoleum of great Azeri poet Vagif, and the statues from Shusha are displayed in Baku, many international observers reported this vandalism, for example de Waal describes these statues with bullet marks on them in his book. The statues could not have been sold as scrap metal without knowledge of Armenian leadership. And the fact that they were made in Soviet times does not justify vandalism. In my opinion, this is officially sponsored destruction of the Azeri heritage in the area. But I don’t try to push my POV, I just state known facts in the relevant entries. Grandmaster 06:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I expect this kind of answer, what do you think I expect? Azerbaijan DOES blockade Armenia. You know it, I know it, the US passed a law forbidding aid to the Azeri government unless they lift it, they did not, and they were therefore not able to recieve aid due to Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act until the president waived it as a matter of national security after September 11 in order to get permission to use Azeri air space. This is a complete, accurate, NPOV assessment of the blockade. Whether you think Armenia deserves to be blockaded or not is another question, the simple fact is that Azerbaijan IS blockading Armenia. It never protested that it should be getting aid because there was no blockade, it merely protested that they couldn't get aid because of their blockade. What proof do you want? Do you not know how to use Google? Here are three links, one Armenian, one outside, and one Azeri. They all agree anca.org fas.org zerbaijan.com. I am saying something simple and reasonable. I hope you can be reasonable too. As for the destruction in Shushi, as I said, the mosque can be restored - though yes, it will not be the same. The difference, which you don't want to seem to accept is government sponsorship of destruction of cultural artifacts. The Karabakh government has not directed destruction, they have simply left the mosques/statues and ignored them. That is in sharp contrast to what is going on in Jugha. You have never been to Karabakh, but I assure you a metal statue could easily be sold as scrap metal without the government knowing - just like many other soviet statues were. I am sounding like a broken record, but I hope you can see the difference I am talking about, and will stop reverting every word of my edit without regard to what else changed. The next time you do that is the next time I stop discussing anything. --RaffiKojian 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope you won’t mind if I say that Azerbaijan closed its borders with Armenia in response to aggression of Armenia against Azerbaijan, and Armenia closed it’s borders with NAR. It’s true, and you know that. As for 907, there’s a general understanding that this shameful legislation was a result of activity of Armenian lobby in the US parliament, and has nothing to do with real situation. For example:

In January 2002, President George W. Bush approved an order that largely undid Section 907, handing the Armenian lobby their most significant setback in a decade.

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~dking/section907v2.pdf

Also: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/wws401c/1998/907.html

If you want the truth, it should be the whole truth. This may start a new edit war, which I was trying to avoid by using neutral wording. But if that’s what you want, so be it. As for Shusha, it’s hard to believe that such big states could be removed and transported without knowledge of Armenian officials. Grandmaster 11:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I mind if you say Azerbaijan closed its borders with Armenia "in response to aggression of Armenia against Azerbaijan". It closed it's border because of CONFLICT with Armenia, not because of aggression. There is a debate about where the aggression started, and by who, but whatever was done by a person here or a person here, I think it is clear that the first aggression sponsored by government authorities was in Sumgait, where the police contributed to the Anti-Armenian pogrom. Before that there were very few and individual level reports of violence and not necessarily in the conflict zone. Is this all not so? If not, just tell me what you believe was the start of larger scale violence. I also don't think the legislation was shameful at all. Azerbaijan closed it's railroad to Armenia because it could, Armenians had aid to the Azeri government cut because they could. What was shameful if you ask me is that the Azeri nationalists used the Karabakh issue as a tool to whip up nationalism in their country, in order to get the Russians out, not caring about the consequences to Azeri-Armenian relations. As for Shushi, I've spent 6 or 7 weeks around it and can easily see that sort of thing happen - I don't know that it did, but it could. Nobody is keeping an eye on soviet statues, unless they are WWII memorials. --RaffiKojian 19:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on, Raffi, it already said that the borders are closed because of the conflict. The policy here is not in finding truth, because everybody has his own truth, you say that it was Azerbaijan to blame for closure of borders, and some say:

Section 907 was initiated by the powerful Armenian lobby in the early 1990s in retaliation for Azerbaijan’s cutting off one of the rail routes that carried materials and fuel to Armenia from all over the region. At that time, the Armenians were at war with the Azeris, who did not want to provide supplies to a country that was carrying out military action against them.

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/wws401c/1998/907.html

It was fairly justified by war laws. Why supply somebody, who attacks your territory? We can use this citation, if you want to. At the same time Armenia blocked all the supply routes to Nakhichevan. As for nationalist movements, they both used Karabakh issue to destroy Soviet system and achieve independence, but relations between two nations suffered too. Grandmaster 20:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your link exactly backs up what I have been saying the whole time, so I'm not sure what your point is. Azerbaijan cut off Armenia (and thus Nakhichevan as well). This whole discussion is more relevant to an Armenian-Azeri relations page, but in any case, I don't understand if you accept the quote above, what your issue is with what I wrote. You seem to agree that Azerbaijan blocked Armenia, just like I said, and just like I said you knew. Sooooo?????? --RaffiKojian 09:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is that you should say the whole truth. If you want to say that Azerbaijan blocked Armenia, you will have to explain why. Obviously, because Armenia occupies a significant part of Azeri territory and lays claims to other lands. Grandmaster 10:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You can ADD more Grandmaster, you always have been free to. You just can't take off a fact because you wish there were more facts there. I never have stopped you from adding anything factual, and never will. As long as it's factual, go nuts. But when you allowed the article to say for so long that Armenia was blockading Azerbaijan, I have to wonder if you care at all about the truth. But in any case, I hope this means you plan to stop your baseless revert war and leave the facts of the article alone (though it doesn't appear like it from your last changes)... or we can keep reverting again and again - either way works for me. --RaffiKojian 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is truth that Armenia blockaded Nakhichevan. That’s why that phrase was there, even if I didn’t include that particular section. How about this version: Azerbaijan cut off railway connection with Armenia, because it did not want to provide supplies to a country that was carrying out military action against Azerbaijan and occupied a significant part of its territory. At the same time Armenia closed railway connection with Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 11:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

On a seperate note, the population figures are quite detailed and a bit out of context on this page. The way they are presented try to show Armenia claiming all kinds of land where they were a minority - when the big picture was that Armenians were a huge population, and very mixed in with other groups, so if you looked for a majority they would get just about nothing, but clearly they constituted a big and important portion of the Caucasus, and so when you draw artificial political borders you look at the big picture as well. Soooo many territories where Armenians were 5, 10, 25, 40% of the population went to Azerbaijan and Georgia, it wasn't like Azeris and Georgians didn't get large numbers of Armenians in their lands as well. So Armenians claim of Erivan and Nakhichevan put in context is rather different than the way things are being presented here, which becomes a bit misleading, though factual. It would be good to find a way to address this issue. --RaffiKojian 00:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That was a problem Armenians were facing in the beginning of 20th century. They wanted to create their independent state, but did’t have overwhelming majority and in some cases even plurality in the areas they wanted to include in their state. Armenians were granted most of Erivan governorate, even though they were not the majority in the center of this province, but they wanted more. This led to ethnic clashes with neighboring Azerbaijan and Georgia. Grandmaster 06:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't get what I'm saying at all. There was a huge number of Armenians across the Caucasus, and they clearly needed a state, even though they were not a majority all over that state. The populations were heavily mixed, and Armenians moreso than the others. If you look at the number of Armenians who ended up in the Azeri state, vs the number of Azeris who ended up in the Armenian state, as well as look at the % of Armenians in the Caucasus, vs the % of the Caucasus included in the Armenian state, perhaps you'd see that Armenians did not get a good deal, they got the short end of the stick. The Azeris made out extremely well... Get it? Do you understand? Do you care to understand my point at all? --RaffiKojian 08:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I get your point, but you don’t get mine. You say that Armenians got less land in proportion to total Armenian population in the region. But since they were not the majority in most of the areas of the region, they could not expect more. Azeris were and still are the biggest ethnicity in the region, so what they got is fairly justified even from your point of view. And most of Armenian population was resettled by Russians from Persia and Turkey anyway. I think everybody should be happy with what they got and the three countries of our region should join their forces to make our region a better place to live. We should take an example from Baltic countries, who don’t waste their efforts on border disputes, but rather try to achieve economic improvements for the whole region. Grandmaster 08:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree that Armenians couldn't expect more simply because they were more spread out - the whole idea of nation states was foreign to the area and if it was going to be imposed on them I don't see why they should not expect land rpoportionate to their population. But I do agree all the conflict is a complete waste of time and wish that minorities could live happily everywhere in the Caucasus. Then the region can move forward and concentrate on prospering and making the region a better place to live. But when Armenians have to hide their ethnicity to prosper or live in Baku and Tblisi, then we know the day has not yet come... --RaffiKojian 19:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Armenians should be happy with what they got and stop dreaming about Great Armenia between the seas. Life is not always fair, but Armenians, as well as Azeris are lucky to have their states, while so many bigger ethnicities don’t. In every country there are people who dream about super states, covering enormous territories, but when this idea dominates the whole nation, it’s not gonna help to live in peace with neighbors. You say Armenians have to hide their ethnicity, I agree it’s not good, but in Armenia there are almost no other ethnicities. 98% of population are Armenians, and they were about half of population in that area before Russian revolution. The borders don’t really matter, if people live in peace and respect each other, but that unfortunately is not the case in our region. Take care. Grandmaster 20:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, riiiight. No way you'd say that if the situation was the reverse and Az got much less land than their proportionate population in the Caucasus. At least you are not afraid to show your hypocricy even as you preach peace... I appreciate that. --RaffiKojian 09:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man. I hope you feel better now. Grandmaster 10:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Shah Abbas

Interesting that Azeris are painted as monsters by many Armenians, yet no mention of the fact that it was Shah Abbas, a Safavid and an Azeri Turk, who opened up Iran's borders to thousands of Armenians and allowed them to settle in Isfahan's Jolfa district as well as all over northwest Iran, as well as Tehran. Armenian did not stop at only taking Dagliq Qarabag, but also took over Lachin which is outside the disputed Qarabag region and was predominantly Azeri...very similar to they way the Zionists drove Palestinian Arabs out of Tiberias. There very little difference between Dashnak and Zionist mentality. Indigenous people are driven out and history falsified. Of course the Iranian government which freely condemns Zionism, was Armenia's biggest collaborator in the Qarabag takeover. Now THAT'S hypocrisy.68.100.160.15 17:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Azeroglu

Hello Azeroglu, thank you for participating in the discussion. Contrary to your information the forced deportation by Abbas of Armenians from the native Armenian lands including Nakhichevan to Iran is mentionedied in the article. Maybe you should mention the similarities between "Zionists" and the Armenian forces in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page ?--Eupator 17:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This page was about Armenians and Azeris...thanks for your history lesson Eupator, your friends in the Tehran government can disseminate your information freely...knock on Mr. Ahmadinejad's door next time. [unsigned]

Protected

I got annoyed by both sides claiming the other is vandalizing, when, ya know, y'all aren't. so, I've protected the page on the current version I got to it at - this is not an endorsement of any particular side, this is the most neutral way of doing it. I emplore you to discuss differences here and, if no conclusion can be made, go to WP:RFC. But do not continue simply going back and forth with "rv vandalism". We admins hate that. Good luck on coming to a compromise. --Golbez 15:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Golbez - as you can see I have initiated discussion again and again, but Grandmaster is just reverting anything and everything I do without discrimination and without discussion usually, and even if he agrees I am right. He reverted a bunch of my changes, and only addressed one of them here, and in that one he admitted I was right. He even changes small wording corrections when he does not know the definition of the word changed! (eg. majority, exclave) The problem is nobody else seems to care at all about the article, so he gets away with it. I wish you'd change it back to my version since I have been trying the whole time to add to the article, not take away from it. Anyway, I will outline below the 4 main changes so that they can be addressed one by one. I hope somebody else will oversee the discussion, because "he started it". --RaffiKojian 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, the one thing Grandmaster actually addressed in the talk page related to the rv was the blockade issue. He wants it to say "Azerbaijan cut off railway connection with Armenia, because it did not want to provide supplies to a country that was carrying out military action against Azerbaijan and occupied a significant part of its territory. At the same time Armenia closed railway connection with Nakhichevan." Now I find this so POV it's ridiculous. Armenia and Azerbaijan were at war, and the wording I chose makes it clear that they were in conflict, but to say "a country carrying out military action against it" is very different than saying something a country it was militarily engaged with. They were both engaged, there is no question about it. As for occupation of land, Azeris tried hard to grab (aside from all of Karabakh) southern Armenia (called Zangezur) and places in the north, and occupy parts of Karabakh and the Artsvashen enclave of Armenia itself. But that too is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the parties were fighting and Azerbaijan decided a closed border is better. That is it is a bargaining chip. Fair enough. So I think the wording I have used is very mild, unoffensive, and normal. I just don't understand this massive waste of time and battle over it. My wording has been "* Nakhichevan's border with Armenia has been closed by Azerbaijan due to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan since 1989. The primary routes to mainland Azerbaijan are via the international air corridor through Armenia and through the Eastern Azerbaijan province of Iran, which has become unaffordable due to high taxes^{[citation needed]} imposed by the Iranian government.", I have provided links which back up the fact that it is Azerbaijan desiring the closed border, Grandmaster agrees it is correct, and so I propose we stick to it. --RaffiKojian 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My next change was to "It now exists and is internationally recognized as a part of Azerbaijan governed by its own elected parliament.". I removed "and is internationally recognized". It is redundant. The first line of the article says it is an enclave of Azerbaijan. It is. The sentence still says it is a part of Azerbaijan, which even that is redundant, but the internationally recognized when there is no dispute over it's status is a bit excessive. --RaffiKojian 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Next - I added that the population of Nakhichevan is thought to have dropped significantly. I have heard this a few times and know that across ALL of the Caucasus men have left for Russia in large numbers to find work. The particularly bad situation in Nakhichevan mentioned here would lead one to thing it would be even more pronounced. But if Grandmaster disagrees, and thinks (or wants us to believe) that the population in Nakhichevan has not dropped, then whatever, that's fine. --RaffiKojian 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Next - including the following text following mention of khachkar destruction by the Azeri govt: Azerbaijani authorities claim these accusations as a propaganda campaign on part of Armenia to distract international attention from destruction of Azeri monuments, which according to Azeri authorities takes place in Armenia as well as in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.^[5] Yes, it is standard operating procedure for Azerbaijan to claim innocence. They did it the last time and they are doing it again. They also like to accuse the Armenians of behaving the same way they do (thus the Karabakh mention). But that reply should not be mentioned for a variety of reasons. 1) it is irrelevant both in that it lays in Karabakh, and that it would not justify destruction anyway. 2) Karabakh is open for anybody from anywhere, even for Grandmaster to go and visit. I have pictures from May. The Mosques are still there and can be visited. Jugha and the Armenian sites in Nakhichevan are closed to outsiders or to everybody but the military. 3) There has clearly been no state policy to destroy Azeri cultural items by Armenians, while the destruction PHOTOGRAPHED of Azeri destruction of Armenian khachkars was by large numbers of Azeri soldiers with heavy machinery. Clearly state sponsored. So to even try to make this into a "he said, she said" instead of a stand-alone issue is just wrong, ugly, distracting, and serves the purposes of evil. Sorry, but it does and I am not going to say otherwise. It is like genocide apologists. Excuses and distractions do not belong in a clean, factual entry unless they are labelled clearly as such. --RaffiKojian 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Raffi is correct concerning the fact that NOBODY is allowed to visit and check the khachkars and azeri allegations of innocence. On the other hand ANYONE can go to Shushi and anywhere else in Karabakh or Armenia.

Report on Cultural Cleansing in Nakhichevan by Steven Sim,Full text--Eupator 21:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hi Golbez - as you can see I have initiated discussion again and again" I can see that. It has not succeeded. Reverting mindlessly is not the solution; take this to the next level of Dispute resolution please. --Golbez 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. --RaffiKojian 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

medcabal (old)

I have two requests as we start the mediation.

1. My feeling is, looking over the discussion here, is that the main disputes center around allegations. The fastest way to solve these problems is to provide verifiable and mainstream sources. For example, Raffi has written: "I have heard this a few times and know that across ALL of the Caucasus men have left for Russia in large numbers to find work." This is not an acceptable "source" per wikipedia; we need newspaper accounts, government reports, etc.. In a related vein, Grandmaster has written: "Azeris were and still are the biggest ethnicity in the region, so what they got is fairly justified even from your point of view." This is not an appropriate use of the talk page: the talk page is meant only for discussing the mechanics of the article (i.e., what to include, how to include it.) Absolutely no personal opinions are allowed.
2. Given this, can the two people please explain briefly, and I mean in no more than three short sentences, what this conflict is over and how it can be resolved?

Thanks. I hope we can clear this up very quickly so everyone can get back to improving the wiki. Sdedeo (tips) 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the two parties are me and Grandmaster, and agree that there are no numbers to back up my statement in the article that it is thought the population is lower. There has been no census to my knowlege in a very long time - and therefore I already said I think it is probably true, but cannot back it up, and therefore do not mind if it is removed (as I said above). I also agree that the other conversation you picked up was not entirely related to the article, though there was a definite connection if you go back to where I bring it up, in that the way the land was distributed by the Soviet Union could not be solely based on majority/plurality, because the populations were way too mixed, and Armenians more so than the others. But that having been said, I already summarized our 4 current points of disagreement, but this is not really about that. So here is my summary:

From the moment I started adding information to this article, and corrected one blatant error, I have encountered repeated reversions by Grandmaster. He has been slow to talk (which I continually have pushed for) and fast to revert all changes wholesale, while I have even accepted his sources in Russian (which I do not understand) in good faith. Even when he agrees what I am saying is true, he removes it if he THINKS it doesn't show his country in a good light. See his comment made at 10:31, 31 January 2006. I am not passing judgement in the article, I am not making things POV, I am simply stating that which is fact, documented and well known. When his country's govt is doing wrong in Nakhichevan (and there is plenty of clear reference and photos), he wants to present it's untrue and unrelated charges on this page. THAT in my estimation is the problem, and as short as I can present it. I think an outside opinion will help clarify these issues even just based on the talk page and reversions. --RaffiKojian 02:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I skimmed this (please try to be as brief as possible.)

Since Grandmaster is removing material that Raffi wants to keep, I'm going to make a new section. Raffi, take one of the paragraphs in dispute, and paste your preferred version of it in, with as many sources as possible. We will then wait for Grandmaster; Grandmaster, can you please very briefly (one or two sentences, literally) explain what your problem is with the paragraph, if you have one.

We will take it slow. Sdedeo (tips) 02:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody. The problem with Raffi is that he never quotes any sources, which is against policy of Wikipedia. For example, he says that population of Nakhichevan dropped. Where’s proof of that? He heard that a few times. Very nice proof indeed.

Ah, Grandmaster, that is a cheap shot. The statement I added to the article itself showed that it was hearsay, did not present itself as solid evidence - since there is no solid evidence on this matter to my knowlege. And I have already said here I thought it was widely believed - but that if you disagree, I could care less if it is removed. So to use this ONE statement I added which in and of itself was worded to show it was not backed up is as I said, a cheap shot. --RaffiKojian 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The same with other sections. I cite an official PACE document, which provides Azerbaijani view of situation, and he adds something about him having photographs that are supposed to prove something and that everybody can go there and see for themselves. The guy obviously never read Wikipedia policy about citing sources and no original research. You are not allowed to add your personal comment to the article, you only report the available sources.

Again twisting my arguement into whatever suits you, but it is all above so people can see for themselves my numerous points about this issue. --RaffiKojian 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Then he has problems with the wording about Nakhichevan being internationally recognized as a part of Azerbaijan. If he can prove otherwise, I agree with deletion of this wording, but since it’s true, why it should be deleted? I cite the official program of Armenian governing coalition partner ARF, which lays claims on Nakhichevan, and he deletes it, and now says that the status of the region is not disputed.

I DON'T have a problem with it, and neither does anyone else. It says that Nakhichevan is part of Azerbaijan in the first sentence of the article, AND in the sentence I removed those words from. It is understood, it is known, it is overboard. Like saying California is a state in the USA in the California article, then later saying it is an internationally recognized part of the USA - maybe because some Native Americans or Mexicans claim it. You have completely ignored my point as usual, and go on as if I myself don't believe it is a part of Azerbaijan. --RaffiKojian 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And then the biggest dispute over railway connection. It was Armenia, who closed connection with Nakhichevan, so the original phrase was correct. I can prove that. Yes, Azerbaijan closed the railway connection with Armenia when Armenia started claiming Azeri territories and occupied a significant part of them. But that was not the line that led along the Iranian border to Nakhichevan, it was the line from Kazakh to Yerevan. There are actually two railway lines. Have a look at this article in an Azeri newspaper. It has a map that shows both railway links. The one that Azerbaijan closed runs from north-west Azeri town of Gazakh directly to Yerevan and from there to Nakhichevan. At the same time, Armenia closed and destroyed a direct line from Baku to Nakhichevan This line was closed after Armenian militants started attacking Azeri trains, passing thru Mehri station in the narrow strip of Armenian territory that separates Nakhichevan from the rest of Azerbaijan. Looks like Raffi has no idea about existence of two railway lines, but the phrase about Armenia blockading Nakhichevan is correct. I still removed it and changed to neutral wording to prevent endless edit wars about who was right and who was wrong. If you say that the communication between two countries was disrupted because of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, it is correct. But if my opponent wants to go into details as to why it happened and who’s to blame, I have no problem with that. There are independent sources that prove Armenia imposed blockade on Nakhichevan. For example, this article was provided by Fadix in the other talk page. It says:

Armenia, however, has to pay a price for its military gains. From 1989 on Azerbaijan has imposed a blockade of road, rail, and energy links with Armenia, supported by Turkey, which also closed its borders. The blockade caused severe economic problems for Armenia and led to an acute energy crisis in 1992–1993. Armenia retaliated with the closure of its border with Nakhichevan, an Azerbaijani enclave in Armenia separated from the mainland.[6]

So you see, Nakhichevan’s border with Armenia was not closed by Azerbaijan, as Raffi claims.

Grandmaster 07:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So you see, if you read the source you and Fadix provide, it contradicts itself. Since if Azerbaijan imposed a blockade of road, rail and energy links with Armenia, supported by Turkey first, and Nakhichevan is a part of Azerbaijan, then Nakhichevan has already closed it's border with Armenia before Armenia has a chance to. That is according to your source. My multiple sources also say that it was Azerbaijan blockading Armenia - and was continuing to do so. In any case, all this conversation and you did not really address Sdedeo's request. --RaffiKojian 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suggest leaving the sentence in question as it is or otherwise put it in this form:

Azerbaijan blocked the southern railway route to Armenia, because it did not want to provide supplies to a country that was carrying out military action against Azerbaijan and occupied a significant part of its territory. At the same time Armenia closed railway connection with Nakhichevan via southern route. Grandmaster 14:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Raffi, have a look at this: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Might be helpful. Grandmaster 14:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Gee, what a fast learning student I have :) Just try not to be condescending to others for not knowing some of the rules. You can be patient, as I have been with you.--TigranTheGreat 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

first paragraph in dispute

Here is the paragraph as I'd like to see it:

Nakhichevan's border with Armenia has been closed by Azerbaijan due to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan since 1989. The primary routes to mainland Azerbaijan are via the international air corridor through Armenia and through the Eastern Azerbaijan province of Iran, which has become unaffordable due to high taxes^{[citation needed]} imposed by the Iranian government.

Actually, all I changed was the first sentence, not the rest. The second sentence was there before and neither of us has said anything about this part of it, but I had added the call for a citation, since I had not seen or heard of high taxes charged by Iran and Armenia uses that channel to ship and has never complained. So as long as there is a reliable citation, I'm happy. If not, then it should also be removed (something I have not taken the step of doing). Here are three links I provided earlier, one Armenian, one outside, and one Azeri. They all agree (as does Grandmaster frankly, he just won't let me write this) anca.org fas.org zerbaijan.com. I'd also like to say I know your time is valuable, but if you can read the conversations above it is all quite clear. --RaffiKojian 03:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raffi -- sorry, what are the sources meant to be establishing? I couldn't find any mention of borders or air corridors? Perhaps I am missing something. In any case, let's now wait for Grandmaster to weigh in on this paragraph.

Again, I'm going to ask everyone to please be brief. An explaination of who removed what is not going to help us reach a consensus faster. All we need is the paragraph, and Grandmaster's brief response as to why it violates wikipedia policy. Sdedeo (tips) 03:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at my comments above. I insist that it was Armenia who closed the borders with Nakhichevan, and that’s why Raffi’s edits to this paragraph are not acceptable. Grandmaster 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. The source I am looking at here is [7]. This seems to support pretty unambiguously what Grandmaster says: "Armenia retaliated with the closure of its border with Nakhichevan, an Azerbaijani enclave in Armenia separated from the mainland." So I suggest the compromise sentence is:

Nakhichevan's border with Armenia has been closed by Armenia due to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan since 1989. [8] see below

I have removed the sentence after it because no sources have been provided. Does anyone have a problem with this? Raffi, if you disagree, you need to provide a reputable (e.g., academic, government, mainstream newspaper) source on the other side. Sdedeo (tips) 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it then continue to say "...in retaliation to the blockade and the closure of its borders with Armenia by Azerbaijan.".

What I don't understand is this. Since Nakhichevan is part of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan closed the borders with Armenia doesn't that include Nakhichevan as well? How can then Armenia close a border that is already closed?--Eupator 16:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the article means that Azerbaijan closed only the "main" borders, not the ones of its exclave (Nakhichevan is geographically disconnected from the rest of Azerbaijan.) I can't think of the fancy word that mean "the big part of the country, not the little part" (the little part technical name is apparently exclave.)

I am fine with the inclusion of your addition; I've modified it slightly:

Nakhichevan's border with Armenia has been closed since 1989 due to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan; the border was closed by Armenia in retaliation to Azerbaijan's closure of the rest of its borders. [9]

Sdedeo (tips) 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Cheers.--Eupator 16:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK -- let's wait for Raffi to weigh in, and then we can move to the next paragraph. It is taking a long time because we are all in seriously different timezones! Sdedeo (tips) 16:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn’t we explain the position of Azerbaijan that the borders were closed because Armenia used supplies received in the war against Azerbaijan, and you normally don’t provide supplies to people who attack you? Grandmaster 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe this paragraph is establishing very basic facts. Is there an article on the Armenian-Azerbaijani war? The best thing would be to have something like this:

Nakhichevan's border with Armenia has been closed since 1989; the border was closed by Armenia in retaliation to Azerbaijan's closure of the rest of its borders as part of a larger conflict the two countries were involved in (see Nagorno-Karabakh. [10]

If there is not a separate article yet, let me know and I will try to figure out what the best next step is. Sdedeo (tips) 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The conflict is the Karabakh conflict - and it is well covered I think, and agree that further details should be there. As for this edit, my only remaining reservation is that Armenia has been willing to resume trade ever since Azerbaijan closed it - so the borders remain shut as the choice of Azerbaijan, whose president just last week declared he would end all peace negotiations with Armenia if Turkey opened it's border with them. But in the end, I can live with this wording. --RaffiKojian 21:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For further issues I must say I will be travelling starting tomorrow... I will try to check in, but will have a much harder time of it. So I will VERY BRIEFLY lay out my positions on them below and see where it goes. --RaffiKojian 21:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK -- just to repeat: here is the proposed compromise sentence:

Nakhichevan's border with Armenia has been closed since 1989; the border was closed by Armenia in retaliation to Azerbaijan's closure of the rest of its borders as part of a larger conflict the two countries were involved in (see Nagorno-Karabakh.) [11]

Raffi, if you are leaving for more than a day, we should pause the mediation here, unprotect the page (to allow other editors to work on it; page protection is bad.) I'm sure we can get Grandmaster to agree not to edit the page in your absence, and I will watch to make sure (i.e., I won't ask for unprotection until I hear this from GM.) We can resume when you return; just put a message on my talk page and I'll get everyone back. Let me know before you leave; if I don't hear from you in the next 24 hours, I'll go ahead.

(The problem is that we need to resolve the conflict you have with Grandmaster, and in your absence I may make choices you disagree with, meaning we have to start all over again.) Sdedeo (tips) 21:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is from the article, dedicated to now abolished section 907, which was initiated by Armenian lobby in the US:

Section 907 was initiated by the powerful Armenian lobby in the early 1990s in retaliation for Azerbaijan’s cutting off one of the rail routes that carried materials and fuel to Armenia from all over the region. At that time, the Armenians were at war with the Azeris, who did not want to provide supplies to a country that was carrying out military action against them. [12] Grandmaster 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What if we say as result of a larger conflict the two countries were involved in? Grandmaster 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph should contain basic, undisputed facts. "Part of conflict" is general and neutral. "Result of conflict" introduces (potentially) a disputed point--whether Azerbaijan started the conflict or Armenians. Your version makes it sound Azeris retaliated after Armenians started the conflict. Armenians say the blockade was a revenge in response to a peaceful request by Armenians. In other words, the Armenian side says that "Armenians peacefully appealed to USSR to redraw borders, Azeris reacted with violence, killing Armenians and closing borders as a revenge for the peaceful request, Armenians couldn't be supplying weapons to Karabakh at the time of the blockade (1989) because Armenia was under communist and soviet rule who would never allow something like that to happen etc." Perhaps you disagree, but that's the point, it's a disputed point. Sdedeo's version is general, basic, factual, and neutral.--TigranTheGreat 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

medcabal

OK, I've arrived as part of medcabal, see this request: [13].

As far as I can tell, this dispute is between User:RaffiKojian and User:Grandmaster.

(I have removed a long discussion here; see Talk:Nakhichevan/archive)

compromise first paragraph

This was compromise para the first. There may still be one or two issues remaining with word choice, but people are in general agreement about it and I personally think it is good-to-go.

Nakhichevan's border with Armenia has been closed since 1989; the border was closed by Armenia in retaliation to Azerbaijan's closure of the rest of its borders as part of a larger conflict the two countries were involved in (see Nagorno-Karabakh.) [14]

Sdedeo (tips) 19:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of large blocks of text without discussion by grandmaster

Several times in the history of this article grandmaster reverted the article without discussing any of the changes made. Not once did he bother using the talk page nor did he try modifying the text or anything, he just reverts. One good example is here, a user though an anon tried to bridge the historical gap of several centuries in this article and grandmaster reverted as usual without any discourse: Revision as of 10:05, 12 January 2006--Eupator 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, thanks. If you know of any other major deletions recently, please paste there here so that we can possibly reintegrate some of that information. Wholescale removal of content is an indication of a major problem. Sdedeo (tips) 16:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (let me add that we're going to stay focused on doing para by para first, so take your time if you like, but we will get around to it. Sdedeo (tips) 16:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

In addition to the above here's another one: Revision as of 06:38, 25 December 2005 Additions(with decent sources) were poorly worded and formatted but deserved to be rewritten and not deleted.--Eupator 18:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

These edits had serious POV problems. Some examples from the text:

artefacts of the Armenian culture, systematically ruined by Azerbaijanian vandals.

But this ancient Armenian land again and again became an object of aggression in the time of Turks and Azeris

March 1921, by the Moscow treaty between Soviet Russia and Kemalist Turkey, Armenia was devided between them as Poland in 1939 between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

The second one completely deleted all the Muslim and Turkic history of the region and added phrases like this:

It was beyond any doubt that Nakhichevan was an Armenian territory which was passed to the protection of the Soviet Azerbaijan deriving from the interests of the world revolution. Otherwise, how could an Azerbaijani territory be passed to the protection of Azerbaijan itself?

Some of the information was absolutely out of touch with reality and no credible sources were provided. Example:

In 1918-1920, as a result of two Turkish invasions, part of the Armenians populace (25000 persons) of the former Nakhichevan province (later – a district) was assassinated by the Turkish occupants and bands of Mousafats, and part of them was forced to leave their homeland.

How could I keep such edits with no reference to any sources? There are rules for adding information to the article, and they were obviously violated, so I had to revert these edits.

Grandmaster 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all you cannot just delete it. Wikirules state that much. You can request a citation via ^{[citation needed]} or on the talk page. Change the wroding etc. Second of all you removed a ton of other information with references as well as names of prominent historical persons born in Nakhijevan, not to mention the Armenian etymology of the name but as Sdedeo said we will get back to this once everything above is settled. --Eupator 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This edit completely removed the existing text, which I restored. Grandmaster 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No large chunks of texts were removed, only new facts were added.--Eupator 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a copy-paste of an article from one of Armenian sites. That’s why there were rhetoric questions in it. Wikipedia does not allow unauthorized copying from other resources. Grandmaster 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Provide the source of your claims please.--Eupator 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You know that I always do. The text was copied from this Armenian propaganda site:[15] Grandmaster 06:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster also deleted the photo of the Armenian khachkars I had added right away without discussion, and quickly put up a picture of an Azeri mausoleum. When I called him on it his defense was, You have that picture in the article about Julfa, and that is enough. No need to include it in every single article about Nakhichevan. There are better things in Nakhichevan than the tombstones, and this mausoleum is one of the better known landmarks of Nakhichevan. btw, "every single article" at that time meant two, including this one, not that it's important. This has been resolved, but I just want to illustrate that this remove without discussion approach is not constructive, and his explanation shows that the removals themselves can be POV. --RaffiKojian 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only me, but also other users, who were not from Azerbaijan removed this photo, thinking that it is not appropriate here. Indeed, there are better known landmarks of the area, one of which I included into this article. And there’s no real proof of Armenian allegations, so why that picture should be here, considering that you included it into another article about Nakhichevan as well? There are only three full text articles on Nakhichevan, and two of them have this picture now. Grandmaster 06:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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."--TigranTheGreat 13:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This dispute is actually resolved. We were arguing about which picture to include and ended up keeping both. But still I’m sure there are people who may consider that picture inappropriate on this page. Raffi inserted it in two out of three pages with text about Nakhichevan. Whatever. I comment on this because Raffi touched upon this issue. Grandmaster 13:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's keep the discussion focused on para-by-para; we will have to come back to this later, it seems. (Just trying to focus everyone's attention on one step at a time.) Sdedeo (tips) 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, since Raffi has to leave, I won't be able to take care of this unless you wish to join the mediation: then I can mediate between you and GM. Is this OK? Sdedeo (tips) 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I hope we cam get one step closer towards removing the tag after unprotection.--Eupator 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

my 2 remaining issues

Since I already said twice I was fine to drop the population change line, only two changes remain, the problem in these cases was a lack of dialogue which I think is being addressed now.

From the line "It now exists and is internationally recognized as a part of Azerbaijan governed by its own elected parliament.". I removed "and is internationally recognized". It is redundant. The first line of the article says it is an enclave of Azerbaijan. It is. The sentence still says it is a part of Azerbaijan, which even that is redundant, but the internationally recognized when there is no dispute over it's status is a bit excessive and frankly paranoid. That's how I feel and frankly Sdedeo can decide for me if it is needed or not, I really don't feel strongly about it, it just became a part of this package of reverts and Grandmaster thinks I have some ulterior motive in this. So we can consider this issue closed when Sdedeo says whether it should stay or go, I'm fine with either. --RaffiKojian 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The LAST issue! I am strongly against including the following text following mention of khachkar destruction by the Azeri govt: Azerbaijani authorities claim these accusations as a propaganda campaign on part of Armenia to distract international attention from destruction of Azeri monuments, which according to Azeri authorities takes place in Armenia as well as in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.^[16] Yes, it is standard operating procedure for Azerbaijan to claim innocence. They did it the last time and they are doing it again. They also like to accuse the Armenians of behaving the same way they do (thus the Karabakh mention). But that reply should not be mentioned for a variety of reasons. 1) it is irrelevant both in that it lays in Karabakh, and that it would not justify destruction anyway. 2) Karabakh is open for anybody from anywhere, even for Grandmaster to go and visit. I have pictures from May. The Mosques are still there and can be visited. Jugha and the Armenian sites in Nakhichevan are closed to outsiders or to everybody but the military. 3) There has clearly been no state policy to destroy Azeri cultural items by Armenians, while the destruction PHOTOGRAPHED of Azeri destruction of Armenian khachkars was by large numbers of Azeri soldiers with heavy machinery. Clearly state sponsored, and the European Parliament called for an end to it. So to even try to make this into a "he said, she said" instead of a stand-alone issue is just wrong, ugly, distracting, and serves the purposes of evil. Sorry, but it does and I am not going to say otherwise. It is like genocide apologists. Excuses and distractions do not belong in a clean, factual entry unless they are labelled clearly as such. If you want my suggestion on a compromise, I could live with "Azerbaijan denied the charges". But any more than that I think is wrong for the reasons above. --RaffiKojian 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Raffi -- thanks for giving a shot at resolving this dispute quickly. Here are my responses:

1. I agree that "int. recog." is redundant because I believe you are right in saying there is no actual dispute. But redundancy is way down on the list of wikipedia no-nos, so if Grandmaster wants to keep it, we can keep it in the interests of clearing up the dispute. GM, please post a response if you still want it.

It was there from the beginning, so let it stay there. I don't see why it shouldn't be there. Grandmaster 21:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; in every dispute, there are (at least) two sides, and we must report what the other side says. If there are sources that dispute the claims, we can also include them. As I've noted above, you may have very good personal evidence to the contrary, but we can't include it in the wikipedia article. To put it another way, if you want to argue with the Azerbaijani government, your best bet is to write an article and publish it in a newspaper; then other editors can include it in the entry. I completely understand your passion about the subject here, but this is just how the wikipedia works, and we (the whole project) does its very best to explain this fact to people. Your best step at this point would be to find a newspaper article or something similar that explicitly disputes the charge made by the Azerbaijani government.

If you are still around, do respond to this before you leave! Thanks very much, Sdedeo (tips) 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I will try to get this resolved before I head off, and hope to check in while I'm away too, but if necessary Eupator can step in (assuming willingness). So the remaining issue I have I don't think depends on a tertiary source. As I said - Azerbaijan has been told to stop destroying Armenian khachkars in Julfa by the European Parliament. I would like to point out that in their response, they do not deny the allegation, something I just noticed and that should be mentioned. Their response is that Azeri monuments are being vandalised in Karabakh. If their response was to say that the earth is flat and by the way martians have landed in Baku, should it be included? They are being accused of destruction of cultural monuments in Nakhichevan, so whether or not Azeri monuments have been vandalized is an irrelevant response and a distraction from the charges leveled - as I said, it is not a defense to say, "but they are also destroying things in other places". If it is taking place elsewhere those claims can be put in the appropriate article. So I disagree that this section should remain as is and propose the much briefer, succinct point below. --RaffiKojian 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

* On January 19, 2006, the European Parliament called on the Azerbaijani authorities to put an end to the demolition of medieval Armenian cemeteries and khachkars (intricately carved stone crosses) in southern Nakhichevan, which according to the Parliament was in breach of the terms of Azerbaijan's 1993 ratification of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. Azerbaijani authorities did not deny the allegations in their response.[5]

Raffi -- thanks for providing a source. I am a little busy tonight and tomorrow, but will get around to proposing a paragraph here that incorporates both the Armenian response and the EU parliment source. If you have any other sources you would like me to look at as well that bear directly on this question, please let me know. If the Armenian government claims in an official document that Martians had landed as their response, we would indeed include it. Again, this is the nature of wikipedia. Thanks to everyone for being very civil in this discussion, it is definitely helping us resolve things much faster and better. Sdedeo (tips) 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think anything has been written about this by third parties, and it seems in a case like this wikipedia's rules hurt the quality of the article. Well I hope you do at least make it a point to mention that Azerbaijan does not deny the allegation in it's response. --RaffiKojian 04:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani authorities did deny the Armenian allegations. See the letter of Azerbaijani ambassador. [17]

(to save space I've cut this; just click the link)

I think the reaction of Azeri authorities should be included in the article as well. For the moment more attention is given to the Armenian allegations. Grandmaster 05:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, if we are quoting from articles, we should leave the words as they are instead of editting them. I realize you prefer the name Shusha for the city (which presumably is an Azeri name) as opposed to the Armenian Shushi. The Azeri author of the article, however, apparently was fine using the Armenian version. You can explain the difference after the quote.--TigranTheGreat 13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a mistake of the Russian translator of Regnum agency, because Russian version is correct. And why you removed the link to the article on the city? Grandmaster 13:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, gentlemen, hi, Sdedeo. It's nice to see the dispute is being mediated. Since I too was involved in the editting of the paragraph on the destruction of monuments in Nakhichevan, I would like to voice my concerns with the paragraph too. I believe the last sentence ("Azerbaijani authorities claim these accusations as a propaganda campaign on part of Armenia to distract international attention from destruction of Azeri monuments, which according to Azeri authorities takes place in Armenia as well as in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone") should be replaced with "Azerbaijan has denied the charges." This will comply with the NPOV rules of presenting both views on the issue at hand. The relevant issue here is the state of monuments in Nakhichevan. We say "Armenians accuse so and so," and then we say that Azerbaijan has denied the charbes. The issue of monuments in Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia, and the views that each side holds on them, have nothing to do with the topic of that particular segment, which is, again, monuments in Nakhichevan. It just introduces a distraction to the segment and shifts the focus from the intended topic to an unrelated topic. Also, note that now we have 2 views on the monuments in Nakhichevan, but only the Azeri view on monuments in Armenia, which is not NPOV. Here is the danger of allowing unrelated issues added to a paragraph like this. If as a matter of policy we include, as part of the second view, something that has nothing to do with the main disputed topic, then we would potentially be allowed to add "Armenia denies the response of Azerbaijan, and considers it an attempt to distract attention from destruction of monuments in Shahumian (a region of Karabakh under Azeri control)." Then we would add "Azeris consider this response an attempt to distract attention from Armenia's occupation of Azerbaijan," after which we could add "Armenia considers this response an attempt to divert attention from the killing of an Armenian officer by an Azeri officer in Hungary (which is true)" and so on. The point is not whether in reality such views of Armenia have been published. The paragraph would grow endlessly, and the topic of monuments in Nakhichevan would be totally lost. The point is not whether these views of Armenia have been published, the point is that if we adopt that practice as a matter of policy, then we face the danger that I just described (and let's face it, one day we could find published sources with those views). We should simply present the views on the issue of Nakhichevan. Armenians accuse, and Azeris deny. As for the Martian example, if indeed Armenians had that view published, I think it would still be inappropriate here (as its' irrelevant), though it would be relevant in an article on Martians.--TigranTheGreat 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Azerbaijani position should be properly reflected. It is unfair that we dedicate so much space to Armenian allegations and then would just say that Azeri authorities deny them. We should give an explanantion of Azerbaijani position as well, and it should take the same amount of space. Grandmaster 13:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Azerbaijan has evidence on the specific issue of the destruction of the Nakichevan monuments (videos or whatever), then sure, we can include it. But if the additional facts in Azerbaijan's response have litte to do with these monuments, then it's a distraction and has no place. We are introducing a new fact and only one side on that fact (Azerbaijan's). Also, about equal space, it's not just Armenia's position but EP's position as well, so it makes sense to devote more space to the positions of Armenia and EP.--TigranTheGreat 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tigran. Thanks for your input. I've explained before why we should include the response of the Az. government. As I've said, I understand your passion on the issue. I will also say this again, everyone needs to be very brief when discussing their problems.

I see we now have another source on top of the Az gov. and the EU parliment (the Regnum article). This is very helpful. I cannot stress enough that these are the main things that matter here in this little mini-debate.

Tigran, I don't quite understand what you want here, but why don't you propose a paragraph? Please provide all the sources you can to establish the facts. It can't take more than three sentences: one for Az position, one for Armen response, one for international/press discussion. Each sentence should be sourced.

I'm sorry, but the specifics of the Az response need to be included. Tigran, please read WP:NPOV; the viewpoint of the Az. government you consider ridiculous, I understand, but it is a "mainstream" viewpoint. The way wikipedia works is we present the facts, readers judge for themselves; one of the important facts here is what the two governments claim; it is part of international diplomacy. If we were writing a newspaper article, we could discount and possibly even ignore the Az. response, but we are not. If you still don't understand this, please take a look at [18], which is part of a discussion I was involved with last year (in a very different subject area) where these same issues arose.

Sdedeo (tips) 15:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for response, Sdedeo. This is not about passion, it's about making the article comply with the Wiki policies, which is the goal of all of us.

For my proposed paragraph, all I want is to replace the last sentence ("Azerbaijani authorities claim these accusations as a propaganda campaign on part of Armenia to distract international attention from destruction of Azeri monuments, which according to Azeri authorities takes place in Armenia as well as in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone") with "Azerbaijan has denied the charges."

I read your FIRE discussion, I have read NPOV, and my complaint with the Azeri claim (Armenians destroy Azeri monuments in Karabakh) is not that it's ridiculous, but that it's not on the issue that's the topic of the paragraph, i.e. whether monuments in Nakhichevan are being destroyed or not. Hence it's irrelevant. I agree that the specifics of the Azeri view should be included, but only if they are on the issue at hand (e.g. "the charges are false because ..."). Monuments in Karabakh and monuments in Nakhichevan are two separate issues. I didn't find anything in the NPOV policy saying that, when we introduce an opposing view on an issue, we should include new issues mentioned in the opposing response. In other words, if we state positions A1 and A2 on an issue A, where does it say in the NPOV that we should include the position B2 on a new issue B, if the 2nd person stated A2 and B2 in the same response?--TigranTheGreat 16:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. However, I am very reluctant to remove information from the wiki, and this is indeed information, and important. In general we follow the argument where it leads; we don't judge whether or not a response is "irrelevant", but only whether the responder is significant enough to include. We leave it to readers to decide whether, e.g., the Az. response is off-topic. I will ask again: do you have a source that disputes the Az. claim? Sdedeo (tips) 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani authorities claim these accusations as a propaganda campaign on part of Armenia to distract international attention from destruction of Soviet era Azeri monuments, which according to Azeri authorities takes place in Armenia as well as in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. The monuments in question are some modern statues that were damaged during the war and apparently found in Georgia. That should be noted, so the reader may compare a 1400 year old religious artifact destroyed entirely by a government during peace time to a soviet statue damaged during war time (siege of the city of Shushi).--Eupator 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s not just about modern statues, it’s about destruction of the historical part of the town of Shusha, including mosques, museums, houses, etc, all that was of great historical and cultural value. I’ve got pictures as well to illustrate what I’m talking about. Grandmaster 17:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, how about this?

"Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side do not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction." (http://www.regnum.ru/english/574041.html)

This way, the specifics of both the Armenian and Azeri claims are presented. As for the destruction of Azeri monuments in other parts of Azerbaijan (outside Nakhichevan), I believe a more relevant place is the article on Azerbaijan, instead of the one on Nakhichevan.--TigranTheGreat 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, that is important, thanks for bringing that up. Tigran, this new sentence you propose is much better, since it provides a link and also some information. Let's pause here. Grandmaster, what do you feel about that sentence, which I'll repeat just to be clear:

Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side do not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. [19]

This is more focused on the dispute than the previous more general denial in the EU parliment. Sdedeo (tips) 17:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I would like to compare it to the first part of the paragraph in question, i.e. allegations of Armenian side. I want to know how specific and detailed that part would be to keep it balanced with Azeri reaction. Basically, I would prefer both parts to be as brief as possible, because this article is about Nakhichevan Republic and there’s virtually no information about the region in the article other than disputes, both historical and modern. Grandmaster 17:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

continuing discussion of 2nd para

Hi, just making a new section for convenience.

GM, can you present the full paragraph now as you would like to see it, replacing the previous sentence with Tigran's new version? Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It should look something like this:

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction.

Grandmaster 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but I want to see the European Parliament link incorporated somehow: ,Calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to put an end the demolition of medieval Armenian cemeteries and historic carved stone crosses in southern Nakhichevan, which is in breach of the terms of its 1993 ratification of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention;--Eupator 18:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let’s wait for Sdedeo’s reaction, he could help to shape the final wording. Grandmaster 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about (after some tweaking and slimming):

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations (SOURCE REQUIRED); the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction [20]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction [21].

We still need a source for the first thing (Armenian accusation). Otherwise, I think we are good to go on this one; I am very happy that we are including a maximal amount of information and sourcing on this controversy. Can someone provide a source for the first bit? We may be very close to unprotection (though there are a few remaining issues.) Sdedeo (tips) 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's great. The correct wiki link is khachkar btw. I guess we can use the MFA as an Armenian source. This site is ran by the Foreign Ministry and has several links on the main page: http://www.armeniadiaspora.com

Link directly from the MFA site: http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/movie/jougha1-qt.html Link with pictures plus video: http://www.armenica.org/history/old-jougha/index.html --Eupator 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. People can check the links and judge for themselves, who’s right and who’s wrong. Grandmaster 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's the essence! Can someone provide a source for the Armenian accusations, and then I think we are good to go on the specific paragraph disputes. Next step is to look over the two diffs Eupator presented and see if anything can be salvaged. Sdedeo (tips) 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the diffs that grandmaster removed was a copy/paste from a web site. Grandmaster provided the link above (not copyrighted though). Still it was obviously wrong even though the information within was right. I have mixed feelings about that one now. Can we tweak such infotmation? The article as it is now only has information regarding modern Nakhijevan and nothing about pre-Turkic days or when it was under Armenian control.--Eupator 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's just briefly table this until we have agreement on the particular para above! Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Final version (I am going to go ahead and assume everyone is OK with this.)

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations [22] [23]; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction [24]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction [25].

I think we are good to go here. The only thing that I think is missing (but can be inserted later) is a link to an official Armenian government statement about this issue (right now, we only have material from a non-profit group.) If there are no major objections, we can now move to the final thing. Sdedeo (tips) 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. If grandmaster is ok with it.--Eupator 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Much better than it was. Grandmaster 20:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Small mod.: saw that we can also provide a link to an official Armenian gov site, so that solves the minor problem I mentioned above. Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am against the final version. Grandmaster has deleted important info--UNISEF violation, description of khachkars (not just grave stones), the specifics of video in Armenian claims (i.e. "soldiers." I actually provided Azeri view's specifics on the contents of the video), EP's language is distorted (not just Azerbaijanis, but Azerbaijan), the fact that this is not the first time Armenia presents the accusations--all relevant to the topic of the paragraph.--TigranTheGreat 20:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have all the specifics, we should have all the specifics of Azeri response as well. Much of it is omitted here. For example, no mention of the fact that Azerbaijan authorities view this as propaganda campaign to distract international attention from destruction of Azeri cultural heritage in Karabakh. It also has the word khachkar, with explanation of what it is, since most people don’t know. It has an internal link for more info. Azerbaijani ambassador said that it is not the first time the Armenian side is making such groundless charges, etc. I think it’s better to make it as brief as possible to give readers a chance to check the sources and judge for themselves. Grandmaster 20:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all the specifics, just the main ones. EP's view has too much specifics taken from it. Azeri view has more specifics on the video than the Armenian view (100 soldiers). Description of khachkar has nothing to do with the Armenian view and should be included. People don't need to click on a link to find out basic info on khachkars. Azeri accusations re Armenia and Karabakh are off topic--we already provide on-topic specifics, that's enough.--TigranTheGreat 20:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Azeri accusations are not off-topic, they explain the reasons for this new propaganda campaign. Grandmaster 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is a para that responds to some of Tigran's concerns:

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations [26] [27]; the European Parliament has formally called for Azerbaijan to stop any such destruction as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [28]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction [29].

I do not think we need to redescribe what khachkars are -- there is a separate article for a reason! Furthermore, while it is possible that khachkars may be something other than gravestones (I am not sure), the EUP only talked about the destruction of "medieval Armenian cemeteries and historic carved stone crosses in southern Nakhichevan". Finally, I don't think we need to get into the details of is it soldiers, etc. etc. Sdedeo (tips) 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As I stated below, the entire section on the Armenian view (which had really not been subject to dispute until deleted by Grandmaster during mediation) was replaced by a word-by-word forumaltion of the view by the Azeri author of the Regnum article (http://www.regnum.ru/english/574041.html). This is very odd concidering that the segment is referenced by Armenian articles on the Armenian view. I agree that we need to include basic facts in this segment. I believe some of the basic facts were removed. Here is my proposed paragraph (changes are in bold)--I have added back some of the facts (itemized later). Since you insist on having both views (Azeri and Armenian) cover comparable spaces, I have added a few more facts from the Azeri response:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, appealing to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction [30] [31]. The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [32]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, calling them a propaganda campaign, and stating that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory. They have further stated that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. [33].

• Several times since its independence,: It is important to mention that this is not just an isolated incidence. The Armenian articles mention that it has happened before, notably in 2002.

• systematic: According to Armenians, this is not just something random, which I think is important aspect of the allegations. The source article calls it "genocide." We don't need to use the g word, systematic is less emotional.

• historic carved stone crosses: The "grave-stones" is the formulation of the Azeri author copied by Grandmaster. I believe EP's definition of khachkars is more appropriate than the Azeri one--it's more accurate. I realize we have a separate article, but we are not copying everything from there--this is basic info just to help the readers get the idea. We say khackhars, and briefly define it for the users. Plus, it's a neutral background info, and should not be seen as contributing to the "weight" of Armenian view.

• 6th - 9th cc.: I replaced the "historical" from EP's definition with more accurate phrase. [34]. First, an important aspect of Armenian accusations is that these things are old--they are not just recent stuff erected at a site of a medieval cemetery. Second, Medieval is big--in Caucasus it lasted till 18th century. This is important both as information of Nakhichevan's rich cultural heritage (which should be matter of pride for Azerbaijan), and for more accurate portrayal of the Armenian view (the phrase was used to Arm. President Kocharyan).

• appealing to international organizations to intervene: This is a serious claim, not just something Armenia said in a press-release. The fact that Armenians felt the need to go high up is an important fact.

• soldiers: I think it's important that the videos show that it's the government, and not some random guys, which is the very basis of Armenian allegations. I think it is unfair and unclear when the Azeri view on the video contains specifics (no nationality, no crosses), but the Armenian portion does not.

EP's view

• the demolition of medieval Armenian cemeteries and khachkars: This is the language of the EP statement that I copied from the EP website. It shows that according to EP, the demolitions take place. When we say "any such destruction," it sounds like "if you guys are doing it, stop it." I know we are repeating the "cemeteries and khachkars," but I minimized it, and there was no other way to do it for conveying this basic position on the part of EP. By the way, this sentence is the international position, so it should not be seen as part of the space of the Armenian view.

By the way, this is not presenting all the specifics in Armenian claims, just the important ones. I left out the part about "intention of Azerbaijan to erase Armenian culture's traces." I also left out the number of the soldiers (numbers don't belong here, I believe), or the mode of the destruction (heavy machinery). The Azeri view contains several facts: the denial, propaganda campaign, high importance placed on protection, no clear nationality in the video, no clear stones. I don't think we should introduce the whole issue of Azeri monuments here, since it will invite the Armenian response ([35]), which will lengthen the segment even more, and then the entire focus of this segment will be shifted from Nakhichevan's monuments to monuments in Karabakh and Armenia, which is not appropriate.

Finally, for Grandmaster's concern that the issue takes disproportionately large segment of the article on Nakhichevan--this article is going to grow. Right now it's little more than a stub. The issue of khachkars will eventually be like 2% of the entire space. No need to penalize this section just because the article is currently incomplete.--TigranTheGreat 12:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

replacing material

OK, Eupator has given two diffs where GM may have removed material that could be reincorporated.

I have looked over the diffs --

[36]: this one has some serious POV problems later, and it is totally unsourced. My feeling is that the first two paras of the diff should be reincluded, with a link to the original website from whence they came.

The remaining material is way too POV to include wholesale, however, it does have some legit info in between. What I suggest is that we really should cover things such as forced resettlement, but that we should probably just "start again": i.e., people with knowledge about these issues should put it in with sources and in a super neutral fashion. I don't think the reminaing paras of this particular diff can be used as is.

[37] also has major major NPOV problems (it is also one giant paragraph and very hard to read.) My guess here is that there is some useful and legit info, especially about early history, but that disentangling it from the POV is too hard and it would be much more efficient for the editors we have right now to go ahead and start adding their own info (again, not to be repetitive, but with all sorts of super NPOV phrasing and awesome citations.)

So: my suggestion here is that the only action we take on this is to reinclude the first two paras of the first diff. Are there any serious disagreements with my suggestions and comments here? Sdedeo (tips) 20:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll work on the history section with Tigran and Grandmaster. Thanks for your time and patience Sdedeo. --Eupator 20:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please copy here the paragraphs you feel need to be included? Grandmaster 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They are the first two paras of the first diff (oops -- noticed a little POV straggler that I've removed); these could definitely be slimmed, but there is good general info here.

The city of Nakhichevan was first mentioned in Ptolemy's "Geography" as Naksuana and was said to be established in 4400 BCE. Nakhijevan is ancient Armenian for the "First Station" or "First town" of Noah the Patriarch. Naksuana is ancient Greek for "the land of sweet water". Nakhijevan was one of the prominent cities of the Kingdom of Armenia. Since it changed kingdoms (Armenia, 2492BC-428AD, 885-1045, Zakarian Armenian Princedom XII-XIIIcc., Republic of Armenian 1918-1920), empires (Iran, Byzantium, Arabia, Russia), sultanates (XVc.), and khanates (1639-1828), the name of Nakhichevan was altered many times, changing to: Nakhijevan, Nakshijahan, Nuhchikhan (the place where Noah landed), Nesheva and etc. Throughout history Nakhichevan land brought up prominent persons such as VII c. medieval Armenian poet Vahan Goghtnetst, the brother of the academicians Levon and Hovsep Orbelis - Ruben Orbeli the founder of the soviet underwater archeology, the national artist of Armenia - Hasmik (Taguhi Hakobyan), Hakob (Jacob) IV of Julfa (Jugha) - the Supreme Patriarch (Catholicos) of the Armenian Holy Apostolic Church, Alexander I of Jugha - the Supreme Patrirch of the Armenian Holy Apostolic Church, Lazar I of Jahuk (Shahbuz) - the Supreme Patrirch of the Armenian Holy Apostolic Church, poet Yeremia Sahakyan, professor, doctor Stephan Melik-Bakhshian - a prominent Armenian historian from an aristocratic house of Nakhijevan province, professor, engeenier-technologist Z.Khojanetyan, professor, psychologist Gro (Grigor Ter-Hakobyan), Hindushah ibn Nakhchivani, Abdurrakhman en Neshevi, Ekmouladdin Nakhchivani, Ejemi Nakhchivani, Generals Garegin Nejdeh (Ter-Haroutyunyan) - the great philosopher and a leader of the Armenian Liberation Movement against the Bolsheviks, Kemalists and Musavatists, Lieutenant Genereal G.Ter-Gasparyan, Major General H.Hakhnazaryan, Ehsan, Kelbali, Ismail, Hussein, Jamshid khan Nakhichevanski and others.

The oldest material culture artifacts found in Nakhichevan date back to the Neolithic Age. The region was part of the states of Armenia, Ararat-Urartu, Mannae and Media in 8 – 7 BCE, Achaemenid state in 6 BCE, and later became part of the state of Atropatene a vassal kingdom pf Armenia then of Iran. In 3 century Nakhichevan was conquered by Persia from Armenia for some months, in 623 by Byzantium, and in the middle 7th century by Arabs. In 8th century this area was ruined by Babak uprising. Nakhichevan was part of feudal states of Bagratides Armenian Kingdom, then after 1045 of Sajids and Salarids in, and fell under control of Seljuks in 11th century.

Sdedeo (tips) 21:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the first thing that caught my eye is this: 2492BC-428AD

A Kingdom by the name of Armenia did not exist before the fifth century BC :) The 2492 date is a legendary date. The rets is fine just needs to be wikified. Some names are transliterated incorrectly etc.--Eupator 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My problem with this is that it makes no references to any sources. As for prominent people, I don’t know any of those added to the existing list, but I think we should keep just a few very prominent ones or remove completely, it takes too much space. Grandmaster 21:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither does the stuff added by the azeris have references ;) I think the text should be added. Then we should wikify it. Then you should add references for the azeri stuff and vice versa for the Armenian stuff.

Nor do I see anything prominent about the azeri list, I mean compare it to a Catholicos of all Armenians in the world. Just needs to be wikified. --Eupator 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so there is definitely some stuff here that is wrong and taken from purely legendary sources, which pretty much casts into doubt the accuracy of the rest. I guess I'm going to say that we should add stuff from the list here onto the main article only as we find sources for it; yes, there is plenty of unsourced material on the wiki, but here we have reason to believe this particular chunk will have particular problems. So, let's not add this stuff in all at once, but rather leave it on the talk page for Eupator, GM, and everyone to add onto the main article as they satisfy themselves about the particular accuracy of a fact. Sdedeo (tips) 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the history section, except for the first paragraph. It’s based on the material from Great Soviet Encyclopedia, a trustworthy source in Russia. I’ll give you the link. I also used some other sources, all of them are cited. As for the prominent people, click the link for Hussein Khan Nakhichevanski, he was general-adjutant of Russian emperor. The article about him was featured on the front page of Wikipedia, I also wrote it. Ejemi Nakhichevani was the architect of the mausoleum, the photo of which is featured in the article. And then we have Garegin Nejdeh from your list, who killed thousands of innocent Azeris and later served in the army of Nazi Germany. Quite controversial, I would say. Maybe it would be better to not list anybody at all. Grandmaster 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sdedeo. Let’s get the facts checked first. Grandmaster 21:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the current article which you wrote ergo the tag! Njdeh has never touched a single innocent soul, only bloodthirsty invaders. Also he served in the same Wehrmacht that had over 25, 000 Azeri volunteers :) I agree, we will list all or list none. I will begin a major rewrite of the article once I'm finished with the Chechen, Al-Quaeda stuff in the Karabakh article. --Eupator 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Don’t forget to provide sources for the information you wish to include. So far Raffi failed to provide a citation I asked for the paragraph he included, so if I don’t get a source of information soon I’m going to delete it. Grandmaster 20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As for Njdeh, his gangs exterminated whole villages with Azeri and Kurdish population in Nakhchivan, Karabakh and other parts of Azerbaijan, as well as in the territory of modern day Armenia. And I didn’t include any of those Azeris who served for Wehrmacht in the lists of prominent people. Grandmaster 21:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, pause now. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss your personal opinions [38]! The only thing I've said here is that we should leave this on the talk page for now because there are concerns with the accuracy given that at least some of the information seems to have been drawn from legend as opposed to historical sources. If anyone has a problem with that, please let me know. Sdedeo (tips) 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, I am curious, are you getting paid for doing this?--TigranTheGreat 04:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee. No, obviously! But I find it very interesting. This is something like my sixth mediation, and I've learned a huge amount about conflicts and people (though I definitely have screwed up from time to time.) Sdedeo (tips) 18:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask Sdedeo what he thinks about the paragraph about prominent persons from Nakhichevan? Grandmaster 20:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with including a list and links to a list of prominent Nakhichevans; as I've said, the current list is problematic and should stay for now on the talk page as a reference source for people adding to the main talk page. In general, additional info about each person should be contained in a separate article (if they are famous enough to mention extra info about them on the page, they should be famous enough to deserve their own article.) Sdedeo (tips) 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Also have a look at the writing under the photograph of the gravestones, do you think it complies with the NPOV standards? And please have a look at the related article for Julfa, which was written by Raffi, in my opinion it has serious POV problems. Grandmaster 20:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The caption seems just about OK (I understand why it bothers you.) If you want to remove the stuff about the EU parliament, etc., go ahead -- the information is contained elsewhere in the article. I looked briefly at the Julfa article; it needs work. I will post a brief thing about it after we fix the current one. Sdedeo (tips) 20:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don’t we just make it “Examples of khachkars from Julfa”? Grandmaster 20:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a fine version. Let's wait to see if others have a problem with this. I don't think it's a huge problem either way. Sdedeo (tips) 20:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is a new issue that was not disputed before the mediation started, and I don't think it should be removed lightly. The history of the caption is this: Raffi and GM kept reverting each other, with GM deleting Raffi's "Khackhars that are under threat of destruction by Azerbaijan." GM then added "allegedly" which Raffi kept removing. I modified the section, considering the fact that "allegedly" is among weasel words (WP:AWW which are discouraged by Wiki as they potentially contain hidden POV--"according" was better. GM didn't object to it until now.

The pictures are what they state they are--examples of stuff that are under the threat of destruction, and they are listed in the dispute section. The part is NPOV as it attributes the views to their holders. Sdedeo, you said it seems OK. I propose we just leave it there, to avoid future edit wars, as Raffi considered it important (and so do I). Pictures are to illustrate something already in article--just because the dispute is thoroughly explained in the article, doesn't mean we shouldn't give a brief background info on the picture, just for clarity.--TigranTheGreat 12:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, Tigran, you object; as I've said, I don't think it matters much either way. Tigran, you would like the accusations mentioned prominently, and Grandmaster would like them minimized. As an outside reader, I can promise you it doesn't matter as long as the dispute is properly discussed in the text. If GM wants to object to the caption then we can have a whole new round.

My worry is that after we hammer out the compromise below, everyone will go back to fighting over something else related to the article because you guys have not yet learned to work together. Sdedeo (tips) 15:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, it's understandable that as an outsider you view this a quarrel between two biased parties. We don't deny our biases, we try to face them--that's the way to stick to the policy and not the biases. I believe my insistence on the caption is not compelled by bias: I don't think the accuasation will be displayed prominently--this page is going to grow much bigger, this thing will be miniscule in the final version. Just as any picture, it's an illustration--and an illustration always repeats some info already discussed in the article in more detail. The caption was a result of prior negotiations before you came here, and all parties seemed to agree--disturbing it now will cause more fighting later. It provides minimal information, and is NPOV. It illustrates two important aspects of Nakhichevan's past and present--it's rich cultural history, and the fact that there is a dispute. It shoots two birds with one stone, which I think is efficient.

If you have concerns about us, please tell us, and agian we will take it as constructive criticism. I believe despite our differences, we have treated each other (the parties here) with utmost restraint and respect.--TigranTheGreat 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My opinion here is that the best way to do this is to go with GM's caption. We have hammered out (are hammering out) an appropriate paragraph for the main article, and having a caption that selectively reproduces info from there is leading to trouble. This happens a lot of times when information appears in multiple places in an article (e.g., in the intro and then later), and the best thing to do is to reduce the number of points of conflict. Sdedeo (tips) 18:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

One comment. Saying "selectively reproduces from the article" suggests that we first had the paragraph in the article, then took stuff from there and put it in caption. The caption was was in its current form, after a long edit war, agreed by both sides, long before we reached the current version of the paragraph. Do you think that changes your opinion about the stablity/legitimacy of the caption?--TigranTheGreat 18:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. As I've said, the history of who put what in where is not important; the important thing is that we have a good, sourced, NPOV section so that everyone involved can get back to more useful work in other areas of the article. Sdedeo (tips) 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, then since the caption introduces just the basic positions (Armenia and EP accuse...), why don't we add "Azerbaijan denies the charges" at the end of the caption, to answer your concerns of selectiveness (even though I still think the language is very NPOV).--TigranTheGreat 18:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have been having a long discussion of how to discuss this issue, and are near a compromise paragraph below! Do you see where this is going? (i.e., towards including the whole paragraph twice.) Again, the simplest thing to do here is just have a minimal caption; I consider it a bit of a waste of everyone's time to have another multi-day discussion of how to produce a slimmed down version of what we have below. Sdedeo (tips) 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's going to be much more waste of time if we leave from this with a sense of unresolve issues and either resume another edit war or go into a long arbitration. Plus, you are enjoying the process, so are all of us, and it's a good pracitce. It is quite simple to include only the basic positions, without any details whatsoever--Armenians accuse, EP accuses, Az denies. The issue is important, the picture is in the dispute section, a picture always reproduces something from the article in a shorter form. --TigranTheGreat 19:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say find this discussion interesting. You have rejected a compromise (minimal caption, details in article.) I am going to try something else, then. Here is a possible caption:

Examples of khachkars from Julfa. According to Armenia and the European Parliament, these are under the threat of destruction by the government of Azerbaijan, a position which is strongly disputed by Azerbaijan.

Sdedeo (tips) 19:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There never was a compromise, there was a unilateral offer to delete the caption by GM, and a unilateral instruction to him on your part to do it. In fact, the current version (w/o Azeri version) was reached as a compromise before, so it's GM who rejected the compromise. I offered a more "compromisable" version by adding "Azeris deny." The caption includes the basic positions--without qualifications. If we are adding "strongly" to the Azeri view, it would be fair to add "strongly" to the Armenian and EP views. I say, we just leave out adjectives, and stick to basic verbs.--TigranTheGreat 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I proposed a compromise which was GM's version, you rejected it. That's fine. Here is the new version:

Examples of khachkars from Julfa. According to Armenia and the European Parliament, these are under the threat of destruction by the government of Azerbaijan, a position which is disputed by Azerbaijan.

Let's wait to hear from GM. Sdedeo (tips) 19:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree to this.

One more thing: I would say find this discussion interesting. SD, I am sensing condescending attitude. If it reflects concerns/suggestions/advice that you have, this might be time to voice them. Again, dont' take this as an accusation, but rather an invitation for input--TigranTheGreat 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant to write "I would say I find this discussion interesting." It is one of the more difficult ones to mediate, because very often each side removes material they think makes their country look bad, and inserts material they think makes their country look good. So we go back and forth a huge amount here. Sdedeo (tips) 20:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I’ve got a question for a start. How do we know that these grave-stones are really from Julfa? Grandmaster 08:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

resolution of dispute

OK, as far as I can tell we have a resolution of the dispute. We have two paragraphs:

Nakhichevan's border with Armenia has been closed since 1989; the border was closed by Armenia in retaliation to Azerbaijan's closure of the rest of its borders as part of a larger conflict the two countries were involved in (see Nagorno-Karabakh.) [39]

and

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations [40] [41]; the European Parliament has formally called for Azerbaijan to stop any such destruction as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [42]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction [43].

which are the consequences of a long series of negotiations between the two sides. We also have an agreement on the next step to take with some older material (see [44]).

I am going to wait 24 hours. If you are fine with these paras and compromises, you don't have to do anything. If you have a serious objection, and by serious I mean very serious, please let me know. After 24 hours, I will request page unprotection, put the new paras in, and post some final thoughts.

Sdedeo (tips) 18:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I do. Please wait.--TigranTheGreat 09:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am back. Sdedeo, the "very serious problem" here is that for the second paragraph, the process was rushed and thus the result does not represent full negotiations. When you first started the mediation, you stressed the importance of taking it slowly, which is necessary to make the process final and avoid future edit wars and expensive arbitration. We need to respect that principle, instead of artificially rushing and overlooking serious problems. Here is one example.

Grandmaster unilaterally deleted the entire section on the Armenian view on the destruction of Khackhars. This part actually had not been subject to dispute until he raised it during the mediation. Which is fine, but that means when we are introducing new issues of dispute, we need to take it seriously. Second, he replaced the deleted part with an Azeri interpretation of the Armenian view, taken directly from the Regnum article written by an Azeri author [45]), even though the references for that part are not from Regnum. Which again is fine, he is an interested party and an advocate. I was very surprised that the extensive changes were so easily accepted by Eupator--I later found out that he is quite busy now, which tells me that he has overlooked this. After that, your response was that of an auctioneer--"Going once, going twice, sold!" within just a few minutes. Which again is fine, we appreciate the fact that you are busy just as all of us, but it can hurt the finality of the process--you, me, and Eupator may not be around on this page when Raffi comes back, it's again going to be Raffi vs. Grandmaster, and if Raffi feels the changes introduced by Grandmaster were unfair and rushed to final solution (which I am very confident will happen for the current version of the paragraph), the edit wars will resume--we don't want that. Since you enjoy the process as you said, let's not rush through it, let's wait for listening to legimitate concerns of the parties currently involved in this dispute (me, GM, and Eupator). If you want the page unprotected, we can do that and post little notes right before the disputed paragraphs (right now it's one) requesting editors not to touch it.

I posted my proposal for the second paragraph. I have no objections to the first paragraph (on the closure of borders).--TigranTheGreat 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the history of who deleted what. I also do not appriciate being criticized as an "auctioneer". As far as I can tell, if everyone continues behaves as they have before, then you will find a different paragraph to argue and fight about. In the meantime, my concern is to resolve the dispute as quickly and fairly as possible; I gave a twenty four hour waiting period on further objections because I felt that the paragraph responded to everyone's concerns and we were close to done.

Re: Raffi: I explained to him that if he left we could either pause the moderation or keep it going and that if we kept it going he'd have to stick by our conclusions. As Eupator and you both seem to share his POV, this shouldn't be a problem.

You have now raised several new issues and expanded the paragraph considerably. I am cutting and pasting your suggested paragraph, and making some minor tweaks. Here is a new version.

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction [46] [47]. The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [48]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, calling them a "propaganda campaign," and stating that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory (SOURCE NEEDED). They have further stated that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. [49].

I have found an unsourced claim that the Azeri authorities have claimed a "propaganda campaign"; this has been sitting in the article for a long time, but if you click on the link (to a CoE document containing only Armenian statements), I don't see it. GM may have a different source.

Again, I'll wait twenty four hours; if anybody has serious objections, please raise them, otherwise I'll go ahead. Sdedeo (tips) 16:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(There may be a misunderstanding here: when I said I'd wait 24 hours, I just meant that I'd wait 24 hours for complaints. If there are complaints, the "clock is stopped" and we begin again. It's just a way to handle things when one editor or the other disappears. Sdedeo (tips) 16:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Sdedeo, with all due respect, you assumed that GM's radically new change was final within minutes, not withing 24 hours. GM voiced his concerns on the Armenian view part and replaced it at 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC). The edits continued for 2 hours until 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC), when you proposed to "just briefly table this until we have agreement on the particular para above". It took you 5 minutes to assume that the agreement was final: "Final version (I am going to go ahead and assume everyone is OK with this.) 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC) This is rushing, and it goes against your initial approach of "lets take this slowly so we will reach an agreement." Please don't take this personally, take it as a useful input to improve the value of your mediation practice. You want us to learn from you, it's absolutely fine for you to learn from us. Yes, we need to move quickly, but not as quickly as to jeopardize the second necessary component--fairly. The history of deletions is important here because it deleted a statement A supported by Source A and copied a new statement from Source B and still cited Source A. I am sorry, but I believe that is odd.

The "propaganda campaign" part was introduced by GM as part of the Azeri view. I believe that's the shortened version of the "Armenians try to raise these questions to distract attention from monuments in Karabakh and Armenia," except that it doesn't mention the monuments in other section, which I believe should be the case, as otherwise it will invite the Armenian response that I provided, and shift the focus of the paragraph. So, I find it supported by Regnum and the PACE sources.

I believe the best way to avoid fighting over paragraphs in the future is to make sure that our views and objections were at least heard, instead of just rushing. If you believe we need to learn on our behaviour, please tell us, we are completely open to any criticisms that you have as a veteran mediator. Thank you --TigranTheGreat 16:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the source on the "Azerb. places high importance" is the Regnum article itself.--TigranTheGreat 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am sorry if it appeared that I was trying to rush things. I was unable to find the word "propaganda" in the .ru article, so here is the new version:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction [50] [51]. The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [52]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as "groundless" and an attempt to draw attention from the bloodshed over the "occupied territories" of Azerbaijan. They have stated that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory and further that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. [53].

Do people object to this? Sdedeo (tips) 18:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I found the "propaganda campaign" as a short paraphrasis of the "groundless" and an attempt to draw attention from the bloodshed over the "occupied territories" of Azerbaijan. If you insist on using the exact words from the source, my objection here is that it uses disputed terms, inviting the Armenian view on the "occupied territories." In other words, we present both views on one disputed issue (destruction), but only the Azeri view on another disputed issue ("occupied territories"). Armenians find that term negative. Their view is "liberated Armenian territories formerly under Azeri control." Actually, when the "occupied terrotories" appeared in a recent report by a Council of Europe rapporteur (Atkinson), not just Armenians but Russia's representative (in the peace negotiations) objected to the term as pro-Azeri and harming the negotiation process, so it's clearly POV.

Why don't we (if we are doing away with propaganda campaign stuff) state "Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as "groundless" and an attempt to draw attention from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict", a phrase that is more neutral and actually appeared in the pre-protected version of the article, and was agreed upon by all parties after long edit wars.--TigranTheGreat 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point. Here's a new version:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction [54] [55]. The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [56]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as "groundless" and an attempt to draw attention from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. They have stated that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory and further that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. [57].

Sdedeo (tips) 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, I read the version, and though I would like to hear comments from others on this, I object to the inclusion of "groundless" on two grounds (no pun intended :) ). First, it's too strong, too emotional, and therefore not as encyclopedic. Second, it's clear from the Azeri description of the video ("nothing is clear") that they regard the charges without evidence and hence groundless, so why stress it. Plus, we are taking out one fact from the Azeri view (propaganda cmpgn) and replacing with 2 facts ("groundless" and "NK"), thus adding an additional fact to the Azeri portion. I think the Azeri portion already has enough facts added to it to make it "fair" with the Armenian view. Again, we can hear from others, but I would suggest removal of "groundless" and.--TigranTheGreat 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You have previously suggested that "groundless" be included and provided arguments as to why! It is in quotation marks, indicating that it was a direct quote from the Az. officials, and hence if you consider it too emotional, I suggest you take it up with them. :) Second, it conveys information. As for stress and not stress, I cannot see how including it is a problem. That said, I don't consider it to be a very problematic thing to either include or dispense with, and I suggest we now wait to see if GM is OK with this version. Sdedeo (tips) 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't suggest, I acquiesced to inclusion of the entire portion if the "propaganda part" wasn't an option. Now I object to a portion of the part that I acquiesced, and given that this is an ongoing negotiation, I find it legitimate. Whether it's taken from the Azeri side, since we are insisting on presenting both Armenian and Azeri parts fairly and equitably, loading it with an emotionally charged word violates the balance (after all, I didn't use the "genocide" word from the Armenian source on that very same ground). Stressing the same point is problematic, and you have suggested it yourself with respect to the picture. Finally, as I said earlier, it adds an additional fact to the Azeri view, and I believe that portion already contains enough facts to make it comparable to the Armenian view. I still believe that part needs to be removed.--TigranTheGreat 19:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am going to assume you are OK with the rest of the paragraph. Here is the new version. Let's now wait for GM to weigh in on whether or not he is OK with it.

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction [58] [59]. The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [60]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as an attempt to draw attention from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. They have stated that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory and further that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. [61]

Sdedeo (tips) 19:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of grammar, shouldn't there be some kind of verb after "further?"

By the way, Eupator made a minor edit on this page, so he is around. We should listen to his view as well. I wonder what he is doing.

Other than that, I agree with the version.--TigranTheGreat 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to this. We should not distort the source. It should say that Azerbaijani authorities view this as "groundless" and an attempt to draw attention from destruction of Azeri cultural heritage in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. We should not judge whether this is true or not (by the way, it’s true, as international organizations consider NK and other territories of Azerbaijan under Armenian control as occupied, I can provide sources). We should just reflect the point of view of Azerbaijani authorities as it is. Grandmaster 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We are not distorting, we are leaving out a word that is unnecessary and too emotional. We can't always include the entire statement that someone makes. "Occupied territory" is disputed. We dispute, Russia's Kazimirov objected to it as pro-Azeri. If you include it, we will have to include Armenia's view that it's not "occupied territory." By the way, you did agree with the neutral term "NK conflict" before the mediation even started.--TigranTheGreat 19:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter whether it’s disputed or not. We should reflect Azerbaijani position the way it is. Armenian view on it is irrelevant. We include only Armenian accusation and Azerbaijani response. The issue of occupied territories has nothing to do with Nakhichevan and should not be discussed here. Since it’s position of international community, "occupied territories" is quite a legit term, plus this is what Azerbaijani ambassador said, and his words should not be edited. I did agree with "NK conflict", but now I don’t, since Eupator also agreed with previous version of this paragraph, and now we starting all over again. Grandmaster 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, good. In general, silence == assent. I am keen to wait now for GM to tell us whether or not he is OK with this paragraph. PS: "they have stated X and further Y" is good Queen's English; further functions as an adverb attached to "stated". Similar grammatically to saying "He said that Jones was tall and, confrontationally, too tall to ride the rollercoaster." Sdedeo (tips) 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the current version of this paragraph now? I can't seem to tell. Someone post it so I can voice my position.--Eupator 20:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Right now we are waiting for GM to post his suggestion. All the paragraphs so far have been rejected. Sdedeo (tips) 20:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

resolution of dispute #2

Hi GM, welcome back. As far as I can tell from the source, the Az.s make two claims: 1. that Armenian has done its own destruction of monuments and 2. that this is part of the larger NK conflict. So I am going to propose a compromise paragraph (actually now split into two paragraphs):

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction [62] [63]. The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [64].

Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as an attempt to draw attention from Armenian destruction of Azeri mosques, madrassas and museums elsewhere in the region. They have stated that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory and further that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. [65]

Both Tigran and GM please weigh in. Sdedeo (tips) 19:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

SD, introducing the issue of Azeri monuments will necessarily invite inclusion of the Armenian position on the monuments, which will lengthen this portion even more, and shift the focus from Nakhichevan's monuments to an entire different and quite big issue (Azeri monuments elsewhere, which Armeniand dispute). This issue may belong to an article on Azerbaijan, it's just too big to thrown in in a bulleted item on Nakhichevan khachkars. You replaced the "NK conflict" with "Azeri monuments." The first is neutral form, the second is disputed, it's preferable to stick to the first.

Also, to respect the integrity of the process and the rules, we shouldn't assume too early that Eupator is agreeing. He might be busy, let's give him the benefit of 24 hours after the clock starts.--TigranTheGreat 19:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, you proposed a version. GM complained that the Az. response was not properly presented. I went into the article, and provided the exact response that Az. made. You may dispute the Az. response, but you now need to provide sources if you want this section to extend into a third paragraph disputing the disputation. Sdedeo (tips) 19:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make it clear, where according to Azerbaijani authorities the destruction takes place. According to the ambassador, Armenians destroy Azeri cultural heritage in the territory of Armenia and the part of Azerbaijani territory, which is under Armenian military control. Grandmaster 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "NK conflict zone," to which you agreed before, makes it clear that there is a conflict, and Azeri monuments are being destroyed in that conflict zone. By the way, the PACE response to Azeri complaint on the Azeri monuments uses that exact term--NK conflict Zone. I still think we should leave out the issue of Azeri monuments for the reasons I stated earlier and below.--TigranTheGreat 20:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The disputation of disputation is here: http://felist.com/archive/media.arminfo/200309/10233601.html. It has two parts--Armenia's church leader denies, and Karabakh's church leader denies. But I dont' want to include this, and I don't want to include the Azeri monuments issue either--it lengthens the issue and introduces an entirely knew issue which shifts the focus of the segment from its intended (Nakhichevan) to unintended (Karabakh) topic. To propertly represent the Azeri view, we don't need to copy the entire respose of the Azeri side. We are not including, from the Armenian side, the terms "cultural genocide," or the accusation "Azerbaijan tries to erase the history of Armenia on its territory," details about soldiers, etc. So, choosing one part of the response and leaving another out does not violate the NPOV policies. Saying "an attempt to distract from NK conflict" isntead of "attempt to distract from destruction of Azeri monuments" takes one part of the response, a more neutral formulation, and leaves out another part of the Response--a disputed and and entirely different issue. Since we are picking one and leaving another anyway, I say we include the one that's worded more neutrally, and doesn't invite the Armenian disputation of dispute (or however you phrased it).--TigranTheGreat 20:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is probably too much detail; the article covers the N region. It is possible that this discussion will start to explode and there is not NPOV way to depict part of it. In that case, we will have to create a separate article, or move the discussion to the N-K page. This is a possibility. Sdedeo (tips) 20:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But what was wrong with the previously agreed brief version? Why do we need all those details, if we provide references to the original documents anyway? I think Tigran tries to gain maximum propagandistic advantage from this, but it’s not the purpose of this resource. Grandmaster 20:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

First, we need to assume good faith, instead of assuming "maximum propagandistic advantage." Second, we never agreed to the brief versoin, in fact before the mediation started, we agreed to the longer version, which you then replaced unilaterally with a sentence from the Regnum article. My goal is to present the basic facts. If I was tryign to gain propagandistic advantage, I would include "cultural genocide," and "Azeris try to erase traces of Armenian culture," and the number of soldiers, how they pulverize the stones with heavy machineries etc. No, I exclude them. But, there are certain important basic facts, and since SD originally said that on Wiki, we don't exclude important information, let's stick to that principle. --TigranTheGreat 20:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. Including the issue of Azeri monuments will make the discussion explode. It belongs to another article, perhaps AZ, not N. Choosing "distract from NK conflict" is much simpler, shorter, and NPOV. --TigranTheGreat 20:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But that was not the point of ambassador’s response. He provides very detailed list of destroyed cultural heritage, we can’t just leave it out. Grandmaster 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi GM -- not sure what you mean by "previously agreed brief version." Can you paste in the paragraph you mean, making edits that you think will make it acceptable to Tigran et al.? Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant the version, which Eupator previously agreed with. I don’t understand what was wrong with it, we left most of details out to let the readers judge themselves by reading the references. It could save us from all this lengthy dispute and the current stalemate situation. Grandmaster 20:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The previously agreed version was the version that I am proposing, which is now on the protected article, and was agreed upon, as clear from the editting history.--TigranTheGreat 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator agreed, but I didn't, and given that Eupator is quite busy (as he told me) and apparently overlooked the fact that you replaced the Armenian view with a sentence from an Azeri source, I think we need to weigh in my opinion as well to achieve maximum finality. As SD stated earlier, we should keep important info on WIKI. The details, which you removed and I replaced, are essential to the Armenian claims, as I explained in the bulletted list earlier. And as I said, I am exluding other, less important material.--TigranTheGreat 20:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What’s wrong with the version that was agreed? It says that Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations. Is it not the essence of Armenian point of view? Didn’t they accuse, presenting photo and video of the alleged event? It’s all there. If you gonna go further into details, it will grow endlessly. Grandmaster 20:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, we will rewind. Here is the brief version that both GM and Eupator are OK with. Tigran, on second look are you OK with this?

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations [66] [67]; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction [68]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction [69].

(prior comments: Fine with me. If grandmaster is ok with it.--Eupator 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC); OK. Much better than it was. Grandmaster 20:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

Sdedeo (tips) 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the version I like. Lets see what Tigran thinks.--Eupator 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the Azeri response is simple, it's draws attention from Nakhijevan and goes on to the alleged destruction of Tatar (there was no such thing as Azeri prior to the 1920's) in places far from Nakhijevan. That in essense calls for a response to the response and that goes far ebyond the sphere this article should cover. --Eupator 20:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Precisely!--TigranTheGreat 20:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

GM. I understand you want quick resolution, but trust me, unless you want continued edit wars with Raffii (who will definitely not agree to this version, despite SD's rule that raffi should stick to it), after me and Eupator and SD are gone, or a lenghty arbitration, you don't want to rush this.--TigranTheGreat 20:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s not about quick resolution, it’s just about resolution. You want to go into details about Armenian position, but don’t agree to provide details of Azerbaijani position under baseless excuses. We either provide detailed position of both sides or give a short version of them and refer the readers to references. Grandmaster 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

When you sneak in a watered-down Azeri perspective on the Armenian view and present it as if it's taken from the Armenian sources, it doesn't help with the resolution, it backfires. While you have deleted important details from Armenian view, I have so far only added details to the Azeri view (contents of the video, the Azeri policy on its monuments, the propaganda campaign bit, etc.). --TigranTheGreat 12:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, gentlemen, it was pleasure, but I need to leave now. Clock starts after all of you agree on something, and then wait for me. Since Raffi invited both me and Eupator for assistance, it's appropriate and necessary (for finality) to have both of our opinions. Eupator, please read carefully my comments and objections that I provided earlier. I will see you guys later.--TigranTheGreat 20:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A parting comment--GM, I understand you want to include things form Azeri response in their entirety, but that's not necessary. You don't wnat us to include stuff about cultural genocide, erasure of Armenian culture, and the other details that I mentioned. We don't need to include everything.--TigranTheGreat 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait, do you like this last version that I agreed to as well as Gm? Edit: Nevermind, I guess you did.--Eupator 20:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw I will be absent throughout Superbowl;) --Eupator 20:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that's what the "Precisely" refers to. Anyway, there's plenty of time for people to complain, Raffi is travelling, so we'll wait for him. Sdedeo (tips) 20:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, "precisely" refers to Eupators objection to including details on Azeri monuments.--TigranTheGreat 12:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have skimmed the vast amount of discussion that took place (phew!) and will defer to Tigrans judgement since I agree that there is a problem simply presenting the Armenian and Azeri views on *this* issue, when the Azeri view/response on this issue is in fact introducing a wholly new issue to the matter. So if the summary of the Azeri response mentions places outside of Nakhichevan, I think an Armenian counter-response is valid, if the summary of the Azeri response does not mention places outside of Nakhichevan, then an Armenian counter-response is not needed in my opinion. So I will leave it up to Grandmaster and TigranTheGreat to decide which way is best. It would probably be good to develop a new article on the subject however at some point. I'm sorry I can't contribute more now, but I am on the road and again it seems I won't be able to log in for a couple of days minimum... maybe a week. --RaffiKojian 20:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

final para

The following paragraph is agreed to by Tigran, Eupator and GM. Tigran has suggested we wait for Raffi to return, so let's do that. Raffi, when we hear from you, we are good to go.

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations [70] [71]; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction [72]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction [73].

Sdedeo (tips) 20:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually never agreed to this, and in fact believe it gives greater details and weight to the Azeri view than to the Armenian view. I was surprised that SD would consider that I agreed to it, despite the fact that we spent several pages in which I stated and restated my objections to this very paragraph. Since we are rewiding, I will provide my original proposed paragraph below again.--TigranTheGreat 12:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I dont' think we should wait for Raffi. If me and Eupator agree to changes, he won't have a legit reason to object to the "final" (whatever that means in an unbinding setting) result.--TigranTheGreat 12:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry for misinterpreting. Discussion continues below! Sdedeo (tips) 15:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

TigranTheGreat's proposal

Here the version that I propose:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction [74] [75]. The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [76]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, viewing them as a propaganda campaign [77], and stating that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory [78]. They have further stated that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. [79].

Basically, it restores the Armenian-view section which I think contains essential details, which was agreed upon before the mediation started, and which was later replaced by Grandmaster with an Azeri formulation of the Armenian view ("Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations"), which was taken verbatim from the Regnum article, and has serious problems in terms of watering down and giving inaccurate definition of khachkars, and omitting important basic aspects of the Armenian claims. In return, to make the spaces covered by Armenian and Azeri views comparable, I have added additional facts from the Azeri view (propaganda campaign, Azeris placing high importance on their cultural heritage), which is in addition to the details that I had added earlier (that the nationality of perpetrators is not clear, the stones are not clearly khachkars). I believe this gives enough basic and space to both views to make the paragraph NPOV.--TigranTheGreat 12:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with it. Why are you editing Azerbaijani position? Azerbaijani ambassador accuses Armenia in destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Armenia and occupied territories. This should be reflected, whether you like it or not, because it’s the official position of the Azerbaijani side. Wikipedia policies require to include the views of both sides, and you can’t select what you like or dislike in such positions, you should reflect it the way it is. Grandmaster 12:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to reflect Azerbaijani position as follows:

Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as an attempt to draw attention from Armenian destruction of Azeri historical and cultural monuments in Armenia and occupied territories of Azerbaijan. They have stated that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory and further that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. [80]

Grandmaster 12:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but we can selectively refuse to choose info from sources that will cause the paragraph to unnecessarily explode. Like it or not, this introduces 2 disputed view points by Azeri side--one on Nakhichevan monuments, the other on Karabakh monuments. To be NPOV, we need to provide the Armenian view point on both. This will just keep making it bigger and bigger.

I have provided alot of facts in the Azeri view, and it's comparable in size to Armenian view. I don't see what you don't like about it. --TigranTheGreat 12:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We don’t do fact check, we just report the sources, and since this is what Azerbaijani ambassador said, it should be reported the way he said. We must include both Armenian accusation and Azeri response the way they are, and there’s no need to comment on the situation in Karabakh in the article about Nakhichevan. Just opinions of both sides. Grandmaster 13:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that GM's main edit here is to change "propaganda campaign" to a specific description of the Azeri response. In that vein, it seems like a reasonable change to make. I suggest that a compromise paragraph (again, broken for legibility) go like this:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction [81] [82]. The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [83].

Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as an attempt to draw attention from Armenian destruction of Azeri historical and cultural monuments in Armenia and occupied territories of Azerbaijan [84], and stating that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory [85]. They have further stated that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. [86]. The controversy is connected to the larger Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and Armenian authorities dispute many aspects of the Azeri response to the accusations [87].

Another option, if Tigran does not want to go with either this or the much-slimmed GM/Eupator version, is for us to really get in-depth here and move a lot of this discussion to a separate article. Sdedeo (tips) 15:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(PS: I will be working today, so will only be able to check in a few times over the course of the day. Please do your best to establish compromise! The only way to finish here is if Tigran and GM can come to agreement; there is no way for me to legislate an answer. Sdedeo (tips) 16:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

I find this to be a lot better. Let’s see what Tigran thinks of this. Actually, he did not mind the existing current version and even made edits to make it look like it is now. See the article for Nakhichevan, it says now:

Azerbaijani authorities view these accusations as a propaganda campaign on part of Armenia to distract international attention from destruction of Azeri monuments, which according to Azeri authorities takes place in Armenia as well as in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.

He changed his mind after mediation started and decided to edit Azerbaijani position. The only question I have is do we need to add Armenian response to Azerbaijani response? Normally we need to present the two existing positions, accusation and response.

Grandmaster 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is all a waste of time. The version that GM and I agreed to was the best imo. It was brief. It did not minimize the Armenian claim, it had the EU response and all that jazz. I have a feeling I wont like what becomes of this new version.--Eupator 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, I have to agree. We are going down the same path that we started on the last time around. Tigran, can you please reconsider your opposition given that both GM and Eupator, who have in the past been opposed to each other's edits, are in agreement over the current "brief version" draft of the earlier section? Sdedeo (tips) 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think the brief version is preferable. And I actually think that all this controversy could be included in the article about Julfa and not in that about the autonomous republic. But whatever. Grandmaster 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, GM, and Eupator, thank you for all of your inputs. Sdedeo, I realize that now it looks I am opposed to both GM's and Eupator's versions. However, before reaching a compromise, I want to make sure that we all understand our reasons for the positions that we hold, and whether those reasons are legitimate, consistent with the Wiki policies, or not. I still see some misunderstandings and areas in need of clarification. I realize you can't legislate, I believe me and GM can talk things out and reach an agreement. We are all reasonable people here.

Let me tell you where we are. We are clear on basic rule and policies. That's a huge difference compared to the time prior to mediation, when Raffi and GM just kept blindly reverting each other. We are also listening to each other, and clarifying things bit by bit. This is huge progress, and you, Sdedeo, ought to be proud of it as a mediator. I don't think we are starting things all over again. Yesterday we were all writing at the same time, and we were just not listening to each other. Now I can feel we are. This is good.

First, Eupator, let me ask you. You said you won't like what will come out of the final version based on my proposal. Tell me what exactly you won't like. I am not asking what you like about last version--you already said it--it's brief. I am asking what you won't like about the final version.

Second, sdedeo. I want to keep my version of the Armenia view, because I believe it contains important information. As you stated earlier, this is Wiki, and we are all reluctant on excluding important information, as long as it conforms with other standards, such as balancing views and NPOV. Now, given that we should keep the basic info on Armenian view, I believe your proposal of Azeri view gives it way too much space compared to the Armenian view. My proposal gives 2 sentences for Azeri view, 1 for EP view, and 2 for Armenian view. The Armenian and Azeri views are balanced. The "details" are balanced. Adding any more info will make it not balanced. Note that one of the details that I added to the Azeri view--that nationality of people and nature of stones is not clear--gives a very strong "weapon" to the Azeri version, it virtually blasts the only evidence that the Armenian view contains. This gives fair (and perhaps more) coverage to the Azeri view.

Grandmaster, first about fact checks. We are not fact checking the Azeri response. My complaint to the Azeri view is not that it's false, but that it introduces the Azeri view on Karabakh monuments, without giving the Armenian view. This has NPOV problems. NPOV is not about balancing responses, otherwise it would be called NPOR(response). It's NPOV(iew), we balance positions. And it's perfectly ok to edit or summarize what we take from a source. For example, if a source said "A said 'F your mama,'" it would be perfectly fine to say in Wikipedia "A cussed." A Wikipedia is not a collage--we don't cut clippings from newspapers and post them here--we take info, sometimes using their words, sometimes summarizing. We are not including all the stuff that Armenians said -- we are not spedifying UNESCO (one of organizations we appealed to), we are not repeating the phrase "cultural genocide," we are not saying "Armenians said that Azeri's intention was to erase the Armenian culture in N. " By the way, since we are excluding the Armenian view on Azeri intent (erasue of Arm. culture), it's ok to exclude the Azeri view on Armenian intent (i.e. distract from Azeri monuments).

It's not that I agreed to your version of including the distruction of Azeri monuments, I was waiting to see how you and Raffi would agree to it--Raffi kept adding "These claims on Azeri monuments have been proven false" and you kept deleting. I was merely waiting as to how you guys would resolve it.

Yes, we can create a separate article, and it will include way more details than those few sentences in my proposal. It will talk about the response by UNESCO, the history of the khachkars, the involvement of the Azeri spiritual leader, the responses by Armenian spiritual leaders--the Armenian view given by me gives minimal but important info, and the Azeri view gives balanced position of the Azeri side. And I have added alot of facts from the Azeri response (regardless of whether I believe in them or not). I ask you to consider that both parts are balanced and therefore it should be ok to include both.--TigranTheGreat 10:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tigran. As I said before, I cannot agree with Azerbaijani position being edited and important part of Azerbaijani response, which clarifies motives of this campaign, being omitted. We should either agree on a brief version or report views of both sides the way they are. Grandmaster 10:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you agree with editting of the Azeri version? We edit sources all the time--we never include the entire text of the source. We are editting the Armenian view. We are not saying the motive behind the destruction--to erase the history of Armenians in N.--TigranTheGreat 11:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it’s an important part of Azerbaijani point of view. It explains, why in the view of the Azerbaijani side this propaganda campaign was initiated. Grandmaster 11:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And your explanation of your attitude towards the existing version is also very interesting. You say “I was waiting to see how you and Raffi would agree to it”, so what would have happened if Raffi had agreed with it? If you new that he was not going to agree, what was the point in creating it? And if you were not going to agree with it if Raffi agreed, then what? You were going to withdraw edits you made yourself? It’s difficult for me to understand your position, when first you agree with the things and help to shape the version that is currently included, and then change your mind and say I helped create the current version to see how others would resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 11:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, Tigran, what I got out of that long stretch was that you are not OK with the brief paragraph. Basically, as you can tell, GM is not OK with your "summary" of Azeri responses. Are you OK with this:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction [88] [89]. The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [90].

Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as an attempt to draw attention from Armenian destruction of Azeri historical and cultural monuments in Armenia and occupied territories of Azerbaijan [91], and stating that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory [92]. They have further stated that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. [93]. The controversy is connected to the larger Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and Armenian authorities dispute many aspects of the Azeri response to the accusations [94].

I understand that you do not want the Azeri view presented more fully, but you are not going to get that: Eupator and GM both support a version where the view is presented. I hate "counting sentences", but the para above has three sentences on the Armenian view, two on the Az. response, one on the Ar. response to the Az. response. Here the compromise is that there is a "final round" of responses from the Armenian side.

We have been going around in circles here. Let me know if this is OK. If not, here is my other suggestion:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan; see Armenian-Azerbaijani destruction of cultural heritage controversy.

Finally, you can go with the Eupator/GM brief para. Please choose. If you want, propose a new version of the paragraphs above. You are aware of what GM and Eupator feel at this point, so be sure to propose something that they can live with. We'll have one final round here, with GM and Eupator weighing in on your suggestion, and then we may have to go with the separate article.

Sdedeo (tips) 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with all the versions, including Tigrans. :) I don't see why as much space is left to accusations of destructions in Nakhichevan and Karabakh. I find it irrelevent to add more than saying that Azerbaijan denies the charges. Fad (ix) 20:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fad -- do please read the length discussions prior to this. We'll wait for Tigran to weigh in, and then we'll take it from there. That we have other people showing up is, I think, an indication that we need to resolve this quickly. Sdedeo (tips) 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To say the truth, the only reason I ended up here was because I was searching something in Wikipedia about a related issue and ended up here. :) As for reading the entire issue, I have read the last discussions about it, and as far as I am aware of, accusations of destructions of monuments are common from both sides, but this last accusation was considered more than just accusations and other parties took sides by accusing Azerbaijan; this can not be dissolved by simply making of this recent accusation as similar as the previous ones from both sides, for this reason I believe that we should only point that Azerbaijan denies the charges and that more than that would be misleading, we can not give equal space for something that was recorded and that other sides have condemned Azerbaijan for it, while the previous accusations were left unheard from most part in the rest of the world. Fad (ix) 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

yet more debate

OK, so Fadix has just chimed in here. We now have Raffi (MIA for now), Eupator, GM, Tigran and Fadix.

I'm afraid I don't see how I can continue to mediate as before; not that I'm upset (Fadix has just as much right as anyone to weigh in), but that I don't think it's going to be helpful for me to be "in the middle" passing things between each other. So I'm going to try something new.

What I'm going to do at this point is step back for at most 24 hours, and ask that everyone please try to work together here. I'm going to begin with the paragraph that has the most "consensus" so far, which is:

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations [95] [96]; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction [97]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction [98].

I suggest that people begin working here. Eupator and GM have both considered this OK with them. I further suggest that the criterion for consensus be "U-1", i.e., we would need more than one objection to not go ahead. (In case people get bored and decide to leave.)

In order to get this done quickly, I suggest that people not enter into extended debate. Simply cut and paste the paragraph above, altering it, and see if you can get others to agree. Make minor alterations, and please read the talk page a little so you understand where people are coming from.

I'll come back in 24 hours and see what the paragraph has turned into. If things get resolved before that, please drop me a line on my talk page. After 24 hours, I will request that the page be unprotected with the assumption that people have matured enough not to get into edit wars. It is wrong to keep this page protected for so long (approaching a week now.) Sdedeo (tips) 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I explained my position before, it has not changed. I agreed to the brief version, but if we decide to go for a more detailed version, I disagree with editing of Azeri position. NPOV rules require equal coverage of positions of both conflicting sides, and therefore Azeri position cannot be shortened or distorted. For the moment I’m outnumbered by Armenian guys, and every time another one of them joins the discussion, we have to start it all over again. But this can’t go on forever, if we remove protection now without having the conflict resolved, I’m afraid that the revert war will resume. If Sdedeo’s efforts to achieve a compromise fail, we will have to take a next step in dispute resolution. Right now I would like to thank Sdedeo for everything he’s done so far, he was able to resolve other disputed issues. Grandmaster 05:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a weak understanding of Wikipedia neutrality policies. So according to you, that various organizations such as ICOMOS or US congressmen accusations, or that archeologists, historians and academicians signing of a petition during the American Archeological Institute's 107th annual convention heald here in Montreal... according to you, all those accusations from non Armenian parties should all be reduced to have equal coverage as the Azeris government, which its historian even denied the existance of those Armenian monuments? Or what about the resolution in January 19, 2006 from the European parlement requestion Azerbaijan to stop its destruction of Armenian cultural sites? Or what about the various newspapers, from every corners of the world? Like Italian newspapers such as La Stampa. Were you not the one heavly relying on newspapers? How many times the PACE raised the issue? Equal spaces between Armenian 'allegations' and 'Azeris allegations' OK fine, but by giving equal space to the two paragraphs you are giving more space to "Azeris allegations' because the accusation not being restricted to the Armenians, the Armenians 'allegation'is taking 1/5 of the Azeris positions space. What do you say we add internation position? As for your 'outnumbered by Armenian guys' comment, could you be kind enough to tell us what you intend by this? Fad (ix) 18:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we have two important new inputs. Yesterday Raffi deferred to my judgment (see above), and Fadix believes that the discussion of the accusations should not be extended. Therefore, I will agree with a *modified* version of the shorter version:

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations [99] [100]; the European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [101]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, disputing the clarity of the video presented by the Armenian side. [102].

The original short version I find unacceptable and violating NPOV. Since the Armenian side does not discuss the details of the video, the Azeri side should not do that either. Here, we state the Armenian side (accusation, and the evidence), the international position (EP), and Azeri side (denial, and dispute of the evidence).--TigranTheGreat 12:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Why Azerbaijani position should get less coverage than Armenian? I think that both positions should be covered equally in accordance with NPOV policies. I agreed to the previous brief version, but I don’t agree with your version. Grandmaster 12:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It gets perfectly equal coverage. Armenians accuse, and present evidence. Azeris deny, end dispute the evidence. Basic, brief, elegant. Perfectly NPOV. This is as far as I will agree.--TigranTheGreat 17:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I now see why Tigran didn't like that version. Saying the clarity is not good enough should be sufficient for Azeri view. I find the part where it says the nationality of the people is unclear laughable. They're not Norwegians. Notice that no Azeri ever disputed the location! --Eupator 17:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! Note that the segment with "no nationality, no stones" was proposed by me, and I only did it with the longer version. With the shorter version, i.e. without any details on the video in the Armenian portion, it provides too many details and too much force to the Azeri side (plus it's laughable as you said).--TigranTheGreat 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is just a waste of time. I already explained my position and said that I find your new version absolutely unacceptable. If we are not able to resolve this dispute via mediation, let’s move to the next step of dispute resolution in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Grandmaster 19:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that the arbitration committee will accept a cases over few lines of dispites, if that is what you intended of course. Fad (ix) 21:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(Stepping in briefly: don't debate, propose! Good luck. Sdedeo (tips) 17:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of 6th cc. - 1604 CE. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations [103] [104]; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction [105]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction [106].

Sdedeo, thanks again for stepping in, I think we are pretty close. I cannot log in, but it is Raffi here, and I propose the above text for discussion. It is basically Sdedeo's proposal, but briefly tells what the khachkars are - leaving the claims of the two sides as you wrote them. So, let's see what the others think of this. I think it's pretty good for the size, so what does everyone think? Also, Sdedeo, I think it's good that we put some of our background/beliefs on our user pages. Nobody can say we are covert or undercover... I stick to the truth as I know it, and am always willing to hear out counter arguements and read new sources which disagree... --60.226.156.219 10:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (RaffiKojian)

I see pointless description of the grave stones in the article, since there is an article in Wikipedia about them and we provide a link to it in the article. But with the purposes of putting an end to this endless dispute I will make another compromise. I agree with this version. Let’s move ahead. Grandmaster 13:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Raffi, from day one it was agreed by all parties that, at least in the short version, each of the 3 positions (Arm., Internationa., Az.) should get one sentence each. I think we should stick to that. Also, I believe we should put 2 details in each position--Arm (accuse, evidence), EP (call on, violation), Az. (deny, dispute evidence). This means the EP position should include the "violation of UNESCO" part, otherwise it will be underrepresented. Note that it was accepted in the version originally agreed by GM and Eupator. Also, note that both me and Eupator believe that "Azerbaijan disputes the clarity of the video" should be enough, isntead of going into the details of the video, since this is the short version. I don't think we need to specify 1604, centuries will do just fine (Kocharyan, in the linked source, says 6th-9th). I do think that the definition of khachkars as "grave-stones" (taken from an Azeri article in Regnum) is ridiculous. The definition is "historic carved cross-stones," as mentioned in EP. --TigranTheGreat 12:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, I take your points, obviously, but we need to reach a middle ground of what is mentioned, and I think this is the best we can do for now. I think if there is a description of what khachkars actually are (which Grandmaster has agreed to and I think he'd be ok with your description of "historic carved cross-stones" would be fine and in that case we wouldn't even need to mention the dates (and there ARE more recent ones all the way up until the Armenians were deported). So consider leaving out the UNESCO thing which they can get in the link, and just move on. It's up to you obviously, but I am ok with this. (and again using some wireless signal which is not secure, and so will not log in, but it is me, RaffiKojian). --60.226.156.219 19:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't need to delete the UNESCO thing for agreement. It was in the following paragraph proposed by Sdedeo and accepted by both Grandmaster and Eupator.

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations [107] [108]; the European Parliament has formally called for Azerbaijan to stop any such destruction as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [109]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction [110].

What we need to decide upon is the correct definition of Khachkars, and whether to keep the detailed "no nationality" part, which as Eupator has agreed sounds silly, or replace it with "disputing the clarity of the video presented by the Armenian side." Perhaps when you come back and get a chance to read some of the discussions, it will be easier to make a decision.--TigranTheGreat 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian historic carved cross-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations[111][112]; the European Parliament has formally called for Azerbaijan to stop any such destruction as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [113]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, disputing the clarity of the video presented by the Armenian side.[114].

How's this?--Eupator 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I agreed with the one above, but not with this one. It’s not acceptable. And Eupator, how many times a person can change his position on the things he agreed with? Grandmaster 21:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As many times as one deems necessary. Present your case now regarding why you don't agree with the last one I posted specifying the exact lines. --Eupator 21:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Simple. Azeri position is not well presented, Armenian takes a lot more space. I’m not even going to discuss this nonsense with “clarity” any more. Just a waste of time. Talk to you tomorrow. Grandmaster 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But you're not saying what you want to replace it with. Armenian lines=3, Azeri lines=2. EURO lines=2. Add one line to the Azeri reponse. Whoop dee doo.--Eupator 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, Tigran - I really think for the sake of brevity, which in this case will make the whole dispute more easily comprehendible to the uninitiated, removing the bit about UNESCO is better than adding "something" to the Azeri response... my new proposal below, though if Grandmaster is ok with "Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, disputing the clarity of the video presented by the Armenian side." instead of what I wrote below, that is his call...

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian historic carved cross-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations [115] [116]; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction [117]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction [118].--RaffiKojian 04:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I’m fine with your new proposal. Grandmaster 05:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, gentlemen, we need to address the concerns of a party to make the resolution fair and lasting. Grandmaster's concern is that the version agreed by me and Eupator does not fairly represent the Azeri view. It is a valid concern, so let's address it, before we decide about exact wordings etc. Here is the version agreed by me and Eupator:

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian historic carved cross-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations[119][120]; the European Parliament has formally called for Azerbaijan to stop any such destruction as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [121]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, disputing the clarity of the video presented by the Armenian side.[122].

Grandmaster, we understand that you are worried about unfair representation of the Azeri view. Under the rules of NPOV, when we have a minority view, and a majority view, or views of differing proportions, it is not OK to give them equal "space." Doing so is misleading. This is the rule. And this is the rule that Fadix was talking about. And if we agree on a version that goes against this rule, someone in the future, who knows about this, is going to come in, notice it, change it in accordance with rules, and we will start the edit wars again.

Under the above rule, we can't give equal treatment to Azeri view on one side, and the EP+Arm view on the other. We can give equal details to Azeri and Armenian views, and equal details to EP and Azeri views, but EP+Arm can't be equal to Azeri. Also, EP can't take less "coverage" than the Azeri view, otherwise we would be saying that EP (which represents entire europe) is less than the Azeri side. This, according to clear rules of NPOV, would be misleading.

Also, when we give equal coverage to competing views--we don't equate *space*, we equate important *details*. This again is according the NPOV rules:

Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial.

So, once we understand these basic rules, we can move on to specific wording.

Raffii, we don't need to add an additional detail to the Azeri view just to have the UNESCO view in EP. If we compare the details, in the proposal by me and Eupator, Armenia gets 2 details regarding it's views (accusation, and evidence), EP gets two (calling on Az., UNESCO), and Azerbaijan view gets 2 (deny, and dispute the evidence). This gives fair comparison of Azeri and Arm. views, and fair comparison of Azeri and EP views. Now, let's just forget about the unpleasant interactions for the past week, and just think about this. If we think calmly, I think we will agree that each view gets fair representation.--TigranTheGreat 10:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, I already stated that this version is not acceptable to me, and I see no point in repeating the same thing million times. Nobody gives equal coverage to Azeri view on one side, and the EP+Arm view on the other. Stop distorting the facts. We cover three views, Armenian, Azeri and EP. Two of them support your position, but still this is not enough for you and you try to cut Azeri position even more, despite the fact that I agreed to exclude that Azerbaijani authorities view this as a propaganda campaign to distract international attention from the destruction of Azeri monuments by Armenian side. Your position makes compromise absolutely impossible. Grandmaster 10:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is not just to have you repeat your positions but to understand and address your concerns behind your objections. We appreciate that you agreed to exclude that particular fact from the Azeri position, and we have agreed to exclude significant facts from the Armenian position. We all made sacrifices. Now, the question is, not what we sacrificed, but why you find that the paragraph above represents the Azeri view unfairly. We are cutting down the Azeri portion to make it fairly balanced with the Armenian view. Saying "Azeris dispute the clarity of the video presented by Armenians" makes it equal to the corresponding component in the Armenian section, i.e. "Armenians presented photoes and video." We talk about the evidence on general terms on both sides, without going into the details of the evidence. Again, the important part is not what we cut when, but the final result. So, in the final result, what do you find unfair about Azeris dispute the clarity of the video presented by Armenians vs. Armenians presented photoes and video.--TigranTheGreat 11:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know my opinion with regard to this proposal, please see my previous posts. In the meantime I suggest my version, which I find very balanced as you find yours.

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of destruction of khachkars at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan [123] [124]; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction [125]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as an attempt to draw attention from Armenian destruction of Azeri historical and cultural monuments in Armenia and occupied territories of Azerbaijan [126], and stating that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory [127]. They have further stated that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. [128].

I hope it’s OK with you, because as I understood from your endless rants we don’t need to fairly represent the existing views and should only insist that others would agree with our vision of the things. Grandmaster 11:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I believe in fair representation of various views, and that is why I suggested the paragraph above. The problem with your paragraph, as you I am sure understand, is that it gives 5-6 important details to the Azeri view, while Armenian and EP get 1 important detail each. This is not balanced, and is obviously against the rules.

Now, I have read every single argument that you have written, and none of them have answered why you find Azeris dispute the clarity of the video presented by Armenians vs. Armenians presented photoes and video unfair. They both talk about the evidence in general, without going into contents. We are ready to listen to your concerns, but you need to state them, and they need to be legitimate. Otherwise, we will never have a final and stable solution.--TigranTheGreat 12:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, I’m a busy person. Please don’t waste my time. I said that I don’t think this fairly represents Azerbaijani point of view and that’s enough. I don’t want to count the words, etc. you can do it yourself. I prefer to keep Azeri position the way it is now, I’ll add the link to the Azeri ambassador’s speech and a couple of good citations and Azeri position will be pretty well represented. If you think that by insisting on your version you can make me accept it you are wrong. Grandmaster 12:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, we are all busy people, and we all are trying to find a solution. The difference is that you refuse to participate in the discussion, which can only indicate that you have no valid reasons for your position, and you are simply sticking to your POV just for the sake of sticking to it. Discussion is a necessary part of any dispute resolution before even mediation can be attempted, as mandated by the Dispute Resolution policies (WP:DR). The administrators have protected this page so we talk about the disputed issues instead of engaging in edit wars. By refusing to talk, you are sabotaging the resolution process, which does not reflect well on you, and basically means you are leaving the process. In which case we will have to proceed with what we have without you. You won't get anywhere by staying away from discussion, and you won't get anywhere by resorting to insults and theatrics. Saying "I dont like this" is not a valid objection, we need to know what legitimate reasons you have. It is in your best interests not to boycot the discussions.

The rules of NPOV state that balancing views should not be based on "counting words" or "actual space." What matters are the important details of each view. So, if you have legitimate concerns, tell us what do you find unfair about "Azeris dispute the clarity of the video presented by Armenians" vs. Armenians presented photoes and video. It talks about the evidence in general terms on both sides, without going into the details of the evidence--TigranTheGreat 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t refuse to participate in discussion, but everything was discussed a million times already. You version is not acceptable, as it favors Armenian position and unnecessarily cuts down Azeri one. You removed important details and replaced it with some ridiculous words about clarity, as if Azerbaijan wants these videos on DVD or something. I said this so many times already. If you think that by insisting on this horrible version you can make me accept it you are wrong. There’s one possible solution, let’s wait for Raffi’s reaction. You can proceed without me if you wish, same as I can proceed without you. You disrupted the mediation process, insulted the person who tried to help achieve compromise, and still got the nerve to claim that I should agree to your ridiculous version. If you want to see theatrics, see your last post, addressed to Sdedeo. By the way, protection is removed, you can make your edits, and I can make mine. Mediation officially failed. Grandmaster 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying "we discussed million times" over and over doesn't mean we did. My and Eupator's version was proposed on the last day of mediation, after which you kept refusing to discuss your objections. So it couldn't possibly have been discussed. I never insulted the mediator, I explained to him why his tactics failed, which is my moral duty as an editor, and if that improves his future mediations, then I have succeeded. Mediation failed because you refused to discuss, which was encouraged by Sdedeo. If you think you will be able to avoid discussion by resorting to personal attacks, hysterics, and jumping to irrelevant topics (i.e. what was told to Sdedeo), then you are mistaken, it only weakens your position. Your best bet is to stick to discussion to resolve the issue.

This is the first time we are hearing about as if Azerbaijan wants these videos on DVD, so let's talk about it. I agree that Azerbaijan's attack on the clarity of the video's contents is ridiculous--that is not our fault, that's the fault of the Azerbaijani position, we report it whether it's ridiculous or not. Making their position more detailed won't change its ridiculous nature--their "defense" is that the contents of the video is not clear, which is an absurd defense. As Eupator agreed, specifying "nationality is not clear" makes it no less ridiculous. So, we don't need to worry about the ridiculousness of the Azeri position, that won't change. However, let me ask you this. If you want to specify the exact elements that Azeris disputed, why shouldn't the Armenian side specify the contents of the video too (e.g. it was done by soldiers). Wouldn't it be balanced (since we provide the details of the video on both sides). One form of bias disallowed by NPOV rules is when we provide an explanation of one view, but omit an explanation of the opposite view:

Biased or selective representation of sources, eg: Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

So, in your proposed solution, we are saying why Azeris think the evidence doesn't support the Armenian claims ("nationality not clear"), but are omitting why the same evidence would dispute this position (i.e. there are soldiers in the video, hence it's unlikely that non-Azeri soldiers would do this on an Azeri land). This is an example of impermissable bias. So, if we are omitting the details on soldiers (in the Armenian side), why shouldn't we omit the details on the Azeri side?--TigranTheGreat 11:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Raffi, by the way, the EP section needs to be corrected as it's inaccurate. It distorts the language and meaning of the EP Resolution. The Resolution doesn't say stop "any such" destruction, it says stop "the" destruction of the monuments:

[actual text of EP Res.] 67. Calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to put an end the demolition of medieval Armenian cemeteries and historic carved stone crosses in southern Nakhichevan, which is in breach of the terms of its 1993 ratification of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention;[129]

"any such destruction" sounds as if "we don't know if you are destroying, but if you do, stop." Whereas the actual resolution makes it clear that the EP believes the destructions are going on. There are two ways to correct this. Either this:

The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop these destructions as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.

Or to put the relevant part in quotation marks so the intention of the EP resolution is not distorted:

The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan "to put an end to the demolition of" of these khachkars and cemeteries as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.

Let me know what you think (Eupator too).--TigranTheGreat 19:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian historic carved cross-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations [130] [131]; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop the demolition [132]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction [133].

I have changed the last version GM has agreed to in order to reflect this correction. I think what we have above is ok to use in the article, Tigran. It is factual, it is brief, and it is linked to sources. If ppl want more info on the EP resolution, they can click on it, if they want more info on the Azeri position, they can click on it, and if you are willing to write a much more detailed article on the whole affair, that would be great too. I would of course like to see UNESCO mentioned, but for now, for the sake of compromise, I think we have something that we can use... Also, since this version is much closer in any event to an agreement than the one currently sitting on the page, I think it should be put it on there. --RaffiKojian 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Raffi, the UNESCO part was included in the version agreed to by GM, Eupator, and Sdedeo, so it does not need to go for compromise. Here, take a look:

OK, as far as I can tell we have a resolution of the dispute. We have two paragraphs:

Nakhichevan's border with Armenia has been closed since 1989; the border was closed by Armenia in retaliation to Azerbaijan's closure of the rest of its borders as part of a larger conflict the two countries were involved in (see Nagorno-Karabakh.) [134]

and

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations [135] [136]; the European Parliament has formally called for Azerbaijan to stop any such destruction as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [137]. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction [138].

which are the consequences of a long series of negotiations between the two sides.

The disputed part was how detailed should Azeri position be. Now, since I am not actively involved on this page, and since you will be the one dealing with GM on this article, I will defer to your judgment as that of a fellow Armenian brother. Whatever you decide, I want it to be an informed decision. I want you to know that the rules are on your side with respect to the Azeri section--if we are saying "nationality and nature of stones not clear," the rules would allow us to include "video shows soldiers doing demolition," just for balance. Also, given GM's uncompromising stance and refusal to discuss, I want you to think whether you want to reward that kind of behavior. Now, if you still want to reach a quick compromise and make the sacrifice re Azeri position, that's fine with me, I will respect your decision.--TigranTheGreat 21:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, you make some strong points... so let's give GM another day to stop ignoring this thread and discuss. If he continues to ignore this, we can then move on without his input. --RaffiKojian 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

stopping mediation

Hello all --

OK, it seems that I haven't succeeded in mediating a compromise even though we've been at this for seven days.

The principle problem, from my point of view, is that people have not been amenable to compromise, and instead of presenting alternative solutions, have generally "stuck to their guns." There are a number of good solutions here, but none of them have been OK'd by all of the people involved. WP:NPOV doesn't really give precise guidance here at this low level; in general, the dispute is because people think one side is being made to look bad. I promise that this is illusory, but I don't think I'd be believed.

It is also a problem that many people have clearly identified, here and on their user pages, that they have a particular POV that they wish to promote. This is a very bad thing, IMO. I would suggest that people remove this material from their user pages; it is inappropriate (although now common) to describe one's political views on wikipedia, and it leads to problems.

On the other hand, good faith efforts have been made by everyone involved here. People have been civil, which is great, and people have gotten much better at providing sources when they make points.

What I am going to do at this point, because I don't believe I am helping, is halt the mediation. I will then request page unprotection. I suggest people begin editing the page again. I expect people to be controversial, but I should say that you should not get into edit wars. Do not revert each other; allow the article to evolve. I can promise, promise, promise you that going to formal arbitration is not going to help very much, and is going to waste everyone's time.

We do have a minor solution to the borders sentence; please put that in (the text is above) once the admins get around to unprotecting the page.

Good luck reaching a solution, and thank you all for giving it a shot with me. If you haven't already, I suggest reading the "tips" page appended to my signature.

Sdedeo (tips) 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sdedeo. I would like to thank you for what you’ve done, you did really a good job and helped find a solution for the most of the disputed issues. Unfortunately, some people see this resource as a haven for propaganda, and managed to disrupt the efforts to achieve the compromise, which was almost agreed. But I can reiterate that I cannot agree to Azerbaijani position to be reduced to minimum and Armenian propaganda take most of the space. This was a real good chance to find a solution for the dispute and stop endless revert wars, but the chance was lost. Anyway, thanks again and I hope you will be checking this page from time to time to offer your advise on disputed issues. Regards, Grandmaster 05:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, throughout this discussion, you kept removing segments from the Armenian portion of paragraphs, while I kept offering addition of points to the Azeri portion, my goal being to make sides balanced, to which you resisted rigidly. I say that shows your intention to minimize the Armenian view and push the Azeri one. I do not blame you, however, as it's largely Sdedeo's fault. Your position became uncompromising due to his blatant partiality and overall incompetence. I understand you want to praise him, but the fact is his mediation did damage to both parties and their relationships (gee, I wonder when we have seen that happen, say, for the past 100 years at least). I know you will keep defending him and yourself, but my goal is not to lay blames. I believe we can still recover the damage done by Sdedeo and work together. I believe we all should take a couple of days off, it will help us regain some perspective. I also think that if we ever try to resort to dispute resolution on this issue, we need to start over--please read WP:DR--there is a host of steps (RFC, voting, informal mediation) before even trying something like this. To achieve maximum consensus, we need to try the available initial steps first. Before that, we should try to work with each other, and before that, we need to take break. --TigranTheGreat 12:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, first, I appreciate the time you took to attempt the mediation.

Second, I believe the mediation failed largely because of you. You failed to do your job as a mediator and relegated your duties first to an advocate of one side, and then to a mere copier.

• You damaged the process by taking sides (giving green light to one party's offers, while trying to put pressure on the other), you further violated your duty of neutrality by applying rules with inconsistency. This had a huge effect on some parties "sticking to their guns."

• You failed to even address concerns and arguments made throughout discussion, or to correct obvious misunderstanding and misapplication of rules by some parties. Instead, you acted as a mere copier of the proposals made by various parties. We don't need a copier, we can do it ourselves, we wanted a neutral mediator. This was a lazy approach, which brought the mediation to a dead end, prevented any progress in mutual understanding and thus a possible compromise.

• You further broke your own professed rules of "assuming good faith" and "civility,"--from day one you assumed that the parties here were just POV-pushers guided by "passion" instead of reason, even making some quite juvenile remarks (e.g. "you will have matured enough"). Such condescending prejudice sabotages your own job and inevitably puts parties on defensive, destroying any chances of a compromise.

• In fact, the dispute here was not even ripe for a formal mediation, there are several other stages that parties need to go through before one (WP:DR), the parties here didn't know that, but you did, and it was your duty to suggest that we try those, which you failed to do.

In sum, you did much more damage than good to an already tense relationship, and we will need some time to repair it. I believe at this stage, you have no job doing mediations. I suggest that you seriously consider not attempting your seventh one, at least not until you read what I have just wrote (calmly), and consider incorporating it into your practice.

Thank you.--TigranTheGreat 12:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tigran, but in my opinion the only reason the meditaion fails is your unconstructive maximalist position and unwillingness to let the other (Azeri) side of the conflict to fairly state it’s case, which is the requirement of NPOV policy. Several times you disrupted the compromise between me and other Armenian editors, and keeping on doing it right now. So instead of blaiming the mediator check the history of the discussion and see how many times your position prevented achievment of a compromise. Regards, Grandmaster 13:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As an editor on this article and a party of mediation, I have the right to voice my concerns on propositions that I see problematic, even if other parties agree on it. Noone has to just accept something for granted if he sees serious issues with it. As the discussion above shows, the version that you and Eupator initially agreed upon actually did have problems. I could just as well blame you for the disruption, since you did not agree to my version, to which Eupator would have agreed as well. In fact my versions are quite balanced, and you have persistently rejected them, instead trying to take away as much as possible from the Armenian view. However, whatever position each party holds, it is the obligation of a mediator not to take sides, to listen to different sides, to guide parties through the applicable rules, and to resolve obvious misunderstandings. This mediator has failed on all counts. --TigranTheGreat 13:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

“My version is balanced” etc is just your point of view. I don’t find your versions balanced and think that they have heavy bias. You can blame me, you can blame the mediator, you can blame everybody else and find no faults with yourself, but if you really want to move forward and not to return to the stage of revert wars, which is why this article was protected, you should make a step towards compromise and stop pushing your POV at any cost. Sorry, but I still think that it is you to blame that we have a stalemate situation here. Grandmaster 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The revert war actually wasn't between you and me, you got yourself into it before I even intervened. In fact my earlier intervention helped resolve some of the issues that you were unnecesarily fighting over. Your constant attempts to take away information on Armenians is the best manifestation of you trying to push your POV. Your constant referral to the Armenian-related info as "propaganda" is another. Compromise doesn't mean accepting your POV, it means balancing views, which I have proposed, and you have rejected. Until you learn this, you will always get into revert wars.--TigranTheGreat 14:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So you think it’s because of me all the revert wars started. Fine. Just note that the only edit wars I got into are this article and the one for Karabakh, with the same editors as here, and mind you, those are not the only ones I edit. And you proposals were so out of touch with reality that there was not a slight chance that I could take them seriously. If you make proposals knowing that they won’t be acceptable for the other party, it’s nothing but a sabotage of the mediation process. I’ve been accused of many things, but you failed to prove my guilt in anything so far. And it was Raffi who applied for mediation, I never knew Sdedeo before, you guys brought him here, and now you started attacking him for not supporting your position and blaming your failure to substantiate your claims on him. It’s simply not a nice behavior. I’m not going to defend Sdedeo, he can do that himself if he wishes so, though obviously he sees no point in engaging in such useless discussions. I just think that you should have some courage to accept the outcome of the process which was started by your fellow Armenian editors, or else move to the next step of dispute resolution without personal attacks on the mediator. Take care. Grandmaster 06:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)