Talk:Shusha/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Transfer/grant. 2 Fighting in Shusha in March 1920 3 Dispute 4 Use of the past tense 5 The right to write somewhere that Republic of Artzakh (Mountainous Karabakh) is a part of Azerbaidjan 6 Shushi Coat of Arms 6.1 Conflict with Persia 7 Name 8 stop political propagand! 9 Citation tags 10 Pre-Turkic (Armenian) History of Shushi Should Be Included 11 Panahabad 12 Shoushi 13 Undo 14 Tourist and historic sites/Prominent people 15 Roofless Buildings? 16 anon 17 List of names 18 Coat of Arms

Transfer/grant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another quote, this time from an Armenian source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even pro Azeri Cornell states:

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

Same pro-Armenian Walker you are referring to says:

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

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

Grandmaster 10:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Fighting in Shusha in March 1920

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute

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

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

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

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

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

The dispute is over this paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text of the Treaty of Kars: [1] And Cornell lists Azerbaijani territories, claimed by Dashnaks. Grandmaster 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, there were only 2 Treaties signed between Turkey and Russia at that time, Treaty of Moscow and Treaty of Kars. I provided the text of the Treaty of Kars, and here’s the text of the Treaty of Moscow (in Russian): [2] and its description in the Armenian website (also in Russian): [3] As you can see, it says nothing about Karabakh. Grandmaster 06:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

What the heck? No reliable source? Is Karabekir the compagion of arm of Ataturk a reliable source, is General Halil, the oncle of Enver the Ottoman minister of war a reliable source, is the German General Paraquin a reliable source? The nationalists have lunched a campagn to destroy the Armenian population of Karabakh and won't stop until having the garantee that Karabakh won't end up in any Armenian entity. The penetrated Karabakh and tried destroying the Armenian defense, supported by the local Tartars. In any cases, the Turkish excurtion in Karabakh which is also recorded in German archives should be added. Fad (ix) 17:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Once again, check the texts of both treaties and try finding any reference to Karabakh. Even the Armenian site describing the treaty never mentions Karabakh [4]. Also, both Cornell and Walker agree that NK was left in Azerbaijan, but you object to inclusion of that info. I don't think such selective use of sources is acceptable. Grandmaster 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Treaty of brotherhood had many parts which were discussed underground, still not available the military deals between both states. What speaks volume is that it was enough for Turkey to retreat from Karabakh, it is impossible that a territory from where they have retreated after an accord was not discussed. Fad (ix) 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The source discusses all three in the same breath. - Francis Tyers · 13:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a OCD software? I'll send you Der Turanismus der Jungtürken. Zur osmanischen Außenpolitik im Weltkriege by Gotthard Jäschke (Die Welt des Islams, Bd. 23, H. 1/2 (1941), pp. 1-54), the author refers to Zangezur. To compare Zangezur with the other two, the dispute should be as strong, when there was no real issue. At first Zangezur wasn't even an Azeris request but an Ottoman one, which wanted it under its Turanist plans. Zangezur was defended by the official Armenian army reconized by the US as well as the League of Nations. Also, the Bolshevics not at any time ever raised the possibility that Zangezur could ever be a part of Azerbaijan, it was Narimanov, who also had claims over half of the territories now constituting the republic of Armenia, should we add the word disputed or granted over those terriroties article? The Turks presented this proposition as a compromises because they could not get it. The Russians categorically rejected it, making it clear that they will never permit Azerbaijan and Turkey being linked together. Nakhichevan disputes was based on the fact that Nakhichevan was part of Russian 'Erivan' and had no border with Azerbaijan, in fact the Sèevres map doesn't even cut it even though there was no Eastern border drawn. Karabakh dispute was based on various historic considerations, also legal ones, as it formed its own government according to the Hagues. A government which was defended by an army. Zankezur was never a real issue, even the British when having placed a Tartar as a governor of Karabakh, when trying to please the Tartars, haven't placed a governor to Zankezur, they rather extended this same governors power. Fad (ix) 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't speak (or read) German. We aren't comparing Zangezur, the source is. - Francis Tyers · 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

To add that Zankezur was already officially been administred by the US recognized Armenia's republic. Fad (ix) 07:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How about leave out both Zangezur and Nakhichevan, since this is about Shushi? And francis, why don't we forget about the text of the treaty altogether-it's one of those things distracting from discussion. The article doesn't claim NK was partof the treaty. It only states that Turkey pressured. Both Cornell and Walker state it. So, Turkey's pressure in giving NK to Az. should be there.--TigranTheGreat 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The article briefly mentions the arrangements, which left NK and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan and Zangezur to Armenia. The fate of these 3 disputed regions was decided by the Soviets as part of the same package. According to many sources, including Armenian, Soviets implemented divide and rule policy, that’s why both states were unsatisfied with the final arrangement. For instance, Azerbaijan was not happy that Nakhichevan was separated from Azerbaijan proper, and Armenia was not happy that it did not receive all the lands it claimed. As for Zangezur, I would like to remind Fadix, that we need to quote our sources. A quote from a UNO source:

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region to which both Azerbaijan and Armenia claim historical ties stretching back centuries. However, the roots of the present conflict can be traced to the early twentieth century. After the Russian revolution, Azerbaijan and Armenia fought as newly independent States over Nagorno-Karabakh. The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 recognized Azerbaijan's claim to the territory. After Azerbaijan and Armenia were incorporated in the Soviet Union, this territorial arrangement for Nagorno-Karabakh was retained, while Armenia was awarded the district of Zangezur which had connected Azerbaijan to its westernmost region of Nakhichevan.

Report of the Representative of the Secretary General, Mr. Francis M. Deng, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/50 [5] Grandmaster 06:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with GM here, it seems to me that these disputed territories were all dealt with under the same roof so to speak. One was played off against the other. So we should include all or none. Personally I don't see what the problem is. Does this mortally wound the Armenian case or something? - Francis Tyers · 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How one could agree, when Grandmaster present a quote he knows himself to not be accurate. We've been there, The League of Nations didn't recognize de Jure Azerbaijan, it refused the recognize it. The League of Nations never ever recognzed Nagorno-Karabakh as Azerbaijan territory, I have already presented records of that period, primary sources, and both you and Grandmaster were present so both of you know that Mr. Francis M. Deng submitted report is contrary to the League of Nations official records, which until the end still called it a disputed territory which fate should be decided between Azerbaijan and Armenia. [6] If one should add Zangezur, one should say that it was disputed for Azerbaijan, since neither the Bolshevics neither any parties presented it as disputed. It is not a missing of the Eastern borders of Sevres, it is South, where the borders were drawn, and it was never presented as disputed.

To present a disputed nature of Zangezur, Grandmaster present quote which is contradicted by the body(League of Nations) mentioned. Even some Azeris sources accept this by referring to a treaty. (A. Sh. Mil'man, Azerbaidzhan SSR—Suverenoe gosudarstvo v sostave SSSR (Baku: Azerneshr, 1971), pp. 223-24.)

Beside, the issue is not more about the disputed nature of Zangezur, but the claim that the Soviet tried pleasing both, he has yet to document this, he is diverting the subject by bringing the dispited nature of Zangezur. The Bolshevics didn't accept Zankezur as part of Armenia to please Armenians, it was already in the control of Armenians, it was controled by the official Armenian Army of the republic. In 1920, already the Bolshevics were officially recognizing it as part of Armenia, and even A. Sh. Mil'man recognize that. On the other hand, the Armenian army in Karabakh, the Armenian government was reversed and the land given to Azerbaijan. This is the distinction, and it is an important one. Again I stress to the fact that bringing the disputed nature is a diversion. It is documented that the Bolshevics recognized Zangezur as part of Armenia, because there was no question that it would go to either Azerbaijan or Turkey, since it would link both, this was the reason and NOT to please Armenians, you can not please by granting what they already controled. The Soviet paid plenty by granting Turkey various arms, bullets and rubles to not provide them such a link (Zangezur). On the other hand, Nakhichevan was in Russian Erivan, this was official, and the Sevres map did not provide any provision for that, neither any official documents. The issue was only once rased after the Turkish army penetrated it and handed it to the Tartars who were now armed to launch an attack against the Armenians. In the Karabakh cases it was the same, Karabakh was controled by the Armenians, and by force it was given to Azerbaijan. Now, if you could just ask Grandmaster to provide the sources which would undo official recognized history about why Zangezur was accepted as part of Armenia, it will be great. Fad (ix) 17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're trying to say that the three regions were not disputed and not under the control of the Soviet Union and then not assigned to Armenia/Azerbaijan? - Francis Tyers · 23:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Zangezur fall was with the republic of Armenia, and during its fall right away was recognized as part of Armenia. But again, my point was that Zangezur was not given to Armenia to please Armenians. Grandmaster present this as if Nakhichevan and Karabakh were given to Azerbaijan and Zangezur to Armenia to please both. This is the main issue here. This is not accurate. Why Zankezur was to remain in Armenia is considered official history and the reasons are covered in various publications. Zankezur was requested by Turkey to link Turkdom, they then under the impossibility of obtaining it pressurised to have it attached to Azerbaijan. The Soviet Union refused, because it considered a strategic danger that Turkey get a direct access to Azerbaijan. They agreed for Nakhichevan which was previously part of Erivan 'province' but refused for Zankezur. This decision had nothing to do with pleasing Armenia, it was simply a strategic impossibility to accept this. There is no way that Armenians could have been pleased to have a land which fate had been already decided by the Soviet Union before the final decisions regarding Nakhichevan and Nagorno Karabakh. Fad (ix) 02:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So what you're trying to say is that Zangezur discussed in the negotiations with Turkey and then wasn't assigned to Azerbaijan because it would have been politically impossible? - Francis Tyers · 09:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Zangezur fate was decided in 1920, before those of Nakhichevan and Karabakh, so it was not a decision to please both, as it was already decided that Turkey and Azerbaijan could not have access with eachothers. Fad (ix) 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So if it is discussed why shouldn't it be mentioned, along with the other two? - Francis Tyers · 16:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that everybody agrees with is that Zangezur had an Azeri governor, appointed by the British command. This proves that the region was not part of Armenia and was attached to the latter after the Soviet occupation. Now whether that was made to please Armenia or there were other motives as well, we don’t know. Neither the role of Turkey in the issue of Karabakh is obvious. We know that Turkey played a significant role in the fate of Nakhichevan, as the status of the province was defined in the Kars treaty. But Karabakh was different, no official documents establishing the role of Turkey exist, therefore it’s only a speculation. I suggest removing the statement about appeasing Turkey and Armenia and just provide a factual statement that Soviets left Nakhichevan and NK to Azerbaijan and Zangezur to Armenia. I propose the following edit: Moscow agreed to a division under which Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under control of Azerbaijan, and Zangezur would be under control of Armenia or something to that effect. Grandmaster 07:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Zangezur had no apointed governor, it was the apointed governor of Karabakh who was asked to temporarly manage the place while the British were evacuating. I pointed to an Azeris work which mention that in 1920, the fate of Zangezur was already drawn, and was never reversed back, while those of Karabakh AND Nakhichevan had to be still decided. Your proposition suggest that the same agreements concerned both, which is not accurate. Fad (ix) 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to say "Zangezur would be under control of Armenia since it was already Armenian control. Why don't you say "Ganja province was put under Azerbaijani control" you won't say that right, you would say it already was under Azerbaijani control. The same goes with Zangezur. Also you said "Turkey played a significant role in the fate of Nakhichevan" than that means Soviets wanted to appeas Turkey if they didn't want to appeas Turkey than they would have given Nakhichevan or Karabakh to Armenia. ROOB323 07:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, Zangezur had an Azeri governor and was not part of Armenia, I cited sources stating that it was attached to Armenia by the Soviets. And role of Turkey in Karabakh issue is not obvious, as there’s no official document attesting to that, while the status of Nakhichevan was indeed stipulated in the Kars treaty. Grandmaster 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less whether it is included or not. But as Fadix points out they were all discussed at the same time, so if one is included they all should be, to contextualise. - Francis Tyers · 16:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote, Zankezur was already accepted as part of Armenia in 1920 by the Bolshevics and the decision was never reversed, while the fate of Nakhichevan and Karabakh were still under discussion. We can not include Zangezur as if it was an exchange of territory or something such as to suggest that it was done to please both, since Zangezur was already decided shall remain in Armenia and was final in 1920. Narimanov protests were never considered by the Bolshevics. Various works totally excludes Zankezur (example, A Conflict Analysis of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Dispute, Niall M. Fraser; Keith W. Hipel; John Jaworsky; Ralph Zuljan, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), pp. 652-677) as being part of the disputed territory, this same work also meantion the inclusion of Karabakh and Nakhichevan in Azerbaijan as motivated by two considerations, Turkey related and economic. Fad (ix) 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To say "Zangezur had an Azeri governor and was not part of Armenia" is the wrong way to support your argument. He was appointed by the British without any regards to the Armenian population. If the governor is from a different nationality governing certean territory, that does not mean that the territory belongs to the country which ever that governor is from. US states have Mexican nationality governors that doesn't mean those states belong to Mexico. That is a bad argument to make that you just did. ROOB323 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, you yourself say that there were no clearly defined borders between the two countries when they were independent. If it so, then according to your logic the borders were set up by the Soviets, which means that Zangezur was made part of Armenia by the Soviets. Which is what the original version of this article said. Was it early 1920 or later, doesn’t really matter. What matters is that the borders were established by the Soviets, and Armenia received Zangezur, which was under Azerbaijani administration during the period of independence. Grandmaster 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis, Fadix is merely saying that 1) while Zangezur was disputed, it was firmly under Armenian control, and 2) it was recognized as part of Armenia in 1920, not alongside with Nakh. and NK. Point 1 is stated in both Cornell (who says Armenians remained in control of Zangezur throughout the period) and Walker (who says that the appointment of Azeri governor was never materialized, both quotes are provided earlier on this page). And point 2 was actually proven by GM on the NK talk page--he provided some Azeri site with an agreement between Armenia and Russia, where Russia recognized Zangezur as part of Armenia.

If, on the other hand, by "roof" you mean the whole period of 1920-21, then Kars and Qasakh (modern northwestern azerbaijan, taken from Armenia) were too decided "Under the same roof," and should be mentioned as well.

Now, we can argue forever whether Zangezur was Armenian or not, each side presenting more and more quotes just like on the NK talk page, until you and everyone else is confused. I am saying, let's avoid all of that, let's recognize that this is a page about Shushi, and all that is relevant is how NK ended up with Azerbaijan. It's the easy way out.--TigranTheGreat 09:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Qazakh was part of Ganja governorate and was never transferred to Azerbaijan. It had an Azeri majority and has always been part of ADR. As for Zangezur, as I said before, there were 3 territories to which both sides laid claims. You are using double standards again, referring to Walker, who says that Zangezur was attached to Armenia by the Soviets. Plus I cited other sources proving that Zangezur was ceded to Armenia by the Soviet government. We have this same dispute in every article about NK, so let’s resolve it once and for all, because omitting it from this article is not a solution, this issue will resurface in other article. Grandmaster 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you could technically say that Qazakh was transferred (or at least "re-transferred") to Azerbaijan. It was a disputed territory between the Democratic Republic of Armenia (DRA) and the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR). In order to resolve the territorial dispute, Oliver Wardrop, British Chief Commissioner in the South Caucasus, assigned the former Elisavetpol and Baku governorates to Azerbaijan (the former of which included Qazakh, Karabakh, and Zangezur) and the Erivan and Kars governates to Armenia (which included Nakhichevan). Both Armenia and Azerbaijan disliked this deal as both did not wish to give up their claims to the disputed territories. By March 1920 Armenia had taken control of Qazakh as well as Zangezur and Nakhichevan (in 1907 Armenians made 39% of Qazakh's population - substantial enough to garner some support for a union with the DRA). It remained under Armenian control until it was transferred back to Azerbaijan in 1931. Armenia was then assigned Lori in compensation. This trade seems fair as Qazakh held an Azeri majority and Lori held an Armenian majority.

Going back to an earlier statement on the Treaty of Kars, I was wondering, how was it favorable to Armenia? They lost Ardahan, Kars, the ruins of Ani, and Mount Ararat to Turkey and their claims to Sharur and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan. In fact, I fail to see how these terms are at all favorable to the Armenians who had suffered more than anyone in the whole region (given the Hamidian massacres, the Armenian Genocide, the wars, the disease, the famine, the poverty, the reugees, etc.) To my knowledge, Karabakh and Zangezur were not part of the Kars deal. The fate of those territories were decided specfically by the Soviet government without Turkey or any other foreign power's influence (as was the case with the decision over Nakhichevan). Thus, the Kars treaty could have not been made to "appease Armenia" as it was devoid of anything favorable to the Armenians. It was more like an "appease Turkey" treaty with the Soviets viewing the loss of Kars, Ardahan, etc. as little more than "a few miles of territory." -- Clevelander 11:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No one says that Kars treaty was favorable to Armenia, you probably misread that discussion. Kars treaty was brought up by Tigran but the article never mentioned it. The thing is that by the decision of the Soviets Armenia was awarded Zangezur, Azerbaijan was awarded Nakhichevan, and Karabakh was left within Azerbaijan. Further to our discussion with Tigran, here’s the official agreement between Armenia and Soviet Russia, which says:

Войсками РСФСР занимаются спорные области: Карабах, Зангезур и Нахичевань, за исключением полосы, определённой настоящим соглашением для расположения войск Республики Армении.

The troops of RSFSR occupy the disputed territories: Karabakh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan, except for the strip, allocated by this treaty for stationing of the troops of the Republic of Armenia. [7]

As you can see, Zangezur was not under the Armenian control. It was occupied by Russia, who later transfered it to Armenia. As for Kazakh uyezd, the Armenian foces controlled only Armenian-populated part of it, including Ijevan and Dilijan, but not the town of Kazakh. The above document says that the Armenian troops shoud stay in Kazakh uyezd at the line, controlled by them since 30 July, which means that not the whole of Kazakh was under Armenian control. So yes, that uyezd was later split between the two republics, each gaining the areas with respective population, but that was not the same situation as with the 3 major disputed areas. Grandmaster 12:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but before the Bolsheviks invaded Armenia, Zangezur was under the control of the Democratic Republic of Armenia. -- Clevelander 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, where did you find this information on Kazakh? I read Russian and I couldn't find your assertions in the document you presented. -- Clevelander 21:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the proposed edit: Moscow agreed to a division under which Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under control of Azerbaijan, and Zangezur would be under control of Armenia. It says nothing about appeasing anyone, as there's not enough evidence for that. Grandmaster 12:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution to me, but it should be rephrased to show that the action was Moscow's full responsibility. Right now, it sounds as if they were agreeing (or complying) with a treaty by another foreign nation. This was strictly an internal affair of the Soviet Union and should be presented to the reader as such. -- Clevelander 21:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, are we quored? - Francis Tyers · 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this?: Needing to appease Turkey, Moscow agreed to a division under which Karabakh would be under control of Azerbaijan. --TigranTheGreat 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The decision to make Karabakh part of Azerbaijan had little to do with Turkey. The decision was based on the fact that Joseph Stalin, acting People's Commissar for Nationalities of the Caucasus Bureau (Kavburo) had a close friendship with Azeri Bolshevik Nariman Narimanov and that the anti-Soviet uprising of Armenians in Zangezur left a mark on Moscow. It would be probably more appropriate to say that the fates of Nakhichevan and Sharur were made to appease Turkey (they would obtain a strip of territory from the latter in order to secure an expedient border with Azerbaijan). In any case, I say we re-word it like so:

Moscow ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by placing Karabakh and Nakhichevan under the control of Azerbaijan, and Zangezur would be under the control of Armenia.

How's that? -- Clevelander 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We have at least two sources stating that it had to do with Turkey as much as it did with Stalin. So it's a verifiable info.--TigranTheGreat 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of this before. What was Turkey's role exactly and what references do you have? -- Clevelander 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkey's role is a fact. Both Cornell and Walker agree to it. And Zangezur always remained under Armenian control, as Cornell states. "Russians occupied" means the troops of Armenia left. But local Armenian troops stayed.--TigranTheGreat 22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I refer to the official documents here. Accoridng to them, Armenia agreed that Russia would occupy all the disputed regions, which means that they were not under the Armenian control by the time the decision was made. I agree with Clevelander, we can say that Turkey played a certain role in the fate of Nakhichevan, but it had nothing to do with Karabakh. There’s not a single official document demonstrating the role of Turkey in the decisions over Karabakh. We may have sources mentioning Turkey, but there are also sources that say nothing about Turkey. Soviets (and not only Stalin, who did not even vote) pursued divide and rule policy, and that’s why Zangezur was left to Armenia, and Karabakh was left to Azerbaijan. In the end, both sides were unhappy and the conflict was frozen for another several decades. Grandmaster 06:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly are these official documents? I don't doubt that the Kazakh uyezd was eventually patitioned between Armenia and Azerbaijan (in fact, that should be added to the Qazakh article which makes it sound as if the entire uyezd was ceded to Azerbaijan while only half of it was). However, where does it explicitly state that Armenia only occupied a portion of the area and not the whole thing? Pre-1931 maps of the South Caucasus show it to be completely under Armenian control. -- Clevelander 11:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleve, the quotes of Walker and Cornell have been posted on the page. Just text search for walker and cornell, and you will quickly find. Both authors state that Turkey pushed Soviets to give NK to Az. When two opposing authors state the same thing, we can take it as fact.

As for Zangezur, it was recognized as part of Armenia in 1920, long before the NK issue. Here is Walker on the Russo-Armenian aggreement of 12/1920:

(iii) Soviet Russia recognises as Armenia: the province of Yerevan; part of Kars province (to ensure military control of the railway from Jajur to Araxes stations); the Zangezur district, part of the Kazakh and Tiflis districts;

Before that, Armenia had agreed to Soviet occupation of Zangezur, and Zangezur had remained under Armenian control. Cornell states it quite clearly.--TigranTheGreat 08:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Armenia had agreed to Soviet occupation of Zangezur, and Zangezur had remained under Armenian control. Does it make any sense? If Soviets occupied Zangezur, how it could remain under the Armenian control? The treaty between Russia and Armenia, existence of which Tigran denied in NK article talks, was concluded after Narimanov’s telegrams on ceding the disputed territories to Armenia. So the Soviets granted that territory to Armenia, and it does not matter if it was in 1920 or later. The article does not say that the decisions on all the 3 territories was made at the same time, it just says that it was made by the Soviets. As for Turkey, Tim Potier and other sources say nothing about Turkey. And if you use Cornel and Walker as a source for this paragraph, we should also use the wording they both agree on, i.e. Karabakh was left within Azerbaijan. I see no point in selective approach. Grandmaster 10:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A Conflict Analysis of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Dispute, Niall M. Fraser; Keith W. Hipel; John Jaworsky; Ralph Zuljan, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), pp. 652-677 never mention Zankezur, like various other sources, it also present two reasons about allowing Karabakh and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan, Turkey and economic. Like various other sources too. As for your point, Armenia was occupied, how did it remain under the control of itself? What you say does not make any sense. It is accepted that Turkey had a major, key, and even prime role in the decision. I already provided the list of things Turkey recieved by the Bolshevics in 1921, nthe same year Nakhichevan and Karabakh fate was settled. So both of my points stick, (Zankezur could not be presented in parallel) and that Turkey had a key role in the decision. Not to mention it invaded both Nakhichevan and Karabakh and that the terms of the evacuation has still to be made public. Fad (ix) 21:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to Fadix' points--here is a logic lesson for GM--just because you agree to something, doesn't mean you get it. Armenian forces continued occupying Zangezur through 1921. And the Arm-Russ. aggrement says nothing about granting Z to A.--TigranTheGreat 21:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I already provided quotes, stating that Zangezur was ceded or attached to Armenia by the Soviets, among them Walker, to whom Tigran referred. Here’s another one:

Territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan became evident already during the brief period of independence in 1918-20. The contested areas were Karabakh and Nakhichevan, as well as Zangezur which was ceded to Armenia by Russia. The former two territories remained the cause of disagreement.

E. Wayne Nafziger, Frances Stewart, Raimo Vayrynen. War, Hunger and Displacement (Wider Studies in Development Economics) ISBN 0198297408

And Zangezur along with other disputed regions was under the Russian occupation, I provided the text of the agreement between Armenia and Russia, which states that Russian forces would take all those areas under their control. There's no evidense to the contrary. So Tigran's statement that Zangezur was under the Armenian control is baseless and not supported by any evidence. As for the role of Turkey, it is just one of the versions, while there are many others. There’s not a single official document that supports this version. The most common explanation of the motives for the territorial arrangement is that the Soviets implemented the divide and rule policy. More quotes:

The Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent collapse of imperial tsarist power prompted Armenia and Azerbaijan to declare their independence in May 1918. No longer monitored by an imperial presence, violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan erupted, centering around the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which was then, as now, a part of Azerbaijan. When given the opportunity, the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh attempted to separate themselves from Azerbaijan. When the Soviets regained power over the Caucasus in 1920, both Armenia and Azerbaijan contested the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. On 4 July 1921 the Caucasian Bureau of the Communist Party seemed to settle the dispute by voting to transfer Nagorno-Karabakh to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. Yet the next day, in what many have called a deliberately ambiguous response, the decision was overturned and the region was transferred to Azerbaijani control. Stalin went against the wishes of both the Armenians and Azerbaijanis and created the Autonomous Oblast of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan on 24 July 1923. By creating a situation that pitted Armenians against their Azerbaijani neighbors, Stalin hoped that ethnic quarrels would deter plots against the Soviet Union itself.

John R. Galvin. European Security Institutions: Ready for the Twenty First Century? ISBN 1574882112

Despite the changing demographic balance which Russia had influenced by resettling Armenians from Iran and Turkey in the region, Russia never recognized the Armenian factor of Nagorno Karabakh, but considered it a part of Azerbaijan. The Bolsheviks first planned to cede the region to Armenia, but reversed their stand in 1923 when the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was established and placed under Azerbaijan's jurisdiction (in 1930 the common border between the oblast and Armenia was abolished). This decision was based on Moscow's divide-and-rule policy.

E. Wayne Nafziger, Frances Stewart, Raimo Vayrynen. War, Hunger and Displacement (Wider Studies in Development Economics) ISBN 0198297408

Grandmaster 06:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that Zangezur was occupied by the Russians. But before the Bolsheviks even reached the area, it was occupied by the Democratic Republic of Armenia. In any case, I don't see the point in arguing about this anymore. This isn't even the Zangezur/Syunik article. Again, I say that we resolve the situation like so:

Moscow ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by placing Karabakh and Nakhichevan under the control of Azerbaijan, and Zangezur would be under the control of Armenia -- Clevelander 11:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following wording: Moscow ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by affirming Karabakh and Nakhichevan as parts of Azerbaijan and Zangezur as part of Armenia. Grandmaster 11:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, now you're asking too much. We should go for: "Moscow ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by placing Karabakh and Nakhichevan under the control of Azerbaijan, and Zangezur under the control of Armenia". - Francis Tyers · 11:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this: "Moscow ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by deciding that Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under the control of Azerbaijan, and Zangezur would be under the control of Armenia". Grandmaster 11:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. - Francis Tyers · 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not fine by me, Zangezur was in control of Armenia, as well as Karabakh, Nakhichevan was disputed between Ottoman Empire and Russia as to who will control it. Those wordings Grandmaster propose are totally misleading. If you scroll in this page, you will see that Grandmaster too agreed regarding Nakhichevan decision taken between Russia and Turkey. The fate of Nakhichevan was a decision taken both by the Bolshevics and Turkey, excluding Turkey, suggest that Moscow took the decision alone. The Treaty of Friendship clearly mentions Nakhichevan, and Nakhichevan given to Azerbaijan was only confirmed by its ratification in September 13, 1921 by both Turkey and Russia. At first Grandmaster claimed and even quoted that this was an exchange to please both, now he seems not to claim this anymore but still present propositions with missing information, which makes of the phrase misleading.

Here is my proposition.

In 1920, Russia agreed that Zangezur shall remain in the control of Armenia. While Nakhichevan was previously part of the Erivan Province, Turkey and Russia agreed by the Treaty of Friendship that both have signed on March 16, 1921 (ratified in September 13, 1921) to grant it to Azerbaijan. As for Nagorno Karabakh, Azerbaijan was given control of it. The reasons for this move are not clearly defined; many believe that Turkey was involved in the decision.

Reasons of this version. First, Zangezur was in the control of Armenia, when the Bolshevics invaded Armenia, and that Armenia announced of joining the confederation, the Bolshevics decided that Armenia shall keep this control. This wording is accurate by any sense.

The decision of granting Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan was fully taken by Turkey and Russia, part of their treaty, and both have ratified it.

As for Karabakh, this is not written on stone. Fad (ix) 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let’s try to resolve the dispute, and not create new obstacles. We know that Zangezur was under the Soviet occupation, and not under Armenian control, and I cited many sources stating that Zangezur was attached to Armenia by the Bolsheviks. Some sources say it was divide and rule policy. Whatever it was, here’s new proposal:

Moscow ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by deciding that Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under the control of Azerbaijan (special status of the latter region as a territory under protection of Azerbaijan was stipulated in the treaty of Kars, signed by RSFSR, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia), and Zangezur would be under the control of Armenia. Grandmaster 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not accurate and you did nothing such. Zangezur was never occupied as an entity, Armenia was occupied by the Bolshevics, Zangezur was in Armenia and the Ottoman Empire wanted it. Armenia was in control of Zangezur, it was part of the republic, the Bolshevics occupied Armenia, and once Armenia decided to join the confederation Zangezur was recognized as a part of itself. There was much more disputes over Baku and if it should have been part of Azerbaijan, but I don't see any mention of it in its own article. There never was any disputes by the Bolshevics neither any negotiations regarding Zangezur, as it was recognized as part of Armenia, Armenia joined the confederation with Zangezur being recognized as part of it and the decision was never retacted. Your justification doesn't make sense, from the same token we could say Yerevan was disputed and granted to Armenia, because the Bolshevics invaded it.

As for the Treaty of Kars, you can wish to have this version in the article, but this is simply POV pushing, the decision was taken by Russia and Turkey, it had nothing to do with Armenia, it was taken on March 16, 1921, signed by Turkey AND Russia, not Armenia, not Georgia, not Azerbaijan. The ratification has little to do with the decision which was made by Turkey and Russia and signed by both. The Treay of Kars only contained a section about Nakhichevan and the two parties involved, Bolshevic Russia and Ottoman Turkey. Soviet confederation is not Armenia. Fad (ix) 19:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I warned against getting into the same "quote-war" that we had on the NK page. It will get us lost. We should follow the advice of Golbez that worked on the NK page--stick to facts, recounting the events (supported by sources) one by one. I say, just leave out Zangezur from here, and Nakhichevan, and state the facts about NK alone. As for the reasons behind the land-transfers, we can include both Turkey's role and the divide-and-rule policy. They don't contradict. I don't see why GM is so opposed in implicating Turkey, it's not like he is a Turk.--TigranTheGreat 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We discussed that in much detail before. We cannot say that NK was given to Azerbaijan, I don’t want to start citing Kavburo resolution and other sources once again. And I cited sources about Zangezur, including an agreement between RSFSR and Armenia. We just need a short summary of the way the Soviets resolved the land disputes between the 2 countries, without going into much detail. We can omit it from this article, but we will have to deal with this issue again in other articles. So let’s resolve this once and for all. I suggest a compromise wording, which does not say that any of the sides was given or granted some land. The only official proof of Turkey’s role is the treaty of Kars, we can mention it in relation to Nakhichevan, but in very brief form, as this is not an article about that region. So I think my proposal is quite reasonable. Grandmaster 10:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have provided even an Azeris source which contradict the single minority version you want to present as truth. Zangezur was recognized as part of Armenia the moment Armenia fell to the Bolshevics. It never from the US recognized Armenian republic to present been part of any other nations or recognized as such. It is not the cases for Nakhichevan neither Karabakh. There are various, various sources which totally excludes Zangezur as being a land in the disputed list, the version you propose is yours, selective and presenting it as truth is simply POV. Nakhichevan fate was decided between Turkey and Soviet Russia, and plently of sources says the same for Karabakh, so your proposal is far from being reasonable. Zangezur can in no way be presented as parallel to two disputed territories which have a history of being controled and accepted as part of Armenia previously, when Zangezur was never considered as part of Azerbaijan neither any other nation besides Armenia. Fad (ix) 21:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Zangezur had an Azeri governor, appointed by the British, remember? This decision was not reversed. So it could not be part of Armenia. The ultimate fate of the disputed territories was to be decided at the Paris Peace Conference, which according to some sources never materialized, although many others say that it recognized Azerbaijan’s claim to Karabakh. And I provided more than one source stating that Zangezur was ceded to Armenia by the Russian Bolsheviks. Please check above. I proposed a compromise version, which allows to avoid statements such as ceded or granted, I think it is a reasonable compromise. Grandmaster 11:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You repeat the same stuff over again, which I have already said above to not be true, the some sources you claim, are official Peace conference materials, and the so-called governor you claim, was the apointed governor of Karabakh who was given temporary a mendate during the British emergency evacuation. Fad (ix) 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell are we still arguing about Zangezur? There are plenty of sources which say it was disputed, and myself, Clevelander and Grandmaster don't have a problem with this. This is sourced:

"Moscow ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by deciding that Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under the control of Azerbaijan (Galvin; Fraser et al.) , and Zangezur would be under the control of Armenia (Nafziger et al.)".

Now, if you want, feel free to add to this, with sources. But stop arguing about trivialities. Lets just add until we get a more complete picture then we can remove stuff if it is necessary. - Francis Tyers · 12:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis, my objections are on two ground. There are sources which does not include Zangezur as having been disputed, (I have provided above), and planty does not mean unanimity, and Grandmaster claim that Turkey'S role should not be included about the incorporation of both Nakhichevan and Karabakh. Both sourced, in the cases of Nakhichevan writen literary on stone. Zangezur having ever been disputed does not make unanimity. Fad (ix) 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're trying to get at. Can you rephrase it? Or preferably edit my suggestion to include the parts that you want. - Francis Tyers · 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, if we are to add info about Zangezur, we will have to state that it remained under Armenian control throughout the period (even though armenians agreed to its occupation) (cite Cornell), and it was recognized as part of Armenia by Bolshevicks in 12/20 (cite Walker). Since Turkey's role is sourced (Cornell and Walker) it should be added too. I am very very sure you won't have a problem with this. Neither will Clevelander, nor I. --TigranTheGreat 01:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Moscow ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by deciding that Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under the control of Azerbaijan (Galvin; Fraser et al.) , and Zangezur, which was then under Armenian occupation (Cornell), recognised by the Bolsheviks in December of 1920 (Walker) would be under the control of Armenia (Nafziger et al.)". - Francis Tyers · 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Zangezur was actually under the Russian occupation at the time. Please see sources above. Grandmaster 10:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Change it then. (with sources) - Francis Tyers · 11:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like this: "Bolshevik Russia, which took the areas claimed by both countries under its military control, ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by deciding that Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under the control of Azerbaijan (Galvin; Fraser et al.), and Zangezur would be under the control of Armenia (Nafziger et al.)". We don't need to go into the details of who controled those areas before the Russian occupation, as it is a very obscure issue. And Walker is the one who says that Zangezur was attached to Armenia by the Soviets. Grandmaster 11:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just work with the process. "Bolshevik Russia, which took the areas claimed by both countries under its military control (FACT), ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by deciding that Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under the control of Azerbaijan (Galvin; Fraser et al.), and Zangezur, which was then under Armenian occupation (Cornell), recognised by the Bolsheviks in December of 1920 (Walker) would be under the control of Armenia (Nafziger et al.)" - Francis Tyers · 12:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But it does not make sense. If Zangezur was under the Russian military control, how could it be under the Armenian occupation? Grandmaster 12:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we let the readers find that out. We are just going by what the sources say. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but I can see that it would be possible. - Francis Tyers · 12:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you think so. I think Walker says that Bolsheviks attached Zangezur to Armenia in December 1920 by signing a treaty with Armenia. Grandmaster 13:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So you'd be ok with: "Bolshevik Russia, which took the areas claimed by both countries under its military control (FACT), ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by deciding that Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under the control of Azerbaijan (Galvin; Fraser et al.), and Zangezur, which was then under Armenian occupation (Cornell), recognised by the Bolsheviks in December of 1920 (Walker) would be under the control of Armenia (Nafziger et al.)" ? - Francis Tyers · 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am OK with what Francis Tyers said above, if it is changed and putted that way than theres no problem with the sentence for me. ROOB323 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis, did you understand anything from that paragraph? It's a spaghetti. Let's separate it into sentences, in chrono order:

Following a Soviet-Armenian conflict in the summer of 1920, Armenia agreed to a temporary Bolshevik occupation of the disputed areas (Walker), while Zangezur itself continued to remain under the control of local anti-Bolshevik Armenian forces through 1921 (Cornell). In December 1920, Bolsheviks recognized Zangezur as part of Armenia (Walker). In order to attract Armenian public support, Bolsheviks promised to resolve the issue of the other two disputed territories--Karabakh and Nakhichevan--in favor of Armenia. However, Moscow also had far-reaching plans concerning Turkey, hoping that it would, with a little help from Russia, develop along Communist lines. Moscow ultimately decided that Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under the control of Azerbaijan, in an attempt to appease Turkey (Walker and Cornell) and follow a divide-and-rule policy in Caucasus. (GM's sources)--TigranTheGreat 10:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Z remained under Armenian control since they disregarded the agreement and continued anti-Soviet resistance way into 1920.--TigranTheGreat 10:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No dice. You aren't even trying to write impartially. My version is shorter, covers the same areas, and without the quite blatant undertones. We can split it into sentences thus:

"Bolshevik Russia, took the areas claimed by both countries under its military control. (FACT) It ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by deciding that Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under the control of Azerbaijan (Galvin; Fraser et al.). They further decided that Zangezur, which was then under Bolshevik recognised Armenian occupation (Cornell; Walker), would be under the control of Armenia (Nafziger et al.)"

- Francis Tyers · 10:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

With ROOB, that makes 4 for (1 impartial, 1 azerbaijani and 2 armenians), and 2 against (2 armenians). I sense this dispute is coming to an end... although I would be willing to make reasonable adjustments. - Francis Tyers · 10:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Tigran’s version completely ignores the fact that Zangezur was attached to Armenia by the Bolsheviks, to which we have multiple references, including Walker. We cannot use sources selectively. Also, this paragraph should be as brief as possible. We may need to enhance it for other articles, but for the purpose of this particular article we just need a brief summary of how the Bolsheviks resolved the territorial issues between the two countries. So, Zangezur was attached to Armenia by the treaty between Russia and Armenia, signed on 2 December 1920. Before that it was under the Soviet occupation. Walker confirms it:

By early August Armenia saw no end to the conflict, and sued for peace. On 10 August the two sides signed an agreement, intended to be a preliminary to a final peace settlement. Armenia agreed to an occupation, stipulated as 'temporary' by the Bolsheviks, of all of Karabagh and Zangezur, and of Nakhichevan south of Shakhtakhti. Ironically, this was far more than Chicherin had demanded from the Shant delegation in Moscow, and to which the Armenian government had sent its firmly worded negative telegram.

So I suggest minor adjustment to the above proposal (we need to mention when Zangezur was under the Armenian occupation):

"Bolshevik Russia, took the areas claimed by both countries under its military control. (FACT) It ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by deciding that Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under the control of Azerbaijan (Galvin; Fraser et al.). They further decided that Zangezur, which was under the Armenian occupation (Cornell; Walker) before the Bolshevik invasion, would be under the control of Armenia (Nafziger et al.)"

Grandmaster 11:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Zangezur had been captured by Armenia from Azerbaijan by March 1920. This is backed up by several sources including the works of A.B. Kadishev, Artur Tsutsiev, Andrew Andersen, and seen on the maps of Atlas Istorii SSR by Konstantin Bazilevich. This was before the December Bolshevik agreement. In any case, I still say that this paragraph be worked on further (it would work better if we actually had a reference to back up the first sentence which claims that all of the disputed territories came under Bolshevik military control). -- Clevelander 12:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. You should read the materials available and not just place names. Zangezur received many Ottoman Armenian refugees, under the decision of those who were administrating it(and they were clearly Armenians), and this back before 1920. It is official history that the Armenians have kept a defence of Zangezur in the years 1918-19 against the Turkish intrusion and Tartar attacks, and those attacks are recorded history(this is even documented in German records). In the beginning of 1920, the Bolshevics were still in a dilemma, while Azeris communists have claimed Zangezur as theirs. Zangezur was never officially accepted by the Bolshevics as part of Azerbaijan because it would have given Azerbaijan direct contact with Ottoman Turkey; and no, Bolshevic maps of what they have just invaded or think they have invaded isen't official. There was indeed a counter offensive in March 1920, which was rather linked with the Bolshevic invasion of Azerbaijan days later, and the Armenian offensive to resist it. Armenia could not have captured by Armenia in March, for the simple reason that Azerbaijan hasn’t still fallen to the Bolshevics, and that Zangezur resisted intrusions and has only officially fallen not far from the fall of the rest of Armenia. What Azerbaijan has claimed theirs before April 1920(when it has fallen to the Bolshevics), was only their claims and not recognised by any other bodies. Fad (ix) 23:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I already provided it:

Войсками РСФСР занимаются спорные области: Карабах, Зангезур и Нахичевань, за исключением полосы, определённой настоящим соглашением для расположения войск Республики Армении.

The troops of RSFSR occupy the disputed territories: Karabakh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan, except for the strip, allocated by this treaty for stationing of the troops of the Republic of Armenia. [8]

See also my previous quote from Walker. Grandmaster 12:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So, put in the source instead of FACT. - Francis Tyers · 14:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander is not Armenian. And I think roob would like my version too. It was your original suggestion that we include both facts--Turkey's role, and Zangezur, so we need to do that. I am not sure about undertones, my version is completely factual and neutral.--TigranTheGreat 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Armenian-American, eitherwhichway he has the Armenian flag on his userpage. I guess we're going to have to keep working on it... - Francis Tyers · 20:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian. Which were descendants of Huns. Who were a Turcik tribe. And he knows virtually no Armenian. I am still not sure where the undertones are--I stated merely facts in chrono order--Armenia agreed, Zangezur remained, then was recognized, Turkey pushed, and Moscow said "NK and N under Az." Because they wanted to divide and rule. Where are the undertones? You agreed to Turkey's role earlier ("We should include both facts"--your words).--TigranTheGreat 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks Tigran. I'm sorry for not being "purely Armenian." I guess my ethnic heritage now depends on me agreeing completely with everything Tigran says. In fact, if Tigran knew anything about the Hungarians, he would know that they are not Turks but of Finno-Ugric descent. They have nothing to do with the Huns (in that respect their given name is unfair - Hungarians refer to themselves as Magyars). They even fought against the Turks to free themselves of Turkish oppression. The country of Hungary itself today is not even in favor of Turkey's admission to the EU. -- Clevelander 20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't self immolate yourself. while I have fought many nationalist Armenians, Tigran is not such Armenian. You should start respecting other contributors if you want to be respected in exchange. Just that others do understand of what I am talking about, I should refer to what you have done in the Nakhichevan page(one example), in the past and in present. You should know that summary's inviting others to edit war[9], and changing hard reached concensus and even reverting the one who has rv back to the concensus is not the type of things that are uncouraged in Wikipedia. I won't justify Tigran comment about your ethnicity, but it doesn't change the fact that I understand his anger. If anything, he has shown to be more mature than you, by answering that he won't engage in the revert war you iniciated.[10] Fad (ix) 23:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How is he more mature than me? By attacking my ethnic background? Yeah, that's real mature. As far as I'm concerned, he violated both WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL. How can I respect somebody like that? -- Clevelander 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Azeris faught against Turks (alongside Armenians, in 1700's. We are talking about it on the History of NK talk page actually). You don't need to agree with me, and that's my point--mentioning your Armenian heritage here (i.e. "Lookie, even an Armenian agrees, so case closed") is as ridiculous as mentioning your Hunnish-Turcik ancestry--not all Armenians think the same. I merely put francis' remark and mine alongside to demonstrate that they both sound ludicrous.--TigranTheGreat 20:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even going to dignify a response to such ignorance. -- Clevelander 21:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And that was such a mature and civil response, wasn't it, Cleve:)? Too late, you already dignified by responding.--TigranTheGreat 01:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And what matters is not your ethnicity, but your knowledge of Armenian history and Wiki rules, which as I have observed is quite limitted.

Now, gentleman, it was fun, but you will need to excuse me, as I gotta get my www.domai.com fix and then go to lunch. Talk to you later.--TigranTheGreat 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How did I insult you, Cleve? Francis tried to rely on your Armenian ancestry, I merely said that maybe we should consider your Hungarian one. Or maybe neither at all. Does association with Turkic ancestry insult you? That would be racist, wouldn't it be? And you don't want to be seen as racist, do you, Clevelander?--TigranTheGreat 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, GM's following quote:

The troops of RSFSR occupy the disputed territories: Karabakh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan

It's from the NKR site, and in the form that GM quoted (in isolation), is misleading. It's from the Armenian-Russian agreement text. I myself provided it earlier (from Walker). It's "temporary occupation." Most importantly, as far as Zangezur was concerned, it was not materialized. So, we can say there was agreement, but we should add that Zangezur remained under Armenian control in 1918-21.

As for GM's objection that we don't mention Zangezur's attachment to Armenia--actually my version does. It just uses a more neutral word--"recognized as part of," which is same.

As for Clevelander's shocking revelation that Zangezur was captured from Azerbaijan by Armenia in early 1920, well, we again have sources. Even pro-Azeri Cornell states:

By 1919, however, the Dashnaks were driven out of Nakhjivan, and although they stayed in power in Zangezur until 1921, they were soon toppled in Yerevan as well. Cornell, p 8

Walker explains it abit more:

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

--TigranTheGreat 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Walker also confirms the fact that Zangezur was under the Soviet occupation, see my quote above. And the revolt in Zangezur was after the territory was attached to Armenia. So Soviets took under their control Nakhichevan, which was under the Azerbaijani control, and Zangezur, which was under Armenian control according to the sources. I added the references:

"Bolshevik Russia, took the areas claimed by both countries under its military control. (Treaty between Armenia and RSFSR, Walker) It ultimately solved the territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan by deciding that Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under the control of Azerbaijan (Galvin; Fraser et al.). They further decided that Zangezur, which was under the Armenian occupation (Cornell; Walker) before the Bolshevik invasion, would be under the control of Armenia (Nafziger et al.)"

Grandmaster 07:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Walker never says that Zangezur was occupied by Russians.

Here is my proposal in clearer format:

Following a Soviet-Armenian conflict in the summer of 1920, Armenia agreed to a temporary Bolshevik occupation of the disputed areas (Walker), while Zangezur itself continued to remain under the control of local anti-Bolshevik Armenian forces through 1921 (Cornell). In December 1920, Bolsheviks recognized Zangezur as part of Armenia (Walker). In order to attract Armenian public support, Bolsheviks promised to resolve the issue of the other two disputed territories--Karabakh and Nakhichevan--in favor of Armenia. However, Moscow also had far-reaching plans concerning Turkey, hoping that it would, with a little help from Russia, develop along Communist lines. Moscow ultimately decided that Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under the control of Azerbaijan, in an attempt to appease Turkey (Walker and Cornell) and follow a divide-and-rule policy in Caucasus. (GM's sources)

The 3rd sentence (about Bolshevik promises) was in the article, and noone has objected to it. The 4th sentence too is taken directly from the article (about Turkey). The last sentence is what editors here have proposed (The "ultimately" part), plus the Turkey and divide-and-rule explanations.--TigranTheGreat 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats looking much better. We're acknowledging that the Bolsheviks were touting for support on both sides. Although instead of "appease", I suggest we use "please". We should drop the "temporary" from the first sentence.

Instead of saying "recognised as part of Armenia", we should soften this to "was left under Armenian control" (or I'm open to suggestions), we do have conflicting sources on this (e.g. Nafziger, "as well as Zangezur which was ceded to Armenia by Russia"). - Francis Tyers · 09:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not logical. Armenia agreed to occupation of disputed areas, but Zangezur remained under Armenian control? How so? Dashnak revolt in Zangezur was on 25 December, by that time the region was under the Soviet occupation and on 2 December it was made part of Soviet Armenia. Don’t forget that your own source Walker says that Zangezur was attached to Armenia. If we are referring to Walker, we should say: In December 1920, Bolsheviks attached Zangezur to Armenia (Walker). And also, placing Zangezur within Armenia was implementation of the divide and rule policy as well, this should also be reflected. But in general this version is acceptable, with following amendments:

Following the Soviet invasion of South Caucasus, Armenia agreed to a Bolshevik occupation of the disputed areas (Walker), while Zangezur continued to remain under the control of local anti-Bolshevik Armenian forces through 1921 (Cornell), and Nakhichevan remained under the control of Azerbaijani forces (Cornell). In December 1920, Bolsheviks recognized Zangezur as part of Armenia (Walker). In order to attract Armenian public support, Bolsheviks promised to resolve the issue of all disputed territories in favor of Armenia. However, Moscow ultimately recognized Karabakh and Nakhichevan as parts of Azerbaijan. While some sources view Soviets decisions on territorial disputes as an attempt to please Turkey (Walker and Cornell), in hopes that it would, with a little help from Russia, develop along Communist lines, others see it as implementation of the divide-and-rule policy in Caucasus. (GM's sources) Grandmaster 11:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I guess this is Grandmasterian neutrality. Zangezur, remaining under the control of anti-Bolshevic Armenian forces, and Karabakh and Nakhichevan only recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Armenia was occupied, this is why Zangezur was occupied, it is not because Armenia was occupied that we can not say that Yerevan stoped being a part of Armenia. You have yet to provide anything supporting that they first tried to attract Armenian public support, you are trying to balance your inclusion of Turkey (which you claim only some sources claim). Sorry, I am afraid this is not how it works. Bolshevics promesses about Nakhichevan was not to attract Armenian public support, Nakhichevan was previously part of Erivan province, they at first decided to reestablish it, default decision is not a favior, counter default is. Karabakh was controled by its own government which resisted various Turko-Tartar attacks, the worst was when the Mustavat had invited the Turkish forces, which resulted with the deaths of 20% of Karabakh population. But still, it resisted. When Armenia was occupied, the Bolshevics had no reason anymore to not recognize Nakhichevan as part of Armenia, it doesn't even have a border with Azerbaijan, neither not to recognize Karabakh with Lachine, Lachine which was in the first place never really planned to be a part of Azerbaijan, it was even tried as an SSR Kurdistan. In summery, Nakhichevan was clearly mentioned in the Treaty of brotherhood, it is not 'some', it is on official Treaty, various sources includes Karabakh, it is not only 'some.' Propose something neutral which concord with the sources, then I will have to agree with it, but you have yet to do that. Fad (ix) 17:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The "in order to win Support" was Tigran, not GM. - Francis Tyers · 17:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if Fadix is against including the "in order to win Armenian public support" phrase, we can drop it. Francis, we should not drop "temporary"--it was part of the RUsso-Armenian agreement. And ceded and recognized are not in contradiction, they mean the same thing, from two differeint POVs.--TigranTheGreat 02:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, 12/25 was the date when Dashnaks set-up a government in Zangezur. Before that, it was under continuous Armenian control (as Cornell clearly states).--TigranTheGreat 02:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And Walker says Zangezur was under the Bolshevik occupation. But is it necesary to mention who occupied it, if the sources contradict? Zangezur was made a part of Soviet Armenia by Bolsheviks, the British put it under the control of Azerbaijan, and the region was the arena of constant fighting, but eventually it became part of Armenia by the treaty, signed between Russia and Armenia. Let's just keep it short and to the subject. Grandmaster 08:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the aim of Bolsheviks of attracting public support in Armenia is verifiable info, so it should remain. If you need sources, I can provide them. Grandmaster 08:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Present them :) - Francis Tyers · 12:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In 1920, the Bolsheviks took over the South Caucasus or, as seen from Moscow, the Transcaucasus. In November 1920, the Azerbaijan Revolutionary Committee recognized the disputed regions of Zangezur and Nakhichevan as integral parts of Soviet Armenia and granted N-K the right to self-determination. The resolution, which some historians ascribe to a wish to help the Armenian Bolsheviks to take power, was never put into practice. However, N-K Armenians will often quote this episode, as they believe it gives historic legitimacy to their claim to unity with Armenia or sovereignty.

In July 1921, the Bolshevik Party Caucasus Bureau reversed the above decision. N-K was granted a broad autonomy within the newly created Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1923, the N-K Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was established. Russian analysts believe that the final decision was made to appease the Muslim population of the region: in the Bolshevik mindset Azerbaijan, with its larger population and oil resources was assigned the role of a beacon of the revolution in the East and was therefore more important than Armenia. [11] Grandmaster 12:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can live with this, I have to say I am surprised there Grandmaster, this proposition this time around is very much neutral. Only Turkey's role is missing. Good job. Fad (ix) 19:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the above text, it is a quote from CoE paper. But I would be really glad to achieve some sort of a compromise on the issue, which would be factually accurate and satisfied both parties to the dispute. Grandmaster 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Then we should add Turkey's role too. If we use the above quote, we should be free to add other verifiable facts as well in the future. By the way, we should eliminate the "reversed" part. And instead of "NK was granted autonomy," we should use Narimanov's quote that all three regions to go Armenia. --TigranTheGreat 00:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not say the text was perfect, could be improved, I just was seriously surprised that Grandmaster proposed something such, anyway, since it is a copyrighted stuff, it should be reworded. Fad (ix) 01:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas how to do it? Grandmaster 13:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of the past tense

Out of curiosity, why does this article use the past tense (especially in the opening paragraph)? (e.g. "Shusha was the second largest town in Nagorno-Karabakh...")

Shusha is a town in the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. I think that much of the sentences using the past tense should be moved into a history section (specifically under "Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast" section). Serouj 03:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was the second largest town. Not anymore. It's ruined and desolated. Grandmaster 13:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ruined and desolated would imply Shushi is in near shambles, empty and conditions are such that they make the town unlivable (in which case, none of that is true).--MarshallBagramyan 23:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely not desolate. I was there just last September and stayed at Hotel Shushi, which is a short walk from Ghazanchetsots Cathedral. There are definitely less people in town, but you will still find a lot of kids playing in the streets. I think this article needs a lot of work. Serouj 05:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not desolate. I was there in summer 2005. Aghdam is desolate. Hakob 06:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think no comment is needed here: [12] Grandmaster 13:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I could just as easily post photos of the newly opened Naregatsi Art Institute center in the city (as well as plans by the ArmeniaFund for restoring cultural monuments). There are people there. There is life. It is not desolate and is being repaired. As I said before, Aghdam is the desolate one. Now perhaps we can begin to discuss richer topics, like the pitiful state of "non-existent" Armenian artifacts in Nakhichevan. But that would be digressing and is best left for other articles. Hakob 13:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, those are pretty selective photographs taken on a foggy day. If you ever go to Shushi, and the kids there know that you are from the outside (i.e. from the diaspora), they'll rush you in the dozens to come and meet you since they know you'll probably distribute a few presents for them also. The town doesn't look like much and food only trickles into the region but its teeming with life. Those photos are very nice but they don't reveal the growing prosperity of the town. --MarshallBagramyan 21:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The right to write somewhere that Republic of Artzakh (Mountainous Karabakh) is a part of Azerbaidjan

In every case you have no right to write somewhere that Republic of Artzakh (Mountainous Karabakh) is a part of Azerbaidjan, it is nonsense.

Shushi Coat of Arms

The coat of arms on this articel for Shushi should be changed with this one, because that is the new coat of arms of Shushi. ROOB323 03:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is illegal, as NK does not exist de-jure. Grandmaster 17:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arm or gerb of Shushi has nothing to do with NKR international recognition. If inhabitatnts of Shushi decide that this is going to be their arm of Coat then who are you Grandmaster to decide which coat is legal and which one not. When Azeri inhabitants come back to SHushi they can revert back the coat to previous one. As you always do, sitting and reverting people's notes in discussion page which is none of your business.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmenianNY (talk • contribs)

Doesn't matter. We have the flag on the NK page don't we.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This whole part is so strange and weird!

Conflict with Persia

In less than a year after Shusha was founded, the Karabakh khanate was attacked by Muhammed Hassan khan Qajar, one of the major claimants to the Iranian throne. During the Safavid Empire Karabakh was for almost two centuries ruled by the clan of Qajar (of Turkic origin), and therefore, Muhammed Hassan khan considered Karabakh his hereditary estate.^[1][2]<

As far as we know Qajars and Safavids are different dynasties from different time persiods. This inconsistency needs to be checked. Otherwise I am going to remove it.

There's no inconsistency. Read carefully. Karabakh was ruled by Qajars of Ganja during Safavids, until Nadir shah took that territory from them. And when Karabakh khanate emerged, Qajars considered themselves offended, as they considered Karabakh their heriditary land. Grandmaster 07:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

However, user ArmenianNY's point is valid when we consider the fact that, from the first days of founding of the khanate, the Azerbaijani Qajar dynasty, which since the 1790s became the ruling dynasty of Iran, has been unsuccessfully trying to bring Karabakh khanate under its control once again. On two occassions in 18th century they failed, on the third one (1797) only temporarily and partially succeeded, and on the fourth one in 19th century succeeded temporarily before being defeated by Russia. Hence, this statement, along with many others facts, such as the 1805 Kurekchay Treaty and testimony of other Azerbaijani khans, show that Karabakh khanate was independent. This contradicts the statement currently on the page: "of the initially Persian ruled and later semi-independent[3] Karabakh khanate (1748-1822)". The khanate was not ruled by Persia, and could not have been, not only because of who Panah Khan was -- he defeated the Qajars on Iranian territory, i.e,. south of Araxes -- nor was it semi-independent, as such khanates cannot sign treaties on their own behalf with Russian tsar or mint their money. So ArmenianNY is correct that based on this fact about the Qajar feud in the article, we should make the whole article more consistent and reflect the realities of the era, which was that the Karabakh khanate was fiercely independent from 1747 until 1805, and then from 1805 to 1822 was fully dependent on Russian Empire. --AdilBaguirov 19:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That line was a later addition to the article. Of course Karabakh khanate was independent, otherwise why would Aga Mohammed shah invade his own province? Grandmaster 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting -- I wonder who added this mistaken information? It should of course be changed ASAP, to reflect the facts and truthful state of affairs. --AdilBaguirov 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Name

Artaxiad, stop moving the Azerbaijani name. The city was founded as a capital of Azerbaijani khanate and had Azerbaijani population at the start of the conflict. So Azerbaijani name goes first. Grandmaster 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

stop political propagand!

Sorry, but some things are not right in your article and you dont give opportunities to other people to improve it. 1. you wrote- "Shusha is a town in Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, next to the rayon of the same name". Maybe yes in de-jure meaning, but never de-facto. Maybe its dont make you happy but de-facto its a center of an Armenian region of a de-facto Nagorno-Karabakh republic so anyone needs permition of NKR authorities to visit that town. If a tourist read your article he can by mistake ask for it to Azerbaijani embassy... 2. When the city was founded in the middle of 18th century (citation needed), it had predominantly Azerbaijani (citation needed) population. Dear author I believe you never was in Shushi of 18th century so pls add some (maybe falsified azerbaijani) references. I know surely these things: in the place of Shushi was a town founded by Armenian Tigran the Great king (called Tigranakert) and also some armenian Khachkars and monuments of miggle ages are founded there. See for example http://www.golos.am/2000/april_2006/18/st03.html or www.karabakh-online.narod.ru So pls dont lay and dont use WIKI for political propagand! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.118.95.4 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Citation tags

Golbez why were citation tags removed? Vartanm 22:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

They were manual [[citation needed]] tags instead of proper ones. --Golbez 23:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, I just wanted to know if there was another reason. Didn't want to add them back without clarifying first. Vartanm 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Those tags are absolutely irrelevant. If you read the article, you'll find detailed statistics on population at various times in the history. So please remove them and read the article further down the intro. Grandmaster 05:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The other reason was the commentary added by the IP. --Golbez 11:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not search and find whats being asked for? [13] I'm leaving it to you to decide if its reliable. Vartanm 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a reliable thrid party source, it is a propaganda website. Grandmaster 06:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, Vartanm has a very good point there. And Grandmaster, here too like all the other articles, we have a clear example of who starts and end edit warring. "Shusha within the Russian Empire" Is an entire section with one thing. The said resettlement of the Armenian population. Had this been the other way around you would have revert warred until being able to remove it just like you did remove quotations from Nakhichevan article about the resettlement of Tartars until changing the demography of the region. More notable than your source about the 1 million out of 1.3 million. I have attempted two interloaning to get that work, two times without results when it was a success for a work dating in 1894. The same single non notable author having written in 1911 placed in every given occasion, while the official Russian records of Armenian resettlements are totally excluded. Would you have ever allowed Nakhichevan having such a section when there are various works on ISI, Jstor and various databases and not a single work in those same databases for this entire section which you like to support so much? That you place so much weight on a single not notable author which has so much of a limited numbers of copy that a notable two major institution placed on the interloaning have attempted to locate it weren't even able to find it. Also, still after three attempt and requesting your answer about AdilBaguirov edit on NK which you reverted yourself to his version when in the past has been discussed various times, you have totally remained silent speak much of it. I'm pretty much confident you would have revert warred until getting an article locked had I introduced something such by attepting to pass a figure for what it is not. But guess what, you and I know that they are not accurate, but for the sake of the integrity of the article (NK) I refrained reverting. Fad (ix) 06:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are talking about, and you are again taking the issues to personal level. This user requested info on population of Shusha at the time of foundation being predominantly Azeri. It is in the article. Shusha had predominant Azeri population until tsarist Russia started resettlement of Armenians to the region. Check the quotes and see for yourself. Both Russian statistic info and English traveller Keppel attest to that. So the tags should be removed. Grandmaster 06:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the sources have actually nothing to do with Shushi, Shushi was an exception. There are quotes there which have nothing to do with it. An entire section under the banner of Russian rule is "stravestided" to be about the said Armenian resettlment. The 1 million out of 1.3 million has absolutly no place here on wikipedia. That source is nor notable nor supported by any single Russian records. The work can not be traced by inter loaning system, a Russian friend has attempted to find it too to not avail even from Moscow. You have requested the deletion from NK history of the claim about the Meliks a source from a modern notable author, who's work could be found on most major libraries here in Quebec but throw a non notable author who wrote a non notable work which has been published in a so limited edition, that the work is not accessible by instituional interloaning systems. 13 years following the 1823, an excess of Tartars of 19,271 families, and for the Armenians of 14,634. Those are from the official Russian records. Where are the Armenian resettlements in Karabakh? Shushi was an exception, the phenomen was not due to any resetlement policy but rather to a volontary movement of the Armenians from villages to cities, which was done in a more massive way in the case of the Armenians than Tartars. Fad (ix) 04:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How would you feel if I called this [14] a propaganda website. "History of terrorism dates back to the 1st century A.D., when the organization of zealots-sikaris began to function in Judea." Jews started the terrorism. Blame Jews for everything. Thats propaganda coming from Azerbaijan's foreign ministry. I mean how could you even take anything serious after reading that? Vartanm 07:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you noted, I never use any Azerbaijani websites to support my edits. Azerbaijani and Armenian sources are biased and engaged in a propaganda war. Therefore we should use neutral sources, as required by the rules. Grandmaster 07:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Vartan, before you groundlessly accuse and try to incite ethnic animosity, study history, as even the US State Department and Encarta (need I say more?) are in agreement with the Azerbaijan MFA author, not to mention many books on the subject by Jewish authors: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and [20]. --AdilBaguirov 00:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't play this with me again, you know of what I am talking about, and specifically. The entire section about Russian rule is nothing more than a disguised section about Armenian resettlement. Shavrov work is nowhere to be found on the two interloaning orders I have placed while I even were able to retrace 1890s works, even one vanity. And the title of Shavrov work speaks volume of the content. As it would not be the first time that Armenians were accused of "stealing" other people job everywhere they go, it isn't much harder to guess what was the purpose of such a claim at all. I have also asked a Russian friend to retrace the work for me to not avail. You have removed similar quotes, which were contained in reputable books or papers much more reputable and cited elsewhere such as they were cited on the ISI, or even found on Jstor and unlike this bogus 1 million figure were republicated in various other works. You haven't even permitted few lines about the much more cited referenced and reputable event, but yet an entire section is allowed about an event, which neither Jstor covers neither is there a work covering it listed on ISI or other databases. And days have passed for a long time I have requested you to comment about AdilBaguirov additions on NK, which you know he has fabricated the sense. But you have never reverted him and even reverted to his version which you knew and know is not true. Shusha is such an example of the sort of article which shows that it is not Eupator, TigranTheGreat, me nor the other editors which you consider your opponents who starts the trouble. As you know that there are documented Tartaro/Azeri resettlements for centuries, some I have already quoted(and you have reverted) and that we both know that if anywhere it were to be added it would have generated an edit war, which the result would have been its removal. Oh and Shusha, yeh, Tartars were a majority, it was an exception, no Armenians have ever denied that. Fad (ix) 15:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fad, stop your constant barrage of senseless attacks and grounless claims. Be constructive and friendly. My NK additions are the only fair and right way to show the population dynamics in Karabakh, by using all available census and population data in the West. Meanwhile, privided a link to the Shusha 1989 census data, which testifies about the 92% Azerbaijani majority in that city. Even though the article is written by an Azerbaijani (but published by Harvard), it balances out the citation of Richard Hovanissian, an Armenian, that someone inserted towards the end of the article. --AdilBaguirov 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed your addition to NK article because, I'll say it again Karabakh is different than Nagorno-Karabakh. And for the majority I don't deny that Azeris had majority in Shusha. You just need to find a neutral source. Just like I didn't add the Armenian source that supported Shushas establishment in 1750's Vartanm 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the question was not addressed to you, since you don't know the subject very well and didn't participate in the discussions at all. Of course the censuses are relevant to NK -- it's the case not only with the Hovanissian's 1917-1919 statistics, which he points out is specifically about NK, but 1897 and others, considering that the unreliable 2001 "census" is used, not to mention the 1923 figures (which, as Russian ethnographer Yamskov testifies to, undercounted Azerbaijanis). So removing the table, whose stats are all reputable and verifiable, is not right. Meanwhile, once more, since as Armenians themselves often point out, ethnic Armenians of Karabakh were mostly living and settling into Mountaneous parts of the former khanate, then all the figures showing their population in Karabakh is pertinent mostly and specifically to NK. That's what Prof. Cornell points out too on the same page of his book as cited in the table: "...nevertheless certain that the overall increase in Armenian population was due to an increasing migration of Armenians to Mountainous Karabakh or an exodus of Muslims from the region." Therefore, again, removing that information is against the Wikipedia rules.

This is a discussion page, and open for everybody. Secondly who are you to tell me if I know a subject well or not at all? This is the second time you insulted me. If you cant stay civil than maybe you should read some of the Wikipedia rules. Vartanm 01:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the citation of Amirbayov article from Harvard University is fine as long as there is a Hovanissian citation in the article. You can't have an ethnic Armenian author cited there for some time now, yet complain about an ethnic Azerbaijani one. If Hovanisian is removed, then certainly Amirbayov should be removed -- and I will easily find replacement, perhaps even going as far as scanning the actual 1989 census page or getting it from CD-ROM next time I get an opportunity to get it. Again, double-standards are not acceptable -- either both are removed, or both remain. That's fair. --AdilBaguirov 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No they are not relevent, and stop claiming others are ignorant. I have covered all of this. First they are the figures of 1921 not 1923, they were printed in 1923. We've been there but you still haven't corrected this yet. Cornel say: This information is only of limited use, as the census included the entire Karabakh Khanate, that is including lower Karabakh. Hence the figures for Mountainous Karabakh remain unknown;… p.68 The official records show, The 13 years following the 1823, an excess of Tartars of 19,271 families, and for the Armenians of 14,634. I have all discussed this in detail. But you don't want to even listen. Fad (ix) 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, what are you actually disputing here? The figures for the whole of Karabakh are relevant here, because Shusha was the capital of Karabakh khanate. And we can find official census figures from non-Azerbaijani source, however third-party sources say the same. Azerbaijanis were 90% of population of Shusha at the beginning of the conflict:

Yet Nagorny Karabakh was not only an Armenian region. Roughly a quarter of the population – some forty thousand people – were Azerbaijanis with the strongest ties to Azerbaijan. This sudden upsurge of protest in the mainly Armenian town of Stepanakert, however peaceful its outer form, could not but antagonize them. You had only to tilt your head in Stepanakert to see the neighboring town of Shusha – 90 percent of whose inhabitants were Azerbaijani – high on the cliff top above.

Thomas De Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War. NYU Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8147-1945-7

Grandmaster 05:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Read what I have said carefully another time. This is actualy not what I have said. What I have said was that the official records are as follow for Karabakh. The 13 years following the 1823, an excess of Tartars of 19,271 families, and for the Armenians of 14,634. There are no records of any resetlment policy for Karabakh, for anything, there has been more Tartar population increase and this from Russian official records than Armenians. I have all discussed that. There was no resettlement for Karabakh. I have repeated this and have also provided official records. I also said that the quote on 1 million out of 1.3 million does not fit in any articles here on Wikipedia. And I have plainly explained why above. The entire section is about an Armenian resettlement while it is supposed to be about Russian rules. I do not dispute anything about Shushi or Shusha call it what you want. But Shushi is Shushi, and the Armenian increase of population there has nothing to do with population resettlement, it was a city, Armenians have left villages for cities, this happened not only there but elsewhere, including the Ottoman empire, many Armenians even left for Europe and America during that time. The section is thosefor is original research. Fad (ix) 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How is this original research, if it is sourced info:

This limited population may be ascribed to frequent wars which have long desolated the province, and to the emigration to Persia of many Mohammedan families since its subjection to Russia, although many Armenians were induced by the Russian government, after the peace of Toorkmachay, to emigrate forms Persia to Karabagh.

The Penny Cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, 1843

Grandmaster 17:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is about time you understand what NPOV mean, I have carefuly tried to explain this to you, 1, 2, 3, 4, no over. Providing a source does not justify presenting a position as fact. The official Russian records are the following. The 13 years following the 1823, an excess of Tartars of 19,271 families, and for the Armenians of 14,634. Those are the official Russian records. The records also state that there is no place in Karabakh for Armenian resettlement, the Armenians who were resettled were redirected elsewhere. The Muslim population of Shushi in fact decreased a little bit, but reincreased later. The absolute figures and excess population for Karabakh point to more Muslim immigration within Karabakh than Armenian. Your position is a fringe, a fringe, it does not justify covering a fringe position in an entire section and when it is contradicted by official records. I have enough source from notable publications to start an entire long article on the settlement of Tartar populations and eviction of Armenians for a very long period of time, yet you have deleted quotes and found few lines about it worth deleting from Nakhichevan. Also, Penny Cyclopædia does not mean anything at all we don't know of which resettlement it is talking about, as the only recorded significant Armenian immigration in Karabakh was those Armenians who returned under Russian rules, those same who escaped Ebrahim Khan opressions. Also, Shavrov N.I. is not notable at all to even be considered here or anywhere else. You haven't still addressed my criticism. The title of the work alone speak volume of its credibility. The German in WWI have printed various such pamphlets on the Armenians having "stolen" every jobs within the Ottoman Empire and who would immigrate everwhere like like rotten worms will eat what is of worth. General Bronsart had this to say about the Armenians: "Namely, the Armenian is just like the Jew, a parasite outside the confines of his homeland, sucking off the marrow of the people of the host country. Year after year, they abandon their native land like the Polish Jews who migrate to Germany to engage in usurious activities. Hence the hatred which, in a medieval form, has unleashed itself against them as an unpleasant people, entailing their murder." At the beginning of the 20th century this sort of allegations have found echo in the Russian Empire too, in which the Russians would stire Tartars to spark a conflict and "control" the Armenian alleged "threat" (purely commercial). Let give a try, why don't you quote the entire paragraph from where that quote comes from? Afteral you wanted the deletion of Walker, who is notable, but replicate this author in every given article. Fad (ix) 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I cite my sources, and they clearly say that Armenians were settled in Karabakh. Second, you cite no sources whatsoever. Third, Shavrov is notable as a source of info, he was a Russian official, known for his chauvinist views. He was opposing to settlement of people other than Russian in the Caucasus and claimed that Muslim population should have been replaced by Russian people. Nowadays his views are of no interest, but the statistics he provided are, since he was a person well familiar with the situation due to his position. Grandmaster 17:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, unless Ebrahim Khan opression is indicated, this is simply POV pushing. And no, there is no official records about resettlement in Karabakh, the official records clearly show more absolute Tartar population increase. As for Shavrov, you have just confirmed what I have been saying and discredited to source yourself. I am waiting you to translate the entire paragraph where this figure is provided. Thanks. Fad (ix) 21:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting Grandmaster. Fad (ix) 16:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is way too large to translate, maybe you can use some online translators:

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

Grandmaster 08:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article in Britannica also supports the info on setlement of Armenian population in Karabakh after the Russian conquest:

The Russian campaigns against the Persians and the Turks in the 18th and 19th centuries resulted in large emigrations of Armenians under Muslim rule to the Transcaucasian provinces of the Russian Empire and to Russia itself. Armenians settled in Yerevan, T'bilisi, Karabakh, Shemakha (now Samaxi), Astrakhan, and Bessarabia. At the time of the massacres in Turkish Armenia in 1915, some Armenians found asylum in Russia. A number settled in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh within the neighbouring Muslim country of Azerbaijan. Armenians now constitute about three-fourths of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh; since 1988 there have been violent interethnic disputes and sporadic warfare between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in and around the enclave. [21] Grandmaster 08:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the quote in that paragraph, you must have given me the wrong one. As for Britannica, NK during the massacres. Fad (ix) 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I am waiting the paragraph which contain that quote. Fad (ix) 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The full context can be found here: [22] Grandmaster 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to Amirbayov's more detailed quote, Tom de Waal says the same about 90% Azerbaijani Shusha, per Grandmaster's above quote: "Yet Nagorny Karabakh was not only an Armenian region. Roughly a quarter of the population – some forty thousand people – were Azerbaijanis with the strongest ties to Azerbaijan. This sudden upsurge of protest in the mainly Armenian town of Stepanakert, however peaceful its outer form, could not but antagonize them. You had only to tilt your head in Stepanakert to see the neighboring town of Shusha – 90 percent of whose inhabitants were Azerbaijani – high on the cliff top above." Thomas De Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War. NYU Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8147-1945-7 --AdilBaguirov 02:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Turkic (Armenian) History of Shushi Should Be Included

The article completely disregards 1000 years of Shushi as a major Armenian fortress and populated bastion (Syghnakh - Սղնախ). It belonged to Melik Shahnazarians of Varanda, and – as depicted in details in Mirza Jamal Qarabaghi’s book on Karabakհ Khanate – was delivered to Panakh Khan as a token of bilateral political alliance. Before that - when the Turkic nomads ("Azerbaijanis") had not entered the Armenian-controlled highlands of Karabakh - Shushi played a significant role in Armenian resistance to Ottoman occupation during the Turkish-Persian conflict of the 1720s. This should be included in the history of the city. Shushi was a pivotal part of the so-called Lesser Syghnakh that defended the southern part of the five united Armenian principalities of Karabakh (Hamsai Melikutiunner). There is an extensive set of West European primary sources on the subject. Zurbagan 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mirza Jamal states that Shusha was built in an empty space. According to him, there was nothing there before the city was built. And I restored a quote deleted by anon. Grandmaster 13:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Agree with GM. What 1000 years are you talking about? Plus, who are these anons, does anyone know? --Ulvi I. 10:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

there are a lot of anons and new users taking out content en masse. I placed back all the content that has been there for months and was due to extensive deliberations. --adil 06:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed recent edits by anon accounts. No reliable sources were cited in support of the claims made. Grandmaster 07:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Panahabad

Sources for the name of Panahabad:

Abbas-gulu Aga Bakikhanov. Golestan-i Iram

Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast.

Please update the article with those links. Grandmaster 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Per above two references, the article was correct, and the name Panahabad should not have been removed by new user Shaloun (whose name is translated as "Joker"). --adil 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the great soviet encyclopedia. Read the articles about USA, Germany, Austria, Japan: do you aggree with all that you read? I don't think. Although it has some percentage of objectivity, it is not 100 % reliable, because it was a source of soviet propaganda. Meanwhile, it is interesting, what is the source of GSE? I'm sure, the souce is your other link - Abbas-Kulz-Agha Bakikhanov. I have read it - Gyulista-i Iram. This writing is dated one century after the foundation of Shusha, and is mentioning about Panahabad only once, but not as the initial name. Furthermore, in the writing of Mirza Djamal Djavanshiri Karabagi, the personal vesir of the son of Panah-khan, a contemporary of the founding of Shusha, the name Panahabad has never been mentioned. The link for the russian translation is here. http://zerrspiegel.orientphil.uni-halle.de/t1154.html I am sure, that the evidences of a contemporary are much more heavier than the subjective oppinion of GSE and a hundred-year-later written Gyulistan-i Iram. Please be first objective, and than Azerbaijani, and remove the name Panahabad as the "initial name of the town". Or you can bring me more evidences. In case of convincing ones I capitulate, I promiss. I am not a stubborn one. Respect --shaloun -- PS: my nick is 9 years old, and I have also forgotten, what does it mean, thank you for reminding.

GSE is biased when it came to certain issues, but I see but I see no reason for bias with regard to the name of Shusha at the time of foundation by this source, whose second editor in chief was the son of Stepan Shaumian. Grandmaster 06:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Mirza Jamal does not say that the town was not called Panahabad at the time of foundation, he simply says nothing about it. However the fact can be establshed thru other sources. Grandmaster 06:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Bakhikhanov’s book was written in 1841, and Mirza Jamal’s book was written in 1847. They both wrote their historical accounts at the request of the Russian authorities about the same time, and I don't think that such a knowledgeable person as Bakikhanov was not familiar with the facts. Grandmaster 06:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Another source, which hopefully will put an end to this dispute. Please see the article about Ibrahim Khan Javanshir by the Armenian scholar George A. Bournoutian, which is not a neutral or pro-Azerbaijani source:

In the second half of the century, Panah Khan built a strong fortress in Shushi/Shusha, which was referred to, during his lifetime, as Panahabad (idem, p. 72). [23]

There’s a typo in the online version, as it says Ebrahim instead of Panah in the above sentence, but I think it is simply an error by the person who did the typing. The town was founded by Panah, of course. Grandmaster 07:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it was not convincing (for me). The second or seventh editor in chief of GSE is not too important: the GSE is for me a major tool of soviet propaganda. More, if based on GSE, many articles in Wikipedia should be re-edited with major changes. But that is not our theme. Mirza Jamal is still the most important sounce for me in this topic, because he was in the heart of the happenings, and he knew the person, who at your account, has renamed the town. Mirza Jamal could not run off such an important fact of rename of the town, when he is mentioning very many other, less important facts (channels from Araks, the water supply at the place of the future fortress, etc.). Bournoutian: again and again I say, that the silence of the contemporary, who knew the region and the time better, than anyone else, must be much more important than the words of others, for an online Encyclopedia. It is not too important, if Shusha wear the name Panahabad in the first 8-10 years of its history. My headache is that Wikipedia is bringing not reliable sources, avoiding really reliables. Respects. -- shaloun

If you look at Bournatian’s article, he refers to the same Bakikhanov and Qarabagi, i.e. Mirza Jamal. The online version of Mirza Jamal Qarabagi’s “Karabakh-nameh” is shortened for publication in a magazine, however Bournatian refers to Qarabagi (p 72) as a source for Panahabad, i.e. the full version of "Karabakh-nameh". I provided many different sources to support the info about Panahabad, so I consider this issue to be settled. Grandmaster 10:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You provided not reliable sources, avoiding really reliables. The statement not proved. Discussion closed. Respects. -- shaloun

sorry dude, but just coming in and saying "not reliable sources, discussion closed", after being presented with 1) two primary sources, Mirza Jamal and Bakikhanov, and 2) two encyclopedia's (GSE and Iranica), is too commissar-like and hardly reasonable. Panakhabad is also mentioned in the letter of the Azerbaijan SSR leader to Moscow in 1945, by the way, but what is better, are the coins minted in Karabakh, and specifically, in Panahabad at the time: [24] Panahabad was a historic fact, and since it is verifiable, and it is from authoritative and reliable sources, it stays. --adil 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Adil, have you read the "presented sources" - Mirza Jamal and Bakikhanov? Read them, although there is only one word in two works about Panahabad. Its enough, I have already said what is to say. Read my posts. All the best. -- shaloun.

We also said what we had to say and presented tons of info from various sources. Please read above. Grandmaster 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Shoushi

The giant sign entering the town says Shoushi. I'm not registered. Can somebody make that spelling redirect here please?

Done. --Golbez 06:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Undo

I did undo because the city in Armenian was removed, but all the other languages were left. ROOB323 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Artaxiad's edit, which he marked as "clean-up", but in fact undid all my recent edits to this article. I also reverted his vandalism of some user pages. Grandmaster 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Tourist and historic sites/Prominent people

Grandmaster do you a have any sources or proof that this sites survived the NK war? Vartanm 03:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Parishan do you have any sources confirming that these people were from Shusha? VartanM 06:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just look in the respective articles, next to their dates of birth. Parishan 06:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There are detailed articles about most of them. Grandmaster 06:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. How about tourist and historic sites? How do we know that the buildings have survived the war? VartanM 07:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't. We only know that all those historical monuments existed before the war. Grandmaster 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just went thru the list, most of them don't site sources and some of the people are not even from Shusha. VartanM 07:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Raise the issue with particular articles. The only one who was not born in Shusha is general Mehmandarov. His parents were from Shusha, but he was born in Lenkaran, where his father worked in Russian customs. Grandmaster 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Molla Panah Vagif - born in 1717 in the village of Salahly in the Qazakh district of north-western Azerbaijan,

Uzeyir Hajibeyov - born on September 18, 1885 in Agjabadi near Shusha. Agjabadi is closer to Martuni

Samedbey Mehmandarov - born on October 16, 1855 in Lankaran. I wonder what people from Lankaran think about him being on this list.

Bulbul - born in 1897 in the village of Khanbagi, near Shusha. I live near the Pacific ocean. Also the article is in violation of copyright --VartanM 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

All those people (except for Mehmandarov) grew up or lived in Shusha. For example, Vagif, who was vezir of khan of Karabakh, spent in Shusha most of his life and was killed there. I'm not sure whether Mehmandarov should be in the list, as he did not live in the city for long, but he was Shushavian by origin too. So were Rashid Behbudov and Fikret Amirov, who were born in Tbilisi and Ganja, but their parents moved to those cities from Shusha. But other than Mehmandarov, all other people were the residents of the town. Grandmaster 05:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag from Prominent people section, because it does not need references. References are respective wiki articles. Grandmaster 10:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Roofless Buildings?

Google Earth images show numerous buildings in Shusha appear to be without roofs. Can anyone who is familiar with Shusha comment on this? Beefcalf 22:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question; I'm looking at it now and I see what you're talking about. Perhaps they're ruins from the war? The population of Shusha now is 1/10 what it used to be, so they don't need most of those buildings. --Golbez 22:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to thank you for suggesting I look at Shusha on Google Earth, as I had never taken a look at it; the geography of the region is amazing. That is a perfect location for a fort city. --Golbez 22:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some pictures I found on Picasa(all the way in the bottom) [[25]] VartanM 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted unsourced additions by anon. Grandmaster 12:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted another anon. Please discuss the changes first. Grandmaster 08:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit that changed the name of the town from standard spelling. Grandmaster 05:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

anon

I am reverting anon user who does not explain the rationale behind his edit.--Dacy69 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Admin should pay attention to this article. Anon removes improtant imformation--Dacy69 18:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of names

I moved the list of names to List of Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karabakh. suggestions? criticism? VartanM 18:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I added back the image of Azeri girl from Shusha, as the title of the page suggests, it's relevant here. I don't see why a simple picture of Azeri girl from Shusha is causing revert warring and disruptive reactions from User:MarshallBagramyan. Or perhaps, the attempt is to prove further that no Azeri soul resided in this city built by Azeri Panah-khan? Atabek 08:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, your accusation that MarshallBagramyan is racist against Azeris is an Assumption of Bad Faith. No one can dispute the fact that Shoushi was an important Azeri town and many of the prominent Azeris were from Shousha. Now can you please tell us what does this picture add to the article. --VartanM 16:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of it on the page. I'm growing sick and tired of your revolting accusations that I hold some racist grudge against Azeris in your attempts to stir up another nationalist/ethnic war; you level a charge like that on me again, and I'm reporting you straight to the ArbCom for failing to uphold civility on this website.--Marshal Bagramyan 18:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the picture is relevant, because the girl from Shusha is in authentic national dressing. Besides that it also reflects the cultural heritage of Shusha in the 19th century. As for your accusations, go ahead report me, I am not the one removing images of Azeri girl from Karabakh here or pictures and videos of maimed Azeri children from Khojaly Massacre, it's yourself and VartanM doing and advocating that. Assume good faith. Atabek 22:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Authentic national dressing? If that is the reasoning of the argument, your "logic" would also justify adding pictures of Azeris from Baku, or Ganje, or anywhere else from the region where Azeris lived on to this article. It doesn't reflect anything about the town of Shushi in the 19th century. If this is how Azeri girls dressed in the nineteenth century, then the picture isn't exceptional at all; if this is how Azeri girls from Shushi exclusively dressed (which would require a credible citation to say the least) then that's a different story, otherwise, a picture of an Armenian from Shushi would be almost equally as useless because nothing is being said about the town.--Marshal Bagramyan 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Nagorno-Karabakh page has this image, and it doesn't seem to bother anybody. They both tell about the kind of people that lived in the given location, in terms of their attires. Parishan 10:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's Nagorno-Karabakh as a region, as a whole. Are you saying that an Azeri girl's clothing in the 19th century was any different than say, one from a nearby village?--Marshal Bagramyan 00:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I restored the de jure coat of arms of Shusha back to where it should be. As current status of Shusha, occupied by unrecognized NK separatists, is not de-jure recognized, the de-jure coat of arms should be on the top. Atabek 11:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, pls. discuss your edit here before removal of legitimate info. I restore info as well.--Dacy69 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms belongs to history section, as it is the historical coat of arms. VartanM 00:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Armenian coat of arms is illegal, so it cannot be included as a legal symbol of the town. It was created by legally none-existing state. --Grandmaster 08:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

By Wiki practics: its easy to find any coat of arms by any unrecognized republic for ex. that of Prednestrovia or Turkish Cyprus. Wiki just provides information! Andranikpasha 08:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored the removed images. Girl from Shusha is relevant to the article, the rules do not prohibit adding pictures of people who lived in the city. The coat of arms arragement was made by the admin Khoikhoi, we can contact him if necessary. And fact tags are not relevant either, the sources are there. Grandmaster 10:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Baki66 perhaps you would like to explain why the historic coat of arms belongs in the template, and what the azeri girl picture adds to the article. Looking forward for your response. VartanM 19:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I ment de-jure. either prove me wrong by proving that its de-jure coat of arms or leave it in the history section. As for the girl picture it adds nothing special to the article. Why is that girl special? why not another? or another? why not include every Azeri and Armenian girls pictures to this Article. VartanM 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless a source is provided that the de-jure coat of arms is official. I'm going to move it back to the history section. Thank you. VartanM 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This article uses an excerpt from a pamphlet by the Russian racist polemist Shavrov. Besides being an unreliable source because of the author's chauvinist bias, Sh.'s argument is not directly relevant to the issue of Shusha's demographics. It should be removed. Verjakette 01:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Shavrov was indeed a chauvinist, but that does not make him unreliable, as he was not pro-Azeri. He was a Russian official well familiar with the settlement policy of the Russian authorities, and he claimed that the Muslim lands in Caucasus should be settled with ethnic Russians, and not Armenians. The statistic info presented by him is relevant here, as it shows how come that the Armenian minority became a majority in Shusha after Karabakh became a part of the Russian empire. Also I removed biased sources that Andranikpasha tried to use in another article and which are still disputed. Let's settle the dispute in the article "Shusha pogrom" first before spreading it here. Grandmaster 08:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources are not biased! And noone disputted them. If you disputted some parts of the article "Shusha pogrom", no reason to add "not biased" partisan Armenian source (are you calling its deletion... a vandalism??) and OR and delete famous Italian historian (its surely not a vandalism... as he is obviously pro-Armenian extremely biased one:)... only for you)!Andranikpasha 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster: Chauvinist Shavrov does not need to be pro-Azeri in order to be considered anti-Armenian. He is anti-Armenian and therefore not a reliable source. A similar case with Vasil Velichko, oft-quoted by Azeri POV sources. Remove them. But even if he were NPOV observers, still Sh.'s comment is not germane in the discussion of Shusha's demographics. It DOES NOT show how "Armenian minority became a majority in Shusha after Karabakh became a part of the Russian empire." Verjakette 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

see my comment - Shavrov discusses South Caucasus and "Lake Gokcha" but not Karabakh or Shusha specifically. Do not attempt to put this POV back in the text. Verjakette 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Shavrov is not anti-Armenian, he is anti-everyone other than Russians. His political views are not of any interest here, of interest are only his statistics about resettlement policy of the Russian empire that he cites in his book. As a Russian official he was well informed about that. Also, Shavrov is not the only source here, it is enough to compare the Russian statistics of 1828 with the later data to see that the number of Armenian population in Karabakh and Shusha significantly increased, while the number of Azerbaijani population did not. It is undeniable fact, with or without Shavrov. Grandmaster 10:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you began hard pushing a totally OR-based, baseless, POV. Shavrov's passage does not discuss demographic situation in the town of Shusha. As a chauvinist, he cannot be trusted, too. Your inference that because there was a small migration of Armenians from Persia into the larger Caucasus the population of Shusha was affected necessarily is a baseless OR. The number of Armenians in Shusha increased because they came from nearby villages and other part of Armenian-populated highlands of Karabakh and Zangezur (neames of Armenian boroghs of Shusha indicate that - Jraberdsots (people who came from Jraberd), Megretsots (people who came from Megri), etc. Just FYI: Armenians who came from Persia and Ottoman lands never settled in the highlands of Karabakh, especially in Shusha. There are some records indicating that some Persian Armenians settled in lowland Karabakh (near Barda), temporarily. There are also two or three Perso-Armenian villages near Mardakert (e.g. Maragha) – but these people bear such striking linguistic and cultural dissimilarity with Karabakh Armenian natives. They speak a very, very different dialect. Verjakette 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Verjakette and Bassenius, please, discuss the references and come to a conclusive consensus before removing references from the article. There were also numerous Azerbaijani villages surrounding both Shusha and Khankendi (Stepanakert), such as Malibeyli, Gushchular, Karkijahan, Dashalti, so what? What you need is substantiated research and sources, not removing what's currently in the article. Thanks. Atabek 14:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Shavrov said that Armenian immigrants settled in the mountainous part of Elisavetpol gubernia, which is Karabakh. Encyclopedia Britannica also said that Armenians settled in Karabakh. There are many other sources, I can provide quotes if necessary. Grandmaster 14:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, provide verifiable sources (other than Shavrov) that Armenians from Persia or Turkey settled in Shusha specifically (not in the "mountainous part of Elisavetpol gubernia" - actually I do not believe sources like that exist at all, so I would doubt those as forgeries), and we will see if those can be used. I also think that Shavrov, Velichko and other chauvinists should not be quoted. I can provide Russian and European "sources" of this kind that Tartars (Azerbaijanis) are perfidious Muslims with pederastic proclivities. Do you want that kinda crap in Wiki in articles dealing with Azerbaijan? Of course not. Atabek's rv will be ignored because he simply did not understand the argument in the debate and engaged in edit warring. Bassenius 16:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Aynabend, the last time you edited Wikipedia was over a month ago, and you decided to revert for Atabek? thats called meatpuppeting. Shavrov is not an independent source. The work is about a so-called threat the immigrants represent to the Russians economically. It's a xenophobic piece on the anti-Armenian policies of the Russians, which was the same as Prince Lobanoff's policy who announced that Russians desire Armenia without the Armenians.

And Grandmaster, why is it that Britannica is only a credible source when it support your position? (forgot about Khachen???), and no, it does not support your position. It speak of Karabakh, which includes the lowlands, the only time it speak of NK, was when it covers the refugees during the Armenian genocide who did not remain in NK anyway. And beside what is the relevancy of this quote? How many articles do you guys think should be used to cover how Armenians were alien and how millions were brought there, even in subjects such as Shushi? I believe this sort of problem could only be fixed once conflict resolution start dealing with POV pushing. -- VartanM (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the tourist and historic sites list. Request to source the section was made in May '07. Trivia sections are discouraged and unencyclopedic. -- VartanM (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms will also be moved to history section unless its sourced. -- VartanM (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Armenians emigrated in large numbers to Karabakh is very well documented in Western and Russian sources.

The penny cyclopædia of the Society for the diffusion of useful knowledge. 1833:

The population of Karabagh, according to the official returns of 1832, consisted of 13965 Mohammedan and 1491 Armenian families, besides some Nestorian Christians and Gypsies. This limited population may be ascribed to the frequent wars which have long desolated the province, and to the emigration to Persia of many Mohammedan families since its subjection to Russia, although many Armenians were induced by the Russian government, after the peace of Toorkmanchay, to emigrate from Persia to Karabagh.

Britannica:

The Russian campaigns against the Persians and the Turks in the 18th and 19th centuries resulted in large emigrations of Armenians under Muslim rule to the Transcaucasian provinces of the Russian Empire and to Russia itself. Armenians settled in Yerevan, T'bilisi, Karabakh, Shemakha (now Samaxi), Astrakhan, and Bessarabia. At the time of the massacres in Turkish Armenia in 1915, some Armenians found asylum in Russia. A number settled in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh within the neighbouring Muslim country of Azerbaijan. Armenians now constitute about three-fourths of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh; since 1988 there have been violent interethnic disputes and sporadic warfare between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in and around the enclave. [26]

So Shavrov, whether chauvinist or not, was saying pretty much the same thing. And sharp increase of Armenian population in Shusha was a result of the Armenian immigration to the region. Grandmaster (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, inclusion in this article of POV claims from a disputed article about "pogroms", when it is well documented that there was a fighting initiated by the Armenian militants is not acceptable. Let's resolve the dispute on the other article first, both title and contents of which are still disputed. Grandmaster (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I distinctly recall that this was already settled during the exchange between Fadix and Adil back in February. Perhaps this should serve as a refresher: [27] Most of the Muslim population was in the lowland in 1823; before the “resettlement”, there were 59 Armenian villages but only seven Tartar in the mountainous region. According to official statistics, there were, in the Karabakh region, (which includes the lowlands) 15,729 Tartar families in 1923 but 35,000 in 1836. This means that the Tartar population nearly doubled in a period of 13 years, taking in account natural growth from both sides, there weren’t fewer Tartars moving to Karabakh than Armenians. Those are official records, and 1 + 1 = 2, last time I checked, is not OR. The 1832 figures were also probably mistypes. The 1810 statistics for the whole of Karabakh gave 9,500 Muslim families, and 2,500 Armenian families; the 1823 figures were 15,729 Tartar families and 4,366 Armenian families (observe the increase in absolute figures, more Muslims moving to Karabakh than Armenian). If your figures from Penny are accurate, this would mean that ‘’Armenians left Karabakh’’, not settled there, unless the work is comparing the number of Armenian families with the total number of Muslim.

As for Britannica, this is nothing new. You already posted it and it was answered by Vartan, so why post it again? It is talking about Karabakh, not NK; it only covers NK after 1915, but we already know that in NK, Armenians as far as official statistics could go, were a majority, not only ¾ of the population, but above 90%, which they maintained in 1921. The only shift in the relative value in NK was after 1921, and it was a decrease in the proportion of the Armenian population.

The only reason why someone will bring up a massive Armenian resettlement claim in every given occasion would be to mislead readers. We all know that Karabakh and NK are not the same, and we all know that in NK the Armenians were a majority and this before 1823. NK supported Peter the Great’s campaign while the Muslims opposed it; how could it support the campaign a century prior to if its population was Muslim? In sources of that time, they speak only of an Armenian army, Armenian generals, etc. There is no way in the world that someone will throw Shavrov in the picture by claiming that it is relevant information and continue the myth that Armenians never lived there. It is common knowledge that the Armenians were living there over a millennium prior the massive resettlement of the Turkic tribes. Should we start adding this too? Also, one million defies logic: where on Earth did those million come from? Persia? Impossible, it is at least three times the total Armenian population of that time. There would be records of vacated Armenian villages in Persia, the emptying of new Julfa entirely. The Ottoman Empire? Hundreds of thousands of people is not something insignificant, it would have been reported in sources, the Turkish government who is doing everything to minimize the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire would take the occasion to use every archive available which supports such a massive movement of Armenians outside of the Empire.

Let’s be realistic here: Shavrov is a xenophobic author and his claim is not supported by any credible source, but if you really want to go there by cooking up some massive Armenian resettlement, we should also include the massive Turkic resettlement which is much better supported by sources and at a much grander scale.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you took your figures from, but increase of Armenian population in Shusha is indisputable fact, supported by many sources. Initially a minority, Armenian population sharply increased and started prevailing in numbers over Azeris. This could not be a result of natural increase, as Azeris had a higher birth rate. And modern sources also support the fact of massive resettlement of Armenian population to Transcaucasia. This is from a modern Russian scholar:

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

Середина 90-х годов ознаменовалась трагическими событиями в Турции. В 1894-1896 годах вспышки геноцида унесли жизнь около 200 тыс. армян и подтолкнули их к новой массовой эмиграции в Россию. По оценкам, в 1897-1916 годах в Россию прибыло около 500 тыс. армян [3, с. 203]. Накануне Первой мировой войны в пределах Российской Империи жило 1, 8 млн армян - немногим меньше, чем в Турции (2 млн). [28]

This Russian scholar says that before immigration there were 107,000 Armenian people in Transcaucasia, and as result of immigration their number reached 1,8 million before the start of the World War I. And Britannica also mentions Armenian immigration to Karabakh, I don't understand what the problem is with this source. There was no Armenian population in lowland Karabakh, so the immigrants settled in the highland part of the region. These statistics are very well known, and supported even by the Armenian sources. --Grandmaster (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Russian "scholar" says nothing about Karabakh, much less Shushi. As for Shushi, it was a purely Armenian village called Shoshaberd, before Tatar warlord Panah settled Tatar nomads there and called it Shushi. So, actually it was the Tatars (or the so called "Azeris") whose percentage grew after migrating to Armenian lands.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster has a problem with formal logic. He is told that there are no references about Shusha or Karabakh highlands specifically but he is pushing his POV with piles of completely irrelevant information. Shusha was established by Armenians - not by Panakh the Brigand (as Armenians call him) - and the Turks were an uninvited and unwanted element there from the beginning. Correspondence of Armenian meliks with Russian emissaries testify about that. Bassenius (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)