This page 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. |
These are only links remaining. I am wandering who deleted all the links. Why the link to such an neutral soruce the Council of Europe is deleted. I will go on and reinstate the Council of Europe link. Francis where are you. When Azerbaijanis do something on the web page they are excluded or accused of vandalism? Who is the vandal that did this? If I don't get responses in one or two days, I will go on and make changes to the web page on Nagorno Karabakh based on this note and my notes below. I would wish that Francis does it. But it seems that he is committed to do only pro-armenian things. Then it means that I have to this. No other optino. -- Eagle of the Caucasus 19:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've added the verify tag as this article is in sore need of references. I think good solid references and removing unsourced material could help in resolving the dispute here. If no-one objects I will add {{fact}} tags to parts that I think are most in need of sourcing. - FrancisTyers 19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Can someone give a brief explanation (or point by point explanation) of why this article is disputed? - FrancisTyers 15:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Basically Armenians are the major ethnic group and want the area to be offically under Armenian control. The land was designated as part of Azerbaijan at the break up of the Soviet Union despite the Armenian majority. Armenians are the current military presence and the Azeris want them out. 65.29.40.28 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)anon
Here are some neutral sources
1- PACE (the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) report on real nature and causes of Nagorno Karabakh conflict
Source: Council of Europe / the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10364.htm
2 - On the history of Nagorno Karabagh - Council of Europe / the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe - go to the History page http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10364.htm
3 - History of Nagorno Karabagh - United Nations Comission on Human Rights - http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.1999.79.Add.1.En?Opendocument
4- Excerpt from the United Nations Comission on Human Rights regarding the Nagorno Karabakh conflict - the source is the same as above
While the conflict concerns and is concentrated on territory falling within the internationally-recognized borders of Azerbaijan, it also has an unmistakable external dimension which has the effect of "internationalizing" it. It is generally accepted that the Karabakh Armenian cause has received considerable economic and military support from Armenia and the ethnic Armenian diaspora. / Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh (New York, 1994), pp. 67-73; S. Neil MacFarlane and Larry Minear, The Politics of Humanitarian Action: The Case of Nagorno-Karabakh, Providence, Rhode Island, Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies, 1997, pp. 28-30 and 41./ For this reason, analyses of the conflict tend to describe the conflict as one between the Government of Azerbaijan and "Armenian forces", the latter, deliberately ambiguous, term referring to the Karabakh Armenian forces and their wider membership, which may include citizens of Armenia, mercenaries and members of the armed forces of Armenia. / See, in particular, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, Seven Years of Conflict, pp. 29-30 and 90-104./
5 - A brief history of Nargorno Karbakh - nothing says that it belonged to Armenia. Rather it states that Karbagh belonged to Caucasus Albania, who were predecessors of current Azerbijanis.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/n/nagornok1.asp
Hope this helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roman azer ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 December 2005.
There’s some inaccurate information in the latest edits of the article. For instance:
On February 20, 1988, Armenian deputies to the National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh voted to unify that region with Armenia. Although Armenia did not formally respond, this act triggered an Azerbaijani massacre of more than 100 Armenians in the city of Sumgait, just north of Baku.
This is not accurate. In late January – early February first groups of Azeri refugees started to arrive to Azerbaijan from Armenia. On 22 February there was a clash between Azeris from Agdam and Armenians from Askeran on the bridge that connected those areas. Two Azeris were killed. On 27 February Deputy attorney-general of the USSR Katusev announced by Azeri TV that two Azeris were killed in Karabakh. This triggered riots in Sumgait. I can prove all this by references, but they are mostly in Russian. We may need a Russian speaking editor to verify the facts. Also the number of 100 Armenians killed is not correct, the official death toll was 32, of them 26 Armenians and 6 Azeris. And information in the last 3 paragraphs of this section is inconsistent and sometimes repetitive. Grandmaster 06:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I made an amendment to the article, using the text of COE report: The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference. I provided the reference within the article. Grandmaster 08:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what the hell happened with the entry, which was more encyclopedic than it is now. The history of the region and the conflict are taking the entire space, and now this is simply growing on. The next step was to talk about other stuff, but still, nothing is said, about the people living there, the institutions etc., beside enclave, protectorate etc., are all different terms compared to just 'region.' A region of Azerbaijan is simply misleading, given that it was called an authomous oblask and protectorate of Azerbaijan, an enclave. That was made clear, and accepted including by Tabib during the discussions in the archive that were something like a hundred page. It is disrespectable to ignore the history of the talk page and going on editing whatever one wants without previous discussions on the talk page. And by this, I am talking for both sides. Even if I disagreed with Tabib very strongly, at least the guy was writting and making his mind on the talk page. If that thing still grow and grow, I will be creating an entry called Nagorni-Karabakh conflict and dump the entire thing there, something which should have been done from the beggining. Fad (ix) 03:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"After the 8th century, Albania diminished in size, and came to exist only as the Khachin principality in Artsakh."
It is absolutely absurd. I don't see the source of this sentence. Albania transerred itself to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis who are their predecessors. They owe the same right to what Albanians owned including Karabakh. Almost 90 percent of Albanians became Azerbaijanis. Small number gradually Armenianized under the pressure and assimiliation of the Armenian church as the Albanian church was cancelled by the Arab khilaphate. The reason for that was that Arabs were suspicious that the Albanian church cooperates with Byzantine against Arabs. This false information was taken to the Arab khilaphate by the Armenian church, as historians claim, in order to regain the control of all Albanian churches and ease the Armenianization of Albanians.
Hundred of sentences, historical and current facts about the region and events are wrong. I would suggest that we complete change the Nagorno-Karabakh page based on the Council of Europe report to the extent we can and then limit any change untill the conflict is resolved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.175.186 ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 January 2006.
- There is nothing surprising to explain. It just shows that my predecessors, Albanians and your predecessors, Armenians might have a kinship. If you carefully read the article it never states or says that Azerbaijanis and Armenians have kinship. It just says that they might be closer to each other and since you live together for two hundred years it is quite possible that you would develop such a relationship.
- Also if you go and listen to the view of your ultr-fundamentalist Armenian church all people are relatives to each other and come from one father and mother, Adam and Havva, which is questionable as well, since I don't think I have anything with armenians.
- Second statistical likelihood or probability that Armenians and Azerbaijanis might have relationship, does not mean that there is 100 percent or even 50 percent probability of relationship. We all know problems with statistical applications and statistical significance. in such empirical studies there are questions about the data presicion, manipulation of data by authors, problems with statistical modeling, reverse relationship from cause to effect and vice versa, probelms with calculation, problems with DNA test, how people who were subject to DNA tests are chosen and so forth. As far as I got the selection of subjects weren't random, which is a big flaw for any empirical study. So I would like to request you, Fad, not to go into deep discussion with me on econometrics and statistics.
- Third if you have been to the region, then you would also see now the face and bodywise differences between Azerbaijanis and Armenians. Azerbijanis are more white, more European, with more beatufil face, while Armenians have long noses, dark skin, more hairy, and uglier on average as well. This all I hope would answer to your question on possible kinship between Azerbaijanis and Armenians.
- Fourth the article is written by a Georgian, Armenian and pseudo Azerbiajni, but I couldn't verify the presence of such a person at the Ministy of Health in Azerbaijan. This article if undertaken, is also nothng more than the order of the destructive and opportunist, manipulative, ultra nationalist Armenian diaspora in US or Europe.
-Fifth 200 or more years of living in neighborhood imposed by Russians is more than enough to develop the weak relationship that the research you refer to might have found. Many Azerijanis have married to Armenians nowadays and indeed we have just right now over 30,000 Armenian brides in Azerbaijan who serve as faithful wives and mothers. This is another source why the research you refer to might indicate a possible, yet weak relationship between Azerbaijanis and Armenians.
- So the study you refer to does not prove or indicate that Armenians might also be predecessors of Albanians. Its Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis who are remnants of Albania and Albanians who for the most part ceased to exist thanks to the cooperation of the Armenian church with Arabs.
- Please next time when you put a note or words, indicate your Armenian nationality as well. Then it would help people to know whose notes they are reading. I learned it only after visiting your web site. Regards,-- 71.195.182.195 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I realize that Grandmaster, FrancisTyers, and Fadix have been discussing this earlier, but I decided to post this comment at the end of the talk page instead of burying in the middle to make it easier to find.
I restored a statement that had been added by FrancisTyers and later deleted by Grandmaster, namely, that LOC (Library of Congress) states that over 100 Armenians were killed.
Grandmaster, you said earlier that the LOC report should not be included since it does not cite its source for the number. In Wikipedia, we can't exclude a reputable source just because it does not cite a source. It is not our job to determine whether a fact mentioned in a source is correct or not. This is prohibited under the "no original research" rule. As long as the source is reputable (and LOC is), we don't care how exactly it got its facts. All we need to do is verify that the fact is mentioned in the source--we don't verify any further. This is also mandated by the rule that the "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" ( [2]). We just report that the fact is mentioned in a source and cite the source. In this case, the facts are that the official number is 32, but LOC says 100. The above policies are perfectly explained in the following exceprt from Wikipedia guidelines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
We need to remember, we are not historians, we don't compare, investigate, analyze and dismiss various sources to come up with the truth. This kind of analysis is left for the expert. An encyclopedia is not a historical book, we only report (in a fair, balanced manner) what other researchers say. Secondary sources (such as a research done by LOC) sometimes can be more reliable than a primary source (KGB report)--perhaps the KGB officials want to minimize the numbers and therefore their culpability in not stopping them, perhaps they are too close to events and are biased--we don't know, these are not questions that we should try to answer, these are things left for researchers. This too is explained in Wikipedia guidelines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
And LOC is a reputable organization--it's one of the largest libraries in the world, with scores of researchers, scholars, historians and other experts available at its disposal. The report on Azerbaijan and Karabakh is followed by a long list biblography containing books, articles, and reports (check here). The Acknowledgment section states that the information was based on research of data provided by "numerous organizations and inviduals:"
http://countrystudies.us/azerbaijan/1.htm -- TigranTheGreat 15:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Tigran the great. Tigran wasn't great if you know the history. He was of short as indicated by some Armenian historical sources. All the things subscribed to him is also nothing more than the Armenian myth. So pls, do a favor to everybody and be more accurate. [posted by anonymous user 64.167.141.155 on 05:40, January 11, 2006, exposed by --
TigranTheGreat 11:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)]
Personal attack by
64.167.141.155 (
talk ·
contribs) removed. -
FrancisTyers 20:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
There are too many pictures on this web page and most of them have nothing to do with Karabakh. The picture of the so called and terrorist president, Gukasyan. I think it should be deleted from the web page as he is self claimed head of the unrecognized territory and the legitimacy of entire elections and his presidency is none. At least 30 percent of the Nagorno Karabakh population did not participate in elections due to the ethnic cleansing by armenians and armenian terrorists. Then there is the issue of international observation. None of the respectable internaitonal organizations observed this elections as it is nothing more than puppet elections and internationally not recognized.
The picture of the tigan the great. First of all this tigran has nothing to do with Nagorno Karbakh. he has a relationship only only to armenia. Second, how he was a great that his "empire" which is also nothing more than the product of the armenian imagination, for which armenains have worldwide popularity, ceased to exist in less than 30 years. :-)))))))) Only so far could the armenian 'imagination' go in their effort to find eveything in the world and subscirbe it to armenians.
Therefore I suggest that we delete these pictures from the web site and they are not related to the subject, or wrong and do nothing but distract readers. Roman_Azer, Pensylvania —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.167.141.155 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 January 2006.
To fed ix and tigran, both armenians, now listen to me. your so called, self declared "president' is nothing more than a puppet president. He is not elected by the participation of Azerbaijanis and other evicted from Nagorno Karabakh ethnic minorities. The elections weren't obeserved by any credible international organization. Therefore including the picture of Bahmanov is as meaningful as the picture of the puppet president 'gukasyan'. He is nothing more than the leader of the armenian community of Nagorno Karabakh and I again call Francis to duty by protecting my inclusion of the picture of the Azerbaijani community leader, Nizami Bahmanov, to the web page. I will do it later on. -- Eagle of the Caucasus 06:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Francis, there is no difference in terms of international staturs between gukasyan who claims to be a pupper president and Nizami Bahmanov who is recognized as the leader of the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno Karabakh and participates in all Minsk Groups meetings and etc. I will provide more inofrmaion on him later on. Additionally as you point out, if for Wikipedia the democratic elections is not important to claim for the status of the president, I don't think that Wikipedia will be against of a person who is called just leader of the Azerbaijani community. There is no difference as far as I get. Please, let me know if you see anything different.
Also I will place the map in the post-Soviet section which is describing the results of the armenian occupation and agression of Azerbaijan. This will serve just a good balance to all the pro-Armenian pcitures in the web-page. -- Eagle of the Caucasus 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Tigran I assume your imagination really does not have any limits, which is usually beyond the science. The web page starts with the fact that the puppet "NKR", its puppet 'gov't' strutcures, puppet reps including gukasyan are not recognized by any state and international organization in the world. How a person who is not recognized by any international organization can be held responsible for human rights violations. Indeed there are credible facts, one being the US State Department, that the occupied Azerbaijani territories including the territoriy of "NKR" are used for drug and human trafficking. See the US State Department fact sheet on Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh problem
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2909.htm .
It clearly states "More than 30,000 people were killed in the fighting from 1992 to 1994. In May 1992, Armenian and Karabakhi forces seized Susha (the historical, Azerbaijani-populated capital of Nagorno-Karabakh) and Lachin (thereby linking Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia). By October 1993, Armenian and Karabakhi forces had succeeded in occupying almost all of Nagorno-Karabakh, Lachin, and large areas in southwestern Azerbaijan. As Armenian and Karabakhi forces advanced, hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijani refugees fled to other parts of Azerbaijan. In 1993, the UN Security Council adopted resolutions calling for the cessation of hostilities, unimpeded access for international humanitarian relief efforts, and the eventual deployment of a peacekeeping force in the region. The UN also called for immediate withdrawal of all ethnic Armenian forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Fighting continued, however, until May 1994 when Russia brokered a cease-fire." This is also in line with the picture I placed in the web page. Francis for your information.
On drug trafficking and puppet "NKR" role ni drug trafficking is mentioned in the US State department report. See the Azerbaijani and Armenia sections. http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/1999/925.htm . Who is responsible for that, not to mention the killing of thousands of civil Azerbaijanis. Rest assured, tigran, that all your puppet friends occupying Azerbaijni lands will be found and persecuted as Azerbaijnai citizens involved in terrorism. Guess who will come on the top. your puppet gukasayn. tigran, would you also tell me who is the father of gukasyan. bests-- Eagle of the Caucasus 19:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
FrancisTyers, thank you for removing an irrelevant and illegal (as copyright violation) text posted by the anonymous user 64.167.141.155. I am considering removing the rest of his inflammatory, racist, and irrelevant comments from the talk page (perhaps other than the comment on Gandzasar, which is the only one of his contributions here that's even remotely intelligent). I think simply ignoring them is not enough, as they are potential minefields whenever future visitors see them and start a protracted useless bickerings provoked by this user. I and others I know have deleted similar abuses from talk pages before, but considering the nature of this article and presence of Azeri users, I don't want to make unilateral changes to the page. I hope Grandmaster and other Azeri users will agree, as the last thing we need on this already emotionally charged topic is prolonged fights. After all this user even tried to impersonate an Azeri editor (Roman_Azeri), and he claims to be Georgian which I am sure is another futile attempt to provoke an inter-ethnic bickering.
Unless there are objections from FrancisTyers or others, I am prepared to remove the offensive posts by this user. Thank you. -- TigranTheGreat 08:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all where did this people found the 94 percent of the population were Armenian. At that time there wasn't any reliable population census. Many villages located in mountains were isolated and unreachable. How and who could carry out those population census that gives the figure of 94 percent. This source is definitaley screwed and written and dissiminated by the Armenian diaspora in US. I am hundred percent sure about this. At a time when almost the entire region has never seen an engine car, some pro-armenian people cliam that the area had 94 percent Armenian population. This is what the Armenian imagination is? So funny, so unrealistic, such a big lie. Therefore UI sggest we remove that footnote and anything that it refers to.
I will go on and mark those that are Armenian made as Armenian sites. These sites are
"In the 7th and 8th centuries, the region was invaded by Arabs, who pillaged it and converted a portion of the population to Islam. Under the Arabs, the Albanian church was subordinated to the Armenian Church, resulting in the local Albanian population gradually becoming more like Armenians in terms of religion, culture, and language. After the 8th century, Albania diminished in size, and came to exist only as the Khachin principality in Artsakh." This statement is nothing more than the Armenian myth again. The Albanian church was eliminated by direct efforts of the Armenian church and its cooperation with Arabs. It was the Armenian cnhurch which took the message to Arabs about Albanian church's cooperation with Byzantine. The Armenian church did this to acquire the possessions of the Albanian church and reclaim its territory. But it oculd achive its purpose only partially as majority of Albanians became transformed themseleves into the Azerbaijani identity and accepted Islam, but only small and isolated Albanian communities became Armenian under the assimilation policies of the Armenian church. This is the truth and history.
In the light of this facts, I again call to reword this sentence. Please also let me know the soruce of this sentence and I will come up with my source. It seems that whatever armenians could put into this web page, they managed to put it there with friendly approach of adminstrators and direct participation of ultra-nationalist Armenians and peopel from monoethnic Armenia.
Also words of 'Safavid dynasty of Iran' is grossly wrong. When the Safavid dynasty is formed its name was Safavids and it was an Azerbaijani state. Its Iranianization happened gradually and only after the 17th century. We again see the hands of armenians here as they want to show that the area belonged to Iran, not to Azerbaijanis. So funny and again the Armenian imagination is at work.
This is all so far, but I am looking forward to radical changes on this web page. Otherwise, it is no different than the web page of the ultra-nationalist Armenian diaspora organizations such as AAA and others including dashnakstyun. -- Eagle of the Caucasus 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The population of the Nagorno Karabakh appears to be 95 percent ethnic Armenian and the course is given as the nkrusa.org (the section with puppet anthem, puppet funny flag). This is the web site of the armenian puppet regime's puppet office in USA.
The true information should refer to the pre-occupation and ethnic cleansing period. As WIkipedia puts it, "The population at that time (before the ethnic cleansing) was mainly Armenian (76%) and Azeri (23%), with Russian and Kurdish minorities." This is at least close to truth, yet questionable as the source is again armenian. Therefore I propose that Francis chnages that information as well. If nobody is against, I will go and change that. Thanks. I can't find a single accurate thing on this web page. It is as though the armenian prepared the enitre web page. I don't know somebody please tell me that Wikipedia is not owned by the fundamentalist, ultra-nationalist armenian diaspora in US or Europe. -- Eagle of the Caucasus 03:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
With information referring to the 95 percent armenian population in Nagorno Karabakh it seems that the puppet fundamnetlist armenian regime in Nagorno Karabakgh establishes building blocs of the future Azerbaijaniless territory through the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis. At least thanks for showing your real face. The monoethnic armenia where the hater to others and other nations is norm, tries to create a monoethnic puppet entity nearby at the expense of Azerbaijan. Belive in me ultra nationalist and fundamentalist armenians. You will never see that day. Never, ever. -- Eagle of the Caucasus 18:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course fad and tigran. These statistics can exist only in the imagination of ultra-nationalist and fundamentalist armenians and the terrorist armenian church. I am sure they have a very good collection of statistical books indicating the population of Karabakh written on 1990 papers, but processed to give the impression of the 19th century papers. Of course, only stupids and children, and politicians who are sold to the destructive and terrorist armenian diaspora can believe in your statistics. I would suggest you and your diaspora to look for compensations in other places, not in Azerbaijani or Turksihh soils. Because instead of soil, they will get a big big big big slap and .
I would just like to compliment for what seems an integer and solid attempt to cover the conflict in an objective and factual manner. I have come across much emotionally strained and therefore unreasonable debate as well as outright propaganda from both sides since I became engaged with Azerbaijan, and am happy to have found this source. I strongly consider to add your page as the definite source on the conflict on my otherwise 'happy' Dutch link page on Azerbaijan,
azerbeidzjan.startkabel.nl. What I would like to know, however, is who the moderators of this page are, and what their background and reasons for doing all this are. Frank van Schagen, Amsterdam, jasnostj@yahoo.com --
84.246.5.82 11:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
PS Just one remark: Despite the extensiveness of the information, I do see some points where the uneducated reader would fall short of understanding, for example in reference to Azerbaijani presidents. The addition 'president of the Rep. of Azerbaijan from ... to ...' to their surnames would clear that out.
FrancisTyers, it seems that a number of useful external links were unnecessarily removed (which you recognized yourself by adding the COE link back:) ). I examined the link to Staravoytova's analysis on the USIP page ( http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks19/chap3_19.html) and I see no reason why it should be removed. External links are used to point to extra useful information related to the article. This particular report is published by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) which is a reputable US federal entity (created by Congress, here is their information page [4]). The page provides useful in depth analysis of the issues of self-determination vs. territorial integrity, which is a vital issue for this article. Staravoytova is neither Armenian nor Azeri--she is a renowned Russian human rights activist. I am sure many Azeris consider her pro-Armenian, I personally consider the CEO report favoring the Azeri view (aftel all, COE favors the POV of territorial integrity, which by default favors the Azeri side), plus it seems the Azeri users here have requested to base the entire article on the COE report, which tells me at least they regard it as favoring their POV. But, COE is still non-Armenian, non-Azeri institution, it is reputable, and I don't think it should be removed just because I disagree with its views. Similarly just because the Azeri users disagree with something in Staravoytova's article does not mean the link should be removed. Unless it can be proven that she was acting as an agent of Armenians, there is no reason to remove it. I actually read it, and it is quite balanced and informative. I haven't had time to examine the other removed links, but I think their removal should be reconsidered as well.-- TigranTheGreat 09:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I will try to cumulatively address the points raised by Grandmaster and Francis here.
Grandmaster, lobbying is a loaded word that can have different meanings in different contexts for different readers (and ambiguity is the worst enemy of neutrality). "Lobbying for Armenians" can mean "she worked and/or was paid by Armenians," which is not the case, definitely not at the time her article was written. This is explained by the Armenian journalist mentioned by you, who explains why she didn't "lobby for Armenians," -- her political position in defending Armenians' rights (the author is talking about 1988-91) "was strengthened by her position as a scientist-researcher. A deeper analysis of her point of view on the issue of the right of self-determination was made in her scientific works." ( [6]). She was a leading expert on ethnic issues in USSR, she believed ethnic groups have the right of self-determination, and therefore she happened to agree with Armenians and defended their rights. In other words, the source of her views are not Armenians, it's her own research.
Of course by lobbying we could mean advancing views that agree with the views of one side. Then I ask you--when Atkinson stood in front of the CoE panel, presented the report which contains pro-Azeri views (as confirmed even by non-Armenians that I quoted), and says "I think you should adopt it," wasn't he lobbying the Azeri POV?
Now, if Starovoitova's USIP report was written when she represented Armenians in Soviet Parliament (88-91), I would agree with its exclusion. I agree with you, when you represent a group, you commit yourself to defending their interests. But few points on this. As the Armenian article states, she had been asked by Tatars and Estonians to be elected from their regions too. She chose Armenia because, as she explained later, the human rights situation there was worse (political arrests etc.). This tells me two things--a) other ethnic groups saw her as the defender of their rights, and b) she chose to temporarily commit herself to Armenian interests for objective reasons, and not because she lived in Armenia or had cultural connection or was paid by them. The main point is that the "commitment" ended in 1991 (actually before the actual war started). When the article was written, she had long been un-committed, serving as a member of Russian Parliament for 7 years.
I understand that the article says she has helped Armenians on several occasions. This doesn't mean she hasn't defended the rights of others--she is a major human rights activist. Keep in mind that the Armenian article is about what she has done for Armenians--it's not a summary of all her activities, clearly it wouldn't include her defense of other nationalities. In fact, she has helped other groups and is considered a defender of small nations. Here is an RFE report on how leaders in various former Soviet republics mourned her death--we got Estonia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, in fact she is being called "friend of all small nations":
Your previous Russian website at [7] says that she defended the Chechens (a Muslim minority like the Azeris by the way), plus she was the Russian president's advisor on ethnic issues. All of this indicates that she in general defended the rights of persecuted minorities as an expert on minorities and as a human rights activist.
So perhaps she defended the right of Armenian prisoners accused of killing Azeris, but doesn't mean she didn't defend other prisoners. In fact the above tells me she probably did, but the article is focused Armenians. Also, we don't know the circumstances surrounding the accusations--perhaps there were mitigating circumstances warranting the overturning of the death penalty, perhaps she saw violations of the rights of the prisoners which rendered the results untrustworthy--if the Russian government overturned those sentences, there must have been a reason. The point is we don't know these things, and right now I don't have time to research further into these issues, but I am pretty sure alot can be found. That is why doing original research trying to dissect the background of the authors is messy--it's a never ending process, you find stuff supporting one side but then there is stuff supporting another story, and you don't really get the complete picture. It's much neater to trust the judgment of a reputable institution that has chosen to publish a source.
Also, about helping the Armenian prisoners--keep in mind she did it during the time when she "represented" Armenia in the Soviet parliament, and as you say, was committed to Armenian interests. So one might expect that in those times, she would spend more time defending her constituents. This commitment, was long gone when her article was written.
In connection with the investigation of the $1 billion Russian military aid to Armenia, as the article says, not only her, but Rizhkov (former Soviet Prime Minister) and other members of the parliament opposed the investigation, which was brought by general Rikhlev who, as the article says, is a known lobbyist for Azerbaijan. I say the Russian legislators didn't want to deal with Azeri propaganda sneaking to Russian politics, and ended the initiative. She certainly didn't work for Armenians at that time (this was after 1991).
By the way, just to demonstrate her impeccable reputation as a highly esteemed expert and activist on human rights, the US State Department has a fellowship on human rights named after her. This is from the State Dep' website:
So when you say that we should state that her report is not a result of impartial research, I don't think the State Department would award a Human Rights Fellowship named after her, just as I don't think United States Institute of Peace would publish her report, if she was "blatantly pro-Armenian," or if her research was flawed. Also note that neither the State Department nor the USIP say anything about her being pro-Armenian or even mention her representing Armenia in 1989-91. This tells me that these two major entities didn't consider her pro-Armenian, nor they found her being elected from Armenia relevant, for the reasons I mentioned above. So perhaps when she says in her report that "there is impressive evidence that Armenians have dominated Karabakh," maybe that's because that's what the evidence suggests, and she sees it as a scientist, not because she is pro-Armenian. Similarly, when she has helped Armenians on various occasions, perhaps that's because these occasions warranted a defense of human rights violations, and not that she works for Armenians.
Now, the reason I have a problem with this issue of links is this. There are hard-core POV links (like zerbaijan.com and cilcia.com), and there are soft-core POV links--which is pretty much the rest of them--they belong to third parties, but one way or the other support one of the sides--some favor the concept of territorial integrity (CoE report), others favor self-determination (Staravoitova). We Armenians feel it's unfair when the soft-core "pro-Armenian" side is excluded, and right now the issue of self-determination is severely under-represented to the general public. I know many Azeris don't like Starovoitova, but many Armenians were angered by Aktinson's CoE report. And you read non-Armeinains calling it "agreeing with Baku's view" and "being the most pro-Azeri of all CoE reports," and "giving selective history of the conflict." And by the way, the second USIP article that I added, in the end it concludes that Azerbaijan's territorial integrity should take precedence, which by default is pro-Azeri view.
Ideally, I don't think we should include POV explanations after links that come from reputable sites as opposed to clearly POV sites--it's messy, you open a whole can of worms. But, if you want to include an explanation, I think it's only fair to add one after the CoE report as well, something like "Observers consider the views expressed in this report to favor the Azeri side." Similarly, a NPOV explanation after Starovoitova's link would be "Solutions proposed in the article favor the Armenian side." I don't think saying "her research is not impartial" is NPOV since we dont' know that, and her being a leading expert and beign chosen by a reputable institution speaks against it. Also, I don't think saying "she represents the Armenian view" is NPOV either, since "represents" is another loaded word and may suggest "the source of her views are Armenians," which is non-provable and, to me, the sources of her views is she and her expertise.
I want to take a moment and summarize the points that have been raised so far, just to make it easier to reach a solution:
Our dispute has been on the following:
-- TigranTheGreat 13:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I just examined and added another removed external link back ( Nagorno-Karabakh Searching for a Solution: Key points, by Patricia Carley, Publication of the United States Intitute of Peace (USIP), for the very same reasons mentioned above. It's from the same organization (USIP) which is neutral. The article provides much useful and well balanced information. I think Eagle of the Caucasia should realize that information cannot be removed simply because he dislikes it.-- TigranTheGreat 09:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Grandmaster, what does Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry have to do with NK, to be included in External Links? I believe External Links need to be about the subject matter of the article--in this case NK, not the general area. It's like including Armenia's official cite. Now Francis may correct me, but I think we don't duplicate sources in References and External Links--the Foreign Ministry is listed in the References.-- TigranTheGreat 09:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This site is unviewable for people who don't have Macromedia Flash installed (that includes me). As a result of that this link should not be included. See Wikipedia:External links. I would certainly not be opposed to including information with regard to human rights. e.g. [13] [14] etc. - FrancisTyers 02:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I was in the kitchen making soup and I had an idea that I hope will satisfy both parties. If you feel that it doesn't, feel free to revert me. - FrancisTyers 15:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Francis, the map added by Eagle of Caucasia is copyrighted with "All Rights Reserved," which is printed in the lower left hand corner of the image (check out the large version at http://www.mfa.gov.az/img/map_eng.gif). The image description page on Wikipedia has a free use tag added by Eagle of Caucasia, but there is nothing on the official site indicating that permission is granted to use it. As such, the picture is a copyright violation and needs to be deleted.-- TigranTheGreat 04:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This page 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. |
These are only links remaining. I am wandering who deleted all the links. Why the link to such an neutral soruce the Council of Europe is deleted. I will go on and reinstate the Council of Europe link. Francis where are you. When Azerbaijanis do something on the web page they are excluded or accused of vandalism? Who is the vandal that did this? If I don't get responses in one or two days, I will go on and make changes to the web page on Nagorno Karabakh based on this note and my notes below. I would wish that Francis does it. But it seems that he is committed to do only pro-armenian things. Then it means that I have to this. No other optino. -- Eagle of the Caucasus 19:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've added the verify tag as this article is in sore need of references. I think good solid references and removing unsourced material could help in resolving the dispute here. If no-one objects I will add {{fact}} tags to parts that I think are most in need of sourcing. - FrancisTyers 19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Can someone give a brief explanation (or point by point explanation) of why this article is disputed? - FrancisTyers 15:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Basically Armenians are the major ethnic group and want the area to be offically under Armenian control. The land was designated as part of Azerbaijan at the break up of the Soviet Union despite the Armenian majority. Armenians are the current military presence and the Azeris want them out. 65.29.40.28 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)anon
Here are some neutral sources
1- PACE (the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) report on real nature and causes of Nagorno Karabakh conflict
Source: Council of Europe / the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10364.htm
2 - On the history of Nagorno Karabagh - Council of Europe / the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe - go to the History page http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10364.htm
3 - History of Nagorno Karabagh - United Nations Comission on Human Rights - http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.1999.79.Add.1.En?Opendocument
4- Excerpt from the United Nations Comission on Human Rights regarding the Nagorno Karabakh conflict - the source is the same as above
While the conflict concerns and is concentrated on territory falling within the internationally-recognized borders of Azerbaijan, it also has an unmistakable external dimension which has the effect of "internationalizing" it. It is generally accepted that the Karabakh Armenian cause has received considerable economic and military support from Armenia and the ethnic Armenian diaspora. / Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh (New York, 1994), pp. 67-73; S. Neil MacFarlane and Larry Minear, The Politics of Humanitarian Action: The Case of Nagorno-Karabakh, Providence, Rhode Island, Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies, 1997, pp. 28-30 and 41./ For this reason, analyses of the conflict tend to describe the conflict as one between the Government of Azerbaijan and "Armenian forces", the latter, deliberately ambiguous, term referring to the Karabakh Armenian forces and their wider membership, which may include citizens of Armenia, mercenaries and members of the armed forces of Armenia. / See, in particular, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, Seven Years of Conflict, pp. 29-30 and 90-104./
5 - A brief history of Nargorno Karbakh - nothing says that it belonged to Armenia. Rather it states that Karbagh belonged to Caucasus Albania, who were predecessors of current Azerbijanis.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/n/nagornok1.asp
Hope this helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roman azer ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 December 2005.
There’s some inaccurate information in the latest edits of the article. For instance:
On February 20, 1988, Armenian deputies to the National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh voted to unify that region with Armenia. Although Armenia did not formally respond, this act triggered an Azerbaijani massacre of more than 100 Armenians in the city of Sumgait, just north of Baku.
This is not accurate. In late January – early February first groups of Azeri refugees started to arrive to Azerbaijan from Armenia. On 22 February there was a clash between Azeris from Agdam and Armenians from Askeran on the bridge that connected those areas. Two Azeris were killed. On 27 February Deputy attorney-general of the USSR Katusev announced by Azeri TV that two Azeris were killed in Karabakh. This triggered riots in Sumgait. I can prove all this by references, but they are mostly in Russian. We may need a Russian speaking editor to verify the facts. Also the number of 100 Armenians killed is not correct, the official death toll was 32, of them 26 Armenians and 6 Azeris. And information in the last 3 paragraphs of this section is inconsistent and sometimes repetitive. Grandmaster 06:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I made an amendment to the article, using the text of COE report: The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference. I provided the reference within the article. Grandmaster 08:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what the hell happened with the entry, which was more encyclopedic than it is now. The history of the region and the conflict are taking the entire space, and now this is simply growing on. The next step was to talk about other stuff, but still, nothing is said, about the people living there, the institutions etc., beside enclave, protectorate etc., are all different terms compared to just 'region.' A region of Azerbaijan is simply misleading, given that it was called an authomous oblask and protectorate of Azerbaijan, an enclave. That was made clear, and accepted including by Tabib during the discussions in the archive that were something like a hundred page. It is disrespectable to ignore the history of the talk page and going on editing whatever one wants without previous discussions on the talk page. And by this, I am talking for both sides. Even if I disagreed with Tabib very strongly, at least the guy was writting and making his mind on the talk page. If that thing still grow and grow, I will be creating an entry called Nagorni-Karabakh conflict and dump the entire thing there, something which should have been done from the beggining. Fad (ix) 03:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"After the 8th century, Albania diminished in size, and came to exist only as the Khachin principality in Artsakh."
It is absolutely absurd. I don't see the source of this sentence. Albania transerred itself to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis who are their predecessors. They owe the same right to what Albanians owned including Karabakh. Almost 90 percent of Albanians became Azerbaijanis. Small number gradually Armenianized under the pressure and assimiliation of the Armenian church as the Albanian church was cancelled by the Arab khilaphate. The reason for that was that Arabs were suspicious that the Albanian church cooperates with Byzantine against Arabs. This false information was taken to the Arab khilaphate by the Armenian church, as historians claim, in order to regain the control of all Albanian churches and ease the Armenianization of Albanians.
Hundred of sentences, historical and current facts about the region and events are wrong. I would suggest that we complete change the Nagorno-Karabakh page based on the Council of Europe report to the extent we can and then limit any change untill the conflict is resolved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.175.186 ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 January 2006.
- There is nothing surprising to explain. It just shows that my predecessors, Albanians and your predecessors, Armenians might have a kinship. If you carefully read the article it never states or says that Azerbaijanis and Armenians have kinship. It just says that they might be closer to each other and since you live together for two hundred years it is quite possible that you would develop such a relationship.
- Also if you go and listen to the view of your ultr-fundamentalist Armenian church all people are relatives to each other and come from one father and mother, Adam and Havva, which is questionable as well, since I don't think I have anything with armenians.
- Second statistical likelihood or probability that Armenians and Azerbaijanis might have relationship, does not mean that there is 100 percent or even 50 percent probability of relationship. We all know problems with statistical applications and statistical significance. in such empirical studies there are questions about the data presicion, manipulation of data by authors, problems with statistical modeling, reverse relationship from cause to effect and vice versa, probelms with calculation, problems with DNA test, how people who were subject to DNA tests are chosen and so forth. As far as I got the selection of subjects weren't random, which is a big flaw for any empirical study. So I would like to request you, Fad, not to go into deep discussion with me on econometrics and statistics.
- Third if you have been to the region, then you would also see now the face and bodywise differences between Azerbaijanis and Armenians. Azerbijanis are more white, more European, with more beatufil face, while Armenians have long noses, dark skin, more hairy, and uglier on average as well. This all I hope would answer to your question on possible kinship between Azerbaijanis and Armenians.
- Fourth the article is written by a Georgian, Armenian and pseudo Azerbiajni, but I couldn't verify the presence of such a person at the Ministy of Health in Azerbaijan. This article if undertaken, is also nothng more than the order of the destructive and opportunist, manipulative, ultra nationalist Armenian diaspora in US or Europe.
-Fifth 200 or more years of living in neighborhood imposed by Russians is more than enough to develop the weak relationship that the research you refer to might have found. Many Azerijanis have married to Armenians nowadays and indeed we have just right now over 30,000 Armenian brides in Azerbaijan who serve as faithful wives and mothers. This is another source why the research you refer to might indicate a possible, yet weak relationship between Azerbaijanis and Armenians.
- So the study you refer to does not prove or indicate that Armenians might also be predecessors of Albanians. Its Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis who are remnants of Albania and Albanians who for the most part ceased to exist thanks to the cooperation of the Armenian church with Arabs.
- Please next time when you put a note or words, indicate your Armenian nationality as well. Then it would help people to know whose notes they are reading. I learned it only after visiting your web site. Regards,-- 71.195.182.195 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I realize that Grandmaster, FrancisTyers, and Fadix have been discussing this earlier, but I decided to post this comment at the end of the talk page instead of burying in the middle to make it easier to find.
I restored a statement that had been added by FrancisTyers and later deleted by Grandmaster, namely, that LOC (Library of Congress) states that over 100 Armenians were killed.
Grandmaster, you said earlier that the LOC report should not be included since it does not cite its source for the number. In Wikipedia, we can't exclude a reputable source just because it does not cite a source. It is not our job to determine whether a fact mentioned in a source is correct or not. This is prohibited under the "no original research" rule. As long as the source is reputable (and LOC is), we don't care how exactly it got its facts. All we need to do is verify that the fact is mentioned in the source--we don't verify any further. This is also mandated by the rule that the "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" ( [2]). We just report that the fact is mentioned in a source and cite the source. In this case, the facts are that the official number is 32, but LOC says 100. The above policies are perfectly explained in the following exceprt from Wikipedia guidelines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
We need to remember, we are not historians, we don't compare, investigate, analyze and dismiss various sources to come up with the truth. This kind of analysis is left for the expert. An encyclopedia is not a historical book, we only report (in a fair, balanced manner) what other researchers say. Secondary sources (such as a research done by LOC) sometimes can be more reliable than a primary source (KGB report)--perhaps the KGB officials want to minimize the numbers and therefore their culpability in not stopping them, perhaps they are too close to events and are biased--we don't know, these are not questions that we should try to answer, these are things left for researchers. This too is explained in Wikipedia guidelines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
And LOC is a reputable organization--it's one of the largest libraries in the world, with scores of researchers, scholars, historians and other experts available at its disposal. The report on Azerbaijan and Karabakh is followed by a long list biblography containing books, articles, and reports (check here). The Acknowledgment section states that the information was based on research of data provided by "numerous organizations and inviduals:"
http://countrystudies.us/azerbaijan/1.htm -- TigranTheGreat 15:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Tigran the great. Tigran wasn't great if you know the history. He was of short as indicated by some Armenian historical sources. All the things subscribed to him is also nothing more than the Armenian myth. So pls, do a favor to everybody and be more accurate. [posted by anonymous user 64.167.141.155 on 05:40, January 11, 2006, exposed by --
TigranTheGreat 11:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)]
Personal attack by
64.167.141.155 (
talk ·
contribs) removed. -
FrancisTyers 20:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
There are too many pictures on this web page and most of them have nothing to do with Karabakh. The picture of the so called and terrorist president, Gukasyan. I think it should be deleted from the web page as he is self claimed head of the unrecognized territory and the legitimacy of entire elections and his presidency is none. At least 30 percent of the Nagorno Karabakh population did not participate in elections due to the ethnic cleansing by armenians and armenian terrorists. Then there is the issue of international observation. None of the respectable internaitonal organizations observed this elections as it is nothing more than puppet elections and internationally not recognized.
The picture of the tigan the great. First of all this tigran has nothing to do with Nagorno Karbakh. he has a relationship only only to armenia. Second, how he was a great that his "empire" which is also nothing more than the product of the armenian imagination, for which armenains have worldwide popularity, ceased to exist in less than 30 years. :-)))))))) Only so far could the armenian 'imagination' go in their effort to find eveything in the world and subscirbe it to armenians.
Therefore I suggest that we delete these pictures from the web site and they are not related to the subject, or wrong and do nothing but distract readers. Roman_Azer, Pensylvania —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.167.141.155 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 January 2006.
To fed ix and tigran, both armenians, now listen to me. your so called, self declared "president' is nothing more than a puppet president. He is not elected by the participation of Azerbaijanis and other evicted from Nagorno Karabakh ethnic minorities. The elections weren't obeserved by any credible international organization. Therefore including the picture of Bahmanov is as meaningful as the picture of the puppet president 'gukasyan'. He is nothing more than the leader of the armenian community of Nagorno Karabakh and I again call Francis to duty by protecting my inclusion of the picture of the Azerbaijani community leader, Nizami Bahmanov, to the web page. I will do it later on. -- Eagle of the Caucasus 06:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Francis, there is no difference in terms of international staturs between gukasyan who claims to be a pupper president and Nizami Bahmanov who is recognized as the leader of the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno Karabakh and participates in all Minsk Groups meetings and etc. I will provide more inofrmaion on him later on. Additionally as you point out, if for Wikipedia the democratic elections is not important to claim for the status of the president, I don't think that Wikipedia will be against of a person who is called just leader of the Azerbaijani community. There is no difference as far as I get. Please, let me know if you see anything different.
Also I will place the map in the post-Soviet section which is describing the results of the armenian occupation and agression of Azerbaijan. This will serve just a good balance to all the pro-Armenian pcitures in the web-page. -- Eagle of the Caucasus 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Tigran I assume your imagination really does not have any limits, which is usually beyond the science. The web page starts with the fact that the puppet "NKR", its puppet 'gov't' strutcures, puppet reps including gukasyan are not recognized by any state and international organization in the world. How a person who is not recognized by any international organization can be held responsible for human rights violations. Indeed there are credible facts, one being the US State Department, that the occupied Azerbaijani territories including the territoriy of "NKR" are used for drug and human trafficking. See the US State Department fact sheet on Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh problem
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2909.htm .
It clearly states "More than 30,000 people were killed in the fighting from 1992 to 1994. In May 1992, Armenian and Karabakhi forces seized Susha (the historical, Azerbaijani-populated capital of Nagorno-Karabakh) and Lachin (thereby linking Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia). By October 1993, Armenian and Karabakhi forces had succeeded in occupying almost all of Nagorno-Karabakh, Lachin, and large areas in southwestern Azerbaijan. As Armenian and Karabakhi forces advanced, hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijani refugees fled to other parts of Azerbaijan. In 1993, the UN Security Council adopted resolutions calling for the cessation of hostilities, unimpeded access for international humanitarian relief efforts, and the eventual deployment of a peacekeeping force in the region. The UN also called for immediate withdrawal of all ethnic Armenian forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Fighting continued, however, until May 1994 when Russia brokered a cease-fire." This is also in line with the picture I placed in the web page. Francis for your information.
On drug trafficking and puppet "NKR" role ni drug trafficking is mentioned in the US State department report. See the Azerbaijani and Armenia sections. http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/1999/925.htm . Who is responsible for that, not to mention the killing of thousands of civil Azerbaijanis. Rest assured, tigran, that all your puppet friends occupying Azerbaijni lands will be found and persecuted as Azerbaijnai citizens involved in terrorism. Guess who will come on the top. your puppet gukasayn. tigran, would you also tell me who is the father of gukasyan. bests-- Eagle of the Caucasus 19:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
FrancisTyers, thank you for removing an irrelevant and illegal (as copyright violation) text posted by the anonymous user 64.167.141.155. I am considering removing the rest of his inflammatory, racist, and irrelevant comments from the talk page (perhaps other than the comment on Gandzasar, which is the only one of his contributions here that's even remotely intelligent). I think simply ignoring them is not enough, as they are potential minefields whenever future visitors see them and start a protracted useless bickerings provoked by this user. I and others I know have deleted similar abuses from talk pages before, but considering the nature of this article and presence of Azeri users, I don't want to make unilateral changes to the page. I hope Grandmaster and other Azeri users will agree, as the last thing we need on this already emotionally charged topic is prolonged fights. After all this user even tried to impersonate an Azeri editor (Roman_Azeri), and he claims to be Georgian which I am sure is another futile attempt to provoke an inter-ethnic bickering.
Unless there are objections from FrancisTyers or others, I am prepared to remove the offensive posts by this user. Thank you. -- TigranTheGreat 08:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all where did this people found the 94 percent of the population were Armenian. At that time there wasn't any reliable population census. Many villages located in mountains were isolated and unreachable. How and who could carry out those population census that gives the figure of 94 percent. This source is definitaley screwed and written and dissiminated by the Armenian diaspora in US. I am hundred percent sure about this. At a time when almost the entire region has never seen an engine car, some pro-armenian people cliam that the area had 94 percent Armenian population. This is what the Armenian imagination is? So funny, so unrealistic, such a big lie. Therefore UI sggest we remove that footnote and anything that it refers to.
I will go on and mark those that are Armenian made as Armenian sites. These sites are
"In the 7th and 8th centuries, the region was invaded by Arabs, who pillaged it and converted a portion of the population to Islam. Under the Arabs, the Albanian church was subordinated to the Armenian Church, resulting in the local Albanian population gradually becoming more like Armenians in terms of religion, culture, and language. After the 8th century, Albania diminished in size, and came to exist only as the Khachin principality in Artsakh." This statement is nothing more than the Armenian myth again. The Albanian church was eliminated by direct efforts of the Armenian church and its cooperation with Arabs. It was the Armenian cnhurch which took the message to Arabs about Albanian church's cooperation with Byzantine. The Armenian church did this to acquire the possessions of the Albanian church and reclaim its territory. But it oculd achive its purpose only partially as majority of Albanians became transformed themseleves into the Azerbaijani identity and accepted Islam, but only small and isolated Albanian communities became Armenian under the assimilation policies of the Armenian church. This is the truth and history.
In the light of this facts, I again call to reword this sentence. Please also let me know the soruce of this sentence and I will come up with my source. It seems that whatever armenians could put into this web page, they managed to put it there with friendly approach of adminstrators and direct participation of ultra-nationalist Armenians and peopel from monoethnic Armenia.
Also words of 'Safavid dynasty of Iran' is grossly wrong. When the Safavid dynasty is formed its name was Safavids and it was an Azerbaijani state. Its Iranianization happened gradually and only after the 17th century. We again see the hands of armenians here as they want to show that the area belonged to Iran, not to Azerbaijanis. So funny and again the Armenian imagination is at work.
This is all so far, but I am looking forward to radical changes on this web page. Otherwise, it is no different than the web page of the ultra-nationalist Armenian diaspora organizations such as AAA and others including dashnakstyun. -- Eagle of the Caucasus 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The population of the Nagorno Karabakh appears to be 95 percent ethnic Armenian and the course is given as the nkrusa.org (the section with puppet anthem, puppet funny flag). This is the web site of the armenian puppet regime's puppet office in USA.
The true information should refer to the pre-occupation and ethnic cleansing period. As WIkipedia puts it, "The population at that time (before the ethnic cleansing) was mainly Armenian (76%) and Azeri (23%), with Russian and Kurdish minorities." This is at least close to truth, yet questionable as the source is again armenian. Therefore I propose that Francis chnages that information as well. If nobody is against, I will go and change that. Thanks. I can't find a single accurate thing on this web page. It is as though the armenian prepared the enitre web page. I don't know somebody please tell me that Wikipedia is not owned by the fundamentalist, ultra-nationalist armenian diaspora in US or Europe. -- Eagle of the Caucasus 03:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
With information referring to the 95 percent armenian population in Nagorno Karabakh it seems that the puppet fundamnetlist armenian regime in Nagorno Karabakgh establishes building blocs of the future Azerbaijaniless territory through the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis. At least thanks for showing your real face. The monoethnic armenia where the hater to others and other nations is norm, tries to create a monoethnic puppet entity nearby at the expense of Azerbaijan. Belive in me ultra nationalist and fundamentalist armenians. You will never see that day. Never, ever. -- Eagle of the Caucasus 18:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course fad and tigran. These statistics can exist only in the imagination of ultra-nationalist and fundamentalist armenians and the terrorist armenian church. I am sure they have a very good collection of statistical books indicating the population of Karabakh written on 1990 papers, but processed to give the impression of the 19th century papers. Of course, only stupids and children, and politicians who are sold to the destructive and terrorist armenian diaspora can believe in your statistics. I would suggest you and your diaspora to look for compensations in other places, not in Azerbaijani or Turksihh soils. Because instead of soil, they will get a big big big big slap and .
I would just like to compliment for what seems an integer and solid attempt to cover the conflict in an objective and factual manner. I have come across much emotionally strained and therefore unreasonable debate as well as outright propaganda from both sides since I became engaged with Azerbaijan, and am happy to have found this source. I strongly consider to add your page as the definite source on the conflict on my otherwise 'happy' Dutch link page on Azerbaijan,
azerbeidzjan.startkabel.nl. What I would like to know, however, is who the moderators of this page are, and what their background and reasons for doing all this are. Frank van Schagen, Amsterdam, jasnostj@yahoo.com --
84.246.5.82 11:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
PS Just one remark: Despite the extensiveness of the information, I do see some points where the uneducated reader would fall short of understanding, for example in reference to Azerbaijani presidents. The addition 'president of the Rep. of Azerbaijan from ... to ...' to their surnames would clear that out.
FrancisTyers, it seems that a number of useful external links were unnecessarily removed (which you recognized yourself by adding the COE link back:) ). I examined the link to Staravoytova's analysis on the USIP page ( http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks19/chap3_19.html) and I see no reason why it should be removed. External links are used to point to extra useful information related to the article. This particular report is published by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) which is a reputable US federal entity (created by Congress, here is their information page [4]). The page provides useful in depth analysis of the issues of self-determination vs. territorial integrity, which is a vital issue for this article. Staravoytova is neither Armenian nor Azeri--she is a renowned Russian human rights activist. I am sure many Azeris consider her pro-Armenian, I personally consider the CEO report favoring the Azeri view (aftel all, COE favors the POV of territorial integrity, which by default favors the Azeri side), plus it seems the Azeri users here have requested to base the entire article on the COE report, which tells me at least they regard it as favoring their POV. But, COE is still non-Armenian, non-Azeri institution, it is reputable, and I don't think it should be removed just because I disagree with its views. Similarly just because the Azeri users disagree with something in Staravoytova's article does not mean the link should be removed. Unless it can be proven that she was acting as an agent of Armenians, there is no reason to remove it. I actually read it, and it is quite balanced and informative. I haven't had time to examine the other removed links, but I think their removal should be reconsidered as well.-- TigranTheGreat 09:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I will try to cumulatively address the points raised by Grandmaster and Francis here.
Grandmaster, lobbying is a loaded word that can have different meanings in different contexts for different readers (and ambiguity is the worst enemy of neutrality). "Lobbying for Armenians" can mean "she worked and/or was paid by Armenians," which is not the case, definitely not at the time her article was written. This is explained by the Armenian journalist mentioned by you, who explains why she didn't "lobby for Armenians," -- her political position in defending Armenians' rights (the author is talking about 1988-91) "was strengthened by her position as a scientist-researcher. A deeper analysis of her point of view on the issue of the right of self-determination was made in her scientific works." ( [6]). She was a leading expert on ethnic issues in USSR, she believed ethnic groups have the right of self-determination, and therefore she happened to agree with Armenians and defended their rights. In other words, the source of her views are not Armenians, it's her own research.
Of course by lobbying we could mean advancing views that agree with the views of one side. Then I ask you--when Atkinson stood in front of the CoE panel, presented the report which contains pro-Azeri views (as confirmed even by non-Armenians that I quoted), and says "I think you should adopt it," wasn't he lobbying the Azeri POV?
Now, if Starovoitova's USIP report was written when she represented Armenians in Soviet Parliament (88-91), I would agree with its exclusion. I agree with you, when you represent a group, you commit yourself to defending their interests. But few points on this. As the Armenian article states, she had been asked by Tatars and Estonians to be elected from their regions too. She chose Armenia because, as she explained later, the human rights situation there was worse (political arrests etc.). This tells me two things--a) other ethnic groups saw her as the defender of their rights, and b) she chose to temporarily commit herself to Armenian interests for objective reasons, and not because she lived in Armenia or had cultural connection or was paid by them. The main point is that the "commitment" ended in 1991 (actually before the actual war started). When the article was written, she had long been un-committed, serving as a member of Russian Parliament for 7 years.
I understand that the article says she has helped Armenians on several occasions. This doesn't mean she hasn't defended the rights of others--she is a major human rights activist. Keep in mind that the Armenian article is about what she has done for Armenians--it's not a summary of all her activities, clearly it wouldn't include her defense of other nationalities. In fact, she has helped other groups and is considered a defender of small nations. Here is an RFE report on how leaders in various former Soviet republics mourned her death--we got Estonia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, in fact she is being called "friend of all small nations":
Your previous Russian website at [7] says that she defended the Chechens (a Muslim minority like the Azeris by the way), plus she was the Russian president's advisor on ethnic issues. All of this indicates that she in general defended the rights of persecuted minorities as an expert on minorities and as a human rights activist.
So perhaps she defended the right of Armenian prisoners accused of killing Azeris, but doesn't mean she didn't defend other prisoners. In fact the above tells me she probably did, but the article is focused Armenians. Also, we don't know the circumstances surrounding the accusations--perhaps there were mitigating circumstances warranting the overturning of the death penalty, perhaps she saw violations of the rights of the prisoners which rendered the results untrustworthy--if the Russian government overturned those sentences, there must have been a reason. The point is we don't know these things, and right now I don't have time to research further into these issues, but I am pretty sure alot can be found. That is why doing original research trying to dissect the background of the authors is messy--it's a never ending process, you find stuff supporting one side but then there is stuff supporting another story, and you don't really get the complete picture. It's much neater to trust the judgment of a reputable institution that has chosen to publish a source.
Also, about helping the Armenian prisoners--keep in mind she did it during the time when she "represented" Armenia in the Soviet parliament, and as you say, was committed to Armenian interests. So one might expect that in those times, she would spend more time defending her constituents. This commitment, was long gone when her article was written.
In connection with the investigation of the $1 billion Russian military aid to Armenia, as the article says, not only her, but Rizhkov (former Soviet Prime Minister) and other members of the parliament opposed the investigation, which was brought by general Rikhlev who, as the article says, is a known lobbyist for Azerbaijan. I say the Russian legislators didn't want to deal with Azeri propaganda sneaking to Russian politics, and ended the initiative. She certainly didn't work for Armenians at that time (this was after 1991).
By the way, just to demonstrate her impeccable reputation as a highly esteemed expert and activist on human rights, the US State Department has a fellowship on human rights named after her. This is from the State Dep' website:
So when you say that we should state that her report is not a result of impartial research, I don't think the State Department would award a Human Rights Fellowship named after her, just as I don't think United States Institute of Peace would publish her report, if she was "blatantly pro-Armenian," or if her research was flawed. Also note that neither the State Department nor the USIP say anything about her being pro-Armenian or even mention her representing Armenia in 1989-91. This tells me that these two major entities didn't consider her pro-Armenian, nor they found her being elected from Armenia relevant, for the reasons I mentioned above. So perhaps when she says in her report that "there is impressive evidence that Armenians have dominated Karabakh," maybe that's because that's what the evidence suggests, and she sees it as a scientist, not because she is pro-Armenian. Similarly, when she has helped Armenians on various occasions, perhaps that's because these occasions warranted a defense of human rights violations, and not that she works for Armenians.
Now, the reason I have a problem with this issue of links is this. There are hard-core POV links (like zerbaijan.com and cilcia.com), and there are soft-core POV links--which is pretty much the rest of them--they belong to third parties, but one way or the other support one of the sides--some favor the concept of territorial integrity (CoE report), others favor self-determination (Staravoitova). We Armenians feel it's unfair when the soft-core "pro-Armenian" side is excluded, and right now the issue of self-determination is severely under-represented to the general public. I know many Azeris don't like Starovoitova, but many Armenians were angered by Aktinson's CoE report. And you read non-Armeinains calling it "agreeing with Baku's view" and "being the most pro-Azeri of all CoE reports," and "giving selective history of the conflict." And by the way, the second USIP article that I added, in the end it concludes that Azerbaijan's territorial integrity should take precedence, which by default is pro-Azeri view.
Ideally, I don't think we should include POV explanations after links that come from reputable sites as opposed to clearly POV sites--it's messy, you open a whole can of worms. But, if you want to include an explanation, I think it's only fair to add one after the CoE report as well, something like "Observers consider the views expressed in this report to favor the Azeri side." Similarly, a NPOV explanation after Starovoitova's link would be "Solutions proposed in the article favor the Armenian side." I don't think saying "her research is not impartial" is NPOV since we dont' know that, and her being a leading expert and beign chosen by a reputable institution speaks against it. Also, I don't think saying "she represents the Armenian view" is NPOV either, since "represents" is another loaded word and may suggest "the source of her views are Armenians," which is non-provable and, to me, the sources of her views is she and her expertise.
I want to take a moment and summarize the points that have been raised so far, just to make it easier to reach a solution:
Our dispute has been on the following:
-- TigranTheGreat 13:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I just examined and added another removed external link back ( Nagorno-Karabakh Searching for a Solution: Key points, by Patricia Carley, Publication of the United States Intitute of Peace (USIP), for the very same reasons mentioned above. It's from the same organization (USIP) which is neutral. The article provides much useful and well balanced information. I think Eagle of the Caucasia should realize that information cannot be removed simply because he dislikes it.-- TigranTheGreat 09:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Grandmaster, what does Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry have to do with NK, to be included in External Links? I believe External Links need to be about the subject matter of the article--in this case NK, not the general area. It's like including Armenia's official cite. Now Francis may correct me, but I think we don't duplicate sources in References and External Links--the Foreign Ministry is listed in the References.-- TigranTheGreat 09:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This site is unviewable for people who don't have Macromedia Flash installed (that includes me). As a result of that this link should not be included. See Wikipedia:External links. I would certainly not be opposed to including information with regard to human rights. e.g. [13] [14] etc. - FrancisTyers 02:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I was in the kitchen making soup and I had an idea that I hope will satisfy both parties. If you feel that it doesn't, feel free to revert me. - FrancisTyers 15:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Francis, the map added by Eagle of Caucasia is copyrighted with "All Rights Reserved," which is printed in the lower left hand corner of the image (check out the large version at http://www.mfa.gov.az/img/map_eng.gif). The image description page on Wikipedia has a free use tag added by Eagle of Caucasia, but there is nothing on the official site indicating that permission is granted to use it. As such, the picture is a copyright violation and needs to be deleted.-- TigranTheGreat 04:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)