Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Resolutions

It is puzzling that the section about the status of Karabakh starts with “The sovereign status of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not recognized by any state, including Armenia. Three Resolutions (853, 874, and 884) and resolutions 49/13 and 57/298 refer to Nagorno-Karabakh as a region of Azerbaijan.” This leaves a false impression that the point of UN resolutions were to recognize Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan; however, these resolutions were aimed at stopping the war and asking the parties to settle the conflict via negotiations. Because Karabakh conflict is not yet solved and a final status is not reached, most international organizations and countries categorize Karabakh as disputed region, which is de-facto independent but not recognized as independent because of the ongoing negotiation process. (D.S.)

Protected

This isn't going anywhere. One mediator will not be enough. In fact, I'm not sure that any of Wikipedia's mediation processes are set up for this kind of protracted dispute. I'd generally agree with Golbez, but add that it isn't necessarily just Grandmaster and Adil who are at fault. Maybe they are at fault this time (I certainly have no expectations of Adil ever making NPOV contributions), but Grandmaster is perfectly capable of editing harmoniously. One of the main problems as I see it is that there is an editing disparity. Editors to this article are sharply divided by ethnic group, and the numbers are imbalanced. This is democracy in its crudest form (even if I agree with many of the edits). Consensus isn't about two unreconciled viewpoints pushing each point with the brute force of numbers, it is about a range of opinions coming together over a topic to work out a reasonable compromise.

Grandmaster, if you aren't around then there is not much point in this going to mediation, mediation requires constant attention from all sides in order to have a useful effect. I would offer to mediate, but as I don't believe in the UN's word as the last word I don't think I will be adequate for the job either. My suggestion would be to find two-three mediators, a single set representative from both sides (because really I don't see Armenians really disagreeing with Armenians or Azerbaijanis disagreeing with Azerbaijanis) and go through the thing in the following order:

  1. For each sentence in each paragraph, discuss it on the talk page, if necessary finding sources.
  2. For each paragraph in each section, discuss it on the talk page, if necessary adding sentences (as discussed above).
  3. For each section in the article, discuss it overall on the talk page, if necessary add paragraphs (as above).

In an iterative process. Unfortunately this would take a hell of a long time, and I'm not sure anyone (myself included) has the staying power. I am particularly disgusted with the fact that the "history" and "current status" sections are plastered with {{fact}} tags, when everyone knows that this stuff is directly from the LOC rip, a rip we have accepted is neutral. - FrancisTyers · 10:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I am an Azari; and that still did not stop me from agreeng with NPOV edits. It has more to do with an editors ethnicity. 69.196.164.190
You are 'technincally as much Azeri than I. While I agree what Grandmaster has reverted was NPOV, I think that by claiming to be an 'Azari' you are forcing a fight. You've said it many times, you don't have to repeat it always. Fad (ix) 16:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Pont well taken; but please show me some respect. In fact if you look at the history a lot of the points you all voiced are points I mentioned first. Clearly the anon deserves respect. 69.196.164.190
I disagree with several points you made Francis; however, I do agree with your general attitude and your good faith for the future of this article. I have had arguments with many of my Armenian co-editors within the talk pages of this article and we hardly always agree, just ask Tigran or Marshall. In addition, if Grandmaster reverts back to Adil, that means that Grandmasters endorses Adil's version, do you think this is a correct deduction or not? Finally, I believe in an article such this those fact tags are appropriate and they can be sourced individually and properly when we are not engaged in revert wars with pov pushers on payroll such as Adil. In addition, have you ever seen me or Tigran or Fadix or Marshall ever revert any of your or Golbez's edits? --Eupator 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe this is a necessary deduction. Reverting back a version could mean one of two things, either 1. He is endorsing Adil's edits, or 2. He is rejecting your edits. I am willing to be proven wrong, but I don't believe he is supporting Adils extremist edits. - FrancisTyers · 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"LOC rip"? I added those fact tags, and I have no clue what an "LOC rip" is. A fact tag is not a statement of a lack of neutrality; it's a statement that there's no citation of this comment. I don't think I added them to any paragraph that had a cite at the end, but to be honest I don't know the proper distance between citations. How could you be disgusted with that? And as you can tell from my previous screed, I only gave up on GM when he repeatedly reverted to Adil's version. Once, fine. More than once shows acceptance of Adil's edits. --Golbez 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
LOC = Library of Congress, rip = stuff that we copied straight from their public domain country studies. See [1]. Ok, maybe disgust was a rather strong word, but rather than adding {{fact}} tags you could have added the citations yourself. See above re: Adil. - FrancisTyers · 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Francis. We do actually need a group of reputable mediators trusted by both sides of the dispute to help reach the consensus. Otherwise there’s no end to this edit war. The way I personally see it currently one of the sides of the dispute tries to enforce their vision of the situation using their numerical superiority and support of an admin. Of course, the other side will never agree to have the article being unbalanced and one-sided. So impartial mediation is something I’ve been calling for from the very beginning. Francis has been assisting us with NK and other related pages for a long time, and he earned respect of both parties and never took sides, and made a significant contribution in making the article neutral and balanced, and it remained like that until the current edit war. Btw, I never said that UN has the last word in any dispute, but I think that it is a more authoritative opinion than a law school and should be given appropriate weight. In any case, despite any disagreements we may have, I would welcome contribution of Francis to resolution of disputes at this page. And I think that we indeed need other knowledgeable and neutral mediators to review the facts and help us create a balanced and neutral article. Collective mind is always better than leaving it up to judgment of one person. I also agree with the dispute resolution procedure suggested by Francis.
I’ll try to fix a permanent Internet connection at my current location and let everyone know if I’m available, but my contribution will be irregular for a while.
Also, those fact tags are indeed inappropriate, everyone can check the archived talk page and see that the information is taken from LOC and COE files. Grandmaster 10:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
A talk page is not an appropriate source. Source the article directly. --Golbez 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It is sourced in the article, look in the references section. It was copied verbatim. - FrancisTyers · 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Mediators are worthless when one or both sides don't want to make concessions and that the mediator isen't requesting from the side concerned to do so. Yes! Francis has the trust of both sides, but since he seems to refuse giving his opinions, I think in a situation like this I wonder how he could help.
If you want formal mediation to use it as tool to impose your position, your conception of what mediation is, is simply the wrong one.
Before I accept formal mediation, you must show you are sincere and that you are ready to make concessions. And the very best way of showing that is to stop requesting an unsourced, unsupportable claim to be presented more than a position, but as simple fact. It is tiredsom to have to explain you what neutrality means. Fad (ix) 14:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd happily give you my personal opinion of the conflict but I don't see how it would help on this talk page, if either side wants to email me a list of questions then I will answer them honestly and post them on a subpage of my userpage. - FrancisTyers · 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Francis, I disagree with you, I also disagree that Grandmaster can edit harmoniously. This might be true when he is alone in editing or when he finally is able to force his POV. Do you remember how many references I had provided about the resettlements of Armenians by Shah Abbas? What happened? He started editing only harmoniously after the opposition was gone. Grandmaster still bring back just today the resettlement of Armenians and this after countless numbers of words telling him that this is not accurate. He want to enforce this by supporting it with a probable misprint from an encyclopedia(mispring because even Azeris sources present else). His provided 1491 was probably 7451, as it was the only way to make of the Armenians % which they actually were according to the official Russian survey reproduced both by Azeris, Armenian and also neutral sources.
One can not work both ways, he never presented any sources specifically mentioning Nagorno Karabakh and still want a blatant POV wording, from which the sources provided doesn't support what they are supposed. In one side (Nakhichevan) he supress a more than enough sourced reference even if it mention it, on the other hand, with one or two sources, he want to implament what the sources itself provided does not support what he claims they support. I won't call this, editing harmoniously. Also, he uses sources when they please him, the CIA becomes a credible and very notable sources, but when this same source does not support what he claims, it becomes simply either to be ignored or simply false. When I presented the declassified files, he just ignored it, when I did in the past he requested the name of the persons who wrote them, I guess expecting to find a 'ian' at the end.
There is indeed a numerical superiority, but I don't see what this has changed really, if anything maybe in the efficiency in reverting changes, but changes initiated. Also, while Golbez was making modifications which Tigran disagreed, Tigran was not reverting or initiating his POV, on the other hand, when Golbez introduced changes not agreed by Grandmaster, Grandmaster indeed did made the changes he wanted. Fad (ix) 13:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Nakhichevan, it is very simple. Fadix has not provided any sources that supported his position. Plus he practically refused to cooperate with mediation, while I did fill in the form with the sources. Grandmaster 13:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Golbez and others that might read this, please, please take the moment and read this mediation section [2] A comparaison between both your and mine versions indicate a clear cases of supression of information from your side. While I have provided about 10 or more sources, You googled around and presented few stuff and for your it was enough to not only supress an NPOV wording but accept a POV wording, again, you have yet to understand what is NPOV wording and what is not.--Fad (ix) 15:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Nakichevan, I really couldn't tell what was going on, I tried to mediate, but neither of you seemed very interested in following the process. Of course I agree with you that in certain cases he acts inappropriately, but comparatively he edits harmoniously. - FrancisTyers · 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, the Armenian editors do not rely on numeric superiority to push their POV. We discuss the changes, when there is disagreement, we compromise, as we have done numerous times with Golbez. GM doesn't compromise--he pushes for his versions, even when everyone else, whether Armenian or non-Armenian, disagrees. When he sees another Azeri make even more POV edit, he then sticks to that. He didn't just restore his own changes, he kept (more than once) restoring Adil's changes. If it was just me vs. GM+Adil, I am sure as hell they would rely on their numeric superiority to keep the Azeri flag. I don't call that harmonious editting, I don't call that "equal faults on both sides." --TigranTheGreat 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

See above for the thing with respect to Adil (I really don't believe he wants this extremist POV in the page — although if he comes out and admits it then maybe we can take it from there...). Yes, they would be relying on their numerical superiority, thats what I'm trying to say. - FrancisTyers · 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I was remembering something I studied last year that explains some of the lack of success we've had with mediation in the past, see Gricean maxims. Both sides frequently break one or more of these maxims when entering discussion. Adherence to them will be a necessity in future mediation. - FrancisTyers · 20:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, Grandmaster rv to Adil could not have been because he disagreed with the previous version. Here are the changes he made to Golbez version and this before Adil came and turned the place into a revert war. [3] He had his own version to which he could have reverted, but he prefered reverting to Adil version.

I also entirly agree with Tigran point about an Azeri making a POV edit and getting Grandmaster support no matter what. Baku87 is one example, no matter how unencylopedic his contributions were Grandmaster was even defending him, while I fought against Thoth, I and Eupator had a fight in the past about Armenia's incorporation in Europe(him saying it is while I disagreed), I had a fight with Moosh. And disagreed with all other Armenians who participated in this talk page in occasions, beside Marshal as far as I remember.

About your personal opinions on the conflict, I disagree here too, I believe they are important, we can not come to compromises when those dealing as moderators will only be there and say: Be calm, be calm, discuss. The moderators sometimes should step and give their opinions on the conflict, like: This is not neutral, I think this way is better... I should not have to email you, and you should not have to creat a subpage, this should be transparent, you should give your input, I don't care if you disagree with me, I just care to know if you do and why. Fad (ix) 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem in editing the edits by Golbez. There was no consensus on the edits he made, and since the rule here is “be bold”, I do what I have to do by replacing inaccurate information. That’s alright by the rules. Golbez sees no problem when Tigran edits a compromise intro, but takes offence when someone edits the statements that had no consensus and reflect a certain POV. That’s quite strange behavior for a person who claims that he has no bias in this issue. As for the coat of arms of Azerbaijan, I think it should be in the article, because NK is officially (legally, formally, etc) is part of Azerbaijan. If it is so, then the Azerbaijani symbols should be included as well. And don’t tell me that other wiki articles don’t do that, when I said that with regards to the intro, I was told that we don’t have to do what other wiki articles do and we can set an example of objectivity if we do it our own way. So the Azerbaijani coat of arms should be OK in the article, I see no reason why it should not be there. As for reverts, they were indiscriminate from both sides and my and Adil’s edits were reverted without any valid explanation, including by some anon IPs, and Golbez himself. Here’s an example of an indiscriminate revert by Golbez. He reverted my edit that said that OSCE referred to NK leadership and not “NKR” as a party of the conflict and that it was not recognition of any legal status. That was a legitimate and well sourced edit that was reverted without any explanation. I restored it before the article got protected again. I see no point in continuation of the current situation, when the article is in practice owned by Golbez, who reverts other peoples’ changes and makes edits to the article without any consensus on the talk page. It clearly contradicts WP:OWN. If anyone wants to take this to RFAr, I will have no problem with that. And I still suggest we apply for official mediation. Grandmaster 13:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you define what you termed as I do what I have to do by replacing, and when it is legitimate. Your statement seems to be illustrating a tint of NOV. 69.196.164.190
Concensus? And WHEN have you made ANY CONCESSION? The only time I ever remember you having made any concessions is when I had enough of your attempting POV injection when I have witnessed what was happening in the Iranian Azerbaijan, when I reported it in the article, you were clearly opposed and could not have done much, while you still claimed that your version was correct when it was obviously against a guideline.
The Azerbaijan Coat of arm, CAN NOT go there, this has NOTHING to do with de jure, legal or any of the other words you came up with. This is about the entity called Nagorno-Karabakh and ITs Coat of arm. I am sure you would not have any problem had there been an Azeri flag IN the Coat of arm or if Karabakh flag was a variant of the Azeri one. And no, you can not creat a precdent at least not here. Publications like the Readers digest, encyclopedias all respect a norm there and you're not gonna change that. US states all have their indepdent Flags and Coat of arms, while they are de jure and de facto part of the Unite States of America, Quebec has its Coat of arm and flag without having the Canadian Flag or Coat of arm. You are expecting others to assume good faith when you are pushing something which obviously is by any standard unacceptable, and claiming to set a standard won't work, since even territories which are not disputed don't respect the norm you want to set, which is simply illogical and again display from your part a lack of understand on what really is an encyclopedic article.
About Golbez, here an example on why it is expected that he won't assume good faith with you, I already admited myself that I could not assume good faith in your cases, and this since you have supported Baku87 unencyclopedic creations and your fight to get deleted any mention of Shah Abbas decision against the Armenians while widelly recorded as an event by itself by having it dissolved, and now, like this was NOT ENOUGHT, you request a POV about the resettlement of Armenians which is not only not sourced(as much as you can claim, everyone agreed beside you that the source you provide does not support the test) but it isen't NPOV in the first place.
As for Tigrans edit, don't ever compare them with yours, Tigran has improved since the first days he has registered, his edits mistakes could be qualified as simply mistakes and we can still assume good faith in his cases, but what happened here, on Nakhichevan page and elsewhere (Remember? I have left the Khojaly massacre page? Why? Well other editors can visit its talkpage and see by themselves, when a towns crime wordings used is stronger than that of an article relating to the destruction of over a million people, there got to be a problem, but not according to you).
Mediation? No! Arbitration? Maybe, But I leave this to Tigran, as I am not interested to take part in it. And had you ever participated in such cases, you won't always shout 'formal mediation' everytime you have a problem. Those are not games, it is not a tool for threats, it takes time time that users could use to contribute in articles than having to debate with an individual that does not see the problem in his own edits and still think that such things like adding the Azerbaijan Coat of arm is OK. If you think that any mediators will undorse that, think again.
Oh and it is funny that out of anybody else, you are referring to WP:OWN. Read it carefully.--Fad (ix) 15:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You want my opinion? The article shouldn't include the Azerbaijani coat of arms. This is the article about Nagorno-Karabakh, it should include the Nagorno-Karabakh coat of arms, now, if there are more than one version of the Nagorno-Karabakh coat of arms, they should be included. Historical coats of arms probably do not belong here, but in the Coat of Arms of Nagorno-Karabakh article. - FrancisTyers · 16:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Further to that, Grandmaster, you have to realise that RfAr is not for content disputes, primarily for behaviour disputes, "The Arbitrators will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes." — so unless you are aiming to take one of these individuals to RfAr, the chance is that you will be on the receiving end of the arbitration. - FrancisTyers · 16:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Fadix, "About your personal opinions on the conflict" — when I say this I am referring to my personal opinions on the conflict at large, not about the conflict over the article. I am quite happy to give my opinion of what should/shouldn't go into the article, I would prefer not to give my opinion of the actual conflict in real life unless requested, e.g. Who's side I take on particular issues. - FrancisTyers · 16:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is the basic principle. If the only argument against inclusion of Azeri CoA is that other similar articles don’t do that, then this argument is not valid since it was Tigran and Golbez who said that we don’t have to style this article after the similar articles in wiki. Fadix refers to other encyclopedias, which is what I did as well, and such references were rejected too. So we either make it similar to other articles or we don’t. As for Rfar, some people threatened to take the dispute to Rfar, so I just wanted to say that I don’t mind and I think the other side was as much if not more in fault with regards to what happened here. As for Adil, I don’ think that he’s more disruptive than Tigran, for example, who started the current edit war over the intro. In fact, Adil cites his sources and substantiates his claims, something the other side doesn’t even try to do, they just deny and reject authoritative sources under various pretexts. Grandmaster 07:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I just gave you another reason why we shouldn't have it here, and neither the Azerbaijani flag. - FrancisTyers · 10:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Francis that we need more than one mediator. Secondly, I reject the notion of mentioning only myself in the light of writing POV -- when clearly the other side (let's call it that for convenience) has been reverting all my legitimate edits. In fact, I challenge anyone who considers himself neutral to construcively oppose any of my edits - which sentence or even word you found objectionable or even "biased" or POV? Let's start with Golbez's short comment about Khankendi not being the regional capital (center) of the Azerbaijani region of NK: do I really need to once again "spam" this forum with clear and unambiguous statements from all relevant sources showing NK as an Azerbaijani region? Khankendi is the official name of the city and is recognized by all relevant sources, from all the maps to the Enc. Britannica entry. Anyone saying otherwise is biased and POV. Secondly, why is "de jure" being removed? Third, what about the census figures? I've brought even Armenian sources such as the ever pro-Armenian prof. Richard Hovannisian, where he cites Armenian sources to show Armenian majority in 1919 in NK (although not as huge as other unclear and uncited Armenian sources cited by Tigran, MarshallBagramyan, et al), and it is still being removed. And the 1897 Russian Imperial Census figures from another American source. Then the information about Nizami Bakhmanov is being removed despite previously reaching a concensus on this issue. The current version of the page is clearly full of POV and it is unfortunate to see certain editors favoring it, going as far as removing all legitimate well-cited facts and making the page completely POV. We need an unbiased administrator here who can consider all the facts in an objective manner and modify the page himself/herself, thus making it permanently protected. All other administrators should resign themselves from editing or much less reverting this page -- can we do this? --AdilBaguirov 17:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And with this post, Adil has worn out my patience. Mediate away, Francis - I have no more patience for these folks. He did not understand my comment about Khankendi - I would say deliberately. (Put another way - the midwestern United States is a region of the USA, but it has no capital. Nagorno-Karabakh may be a region of Azerbaijan, and in such a fashion, it has no capital. Khankendi is the capital of the breakaway NKR - but it is not the capital of the Azeri region of Nagorno-Karabakh, as such a region does not politically exist, since Azerbaijan abolished the NKAO soon after independence. Put yet another way - Richmond was the capital of the Confederate States of America, but the southern US as a current region of the USA has no capital. So it would be incorrect to call Richmond the capital of the southern US. But I'm sure he'll ignore this). He says he is the most neutral person here. He's deluded, and I see no reason to waste any more time trying to work with him, if he makes no effort to work with me. I will return to the peace of my mapmaking and leave you all to play with the children. --Golbez 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
That's funny, are you serious?
First, the article already say what is official, again an NPOV wording. Khankendi? Don't make me quote references provided by Grandmaster himself and show you what they call it. About 1897 census? How should I trust you when you manipulate official records. According to the 1897 records, 93,600 Armenians and 115,800 Muslims for the Shushinskii and Dzhevanshirskii districts, which is the territory of Karabakh(not to be confused with its mountainous region). When using the same census but limiting ourself only to Nagorno Karabakh we see clearly that only few Azeri villages, on Kelbadzharkii rayon, and there were only some, the rest of the population were Armenians. You are taking Karabakh as a whole, if you aren't trying to mislead I wonder what you are trying to do, since we can certianly not suppose that you are doing it for the accuracy of the article. As for Hovannissian, it would be nice for you to quote the entire sentences, sorry for my skepticism, but considering what you have attempted to do with the 1897 census I am skeptic on the numbers you provide.
Also, it will also be nice if you quote those POV you are talking about. Fad (ix) 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see anything funny - could you clarify? And same with everything else -- what do you mean about Khankendi, what do you mean about me manipulating any records in your opinion, etc? Was it me caught falsifying and misquoting repeatedly or my opponents? I think you are confusing me with those who try to oppose introduction of objective facts, who make up even slightest things, like falsely attributing 94.4% to Tom de Waal. Meanwhile, what quotes when we have a census table -- I've followed its format. Has anyone provided any quotes there? They can't even cite normally -- whether Tom de Waal or even Armenian Encyclopedia or unknown 1923 estimate. Also, why should we count only Armenian villages anywhere in Azerbaijan - that's where the logic of propagandists is best revealed. Karabakh, including NK, should include all its people and it consisted of several Russian-era uezds. By the same flawed logiv we should go to Glendale in California or Watertown in Massachessets, where there is significant Armenian population, and only count predominantly Armenian-inhabited appartments to get a "nice" figure increasing Armenians from a "significant population" to "super-majority" -- such as 94.4%, I guess. ;-) Once again, no one is able to disprove any of my edits as they are based on solid facts as well as pro-Armenian authors. --AdilBaguirov 17:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Marshal was wrong about De Waal book, after checking it, it was on page 130 and not 131 (maybe different edition?) and it was 94% and not 94,4%
Here is the quotation
The Armenian village of Khankendi was made the regional capital and renamed Stepanakert after the Baku Bolshevik commissar Stepan Shaumian. The new border gave the region an overwhelmingly Armenian population—94 percent of the total—but did not link it to Armenia.
Black Garden- Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War, Thomas De Waal, NYU Press, 2004, ISBN: 0814719457
In short, 94% according to De Waal, and this indeed can be attributed to him, the deletion is thosefor unwarranted.
Now, gladly post the paragraph in which Hovannessian is allegedly presenting those figures.
About Khankendi, it is not officially called such, and even by many of the sources Grandmaster has used, so yes! Presenting this as official is POV.
Now about why should we count only Armenian villages, this is not the point. The point is to refer to statistics of populations for Nagorno Karabakh and not Karabakh, what you did by presenting the 1897 was to present for the whole Karabakh while Armenians were and are still concentrated on its mountainous region which is present day Nagorno Karabakh. By including villages that are not part of the current borderings of Nagorno Karabakh you are indeed manipulation the figures. According to the 1897, there were only few Azeris and Kurdish villages in the territory that now constitute Nagorno Karabakh.
As for disproving, it is not for me to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything in this cases, your edits were unjustifiable POV, and your deletion of De Waal simply a deletion of an information. Grandmaster has widelly used that book to support his position, in most cases that book was the sole sources, you can not only use it when it fit your position and supress it when it doesn't. Fad (ix) 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that Adil is being disruptive. I highly doubt that he will be able to contribute according to policy at all. Unfortunately he's been here too little time, and I suspect hasn't infuriated enough people to be considered for arbitration. Perhaps you could run a preliminary RfC ? - FrancisTyers · 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

1) First of all, I didn't delete any objective info -- I deleted the 94.4% which was falsely attributed to Tom de Waal - that's a big difference, Fadix, between deleting a legitimate quote from de Waal and what has been attributed to him falsely and despite repeated requests to check it, have the person insist he is correct (and now not even admitting it, instead, you have to do that for him). Thus, I was absolutely warranted to do it - especially since de Waal does not cite any references and has only the figure for the Armenians, not for Azerbaijanis and Russians, the other two groups in the table. I prefer to use real census figures or at least population estimates done by government, than by one separate researcher.

Once again, the problem was not as much as with Tom de Waal as with his misquotation and fanatic insistence by one user that he is correct and I am wrong to object it. I am glad we settled that I was right and he was not.

2) I've provided a full citation to Hovannisian's article - the funny thing was one of the users, I think Tigran, claiming that it doesn't even exist, despite it being even listed on his website [4]. Here's the fuller quote which once again disproves the stipulation by Armenian sources that Armenians could have been 94% in NK (except by violent means of killing their Azerbaijani neighbors en masse from 1916 until 1923):

"Russian statistics for 1916 showed that Moslems outnumbered Christians two to one in the province of Elisavetpol as a whole but that the Christian Armenians formed nearly 70 percent of the population in the mountainous sector." (ibid., p. 4) -- so as we see, not only am I quoting the inherently biased prof. Hovannisian, but he is using his own calculations ("nearly 70 percent") and it is him who clearly says that this nearly 70% applies to the "mountaneous sector". Let's continue quoting him:

"In Mountainous Karabagh proper, encompassing the Shushi uezd and parts of the Elizavetpol (Gulistan), Jevanshir, and Jebrail uezds, there were approximately 165,000 Armenians, 59,000 Moslems (20,000 of whom lived in or near the city of Shushi), and 7,000 Russians". (footnote 4) (ibid., pp. 4-5).

Thus, what do we see here -- prof. Hovannisian clearly states what makes up the artificial concept of NK (as opposed to Karabakh as a whole) which did not even exist yet in 1916 - and omits from it parts of Zangezur completely. I followed suit, and in bringing my calculations from the 1897 census, I excluded all of Zangezur and Gulistan (as Hovannisian clearly states that only parts of it made up the pro-Armenian artificial concept of NK), and based my figures solely on Jevanshir, Jebrail and Shusha uezds (I hope no one would claim that Shusha is not mountainous). All three of these uezds are mountaneous and had the bulk of the Armenian population of the region -- and Armenians were still nowhere near the claimed 94% -- instead, they didn't even make-up 70% as Hovanissian admits, at least by 1916. Thus, despite trying to do the unthinkable -- count as many villages of one ethnic group to carve out a geographic entity -- we still do not have more than up to 70% for Armenians -- and how many of them were really Armenian and not remnants of Caucasian Albanians, who still very much existed and were mentioned in both Velichko (1903) and other studies, remains to be seen.

Also, note how many Russians there were in NK -- despite having NK for just over 100 years, there were already 7,000 permanent inhabitants of Russian origin. Moreover, as Russian sources admit, Azerbaijani semi-nomadic population was routinely undercounted in the mountains - which lead to the bloated "nearly 70%" (or more) estimate in favor of Armenians.

Meanwhile, let's see the Footnote 4 prof. Hovannisian cites, which shows that not only am I going way out of my way by citing this biased author, but he is basing his biased calculations on already tainted figures from Armenian sources: "4. Archives of the Delegation of the Republic of Armenia to the Paris Peace Conference (now integrated into the archives of Hai Heghapokhakan Dashnaktsutiun, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, in Boston, Massachusetts, cited hereafter as Rep. of Arm. Archives), File 70-2, H.H.Adrbejani Divanagitakan Nerkayatsutsich ev Adrbedjani Karavarium, 1920, and File 105-4, H.H.Patvirakutium, 1919: Hushagrer. Statistics in File 3-3, Hayastani Hanrapetutiun, 1919, show 137,000 Armenians and 47,000 Tatars in Mountainous Karabagh, while figures in US Archives, RG 84, Tiflis Consulate, 1919, pt. 4, File 711, show 150,000 Armenians and 58,000 Moslems." (ibid., p. 5)

As you can see, there is a clear discrepancy in all the Armenian estimates, and I went with the lowest, most reasonable estimate from a very pro-Armenian source, Hayastani Hanrapetutiun. Interestingly, that while prof. Hovannisian mentions the Azerbaijani delegations' official population reports, he does not disclose them - I wonder why.

Thus, as you can see, we esentially have four (4) population estimates from prof. Hovannisian, all showing Armenians being roughly 70% in the artificially-created and selected entity of NK -- which despite being a majority, is a far cry from the 94% (or even 94.4% or 96% as some Armenian sources claim).

And once we take into perspective the census figures of the 1897, as well as earlier one's, everything become more clear to us, as Armenians increased due to inflow of Armenians from Persian and Ottoman empires, whilst Azerbaijanis decreased due to either being persecuted (taken their lands away, as is admitted in many Russian sources), undercounted (once again, see, for example, Yamskov), or just killed. Let's consider the following:

"According to Russian census report, the Armenian population in Karabakh represented 9 per cent of the total in 1823 (the remaining 91 per cent being registered as 'Muslims'), 35 per cent in 1832, and a majority of 53 per cent in 1880." (Source: Dr. Svante Cornell, "Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus", RoutledgeCurzon Press, 2001, p. 68).

Then here's from Prof. Tadeusz Swietochowski: "Another area of Armenian concentration where they had formed for centuries a substantial part of the population was Karabagh. The Russian figures from the 1830s put the number of Armenians at approximately 19,000, against 35,000 Muslims. [22] The Armenians inhabited the mountainous portion of the former khanate." (Swietochowski, T., Russia and Azerbaijan, a Borderland in Transition, New York: Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 11).

He continues: "The influx of the Armenians to Transcaucasia experienced major increases after each of the nineteenth-century Russo-Turkish wars: their population surged after the Crimean War of 1853-1856 and the 1876-1878 War. In addition, the mid-1890s massacre by Kurds under the Abdulhamid II (1876-1909) regime in Anatolia caused an influx of Armenians. By the turn of the century, the number of Armenians in Transcaucasia had reached 1,243,000. [24]" (ibid., p. 12)

And the promised Sergey Glinka - the Russian contemporary author (Moscow, 1831), who worked at and for Col. Lazarev (and his book was published in Lazarev Publishing House, and he worked in the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages) - the ethnic Armenian who was actively used by the Russian czar to get the support of the Armenian populations in Iran and Ottoman Empire against those countries, to revolt and become the fifth column. Glinka does not conceal even a little bit his sympathy for his benefactor or Armenians. I have scans of all relevant pages, including with letters in Armenian, which mention the successful efforts of settling thousands (8,000 families or 40,000 Armenians, as the book cites on page 92) of Armenians into Naxcivan, Irevan, and Karabakh right after the Turkmanchay Treaty (1828).

Anyway, as you see there is overwhelming and undeniable evidence that 1) Armenians were being settled en masse into Azerbaijan, and specifically into Karabakh, since 1828, 2) gradually came to make-up a majority by about 1880, and 3) could never have been 94% at least before Sovietization, as all even 100% pro-Armenian sources admit only up to 70% -- although after Sovietization, as Azerbaijanis were killed and persecuted more, it is possible that it became about 90%+, but that is is only due to mechanical rise of Armenian poopulation due to war and emmigration. --AdilBaguirov 00:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And once again, I support and call for mediation, as neither I nor others have ever agreed to mediation by the administrator Golbez (whose efforts and especially graphics I appreciate nevertheless). Meanwhile, I also re-iterate once again my call: please show me where did I make a SINGLE factual mistake and why am I any more "disruptive" or POV than my opponent users such as Fadix, Tigran, MarshallBagramyan, especially since I've found and proven them to misquote and otherwise misrepresent facts? Also, this is not about a single personality -- this is about a page which has a POV presentation. Thus, unless the page reflects facts and is NPOV, it doesn't matter what is the name of the user who irritates with his persistence and knowledge - his name could be Adil or John or Mehmet or Mkrtich, and those glaring omissions would still be exposed. --AdilBaguirov 00:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is not suppose to include the Republic of Azarbaijan or Arran's coat of arms. This is the article about Nagorno-Karabakh, it should include the Nagorno-Karabakh coat of arms. If there are more than one version of the Nagorno-Karabakh coat of arms like an Azari regional one then that should be included. If you look at any province or sub-division or any other regional entity, they display there own coat of arms. As it obvious from the article Baku. Why does Baku have its own coat of arms and not the Azari national one? Your argument is not sound and actually false in nature. A region is suppose to carry its own coat of arms. You did this to infuriate the other editors and also to promote the POV idea of the soverignty of the Republic of Azarbijan (Arran) over the NK. 69.196.164.190
Your calculations? Here one of your calculations too: Armenians massacred an estimated up to 2,5 million Turks, Azerbaijanis and other people in the early part of the 20th century [5] I'm too tired to answer now, perhaps tomorrow. Fad (ix) 03:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
De Waal rounded off the 94.4% to 94%. I simply provided the additional tenth percentile that he omitted out of convenience. I'm sorry if such a small number irks you or is tantamount to "misquoting" an author but if it will please you, I'll even find several others sources for the the statistic.--MarshallBagramyan 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I just skimmed through Adil's message (I don't think anyone can be reasonably expected to read everything he writes). Marshall explained the 94.4 vs 94 deal (and Adil's attempts to make a huge deal out of that difference is truly, as Fadix said, funny).

About Hovhannisyan--first, we don't know if Adil is quoting the passage correctly, considering that he has not been honest before. Second, *even if he is quoting it correctly*, quote is talking about the mountanous part of Karabakh, not the NK itself, having 70% Armenian population. The mountanous parts of Karabakh included Kelbajar, Lachin, Gubatli, Zangelan, and other nearby areas. De-Waal is talking about the NKAO having 94% Armenian population. NK is NKAO+Shahumyan (which had predominantly Armenian population all the time). It does not include the rayons listed above. In sum, even if Adil's quote is correct, it does not contradict de-WAal's quote, which is more relevant to NK anyway (since it doesn't include the surrounding mountanous parts.)--TigranTheGreat 04:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

When did Adil provide an inaccurate quote? I don't remember that ever happening. And it is your opinion what Hovannisian meant by mountanious Karabakh, we don't rely on personal opinions of editors here. Grandmaster 08:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He said that SO article had Georgia's flag. It didn't. He lied. And we don't rely on your personal opinion of what Hovhannisyan meant either.--TigranTheGreat 09:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hovannisian is a source, not a wiki editor. And people make mistakes, but you never caught Adil misquoting a source. Grandmaster 09:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said Hovhannisyan is an editor. And Adil kept making a false statement regarding the Azeri flag. That is dishonest. He also tried to make it sound as if Hovhannisyan and De-Waal were talking about the same region--they weren't, and it was cleary after we insisted that he quote the entire passages. He has shown a pattern of dishonesty, in addition to disruption.--TigranTheGreat 10:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, pls provide a reference of my alleged "lie", such as the South Ossetia/Georgia flag issue, it would be interesting to see the desperate unethical attempts to find anything against me. The only one's who have been found lying and falsifying on numerous occassions have been some of my opponents, and I've pointed all such occurences out. Meanwhile, when someone *insists* that De Waal wrote 94.4%, and even pushes and *challenges* one to go and check, that's not an honest mistake on the part of Marshall, that's a false information. And that's what was done. Also, unfortunately for some, I have Hovanissyan's pages scanned, and article in my possession -- I just wanted for my opponents to reveal their high ethical and moral standards before I post it as an additional proof of me being absolutely correct on this -- and my opponents being petty liers. Moreover, note that what Hovanissyan wrote is fully consistent with all the other quotes and documents that were supplied and are known -- that Karabakh had a predominantly Azerbaijani population until 20th century, when they were killed or forced out, or undercounted by Russian and Armenian Christian officials - and thus their number both artificially and mechanically (as opposed to naturally) reduced. --AdilBaguirov 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Golbez.

First, I think Grandmaster's admission to support the Azeri flag on this page resolves Francis' doubts--it's clear that Grandmaster is for making this article as extremely pro-Azeri as Adil does. I therefore do not think he is ready to be a party for official mediation.

Second, Francis, I am not sure I am comfortable with this statement: "I would offer to mediate, but as I don't believe in the UN's word as the last word I don't think I will be adequate for the job either." Are we supposed to exclude mediators who happen to agree with a statement by an editor? Should be seek only mediators who support the pro-Azeri position? Where is the neutrality in that? If both you and Golbez are in support of an opinion, then maybe that opinion is legitimate one.

Third, Golbez, if you leave, especially if you leave in response to a statement by a POV-pusher, you are letting the POV pushers win. Your presence as a moderator is a guarantee against anyone trying to push POV. It has worked fine in the past, and it can work fine in the future. As a co-moderator, Francis can ensure that you do not overlook things (such as the need to keep the article protected). Your joint moderation is the ultimate safeguard against any type of numeric superiority and POV pushing. Again, it has worked fine in the past, it can work in the future. That way, we do have more than one mediator, as Francis wanted. You both are well aware with all the evidence, arguments, and discussions. Bringing someone new would mean going through all the quotes, arguments, evidence, conversations again--it would be total waste of time, and most likely GM would ask for yet another mediator in case the new one eventually disagreed with him.

In sum, to ensure the neutrality to the article, Golbez needs to stay, and so should you, as you both have done a fine job mediating so far.--TigranTheGreat 03:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. These editors are going too far and exhausting all avenues with this "clear gaming of the system" and distortion of facts. It is not only here on this particular article or with Armenian related articles, but in the other Azari articles and Iranian articles that overlap, which I work on. Looking through the narratives and the history pages, this is easily the 7th article GM has managed to create such an atmosphere in. There have been numerous complaints about them. I also think they should be taken to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, which I highly advise you skim through to become edified on the procedures. With the evidence gathered here, these users edits can be restricted as I have learned from the pages of the Iranian WikiProject, such as this example; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. It would be a good idea to take these editors behaviours to arbitration for major POV-pushing. Other editors can be used to demonstrate this true their encounters with these desruptive editors. This is a continous cycle. How many more articles is this going to happen too? How many times must the same points be brought up over and over again? How much more editing time must be wasted? I have lost my faith in them, but I am not going to let them get away with this anymore. 69.196.164.190
If you are not going to let us “get away with this anymore”, I suggest you file an RFAr. I’m really sure that many interesting facts will surface after the thorough IP check-up by the arbitration. Grandmaster 08:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I warn you, I have been described as very Anti-Armenian:

...another administrator who goes by "Francis Tyers" who is very anti-Armenian (even his personal page specicifally includes ARMENIAN in his "list of nationalities I am NOT") seems to do this with "Golbez" as a team, and nothing favorable to Armenians can be said in the discussion page of Wikipedia's Nagorno-Karabakh page... [6]

- FrancisTyers · 13:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh did you check the history? Those comments were added by "IRAN RULES" not Raffi.--Eupator 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you have also been described as having an Armenian grandmother:) Opinions by trolls do not matter. Your and Golbez' joint moderation is the best guarantee against any POV-pushing from any side. It must continue.--TigranTheGreat 04:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am still reading this. --Golbez 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have had and still have differences with Francis, but I never ever doubted his impartiality and never ever rejected him as a mediator. This person proved to be open-minded and free of any bias, which is something I always respected. As for Golbez, I really appreciate his efforts and time, and I think that he’s a very nice person and an admin, but in this particular case he openly admitted his sympathy towards separatist movements, so I don’t think he could be a mediator. And I’ve always been in favor of wider participation of the wiki community in editing or mediating this troubled article, so I would welcome input of more neutral mediators. Grandmaster 08:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We all have our sympathies, it's the human nature. E.g. some admins disfavor nationalism, some favor it--we don't exclude them based on their opinions (as everyone has one). An impartial admin is one who rises above his sympathies and applies rules of Wiki. Golbez has proven it, and he has kept POV's from either side away from the article (including from me). He has done a fine job, and he should continue.--TigranTheGreat 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. With all due respect to Golbez I don’t accept him as a mediator in the articles, related to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And I wish him best of luck contributing to wikipedia and performing his admin duties. Grandmaster 09:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I would be disappointed if you left, you've put in a lot of good work and it would be crazy to leave just because Adil is POV pushing. It really is a shame that there are no pro-Azeri neutral mediators around (this may seem like an oxymoron, but it isn't) by pro-Azeri and neutral, I mean a mediator who would be default take the Azeri position, but not be so intransigent that they wouldn't change their mind. Like Golbez would change his mind if he was perusaded by a good argument, I'm not convinced that any of you would. - FrancisTyers · 10:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don’ think that mediators should be pro-Azeri or pro-Armenian. They should be neutral. I tried many times to make Golbez hear our side of the story, but with no success. The best example is highly POV wording of NK being “incorporated” into Azerbaijan SSR, which Golbez supported, even though the Soviets never passed any resolution on “incorporation”, Kavburo resolution only said that NK was to be left in Azerbaijan and receive a regional autonomy. He made no effort to come up with a compromise solution and supported the Armenian POV, which had no factual basis. That’s why I want the mediators to be free of bias, especially if they think that they should be the only ones who can edit the article. Grandmaster 07:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you are once again distorting facts. The intro doesn't say "incorporated into AzSSR," it says "incorporated as NKAO in AzSSR." It is a compromise version, as it says nothing about NK's prior ownership. Perhaps Golbez supports the version because he understands what the word means. Just because you don't, doesn't mean we need to lower the quality of the article to your level understanding.--TigranTheGreat 10:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, if you decide to abandon this article it will either remain locked or become a battleground of constant edit wars. I think you should continue to participate in the improvement of this article along with Francis. I really don't want us to start from scratch when so many concessions have been made in the past, by now you are quite familiar with the subject and it would be a huge loss if you stopped contributing to this article.--Eupator 02:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. However, I do not want to babysit the article; if I ever leave again, will the POV edits resume? Based on Grandmaster's and Adil's lack of owning up for what they did, the answer is yes. So it's not just that "if I decide to abandon the article"; even if I don't, if I take a few days off from Wikipedia now and then, the same result will occur - an edit war or a lock. What are the solutions? Grandmaster, if a mediator that you agreed upon beforehand told you that "incorporated" was a valid term, or that the coat of arms of Azerbaijan did not belong in the article, would you accept it? If the answer is yes, then I see no reason why you do not accept it from me either. And if the answer is no, then you have no interest in mediation or consensus. --Golbez 09:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, we can test that now, I'm telling you that the coat of arms of Azerbaijan do not belong in the article. As I have pointed out above. - FrancisTyers · 09:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You want my opinion? The article shouldn't include the Azerbaijani coat of arms. This is the article about Nagorno-Karabakh, it should include the Nagorno-Karabakh coat of arms, now, if there are more than one version of the Nagorno-Karabakh coat of arms, they should be included. Historical coats of arms probably do not belong here, but in the Coat of Arms of Nagorno-Karabakh article. - FrancisTyers · 16:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

- FrancisTyers · 09:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, it wouldn't be babysitting the article. It wouldn't be just you--your and Francis' joint moderation is a solid guarantee against any POV-pushing.

The bottom line is that, if a few POV pushers are sabotaging the article, that is no reason to abandon it. If we do, they win. And then they will do the same on other articles. --TigranTheGreat 10:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite contrary to my previous comments and common sense, I'm going to try taking a break from all Wikipedia except this article. --Golbez 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That’s an interesting question. Will the POV edits resume if you leave? We should ask another question as well. Will the POV edits continue if you stay? My answer is positive. You yourself made many POV edits, without ever trying to reach a consensus. It’s kind of funny that you accuse me of the same now. Not to be rude, but since I never accepted you as a mediator, your opinion does not have any special value to me. But you are free to express your position like any other editor, of course. As for your question, if the mediator provides a convincing explanation of his position, of course I will accept it. Don’t forget that I’ve been one of the major contributors to this article long before you installed yourself in charge of it, and the text of the article had been based more or less on the consensus of both sides until Tigran decided to unilaterally change it with your support. As for coat of arms, it was not the main point of my revert, as I was supporting the version of intro proposed by Adil, which in my opinion made a lot more sense than the current one. I’m willing to compromise on that if I see any sign of a constructive approach on part of Golbez and Tigran. But I also want to have a clear answer to the question if we adhere to the standards of other encyclopedic articles or not. With regard to “incorporated”, I really want to know the opinion of Francis. Since he expressed his position on coat of arms, he may wish to share with us his opinion on that dispute as well. I would like to add that such document as CoE background paper never said that NK was “incorporated” or “included” in Azerbaijan. See:
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. [7]
Note that the Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee granted N-K the right to self-determination, but did not cede it to Armenia. Caucasus Bureau in its final resolution rejected the claim of Armenia and left NK within Azerbaijan. For the text of the original resolution of Caucasus Bureau see below, it stated that NK was to be left within Azerbaijan and receive a wide regional autonomy:
Proceeding from the necessity of national piece among Muslims and Armenians and of the economic ties between upper (mountainous) and lower Karabakh, of its permanent ties with Azerbaijan, mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR, receiving wide regional autonomy with the administrative center in Shusha, which is included in the autonomous region.
This text can be found on Armenian websites as well. Grandmaster 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Christ alive! Stop pasting stuff. Please. Right, if you really want my opinion, follow my instructions very carefully:

  1. Paste the sentence which is currently in the article that you dispute.
  2. Paste the sentence as you would like to see it read.
  3. Paste links to references which you believe support your position. Definately not quotations, any more quotations and I'll just delete them outright.

I have made a little section below:

- FrancisTyers · 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

More discussion

Francis, first, I think this discussion should be incorporated in the history section, not the intro. Given the complexity of the period, and the fact that the status of NK was unsettled until July 1921, it's more appropriate to use a neutral wording in the intro that does not imply prior ownership of NK by either Azerbaijan or Armenia. Otherwise, if we include one decision by Kavburo in the intro, we should include others for the sake of completeness. Therefore, I think we should keep the current short sentence in the intro, as it is neutral.

Second, I want to make a note about the supposed "neutrality" of the COE paper. The paper, as you can see from PDF file, is an appendix to Atkinson's report--who was criticized (including by Russian diplomat Kazimiorv) for his pro-Azeri bias. I think there is a reason why Atkinson chose this particular account of events--the paper selectively includes some dates while excluding others--i.e. it excludes the Nov 30, June 3, and July 4 decisions to recognize NK as part of Armenia, and instead includes the December 2nd Azeri decision to grant NK a self-determination (i.e. referendum--note that COE makes a mistake in the date--saying that it was done in November).

If you read the paper, you will see that it heavily relies on Azeri sources, especially for the period in question (i.e. early 1900's-1920's). On page 18, to portray the events in 1910's, it uses the official Azeri map. On page 21, to show the modern line of contact, it again uses an official Azeri map (with the title "Armenian Aggression"). One wonders--why there is no Armenian map for that period? On page 18, when describing the ethnic conflict of 1918, it only reports the Azeri casualties as reported by Azeris. No mention of Armenian casualties. On the same page, when describing the 1905 Azeri-Armenian conflict, it only talks about the Azeri villages being burnt, again as reported by Azeri sources. No talk about Armenian losses. You can see the pattern throughout the paper. And in the end, we have a letter from Azeri embassy--nothing from Armenia.

In sum, it seems the paper heavily relied on Azeri sources, which explains the selective account of the dates in late 1920--early 1921. I am not saying the paper is completely false, I am just saying that, as with anything in the universe, we should assume bias, and not take the phrasings used in the paper as fact.

Finally, about your suggested paragraph. As I said before, due to complexity of the era, and the unsettled nature of NK's status up until July 1921, we should discuss that in the history section. In doing so, we still should not use terms that assume prior ownership of NK. Therefore, I oppose the sentence "Nagorno-Karabakh was given autonomy within the Azerbaijan SSR"--sounds like the region was *already* in Azerbaijan when it was given the autonomy. I think we should use the following:

In the intro, keep the current version:

The Soviet Union incorporated the predominantly Armenian region as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

In the History section, I propose the following paragraph:

After coming under Bolshevik control, the predominantly Armenian region was first recognized as part of Armenia. Shortly afterwards, Azerbaijan SSR issued a modified proclamation, suggesting to grant the region the right of self-determination. On June 3, 1921, the Caucasus Bureau of the Russian Communist Party recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia. The Bureau confirmed the decision on July 4. On July 5, the Bureau passed a new resolution, demanding that Nagorno-Karabakh be incorporated in Azerbaijan SSR with broad autonomy. The decision was implemented in 1923, with the creation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast in Azerbaijan SSR, which was to last until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

--TigranTheGreat 08:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, regarding GM's comment that the November declaration by AzSSR was not done by a state body--we are again entering the realm of legal interpretations. If we were to do that, we would have to consider the fact that Kavburo itself had no legal authority to grant a disputed region to Azerbaijan--officially, until 1922, Armenia, Azer., and Russia were independent Socialist republics, and Kavburo was a local body of a political party of a third state. So, legally speaking, we would have to go with the inter-republic decision of November 1920.--TigranTheGreat 08:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Of course we should remove the word “incorporated” from the intro, since there’s not a single reliable document to support such wording. The original resolution of Kavburo is available, and therefore everyone can check what it said. The history section should include the full quotes from those resolutions and let the readers decide what they said. That would be perfectly neutral. Personal interpretations should be kept out of the article. The same applies to Tigran’s attempt to present CoE as pro-Azeri, while it is an authoritative and neutral organization. The fact that former Russian ambassador Kazimirov criticized Atkinson does not mean anything, Kazimirov himself is very well known for his negative role in the conflict. In fact, he was the one who threatened the Azeri government that Russia would supply weapons to Armenia, if Azerbaijan does not make concessions to Russia in the oil sector. So criticism by such person means nothing at all. Also of note that Tigran himself refers to Armenian sources only, including the website of Armenian separatists and Armenian MP Starovoytova and does not cite a single neutral source. Of course such sources cannot be accepted as reliable. I also quoted the original text of Kavburo resolution from that website, but only to show that it is not misquoted by the Azeri sources. You can find the same document in an Azeri source here [8] It is one thing to quote a historical document, and another thing to refer to the opinion of people who have strong bias in this issue. Grandmaster 08:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's amusing how GM tries to present his sources as absolute fact, while suppressing my non-Armenian sources as Armenian. I take the more neutral approach--no source is unbiased, nothing is taken as fact--we look at sources and use neutral wording.

A few more points.

Despite GM's claims, me and Fadix have used multiple non-Armenian sources--which are shown in the "Timeline" section.

The COE paper (which does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the COE itself) maybe authoritative, but as anything else, it's not neutral. Especially when it relies so heavily on Azeri sources.

We look at whether a work is published through reputable medium. USIP is a reputable organization, with high standards for publications, and Staravoitova's article is published there. Staravoitova is not Armenian MP. She is a world renowned scientist (ethnologist) and a human rights activist. Her wordings are much more neutral than those used by any of GM's sources.

Incorporated is not interpretation, it's a fact--when you create an AO, you incorporate the region as that AO. So, it should be included.

GM tries to selectively pick one part of a website (in this case the NKR website) while dismissing others. That's not consistent. If the NKR website is honest enough to include an accurate text of a document, it is honest enough not to lie about other decisions by Kavburo. If we use one, we use the other.--TigranTheGreat 09:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That does not follow. The only reason why I quoted the document from the Armenian separatist site was to show that the Azeri websites don’t misquote the same resolution. It is one thing to quote a historical document, and absolutely different thing to refer to the opinion of a source with an obvious bias. I think that Azeri and Armenian sources should be rejected due to obvious bias. And incorporated is an interpretation, not shared by other sources. Therefore we should ignore the interpretations and cite the original resolution and let the reader judge. Grandmaster 09:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure it follows. The fact that the NKR site accurately includes a wording that could be potentially disfavorable to itself indicates the integrity of the site. You recognized this by citing the NKR site for the wording. If you trust the site for one piece of information, then you should trust it for other pieces as well. What I quoted from the site are not interpretations but actual quotations from decisions recognizing NK as part of Armenia.

We never just cite a resolution in an encyclopedia, we also state what it does. This is not a library of decisions, this is an article.

And your instinct for not quoting info posted by the currupt republic of Azerbaijan was right--clearly, noone should trust anything submitted by one of the most corrupt states in the former USSR.--TigranTheGreat 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

If you think Francis that this does not belong here, feel free to move it.

The Timeline is interesting, but I reinterate that this:

The Soviet Union incorporated the predominantly Armenian region as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

Is the best option, for those reasons.

  • 1)The most important event in the chronology is the official formation of the Oblast, and which is the only according to me that is enough important to be included in the intro.
  • 2)The entry is NK and not NKAO, the subject is NK and what it is and what happened to it. Words like established could be interesting in an intro of an entry about NKAO, but not NK, the intro of the entry about NK should say what happened to NK. And what happened to it is that it was incorporated as the NKAO...
  • 3)This current wording does not say to which side it was prior, it only say what happened of NK, which is prefect because we don't need hundreds of clarifications and chronologies in the lead.
  • 4)The intro and the article is more than enought political, we don't need to politise it even more.
  • 5)To replace this current version, a better one taking in account the above 4 points should be proposed, which has not been done. Fad (ix) 15:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The current version is not accurate. - FrancisTyers · 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
How? Fad (ix) 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to say until everyone is happy with the timeline for the period. - FrancisTyers · 15:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


As I explained to Francis separately, I am only happy with those wordings added by me and Fadix. So, whenever GM and me have added an entry for the same date, I find my entries more accurate.

By the way, I am not sure I understand Fadix' entry "Armenia renounced its claims to Karabakh in a treaty with the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic ", especially it's cronological placement. Other than that, I agree with Fadix' entries.--TigranTheGreat 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't mine, but Grandmaster's, I think it is about the Treaty of December regarding Zankezur and not the others, which was reverted anyway later. Potier is not clear as he isen't specific. And I have never been able to find which Treaty he is refering to or any dates, the Armenian Communist Leader speak of threats by Narimanov to drop Karabakh, which is the only document which could be there. I would suggest deleting it until we find the date, but I won't have any problem to keep it if Grandmaster insist, but it will be difficult to place it somewhere chronologically speaking. Fad (ix) 21:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Francis, even Grandmaster knows this is not accurate. The official documents contradict the Concil of Europe, the decision did not only include Nakhichevan, Zangezur but also Nagorno Karabakh. This has already been discussed and I haven't seen Grandmaster replicating about it. Soviet Azerbaijan sent a telegram which contained the three territories. The quote is in Michael P. Croissant work. Roberta Cohen in her work says the same thing. Even Grandmaster cited source Tim Potier on page 3 of his work present this and the same telegram. Stalin said, published in Pravda on December. Again in the same work which Grandmaster cited himself. The decree as an answer by the republic of Armenia, recognized by Azerbaijan and Soviet autorities was to the effect that officially Nagorno-Karabakh was part of Armenia in July, the decision was reversed by the Soviet Union the next days. I wonder from where the Concil of Europe took that information, and it is amazing that Grandmaster is comming up with this when he know well that the information there is not accurate, there exist primary documents. Ordjonikidze gave a speech regarding Narimanov acceptance, and I have a French translation of that speech. How am I supposed to believe in the sincerity of Grandmaster, when he is OK with a proposition when he himself knows that it isen't even accurate. Fad (ix) 21:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, the decision and the refusal of the League of Nations to recognize Nagorno Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan should definitly be included in that passage. Fad (ix) 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JESUS WEPT MAN. Stop quoting! Now, please edit down your post and give me one thing you want to change. You have three lines to make your case (not including sources) — if you want to reference a source, make a subpage of your userpage, copy the quote there and link it here. e.g. User:Fadix/Roberta_Cohen_(YYYY). - FrancisTyers · 21:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I support the current wording, so my change is to what it already is. There is no point in changing it to a version which Grandmaster himself knows to be not accurate, he already commented about the Soviet decision, which was an admission that the Concil of Europe provided information is simply not accurate. Also, it is easy for Grandmaster to not quote, his sources are from the web, I can not point to somewhere on the web for something which is not from the web. Fad (ix) 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not comment on User:Grandmaster. I have shown you how you can quote sources without getting them deleted. Now, what would you like to change or add, and why? I'm afraid you don't get to dispute sources unless you can provide alternatives. - FrancisTyers · 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Change? Nagorno Karabakh was recognized by Azerbaijan and Soviet Union as part of Armenia, I have quoted the telegram by Azerbaijan, and Stalin words. So we have contradictory information between what the Concil say, and the primary documents and published works. Fad (ix) 21:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we're getting somewhere, you would like to include that "Nagorno Karabakh was recognized by Azerbaijan and Soviet Union as part of Armenia". So, now present your sources. Remember, if they aren't web sources, follow the procedure outlined above. - FrancisTyers · 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
OK!, but is it really necessary to go into specific on something in the lead? This information is relevant but only in a section, so I am not requesting this information to be there on the lead, but presented it simply as critic to your version and why it is not a good one. I maintain that the current version is OK, but the addition on the League of Nations refusal to recognize it as part of Azerbaijan might be relevant. I will creat a source page right now. Fad (ix) 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The telegram is not disputed to this day, it was written by Nariman Narimanov, yes indeed the Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee's president, but the Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee was assuming the role of the government and Narimanov had full force in signing treaties and headed the government of Azerbaijan until 1922. And there was one official version, the official version which Stalin refers too is the recognition as part of Armenia, which Ordzhonikidze confirms in his speech. It was under those decisions that the decree of July followed by the official declaration of Karabakh as part of Armenia as recognized by every parties and which was reversed. Fad (ix) 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please give the original source. Are you saying the telegram that is talked about below granting it "self-determination" does not exist? I'd like to see this "official declaration of Karabakh as part of Armenia" too. - FrancisTyers · 22:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
See: [9]
Another thing, since Armenia was officially brought in the Soviet Union in December, what is the relevancy of adding Azerbaijan Revolutionary Committee decision of November? To that effect, since 1919 as reported by Kirov, Karabakh did not recognize Azerbaijani government, and the November 1920 decision by Stalin concerned Dashnak Armenia(not Soviet), but less than a month later the same day as Armenia decided to officially join the confederation both the Soviet and Azerbaijani autorities recognized Karabakh as part of Armenia. See the two new sources I have added. [10] Fad (ix) 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
And with regard to the question of Fadix, indeed, if the Armenian SSR was created only in December of the same year, how could Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee cede anything to the entity that did not even exist? The answer is obvious. The purpose of declaration was to attract public support for the communists in Armenia. It was meant to say that if Armenia had become the Armenian SSR, it would have received those territories. It was purely a political declaration, which was never put in practice, as CoE says. Grandmaster 09:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Politicial declaration recognized by the official body of Azerbaijan at that time and as well recognized by Soviet autorities and reconfirmed again and again until July 1921 when the decision was reversed. Fad (ix) 12:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
"It was meant to say..." is your interpretation, and actually an incorrent one. Narimanov's declaration specifically recognized the Armenian SSR, and then it recognized NK as part of Armenia. Armenian SSR was declared on November 30, and immediately recognized by Bolsheviks. So, actually it did exist. What happened was that there were two governments in Armenia as of November 30--the non-Bolshevik one (soon to be removed, and unrecognized by Bolsheviks), and the Bolshevik Armenian government, recognized by Russia and AzSSR. The fact that AzSSR recognized ArmSSR and officially recognized NK as part of ArmSSR means that AzSSR was bound by its decision. --TigranTheGreat 20:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See the following quote from Potier:

The process of deciding whether Karabakh should remain within Azerbaijan or be adjoined to Armenia can only be described as disrespectful and distasteful to both the Azerbaijani and Armenian people, and provides a typical example of the disregard and insensitivity of Soviet nationality policy during this time.

Also, Tim Potier says the following after quoting the telegram of Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee:

Ironically, it was Armenia herself that was to renounce its claims to Karabakh in its treaty, later that month, with the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR).

See more from this book here: [11] Grandmaster 06:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, Potier has bias, and is using biased phrasing. It's a legal analysis with a predetermined thesis--that NK is legally part of Azerbaijan. The NESL analysis, talking about the same events, uses the phrase "NK was annexed to Azerbaijan." The wording by the USIP article is most neutral--"it was incorporated as an autonomous region in Azerbaijan."--TigranTheGreat 08:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, it doesn't matter, since the wording does not conform to NPOV. I maintain again, that this entry is about NK and not NKAO, the introduction should center the issue around NK and not NKAO. Any of the other propositions beside the one with the term 'incorporated' politicise the introduction and further separate this entries title with its content. Taken NK as the prime entity, there is yet to be any equivalently valid proposition as the one with the term 'incorporated' as it is the only that place NK at the center. Fad (ix) 15:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
If something does not suit your purpose, then it of course has bias. How come an independent researcher Potier has bias, and the Armenian parliamentarian Starovoytova does not? The same goes for NESL, which misinterprets the sources to prove that NK is legally independent, while the rest of the world says that its not. Grandmaster 09:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Look don't start with that, you are again pushing into a conflict( in reference to your comment: If something does not suit your purpose, then it of course has bias.)

If something doesn't suit your purpose, you start distorting facts. Staravoitova is not Armenian parlamentarian. And she doesn't misrepresent anything--her words are more neutral than those of your sources.

Everyone has bias. Potier's purpose is to prove that NK is legally part of Azerbaijan. Clearly he is taking sides. By definition, he is not neutral. --TigranTheGreat 09:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Starovoytova was an Armenian parlamantarian, that's an undeniable fact. And the bias of Potier is just your personal opinion. Grandmaster 09:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No she wasn't, not as far as the independent Armenian Republic was concerned, and definitely not at the time the article was written. Potier's bias is undeniable fact--he is taking sides, hence he has bias. Just like everyone.--TigranTheGreat 20:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Trial run

  1. Current sentence: The Soviet Union incorporated the predominantly Armenian region as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.
  2. How it should read: In 1923 the Soviet authorities created Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast within the Azerbaijan SSR in the mountainous part of Karabakh, which mostly included areas with predominant Armenian population.
  3. Relevant sources: [12] [13]

Grandmaster 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes

I can't read Russian, but regardless, the Assembly document seems more reliable. The source mentions several pertinent points:

  1. In November 1920, the Azerbaijan Revolutionary Committee ... granted N-K the right to self-determination.
  2. In July 1921, the Bolshevik Party Caucasus Bureau reversed the above decision.
  3. N-K was granted a broad autonomy within the newly created Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic.
  4. In 1923, the N-K Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was established.

So, what can we do with this information. Well, we can clearly see that both sentences leave out some important details. So, lets try with this:

After coming under Bolshevik control, the region was initially granted the right of self-determination. This was revoked in under a year, following this, Nagorno-Karabakh was given autonomy within the Azerbaijan SSR. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, which was to last until the collapse of the Soviet Union, was established in 1923. At the time, the region was predominently populated by Armenians.

I welcome your comments. Do not reply to each other. Just give comments, suggestions and sources. Do not quote. - FrancisTyers · 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[Fadix' contribution moved upward. - FrancisTyers · 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)]
Just one thing. I think the history of creation of NKAO should be described in detail in the history section. The intro should only briefly mention that NKAO was created or established in 1923. Grandmaster 20:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
As for the text in Russian, it contains a full text of the Kavburo resolution on creation of NKAO. You can see the translation of the main section of it in my posting above. Grandmaster 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am considering your point. Personally I think an extra line could fit comfortably into the lead, but we'll see what the others think. - FrancisTyers · 21:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding an extra line into the lead. Grandmaster 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The telegram of Azerbaijan Revolutionary Committee (which was not a government) is disputed to this day. That telegram was published in two different versions in Baku and Yerevan. The version published in Yerevan said that Az.SSR ceded NK to Armenia, the version published in Baku said Az.SSR granted NK the right to self-determination. It was just a proclamation with no legal effect. The CoE file says: The resolution, which some historians ascribe to a wish to help the Armenian Bolsheviks to take power, was never put into practice. Grandmaster 21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind this wording, but could we use "established" instead of "create"? --Golbez 22:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We're using "established". - FrancisTyers · 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Timeline discussion

I don't know if I should answer here, but there is a problem there, as we don't know if Armenia dropping it refers to the one of December after Armenia was defeated, which makes a differences since it was reverted. So we don't know if the 'at some point afterwards' is even accurate. Potier isen't specific. Fad (ix) 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, you said you would tell us what's wrong with the current version, after we agreed on timeline. (feel free to move this sentence around--I didin't know where to put it).--TigranTheGreat 21:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the current version. I'm was wary of explaining them because I fear you will respond with a million sources that dispute what I'm going to say. You can only respond to me with sources that have been used in the timeline below, and only references. If you have a complaint, you have three lines to make it known.

The first problem (1) is that the section doesn't mention that NK was part of Armenia, the second problem (2) is that it doesn't mention that it was transferred to Azerbaijan, the third problem (3) is that it uses "incorporated" to describe the creation of the NKAO. I don't think these can be disputed judging from how you agreed on the timeline below. If you do dispute one then make it known below. Reference the number of the statement you dispute, give your reason for disputing it, with as many references to sources as you require. - FrancisTyers · 21:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

--Fad (ix) 14:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC):I am not sure I am following you, what section? Are you talking about the section in the introduction or the timeline? Also, are you saying that NK being part of Armenia and being transferred to Azerbaijan should be there? And your third point, you say that your problem is the uses of the term 'incorporated' but you don't say why. Fad (ix) 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I do not dispute 1) and 2). For 3), creation is incorporation (not always, but in this given context). I can't cite from the sources because it has nothing to do with the sources--it's basic--when you create a new administrative division encompassing a particular geographic region, you are incorporating the region as that particular administrative division.--TigranTheGreat 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we're not using "incorporated", I did look it up, but you'll note I had to look it up because I wasn't sure of the meaning you were talking about. Nagorno-Karabakh was already part of Azerbaijan when the NKAO was established, and had been for over a year. So, we use established, or created just like the two sources provided below. - FrancisTyers · 22:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Francis, this above reason doesn't justify the non-uses of that word, since the exact date of incoporation could be included (1921). This reason only requires a change of date and clarification and not the exclusion of a word. Fad (ix) 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
"establish" and "create" are both serviceable verbs, choose one. - FrancisTyers · 01:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Is Francis suggesting this? (part of Armenia, transfered to Azerbaijan), Grandmaster refused less than that. He will never accept such wordings. Francis, I need clarification. Fad (ix) 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
That isn't exactly what I am proposing. However these are all things that should be in the introduction. Now, for the first thing I want to get this "incorporated" thing out of the way. We aren't going to use that word. You are welcome to choose between "established" or "created". - FrancisTyers · 22:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, why? NK was not created neither established in 1921 or 1923, it was incorporated, OK on 1921 not 1923, but still your alternative isen't representative of an introduction about NK. What happened of NK, was it incorporated in Azerbaijan, was it created in Azerbaijan, was it established in Azerbaijan? Please explain. Fad (ix) 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
One source below says "established", one source says "with the creation of". Take your pick. - FrancisTyers · 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
It isen't like sources using the term incorporated are missing [[14]]. While the decision was taken in 1921, it was officialised in 1923. I don't think we are on the same 'longueur d'onde.' All what I am saying is that this is the main article about NK, the sources using the term created or established refers to the creation of NKAO, what I am refering to is NK, which was incorporated and this incorporation permited the establishment of the NKAO. Your version on the lead exclude NK, while the article is supposed to be about it. Fad (ix) 00:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I've not given my final version of the sentence[s] to replace the single sentence to go in the lead yet. You had your chance to provide sources. You accepted there were enough sources as is below. I don't know what you are talking about with the "main article about NK", we don't have separate articles on Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast or Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. You must realise that we are just dealing with one sentence out of the three paragraphs of the lead here. Besides, as I said above, incorporated isn't appropriate here. - FrancisTyers · 01:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, this is the main problem, which I stressed from the beginning long before this issue was brought. We have one article about NK which speak for the Oblast, the region and the self-declared republic as well as the historic region. What you are proposing is to further make of the NK article something representing the political body and make that move final which was my point of contention. My previous proposition was to cut the article one about the region the other about the political body, like most other equivalent articles(and I doubt Grandmaster will refuse). Also, the way you are proposing it, you will be forced to use the word transfered which is stronger than the term incorporated disagreed by Grandmaster. My main point was that the lead contain enought of the Soviet to present situation to have to include dates and situations. What I propose is in the consideration of the timeline to Grandmaster to give his input about whatever or not he still refuse the term incorporated, which again you haven't justified its exclusion. Fad (ix) 05:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No, we have only one article on Nagorno-Karabakh, those others are redirects. If you would like to create separate articles for NKAO and NKR, be my guest. Stop trying to guess what he will agree and disagree with. I haven't presented you with the suggestion yet. - FrancisTyers · 12:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Also to add, neither Grandmaster, neither Tigran nor I have requested such a chronology in the lead. The point of contention was whatever or not NK was incorporated in the Azerbaijan SSR. The chronology makes that clear. 05:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The timeline clearly states that at the time of the establishment of the NKAO, it was already part of Azerbaijan. - FrancisTyers · 12:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
And, in your summary while you include Azerbaijan recognition of it part of Armenia, you exclude the official declaration by the Armenia SSR of it being officially part of its unit. Fad (ix) 05:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

At some point afterwards, Armenia renounced its claims to Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan granted Nagorno-Karabakh the right of self-determination. We don't know to which date this refers too, and there is evidences that it refers to the December decision after the fall of the Dashnaks which was in parallel reversed. Fad (ix) 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is problematic. Can you please try and find a date for that. - FrancisTyers · 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, what I can say is that it is maybe refering to the Treaty signed in December during the capitulation, which is the treaty here the quote from Grandmaster refers too [15] between Dashnakist Armenia and RSFSR on December(again the exact day in unknown). The thing is that there was two governments in Armenia even during that time, the Dashnaks and the Communists, in Febuary 18, 1921 one day after the Soviet attacked Georgia, the Dashnaks reclaimed power and were successful for weeks. The thing is that Karabakh was handed to communist Armenia taken from the Dashnaks. The any other reference again is the forced dropping after the threats, which has no clear dates. Azerbaijan and Stalin refused Dashnak Armenia juridiction and recognized Soviet Armenia juridiction over Karabakh. Fad (ix) 05:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I know what Poiter is talking about. When Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee (not AzSSR) declared on 30 November / 1 December that it grants the Armenian SSR (non-existent at the moment) Nakhichevan, Zangezur and Karabakh (according to other sources the latter was granted the right to self-determination), the very next day Armenia signed a treaty with RSFSR (Yerevan treaty of 2 December 1920), which set up the borders of Armenia that did not include Karabakh. Thus Armenia refused from Karabakh the next day it was granted it. Looks like kerosene had nothing to do with it. Cornell says that the Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee telegram was sent under strong pressure from Moscow. Apparently, Russia was not going to grant Karabakh and Nakhichevan to Armenia, therefore Armenia had to refuse from the lands it was granted the very next day, apparently by the insistence of RSFSR Bolshevik leaders. So it was a political game, aimed to attract public support for communists in Armenia, and when the aim was achieved Bolsheviks made Nakhichevan an autonomous republic in Azerbaijan, granted Zangezur to Armenia (this area had an Azeri majority before 1918), thus separating Nakhichevan from the rest of Azerbaijan, and established NKAO, creating a very complicated situation, which would allow to implement the divide and rule policy. Grandmaster 08:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not accurate, you are assuming, we agreed that claims should be sourced, please stop assuming. The Treaty in question is the Treaty of capitulation by Dashnak Armenia, A Bolshevic provisory government was formed, the republic, was forced to drop any claims over Karabakh, while the letter by Narimanov and Stalin concerned Soviet Armenia. As for Nakhichevan, everyone agreed that Nakhichevan transfer was to please Turkey. It was both part of Soviet Armenia (Yerevan Province), recognized by the League of Nations, abiding with Wilsonian map, and recognized by the Treaty of Sevres as part of Armenia. The republic of Armenia was recognized as well by the United States of America. So don't please bring Nakhichevan in the picture. And no, the transfer to Azerbaijan was a political move. Karabakh had its government, it had even its own army, police, ministry of education, electrions even for municipale governments and this after the anulation of the borders, the political game only applies to a decision which is not justifiable ethically.--Fad (ix) 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It is also of interest that Narimanov’s telegram said: As of today, the old frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared to be non-existent. This means that the above lands were within the borders of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 08:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No, this declaration refers to the so-called Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic. Again, I stress out that NK had its self ruling government which was democratically elected and under laws such as the Hague about the Rules of wars, there are provisions about the arministice. You can not attack a self-ruled government when there is no define border and then force it in another unit.--Fad (ix) 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The phrase: Sometime between 3rd June and 4th July, 1921, Azerbaijan recognised Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia is not accurate. Azerbaijan did not recognize NK as part of Armenia neither on 3 June, nor on 4th July. On 4th July 1920 Kavburo passed a resolution in favor of Armenia. This resolution was not final, and the final decision was passed on 5th July, the claims of Armenia were rejected, NK was left within Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 11:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The word remains is simply bogus, since NK had its own government, which again I repeat, was democratically elected. There was a pending referundum, and the decision of July to transfer it to Azerbaijan was never ratified by Nagorno Karabakh.--Fad (ix) 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Francis, the phrase: with the Azerbaijan SSR recognising this decision on the 4th July, 1921 is not accurate. In fact, on 4 July Kavburo passed a resolution on transfer of NK to the Armenian SSR, and Azerbaijan SSR, led by Nariman Narimanov, did not agree to that and protested this decision, and the broader meeting of Kavburo the next day, 5 July, reversed its previous decision and left NK within Azerbaijan. So there were two resolutions of Caucasus Bureau, one in favor of Armenia on 4 July, and another one reversing it on 5 July. Grandmaster 14:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It is quite clear that at some point Nagorno-Karabakh was recognised as part of Armenia. It seems to me like it was used as a bargaining chip to get both Azerbaijan and Armenia into the Soviet Union with contradictory claims, counter-claims etc. I think it is quite reasonable to state that it was "granted" to Armenia, then "granted" to Azerbaijan. The details here are obviously highly disputed and refuted by both sides, so it is best to present both sides of the story. Many sources state it was granted to Armenia, many sources state it was then granted to Azerbaijan. I don't see why you have a problem including both of these POVs. You realise this takes care of your initial complaint? We won't be using incorporated, and it will be noted that at the time of the establishment of the NKAO, NK was part of Azerbaijan. - FrancisTyers · 15:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
NK was recognized as part of Armenian SSR by declaration of Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee (other sources say that Armenians of NK were granted the right to self-determination in that declaration), and Armenia renounced its claims to Karabakh the next day in a treaty with Russia, and NK was granted to Armenia by the first resolution of Caucasian Bureau on 4 July, which was reversed the next day. I just think that we should mention both Kavburo resolutions, the one in favor of Armenia and the one in favor of Azerbaijan. We should not take any position here, but simply quote the resolutions of Caucasian Bureau and let the reader judge. I.e. it should say that on 4 July Kavburo passed a resolution that said so and so, and on 5 July it passed another resolution that said so and so. I agree that NK was used as a bargaining cheap to sovietize both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and to enforce divide and rule policy. Grandmaster 15:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the lead, so I want to keep it simple, not quote "Kavburo" or anything. Would you be happy if we use the same verb to describe going to Armenia and Azerbaijan? That sounds reasonable to me. If you don't like "grant", feel free to suggest an alternative verb. - FrancisTyers · 16:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we include just one line similar to CoE file description and say:
Nagorno-Karabakh was granted a broad autonomy within the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic and the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was established in 1923.
We use the word “granted”, and this description is more neutral than any other. Saying that NK was granted to Azerbaijan would not be accurate as there’s no such decision of Soviet authorities. Saying that it was granted autonomy within Az.SSR would be neutral wording. As for the detailed description and timeline of events, we should include it to the history section. I think with your help we’ve done a good job on reconstructing the chain of events and it definitely should be included into the article. Grandmaster 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid we're going to have to include the fact that it was granted to Armenia too. Something along the lines of "Nagorno-Karabakh was initially granted to Armenian SSR, this decision was later overturned and it was granted to Azerbaijan SSR. In 1923, the NKAO was established." - FrancisTyers · 18:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, but we should say that it was left within Az.SSR, because that’s what the resolution of Soviet authorities says. "Nagorno-Karabakh was initially granted to Armenian SSR, this decision was later overturned and it was left within Azerbaijan SSR. In 1923, the NKAO was established." We can add the reference to the text of the original Kavburo resolution, no one can deny what the resolution said. Grandmaster 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Svante Cornell provided the most accurate description of the events that led to creation of NKAO. Grandmaster 18:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We need to use the same verb for both actions. - FrancisTyers · 18:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
But why? They were not the same sort of action. First Kavburo resolution said that NK was to be included in the Armenian SSR, the second one reversed this decision and said it was to be left within Azerbaijan SSR. We cannot use the same verb, as there were two different decisions. Grandmaster 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Because it is disputed. - FrancisTyers · 19:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No one can dispute the original text of the resolution, available on both Armenian and Azeri websites. How about this: Nagorno-Karabakh was initially granted to Armenian SSR by the Soviet authorities, this decision was reversed the next day and it was granted an autonomy within Azerbaijan SSR. This is the only reasonable compromiseGrandmaster 19:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately you aren't the one who decides what is reasonable. The problem with that is that we then have to mention that Azerbaijan acknowledged that NK was part of Armenia. If we have both with "granted" then we don't have to. We aren't just working with one resolution here. - FrancisTyers · 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, we don't have to include everything in the intro. Why don't we remove the mention of NKAO from the intro completely? We can provide a detailed description of the events that led to creation of NKAO in the history section. The only time when Azerbaijan recognized NK as part of Armenia was proclamation of the Revolutionary Committee, which is disputed. Some sources say that it only granted the Armenian population of NK the right to self-determination. There was no other recognition. Grandmaster 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I never asked for such a precision, I found the intro OK! You opposed it. I agree that such a precision should not be included, maybe a clarification, but that's all. Don't forget we are at this point for just a single word incorporated which use you have disagreed. As for the autonomy, that change of move is not much different than recognized, there is no dispute, they reverted it to the right of self-determination a decision pending a referundum about what NK decide(self determination, also refers to it determinating what they want). There was a pending referundum just like Nakhichevan, but at the end, Narimanov didn't respect his words, he simply lied and started making threats.--Fad (ix) 14:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think leaving it out is an option. - FrancisTyers · 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I know what you both want, GM, you want it to give the impression that NK was never "officially" (whatever that is) part of Armenia and has always been part of Azerbaijan and Tigran+Fadix, you want to give the impression that it was "officially" part of Armenia and then taken from Armenia and given to Azerbaijan. Just so you know, neither of these are going to be explicitly presented in the intro. Seeing as there are different points of view on this matter, we are going to present them in an impartial fashion. Hence the use of the same verb. - FrancisTyers · 19:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what I want, to whom it was prior etc., are all subjects that are open to debate and not introduction material. What I want is only point to the relevant in the lead, which was that it was incorporated in Azerbaijan. Without any notes as recognitions that it was part of Armenia or Azerbaijan etc., Damnit, it is only the introduction, again, I don't see ther elevency of any more precision than NK was incorporated to forme NKAO, OK, maybe a clarification about that, but I fail to see why more should be specified in the lead. And you haven't still justified such a move.--Fad (ix) 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I’m thinking about presenting the issue in the neutral fashion. You say it is disputed that NK was left within Azerbaijan, but it is also disputed whether it was granted to it. See Potier, Cornell, etc, they say NK was left within Az.SSR. And on top of that you have the original resolution of Kavburo, the primary source, which quite explicitly said that NK was to be left within Azerbaijan SSR. So it would not be neutral to say that NK was granted to Azerbaijan. Maybe the best would be not to mention the history of creation of NKAO in the intro? Grandmaster 19:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the following wording: Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) existed within the Azerbaijan SSR since 1923. It is something no one can dispute. Thus we avoid the history of creation of autonomy, which will be provided in the relevant section of the article. Grandmaster 19:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We need to mention that it was in Armenia in order to present both sides of the story. How about "Although initially bestowed to the Armenian SSR, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was established within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923." - FrancisTyers · 19:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that it’s better to avoid any controversial info in the intro, and provide the detailed description in the history section. NK was granted to Armenia for less than 1 day, and even that decision was not final. I don’t know how to describe the situation in such way that it could be acceptable to both sides. I think the best is to say in the intro that NKAO existed since 1923 and describe the controversy in the history section. Grandmaster 20:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be better in the intro. - FrancisTyers · 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Ok, guys, first, I know what Potier was talking about when he said "Armenia renounced its claims over Nakhichevan etc." He was talking about the Kars agreement of October 1921--this was after the July 5th decision--i.e. after all the dust settled. Armenia never renounced its claims in December 1920, it simply handed the power from Dashnaks to Bolsheviks.

Second, Francis, I agree with you that we need to use equal words--such as granted--it was granted to Armenia, then Azerbaijan. I prefer that over your third option--"bestowed etc," as it does not create clear impression of the events that happened (i.e. first granted to Armenia, then Azerbaijan."

Third, I don't think NK was part of Armenia only from June 4 till July 5th (i.e. only for a month). It was part of Armenia between November 30 and July 5th. The fact that Azerbaijan recognized NK as part of Armenia on November 30, 1920, is not disputed--Croissant says so User:Fadix/Karabakh, and so does even GM's source Cornell [16]. "the revolutionary committee of Soviet Azerbaijan in December 1920 under Soviet pressure from central authorities issued a statement that Karabakh, Zangezur and Nakhjivan were all transferred to Armenian control. Stalin (then commissar for nationalities) made the decision public on December 2"

The fact that 3 days after this, the Azerbaijan SSR issued another proclamation (i.e. "grant NK right of self-determination") doesn't mean the NK (already recognized as part of Armenia), went back to Azerbaijan. It remained with Armenia till July 5, 1921. Given that AzSSR and ArmSSR were both officially independent at the time, AzSSR couldn't take back the land already given to Armenia--only Soviets could do it. In law, you can't give something to someone and a few days later cancel it (try to sign a contract to buy a car, and then try to give it back a few days later). So, despite what GM says, NK was part of Armenia for several months, not just a day.

Fourth, just because the Kavburo decision says "remains" doesn't mean NK was part of AzSSR prior to that--at the time, words like "remain, included, placed etc" were used interchangably. Again, this is clear from GM's source Cornell, which says that in March 1921, 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." Now, this treaty had no legal binding for Armenia, since ArmSSR was officially independent (and Kavburo had made no decision yet to transfer NK to AzSSR), but it shows that these terms were used interchangably. Also, "remains" is not the only word used for the Juny 5th decision in literature--Usher uses "ceded to Azerbaijan," Patrick Cockburn uses "incorporated to Azerbaijan," User:Fadix/Karabakh, USIP uses "incorporated to Azerbaijan," NESL says "annexed to Azerbaijan." So, using "granted" for both actions would be acceptable.--TigranTheGreat 23:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Armenia renounced its claims to Karabakh in a treaty with the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR), signed on 2 December 1920, i.e. the very next day Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee granted it the lands. Since you refer to Armenian sources, you might as well wish to check this Azeri source:
2 декабря 1920 г. полномочный представитель РСФСР в Эривани Легран от имени российского правительства, Дро и Тертерьян от имени правительства Республики Армения заключили соглашение, в ст. 3 которого Российское правительство признало 'бесспорно входящими в состав территории ССР Армении Эриванскую губернию со всеми входящими в ее состав уездами; часть Карсской области, обеспечивающую ее в военном отношении обладание железнодорожной линией ст. Джаджур - ст.Аракс; Зангезурский уезд Елизаветпольской губернии; часть Казахского уезда той же губернии - в пределах Соглашения 10 августа (1920 г. - прим. авт.) и те части Тифлисской губернии, которые находились во владениях Армении до 28 октября 1920 г. '. Как видно, в этом официальном документе власти дашнакской Армении признали, что Карабах не входил в состав ее территории. [17]
As you can see from the above, the clause 3 of this treaty set up the borders of Armenia that did not include Karabakh. So it was not Kars treaty, as Potier refers to a treaty signed between Armenia and RSFSR in December, and Kars treaty was later and it was signed by a number of other countries. NK was recognized as part of Armenia only one day. Grandmaster 10:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no such thing in clause 3--no renouncement of NK. It's the interpretation of the Azeri historian Sahib Jamal (he is not really a historian even, just a candidate for historical sciences).

Second, since when are we considering an Azeri propaganda site, with an interpretation of an Azeri quasi-historian, a reliable source? I only used NKR site after you used it as a source--and given that the NKR site had the integrity to include self-damaging "remains" text, I say it's way more reliable than Jamal's interpretation.--TigranTheGreat 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not more reliable. I never referred to the opinions of the separatist website, only to the historical document, which is exactly the same as that on Azeri websites. If I had referred to Azeri websites, you would have said that they were propaganda cites, and rejected them, that’s why I provided the text from the Armenian website. But that does not make the views of that website reliable. As for the treaty between Armenia and RSFSR, it indeed did not include Karabakh as Armenian territory, which is attested not only by Jamal, but by Potier as well. And it was signed the next day after the declaration by Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee declaration. Grandmaster 06:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And I never referred to the opinions of NKR site either--only facts. Since you trusted the NKR site for one set of facts, then we should trust it for the other set of facts too. You, on the other hand, are referring to the opinion of an Azeri quasi-historian from a bogus Azeri site. Even the treaty quote from the bogus Azeri site does not exclude NK from ArmSSR. Jamal seems to be concluding what he wants to conclude. And Potier never gave an actual date of the renouncing, which allows us to conclude that it was in October 1921, when Armenia signed the Kars agreement.--TigranTheGreat 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So in your opnion, when Potier said December, he meant October? Very logical. And I never trusted "NKR" site with any facts, as it is not a reliable source in accordance with rules. I only quoted the Kavburo resolution, which is a historical document and not insinuation of website owners. That document is exactly the same in all sources, and since it is so well known, Armenian sources could not misrepresent it, even if they really wanted. Grandmaster 15:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

After viewing Francis' reduction again, I think the 3rd option is ok, perhaps with some modification. The reason I didnt' like was because I didn't think "bestowed" would be a clear word for the average reader. Also, it wasn't NKAO that was bestowed to ArmSSR, it was NK, which later became NKAO. So, I suggest the following version:

Although, after coming under Soviet control, the region was initially recognized as part of ArmSSR, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was established within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923, encompassing most of the region.--TigranTheGreat 23:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How is '4' looking? - FrancisTyers · 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not use "recognized" for Armenia? When we say granted, we are saying "NK was not part of Armenia prior to 1920,"--which would be like taking a position on a disputed matter. Armenia claimed NK prior to that, in April 1920, NK Armenians declared themselves as part of Armenia, the troops of non-Bolshevik Azeri republic never entered it. Now, we don't need to get into all that, just the fact that the ownership of NK prior to Soviets was disputed means that, in my opinion, we should not use a term suggesting that it was not part of Armenia.--TigranTheGreat 00:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what time is it over there in Britania? And when do you go to sleep? If you are about to go to sleep, I will stay with you to discuss it, instead of posting and leaving.--TigranTheGreat 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you did go to sleep.:)

Ok, about "recognised", the problem is there that the Azerbaijanis claim that NK was part of Azerbaijan prior to 1920. Using "granted" for both is deliberately not taking a position. We are in effect saying "We have no idea what this region was beforehand, it could have been part of Armenia or it could have been part of Azerbaijan. But.... it was definately given to Armenia at some point, and then definately given to Azerbaijan". - FrancisTyers · 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't "recognized" say exactly what you said: "We have no idea what this region was beforehand, it could have been part of Armenia or it could have been part of Azerbaijan" ? And wouldn't "granted to Armenia" say "it was not part of Armenia prior to 1920."?--TigranTheGreat 01:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, "recognised" would suggest it was already part of Armenia. "Granted" suggests that it is a region in dispute (I don't think we can doubt that) and that it was given to x. So it could have been part of Armenia or part of Azerbaijan before, it was disputed. - FrancisTyers · 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"recognized" means it was part of Armenia? Come on, Francis:) Even AzerSSR used the term "recognized" in its official November 30 recognition, and it did not consider NK as part of Armenia before: "From now on the borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan are annuled. Nagorno Karabagh, Zangezur, and Nakhichevan are recognized as a composite parts of Armenian Socialist Republic."[18] (from the NK site where GM copied the Kavburo decision). "granted," on the other hand, means that "it was not part of Armenia" (you can't grant something to someone who already has it), and as you correctly noted, we can't be sure that it was the case.

I think your main problem with "recognized" is that you want to use the same word for both republics. I have no problem doing that--"initially recognized as part of Armenia, then recognized as part of Az." If you want to assert that prior to 1920, it was disputed, we can say that "After the collapse of Russian Empire, NK remained disputed between Az and Arm, until Soviet rule, and then ...."--TigranTheGreat 01:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks good to me.--Eupator 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with using recognised for both. And I would be happy with having "After the collapse of Russian Empire, NK remained disputed.." something like that in the intro too. I'll make up a couple more suggestions. - FrancisTyers · 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there we are, 2 more suggestions. Now i'm going to leave it and see what GM thinks. - FrancisTyers · 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My problem with it is that it goes against the sources. Please see the sources here: User:Grandmaster/Karabakh The sources that I cited agree that Karabakh was part of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic before the Bolshevik takeover, and that’s the reason why Kavburo resolution said that NK was to remain within Azerbaijan. Now saying that it was granted or recognized as part of Azerbaijan suggests that it was not recognized as part of Azerbaijan before. According to the timeline, Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee granted NK to Armenia and Armenia renounced its claims to that territory the very next day in a treaty with RSFSR. Then Kavburo passed a resolution in favor of Armenia, which was reversed the following day. Overall two days of ownership by Armenia cannot be equaled to that by Azerbaijan. We need to find a good wording to describe this situation. My suggestion:
After coming under Soviet control, Nagorno-Karabakh was initially granted to the Armenian SSR, this decision was reversed the following day and the region was subsequently granted the autonomy within the Azerbaijan SSR, where the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in 1923.
Thus we don’t say whether it was granted to Azerbaijan or not, we only state the fact that it received the autonomy within Azerbaijan SSR in 1923. What do you think?
This description is also accurate (I removed the line that Azerbaijan recognized this decision, because it did not and even protested it, and added the reference to Soviet resolution).
While coming under Soviet rule, the region was initially given to the Armenian SSR on the 4th July, 1921. The decision was protested by Azerbaijan SSR and later reversed on the 5th July, 1921. According to the resolution passed by the Soviet authorities, Nagorno-Karabakh was to remain within the Azerbaijan SSR. Two years later, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established, which was to remain until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Grandmaster 10:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
How about: "While coming under Soviet rule, the region was initially given to the Armenian SSR. The decision was protested by Azerbaijan SSR and later reversed on the 5th July, 1921. Nagorno-Karabakh was to be given to the Azerbaijan SSR. Two years later, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established, which was to remain until the collapse of the Soviet Union" - FrancisTyers · 19:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid we can't do that as it suggests that NK was in Az prior to the Soviets, something that we aren't taking a position on. Personally I like 4, 5, and 6. If we use "granted", it isn't taking a position on whether it was or wasn't part of Azerbaijan or Armenia prior to the Soviets. It suggests that this region was in dispute and was "granted" to one or the other. You are welcome to make suggestions providing the following conditions are met: 1. We use the same verb for the handing of NK to AzSSR and ArmSSR and 2. We don't use incorporated. - FrancisTyers · 15:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
But that’s the problem, Francis. The sources that I quoted and Kavburo resolution itself state that NK was part of Azerbaijan and it was left within Azerbaijan. “Granted” is not much better than “incorporated”, it suggests that NK was given to Azerbaijan by Bolsheviks, which is not factually accurate. That’s why I think that it would be better not to mention this in the intro at all and provide a detailed description in the history section. Alternatively, why can’t we just say that NK was granted autonomy within AZ.SSR? It is factually accurate and no one can deny it. Grandmaster 15:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[removed unhelpful post. - FrancisTyers · 15:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)]
But NK was given to Azerbaijan by the Bolsheviks. The timeline makes that clear. There is no mention in the timeline of NK being part of either AzSSR or ArmSSR. This is why we are not including it. I'm not interested in the wiffle-waffle legality of what existed before. What we know is 1. The region was in dispute (which is clear from our protracted conversation here), and 2. It was at some points part of Armenia and some points part of Azerbaijan. Oh and 3. When the NKAO was created, it was established within the AzSSR. - FrancisTyers · 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not interested in reading about legal interpretations. We should say it was disputed. That is good enough for the lead. - FrancisTyers · 15:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading your propositions Francis, I see that proposition 4 is short enought, so a good alternative. But I oppose adding more details.--Fad (ix) 14:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, just a proposed little change, while many use Azerbaijan SSR and Armenia SSR, I think for prior than 30s, it is better to use Soviet Azerbaijan, Soviet Armenia. For the following reason, the SSR republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia only really appeared after Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic was abolished in 1936.--Fad (ix) 15:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this would be a fairly easy thing to agree on. We can discuss this after we've come to an agreement on the rest. - FrancisTyers · 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Francis, my sources are not legal interpretation. It is a fact that the region had an Azeri governor and that Armenian community accepted the rule of Azerbaijan pending final resolution of Paris Peace Conference, which never materialized. Even this wiki article says that NK had an Azeri governor Sultanov. Did you check the sources that I provided? They say that Peace Conference Peace Conference recognized Azerbaijan's claim to Karabakh. It is interesting that such antagonists as Great Britain and Bolsheviks both recognized Azerbaijani sovereignty over Karabakh. I think we may need to extend the timeline back to 1918, as the conflict over Karabakh started when independent Azerbaijan and Armenia emerged. Btw, Kavburo uses the names of Armenian SSR and Azerbaijan SSR contrary to what Fadix says. Grandmaster 18:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What article says that, if this one does, then it is not accurate. The Peace conference did not recognize Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, this is a fabrication, check Wilsonian and Sevres Maps, the League of Nations refused to recognize it as part of Azerbaijan, they even were troubled regarding Azeris claims on Nakhichevan and the British apointed governor and had to stress that it was not recognized and the British took them by surprise. Neither had the British recognized it as part of Azerbaijan. They decided to pull out from the region and the Armenians were seroundered by Azeris and Turkish forces and they evacuated so they apointed a governor until American mendate(which never materialised). This is official history and is much less controversial than the rest of it, you will find it in any works(the replacement of American forces, see for example Gilbert work on WWI). Neither the Russians were recognizing it, the apointed Azeris autorities were not recognized in 1919, and even the report sent to Stalin confirms this. See my note about Zankezur and Karabakh. As for the Bolshevics, the Bolshevics requested Karabakh as theirs, they haven't even reverted the Armenian government but rather used Zankezur, Nakhichevan and Karabakh as hostage to exchange it with an Armenia incorporated in the confederation. And for the last time, the Armenian community never accepted, there was no armnistice, neither any treaties. --Fad (ix) 18:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Fadix, I’m not gonna debate this. I refer to sources, which anyone can check out. See User:Grandmaster/Karabakh. Grandmaster 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Tigran and believe that the 1918-1920 is important(but not for the lead). Your provided sources were short of any relevant materials. Altstadt claim which is recycled by Potier is simply BS(your third reference doesn't say what you claim). This disqualify both of those authors. Azerbaijan left the conference after its unability to get its border delimited. If you have access to Jstor, search Armenia and League of Nations altogether, and you'll see the many various hits you get for papers on that period. The conference hasn't even respected the British promesses as it was adviced that for the Eastern frontier of Armenia for any disputes between Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, the three should discuss and negotiate. If you are interested I could quote from sources of that period. I master better the situation from 1918 to 1920 than 1920 and afterward. And I am telling you that you have less cases for 1918-20 than afterward, as I have even done archival research on those relevant materials prior to 1920 and have tracked various fabrication of official records by the Azerbaijani Accademia of science. I will load the primary materials on my evidence page once Francis decide to cover 1918-20. Fad (ix) 22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally I have access to both JSTOR and a number of other academic collections. So if anyone wants some stuff obtaining or checking just give me a shout. - FrancisTyers · 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yay, that's fine, so I can provide the title and the page and don't have to retype them. :D Just kidding. Fad (ix) 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
We can discuss pre-1920 after we have come to consensus on this. Ok, the SSR names are fine by me. For the moment we assume that NK is disputed. - FrancisTyers · 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Fadix, I am very much interested in those quotes, please provide them. The claim that Paris Conference recognized Azeri ownership is very dubious. And, let's not forget that early in 1920 (i.e. in April), there no longer was an Azerbaijani Democratic Republic.--TigranTheGreat 22:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are to use short version, I am ok with 5--it uses "recognized," just as the AzSSR proclamation of November 30 did. I think Eupator also agreed with this term. Plus, "recognized" assumes less than "granted"--as I said earlier, "granted" presumes that the region was not part of the particular county beforehand, whereas recognized makes no such assumption.

I have no problem though with 6--i.e. including a short statement of what happened after the Russian Empire. I do not think we should do chronology of 1918-20--the period is much more complicated than the Soviet period. Despite what GM says, it is not true at all that NK definitively was part of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. The British made no outright recognition (saying so is a legal interpretation)--they merely appointed an Azeri warlord on NK on a temporary basis. NK Armenians rejected. British left. Azeris attacked. NK Armenians preliminarily accepted Azeri control. But de-facto, Azeris never entered NK. Then Azeris violated the agreement between NK and Azerbaijan. NK Armenians then annuled the agreement and declared themselves part of Armenia. And, League of Nations never accepted Azeri claims over NK. This is all listed in the NESL article.

As you can see, the period is way more complicated. Furthermore, it's clear that the land remained disputed until November 1920. The USIP article states this, which I think is more neutral than saying "it belonged to this or that."

On November 30, 1920, Azerbaijan unequivocally recognized NK as part of Armenia--this is stated even in GM's source Cornell, as well as Croissant, Stalin's Works, the USIP article, and NESL. So, obviously, for several months it was not part of Azerbaijan.

Finally, just because Kavburo decision says "remained," doesn't mean NK was part of Azerbaijan before--as I showed earlier, words like "placed, remained" were used interchangebly with respect to NK's transfer to Azerbaijan. And Kavburo decision couldn't recognize NK's ownership backward--i.e. it could recognize that from that point on it belonged to Azerbaijan, but it couldn't recognize *past* belonging--no decision can such thing. --TigranTheGreat 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The sources, even Armenian ones, say that Armenians of NK signed an agreement with the government of Azerbaijan, which granted them cultural autonomy. I cited 4 sources that say that. I liked the argument of Fadix: “Altstadt claim which is recycled by Potier is simply BS, this disqualify both of those authors”. Very convincing. Just say that certain source is BS and disqualify it. That’s not the way it works here. These are authoritative sources, and we don’t judge them, we just report what they say.
Also, Tigran, you forgot to mention that Armenia renounced its claims to NK the very next day after the Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee declaration. So it was not part of Azerbaijan only 1 day. And it is also interesting that first Kavburo resolution said NK was to be included in the Armenian SSR, and the second one said it was to be included in the Azerbaijan SSR. Why did not they say that NK was to be left within the Armenian SSR, if those were just the words without any meaning? And Kavburo resolution in favor of Armenia also lasted just 1 day.
My problem with the last version by Francis is the words “given”, “granted”, etc in reference to Azerbaijan. I would like to ask a question to Francis. We have sources that say NK was granted to Azerbaijan, but we also have sources that say that it was left within Azerbaijan. The latter appears to be more accurate, because that’s what Kavburo resolution said, “NK to be left within Azerbaijan SSR”. Now if we go with “NK was granted to Azerbaijan”, we favor some sources and ignore others, which is not what NPOV claims. In my opinion we should find such wording for the lead that took no position on this matter. I don’t think that the current option suit this criteria. What do you think? Grandmaster 06:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Its still BS, both Potier and Altstadt use a distraction tactic, and do not provide a direct source for their claims. See what I have added on my evidence page. The Paris Peace conference never agreed, the only agreement there ever was was the acceptance of an Azerbaijani reopublic in Early 20s about 10 days before the closure of the conference. But there still was no delimitation of bounderies recognized, each sides came with their claims, and each sides(Armenia, Georgia and Armenia) got their states accepted, but without any bounderies. The documents signed for the acceptation of the Azeris governor was temporary, it was until it is decided during the Peace Conference and discussed, it was not decided and hardly discussed, the Azeris delegation only presented itself with its claims on mid-late November, and during which time they were able to get an 'Azerbaijan' recognized, already the Armenian republic was founded and recognized by the Unites States of America, and again without a delimitation on its Eastern frontier. The conclusion here is again, my distrust of Altstadt as a source, as she uses a distraction, the same that Potier uses to not have to point to a relevant record of that time. Fad (ix) 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you mentioned the absurdity of maps! You can see that dispute in the pages for ADR, DRA and DRG.--Eupator 15:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
NK was disputed (as in physically disputed) before Bolshevik intervention, unlike Nakhichevan for example which was in 100% total Armenian control. It was not Azeri territory. If it was disputed, which it clearly was by your own admisison above than it could not have been left in Azerbaijan and it could only have been granted to Azerbaijan.--Eupator 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
NK had an Azeri governor and Armenian population signed an agreement with Azerbaijani government, which granted them cultural autonomy. The borders between the states were to be finally set up by the Paris Peace Conference, which had accepted Azerbaijani claims to the territory according to the sources. As for Nakhichevan, it was under Turkish miltary control, and they surrendered the region to Bolsheviks on a condition that it would be a part of Azerbaijan. It did not have 100% Armenian control, in fact, by the time of Bolshevik invasion it had no Armenian control whatsoever. Grandmaster 18:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
My sources are primary publications of the 20s, I have provided works of that period regarding the negotiations, I have quoted regarding the territorial disputes, they relate to the disputes but no decision, they have requested Georgia Armenia and Azerbaijan to discuss them. Your sources are not primary and the footnotes provided are diversions they have nothing to do with the Paris Peace conference. Neither was it agreed on the peace conference, neither by the League of Nations nor during the finalizing touches regarding the Sevres which still had the Eastern side border drawing pending. Your sources are 90s works, while mines are written in the 20s by people that were present in the closed doors at the Peace conference. I'm afraid that the large body of publications of the period by people part of the negotiations discredit Potier and Altstadt who don't even footnote their claims with relevent documents. Fad (ix) 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Aldstadt's dubious statement--sources sometimes do make mistakes, and it's perfectly ok on Wiki to recognize them when it's obvious. For example, the COE document made the very obvious mistake of claiming that NK was given self-determination right by Azerbaijan in November. Once other sources showed that it was in fact in December, it was clear that the COE document had made a mistake.

Same with Adlstadt's claim. We have sources saying that the Sevres agreement allowed Armenians and Azeris to decide their border issues among themselves. In that case, there is no way the predecessor of Sevres--Paris Conference--could have granted NK to Azerbaijan. We also have sources saying that League of Nations never recognized NK as part of Azerbaijan--considering that League of Nations was set up by the Paris Conference, this directly contradits the claim of NK's grant to Azerbaijan. Finally, we have detailed records of the Paris Conference, and how Azerbaijan left it without letting its borders be set. When all this evidence contradicts a single claim, then it becomes dubious, and we don't include it in an encyclopedia.

The British merely appointed Tabib Huseynov as a governor of NK on a provisional basis--but his governance was never de-facto implemented over Armenians. Also, Armenians annulled their prior provisional agreement with Azerbaijan. So, clearly, the land was not part of Azerbaijan--it was disputed.

And finally, Armenia never renounced its claims over NK in 1920--it was only late in 1921, when all dust had settled.

So, the version stating that it was disputed prior to Soviets, and then granted to Armenia is obviously supported by sources.--TigranTheGreat 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I should congratulate Tabib with his new appointment. It is nice when your fellow wikipedian gets such a promotion. It might be interesting for you to know that “Tabib” had 3 deputies, and two of them were Karabakh Armenians, appointed by the local community. And Armenia did renounce its claims on Karabakh on 2 December, when the treaty with RSFSR did not include Karabakh as part of territory of Armenia. As for Alstadt, so far I have not seen any document proving wrong her statement. Grandmaster 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you have. The NESL analysis plainly states that League of Nations never recognized Azeri claims over Karabakh. Which makes it impossible that its parent Paris Conference did. Considering that the text of the Armenian-Russian treaty (supposedly renouncing claims over NK) is taken from a bogus Azeri site, I see no reason to discuss it. About Huseynov's acceptance by Armenians--Armenians provisionally accepted Azeri jurisdiction only months later (Feb. 1920), and quickly annulled it. Even during the provisional agreement, Huseynov's authority was never de-facto implemented over Armenians--TigranTheGreat 20:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

NESL (probably hired by Armenian MFA, as it places their report on their website) does not say when exactly the "League of Nations never recognized Azeri claims over Karabakh". This fact, if it ever took place, should have had a date. Also check Potier with regard to treaty with RSFSR. And Tabib's authority is quite strong, if you keep on refering to him, when he's not here. Grandmaster 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, when we say "League of Nations never recognized Azeri claims"--there is no need for a date. Never means never. NESL is a reputable law school, and your opinion of it being Armenia's agent is obviously irrelevant here.--TigranTheGreat 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It never recognized, but never rejected either. ADR was a short lived state, and was soon occupied by the Bolsheviks, that’s why it was never accepted to the League of Nations. It is actually a ridiculous claim by NESL, the League of Nations never recognized so many things, like the sky was blue, so what? It is only worth talking about what they formally recognized and what they formally refused to recognize. Grandmaster 07:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And of course the difference between sky and NK was that NK was disputed--so non-recognition of Azeri claims means that it was never part of Azerbaijan. And by the way, the NESL also states that LoN recognized the disputed status of NK--again, it was not part of Azerbaijan.--TigranTheGreat 09:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Grandmaster, can you please either suggest changes within the restrictions given below (same verb no 'incorporated', etc.) or can you choose one or more of the options below. There is no deadline, but I will point out that we have been discussing this for several days now, we are currently running at around 9,000 words and we are almost at consensus. It seems a shame to stop now. - FrancisTyers · 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the last version by Francis is the words “given”, “granted”, etc in reference to Azerbaijan. I would like to ask a question to Francis. We have sources that say NK was granted to Azerbaijan, but we also have sources that say that it was left within Azerbaijan. The latter appears to be more accurate, because that’s what Kavburo resolution said, “NK to be left within Azerbaijan SSR”. Now if we go with “NK was granted to Azerbaijan”, we favor some sources and ignore others, which is not what NPOV claims. In my opinion we should find such wording for the lead that took no position on this matter. I don’t think that the current option suit this criteria. What do you think? Grandmaster 06:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Once more, I'm not penning the introduction on the translation of one word from a resolution. It was disputed. Your version that it was "left in Azerbaijan" would also not be NPOV because it only presents one side of the argument. The other option would be to have something like:

After the collapse of Russian Empire, Nagorno-Karabakh remained disputed between Azerbaijan and Armenia, with both claiming the region for themselves. After coming under Soviet control, the region was initially recognised as part of the Armenian SSR. It was subsequently recognised as part of the Azerbaijan SSR, where the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in 1923.

This way we note that both sides claimed the region for their own. I can't understand why anyone would dispute this wording, can you point to something that isn't true about it? Is it factually accurate (I think so). If you are complaining because it doesn't say "NK was a part of Azerbaijan" then there isn't much I can do, because the other side says "NK was a part of Armenia", to take this to absurdum:

After the collapse of Russian Empire, Nagorno-Karabakh was part of both Azerbaijan and Armenia. After coming under Soviet control, the region was initially recognised as part of the Armenian SSR. It was subsequently recognised as part of the Azerbaijan SSR, where the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in 1923.

Which is not something I think anyone wants to go for. - FrancisTyers · 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don’t propose to say that NK was part of Azerbaijan, we need to find a middle ground between “NK was given to Azerbaijan” and “NK was left within Azerbaijan”. We have sources supporting both positions. In the intro we don’t go much into detail, therefore it should be a short phrase, while in the history section we definitely need to quote the Kavburo resolution and let the reader judge. My proposal would be something like this:
Karabakh became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. After Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they fist awarded the region to the newly created Armenian SSR, but then reversed that decision and granted the mountainous part of Karabakh autonomy within the Azerbaijan SSR. Thus, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was established in 1923, which was to remain until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This would be neutral, without taking any position as to whether NK was granted to Azerbaijan or left within. Grandmaster 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thats not bad, one change and I think that would be ok, "they first granted the region". I'll add the changed version to the list. - FrancisTyers · 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
How is number 7 looking? - FrancisTyers · 18:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I reject it, Karabakh alone according to the Azeris included Zankezur(which was Grandmaster intention as he specify its mountainous region after the uses of Karabakh alone), and Grandmaster is not respecting your conditions. It is said that it was granted to Armenia but uses no any verb for Azerbaijan. It is really tirdesom how he is turning peoples good faith to even introduce more in the article. 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The term Nagorno-Karabakh is Soviet creation, I hope you are not disputing this. And stop guessing my intentions, keep it to the subject. It is factually accurate to say that NK was granted autonomy within Azerbaijan, I don’t claim that it should say that NK was part of Azerbaijan or NK was left within Azerbaijan, but I also oppose to the statement that NK was granted to Azerbaijan. I made concessions on my part to reach a compromise, so need you.
You just confirmed my guessings regarding your intentions. I oppose to that version, you haven't respected the conditions imposed by Francis. Fad (ix) 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Number 7 is fine by me. It is factually accurate and avoids disputed points. Grandmaster 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How about now? - FrancisTyers · 19:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I still oppose it, the word granted is not used to mean the same thing. For one granted is used to mean that it was given to Armenia, for the other, granted is used to mean that it was given autonomy in Azerbaijan. For those reasons, Grandmaster has not respected the restrictions you have imposed. Fad (ix) 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, and now? I think we're onto a winner here btw! - FrancisTyers · 19:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK if Grandmaster agree with this one, even though I would have prefered a shorter version. Fad (ix) 19:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
We could maybe delete the term country, I don't find it logic. A country by principle is independent, and there was no country prior to 1918 so that they can be independent. I don't know if you understand what I mean. Fad (ix) 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Or better, change when both countries gained independence in 1918. for when both declared their independence in 1918.

I support the previous version. “Granted to Azerbaijan” is the position of the Armenian side, “left in Azerbaijan” is the position of the Azerbaijani side (supported by historical documents), both views have its supporters outside of the region. If we go with “granted to Azerbaijan”, we go with the Armenian version, what is the compromise here, and how about NPOV rules? Grandmaster 20:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, "was a part of Armenia, and was taken from Armenia" is the position of the Armenian side, "was a part of Azerbaijan all the time and was left in Azerbaijan" is the position of the Azerbaijani side. We use granted by both in order to be neutral. - FrancisTyers · 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Granted to Azerbaijan is the historical and NPOV way because NK was never part of an independent Azerbaijan, not even for a single second.--Eupator 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The compromise is to use the same word for both in the same manner. #7 is not the Armenian version. The Armenian version would be "It was first left within Armenia, then granted to Azerbaijan." The Azeri version is "granted to Armenia, then left within Azerbaijan." The obvious compromise is "granted" for both. And historical documents differ--the Turkis-Russian treaty says "placed under Azeri control."

I support the current version of 7 as well.--TigranTheGreat 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I like the second part of #7 (after Soviets), but I think it may be better to rephrase the first segment (1918-20). Unless we clarify that the region remained disputed throughout the independence period, then using "granted" in the second part will make it sound as if it was taken away from Azerbaijan. We could incorporate some version of the first sentence of #6--i.e. "after A and A became independent in 1918, NK emerged as a disputed region between both countries, remaining so for the next two years."--TigranTheGreat 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats not a bad idea. I'll knock something up with that and call it 8. - FrancisTyers · 09:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
They cannot claim that it was part of Armenia, given to Azerbaijan, as it never was, but they claim that it was a disputed land, illegally given to Azerbaijan. Even Armenian websites acknowledge that Karabakh had an Azeri governor Sultanov, appointed by the British, so it could not be a part of Armenia with an Azeri governor. As we see, the sources don’t agree that NK was granted to Azerbaijan by the Soviets, and we cannot take some sources over the others. NPOV rules require that we don’t assume any position and don’t take sides. Therefore we cannot say that NK was granted to Azerbaijan. I suggest we say that NK was granted autonomy within Azerbaijan. No one can say that it was not. This could be a compromise, as we don’t say that it was left within Azerbaijan (that’s what Kavburo resolution, a primary source, says). Alternatively, we can remove this part from the intro altogether to end this dispute. We can say that NKAO existed since 1923 and it became a source of dispute in 1988. Grandmaster 07:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
We're not leaving it out. If you really want to work with the mediation process, you have to make compromises. I'm seeing precious little of them here. - FrancisTyers · 09:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I made a concession, I don’t claim that the intro state that NK was left within Azerbaijan, as Kavburo resolution stated. But I don’t see any concession from the other side, they claim that we go with their POV that NK was granted to Azerbaijan. As you know, we have sources saying quite the opposite. We have sources saying “granted” (or its variations), and we have sources saying “left”. Supporting one of the POVs is not neutral. I think its time for the other side to make some concessions too. Grandmaster 15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
In one example, they conceded the word "incorporated" in favour of your preferred wording. Either you are not following the mediation or you are selectively reading their text. They have also conceded to say "within Azerbaijan". I've removed the part of your post about NPOV, you say it as if I hadn't read the policy. Did you not just read what I said, their POV is that "NK was a part of Armenia, and was taken from Armenia and transferred to Azerbaijan" — do we have that in any of the examples below? No. Having said that, I'm glad that you finally agree to one of the proposals. I'm going to close off this section and we can discuss further below. - FrancisTyers · 15:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course we can claim it was part of Armenia--even your source Cornell (not to mention Croissant etc) say that it was recognized as part of Armenia in November 1920. Armenian sources don't say that Huseynov actually became NK's governor--they say he was "appointed by the British." Doesn't mean he actually was a governor--1) British had no legal right to do that, 2)de-facto, neither he nor Azeri forced ever ruled Armenians of NK, even after the brief preliminary Armenian-Azeri agreement, 3) and this agreement was soon annuled by Armenians of NK. So, NK was never really part of Azerbaijan before 1920. And the fact that it was recognized as part of Armenia in late 1920 has nothing to do with Huseynov--by then he was gone anyway.--TigranTheGreat 11:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, 8 and 9 anyone? - FrancisTyers · 09:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, 9 is better than 8, but why remove the whole Soviet thing altogether? I want to hear what others will say before making final choice, but at least the 2nd part of #7 made it clear what happened to those independent states, and how NKAO ended up as part of Azerbaijan SSR. My earlier proposal was beginning of #9 + end of #7. But as I said I wanna hear what others will say.--TigranTheGreat 11:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

# 8 is fine, except that the dispute was resolved in 1921 by Kavburo resolution, and NKAO was created 2 years later. We can replace the word "five" with word "few".Grandmaster 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Section closed for discussion. - FrancisTyers · 15:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

Ok, if you want to add something to the timeline, go ahead. But no removing anything. If you have a source that says something different for the same month/day/year, put it underneth. No discussion within this section. - FrancisTyers · 23:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Timeline closed for editing. - FrancisTyers · 21:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
1920

In 1920, while the Dashnaks were still in control of Armenia, Stalin claimed that they would not be handed Karabakh (Potier). Less than an month later, the Azerbaijan SSR recognised Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia (NESL). Azerbaijan renounced all claims to Nagorno-Karabakh in early December, upon Armenia joining the confederation (Potier). At some point afterwards, Armenia renounced its claims to Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan granted Nagorno-Karabakh the right of self-determination (COE, NESL).

  1. 9th November, 1920. Stalin claimed that Zankezur and Karabakh could not be handed to Dashnak Armenia. User:Fadix/Karabakh (Potier).
  2. November 30, 1920. AzerSSR recognizes NK as part of Armenia. [19] (NESL Analysis)
  3. November, 1920. The Azerbaijan Revolutionary Committee ... granted N-K the right to self-determination. [20] (COE paper)
  4. 1st December, 1920. Soviet Azerbaijan voluntarily renounces all claims to the disputed provinces, and declares the transfer to Soviet Armenia of Zangezur, Nakhichevan and Nagornyi Karabakh as a result of Armenia joining the confederation. User:Fadix/Karabakh (Croissant, Potier, "Works" by Stalin, Orjonikidze).
  5. 1st December, 1920. Above decision read as declaration during a solemn session of the Baku Council [21] (NKR site, from which GM copied the Kavburo decision).
  6. Armenia renounced its claims to Karabakh in a treaty with the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR) (Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal by Tim Potier. ISBN: 9041114777)
  7. December 2, 1920. AzSSR republishes the same text with modified wording--"NK given full right to self-determination" (i.e. referendum). [22] (NESL), [23] (NKR site). Short note: i.e. COE paper merely got the date wrong.
1921

Sometime between 3rd June and 4th July, 1921, Azerbaijan recognised Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia (NKR, USIP). On the 5th July, 1921, the decision to grant Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia was protested and on the same day, later reversed (COE, Svante, USIP, Potier). Nagorno-Karabakh was to be given "substantial autonomy" within the Azerbaijan SSR.

  1. June 3, 1921. Kavburo recognizes NK as part of Armenia [24] (NKR site)
  2. June 12, 1921. Declaration of the Armenian president based on the discussions between Azerbaijan and Armenia, that Mountainous Karabakh is part of Armenia. [25]
  3. June 13, 1921. Official declaration of the government of Sovietic Armenia that Mountainous Karabakh now constitute an integral part of Armenia. Ibid
  4. July 4, 1921. Kavburo recognizes NK as part of Armenia. [26] (USIP).
  5. July 4, 1921. Following the above recognition, Narimanov objects, and makes a suggestion to transfer the issue over to the Central Committee of RKP for final determination. [27] (NKR site, same page used by GM).
  6. July 4, 1921. Per Narimanov's suggestion, Kavburo decides to transfer the issue over to the Central Committee of RKP for final determination. [28] (NKR site).
  7. July 4, 1921. Kavburo passed the following resolution: Mountainous Karabakh is to be included in the Armenian SSR, the referendum is to be held in the mountainous part of Karabakh only. Due to the fact that the Karabakh issue caused serious differences Caucasus Bureau of Central Committee of RKP deems it necessary to submit it to final resolution by CRKP. (This decision was not final) [29]
  8. July 5, 1921. The Bolshevik Party Caucasus Bureau reversed the above decision. [30] (COE paper)
  9. July 5, 1921. Resolution passed: mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR User:Grandmaster/Karabakh
  10. July 5, 1921. Kavburo demands that the disputed area be incorporated into Azerbaijan and granted autonomy. [31] (USIP)
  11. July 5, 1921. Kavburo reversed its previous decision and agreed to Karabakh’s remaining in the Azerbaijani SSR, although the region was to be granted substantial autonomy. (Cornell, Svante E. The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Uppsala: Department of East European Studies, April 1999)
1922
1923

Finally, in 1923, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established.

  1. 1923. The N-K Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was established. [32] (COE paper)
  2. 1923. Kaburo's last decision implemented with creation of NKAO. [33] (USIP)
Reduction

Ok, everyone agrees on the timeline, that is everyone has presented the information they want to present, and I have agreement from all parties. If you want to add something now, we'll have to start the whole thing over again, which is why I've been very careful to make sure you are all agreed. Now the next step is to select the most pertinent information from this timeline to present in the introduction. We obviously can't include it all, and obviously some of the information contradicts.

What I'm going to do is split this into four years (1920, 1921, 1922, 1923). At most we can have one sentence per year, so we'd better make this good. Bear with me a moment while I set up the next stage. - FrancisTyers · 21:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I think what I'll do is write a summary at the top of each section. We can then discuss those summaries and reduce them. As always, do not reply here. - FrancisTyers · 21:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In 1920, while the Dashnaks were still in control of Armenia, Stalin claimed that they would not be handed Karabakh (Potier). Less than an month later, the Azerbaijan SSR recognised Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia (NESL). Azerbaijan renounced all claims to Nagorno-Karabakh in early December, upon Armenia joining the confederation (Potier). At some point afterwards, Armenia renounced its claims to Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan granted Nagorno-Karabakh the right of self-determination (COE, NESL).
Sometime between 3rd June and 4th July, 1921, Azerbaijan recognised Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia (NKR, USIP). On the 5th July, 1921, the decision to grant Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia was protested and on the same day, later reversed (COE, Svante, USIP, Potier). Nagorno-Karabakh was to be given "substantial autonomy" within the Azerbaijan SSR.
Finally, in 1923, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established.

I'm going to work on the above in relation to our ongoing discussion. Do not edit that or reply here. - FrancisTyers · 22:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. While coming under Soviet rule, the region was initially given to the Armenian SSR, with the Azerbaijan SSR recognising this decision on the 4th July, 1921. The decision was protested and later reversed on the 5th July, 1921. Nagorno-Karabakh was to remain within the Azerbaijan SSR. Two years later, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established, which was to remain until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  2. While coming under Soviet rule, the region was initially granted to the Armenian SSR, this decision was later reversed and it was granted to Azerbaijan SSR on the 5th July, 1921. In 1923, the NKAO was established, which was to remain until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  3. Although initially bestowed to the Armenian SSR, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was established within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.
  4. After coming under Soviet control, Nagorno-Karabakh initially granted to the Armenian SSR, the region was subsequently granted to the Azerbaijan SSR, where the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in 1923.
  5. After coming under Soviet control, Nagorno-Karabakh was initially recognised as part of the Armenian SSR. It was subsequently recognised as part of the Azerbaijan SSR, where the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in 1923.
  6. After the collapse of Russian Empire, Nagorno-Karabakh remained disputed between Azerbaijan and Armenia, until coming under Soviet control. After coming under Soviet control, the region was initially recognised as part of the Armenian SSR. It was subsequently recognised as part of the Azerbaijan SSR, where the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in 1923.
  7. Nagorno-Karabakh became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. After Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they first granted the region to the newly created Armenian SSR, but later reversed that decision and granted Nagorno-Karabakh to the Azerbaijan SSR with autonomy. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was established in 1923, which was to remain until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  8. After Azerbaijan and Armenia became independent in 1918, Nagorno-Karabakh emerged as a disputed region between both countries, remaining so for the next five years. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.
  9. After Azerbaijan and Armenia became independent in 1918, Nagorno-Karabakh emerged as a disputed region between both countries, remaining so for the next five years,belonging at one time to Armenia and at another to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.
Selection time

Right, one of the above compromises, or a mixture of the above is going into the intro. We aren't going to vote for it, obviously, but we are going to discuss it. First things first I'd like everyone to list the ones they support in order of preference below. I have started us off (note: mine aren't in order of preference). No discussion until everyone (for these purposes that will be Tigran, GM and Fadix) have responded. It is in your interests to choose as many as possible. This is not, I repeat not a vote. - FrancisTyers · 15:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I remind all participants that it is in their interests to choose as many as possible. - FrancisTyers · 16:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You can continue to add ones you agree with above. - FrancisTyers · 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Ok, lets have a free form discussion for a bit. The first thing I'd like to know is why Grandmaster, Tigran and Eupator chose so few. Grandmaster, I don't understand why you aren't willing to accept that it was both a part of Azerbaijan and part of Armenia before finally being given to Azerbaijan. I mean, we can all agree that when the NKAO was established it was part of Azerbaijan, but before that... it seems to me that both countries had as much claim as any. And Tigran, Eupator, why don't you support the use of "recognised" ? As usual, keep posts to three lines excluding sources, which you can post at your userpages. No quotations. - FrancisTyers · 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually as long as we mention that it was disputed throughout the 18-20 period, both "recognized" and "granted" are fine. Now, the number one principle here is that we should use the same verb in the same fashion. Hence I am totally against #3, #1. #8 is out too since it omits that ArmenianSSR had NK at some point, and also omits *how* NK ended up in Az--it creates the impression as if NK was always part of Azerbaijan, and it was merely disputed by Armenia (not true). We also need to mention that NK remained disputed throughout 1918-20, otherwise it sounds like "NK was initially taken away from Azerbaijan and given to Arm." (hence my problems with 2, 3, 5, 7). #9's problem is omitting the very critical Soviet period of 1920-21--come on, this is the very root of today's conflict. And finally, I don't think we need to say "reversed"--it's redundant--we can save space by saying "first granted to A, then granted to B."--TigranTheGreat 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it was not part of Armenia. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia it was part of Azerbaijan Republic before 1920. See: It is as a result of British support of the Azeri-Turkish position on Karabagh, despite the predominant Armenian majority in the area, that this region was included in the independent Republic of Azerbaijan[34] If Armenian Foreign Ministry acknowledges the fact, then what is there to dispute? Azerbaijan could not be granted something that was its part. That’s why Kavburo decided to leave NK within Az.SSR. Grandmaster 19:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, I repeat and I am tired of repeating.
  • The Peace conference has no provision on Nagorno Karabakh
  • The League of Nations which retook the decisions at the conference still placed it as dusputed.
  • The Sevres Treay still had not drawn the bordering for Eastern Armenia and requested Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia to discuss about the disupted territories.
  • The decision to apoint an Azeris governor was taken by the British alone, without consultation and only temporary until it is decided at the conference, it wasn't decided at the conference.
Those are what we might call 'happenings' they are based on primary records and documents. Fad (ix) 23:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Foreign Ministry does no such thing. The page you are referring to is from a "Karabakh File," which includes papers written at various times by various authors, without necessarily being endorsed by the Ministry (and this one is definitely not endorsed by it). And of course, that particular article was written in 1988 by your beloved Libaridian (see http://www.cilicia.com/armo19i.html), who was kicked out of Armenian government for his pro-Azeri views. It's even clear from the rest of his article--it's full of nonsense such as "NK was originally Albanian and other bogus claims). You can't use an Armenian author with anti-Armenian POV, and present it as pro-Armenian. If you do that, you need to accept that Azeris killed their own in Khojalu (after all, that's what an Azeri president--Mutalibov, said). The main point is that the Armenian Foreign Ministry has officially taken the position that NK was never part of independent Azerbaijan (for which I provided links directly from their site back in January)--so obviously your assumption is wrong.

The second important point is that--even if NK was temporarily recognized as part of Azerbaijan (which it wasn't--the British merely appointed a governor, who was rejected by Armenians), NK was still granted to Azerbaijan in 1921--why? Because from November 1920 till July 1921 NK was recognized as part of ArmenianSSR--so, the prior British appointment is irrelevant here.--TigranTheGreat 19:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If Armenian Foreign Ministry does not endorse the views contained in this article, then why does it place it on its official website? The Azeri governor was not rejected by Armenians, he had 3 Azeri and 3 Armenian deputies, the latter appointed by the Armenian community of Karabakh. As for the Soviet period, you forgot to mention the treaty signed between RSFSR and Armenia on 2 December 1920, in which Armenia renounced its claims to Karabakh. So NK was part of Armenia only 1 day, if at all. Grandmaster 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I already clarified that point but you still repeat the same lie. The the treaty signed between RSFSR and Armenia was a capitulation document between Dashnak Armenia and the RSFSR, it was by the same token that Kars was evacuated. While Narimanov recognition as well as Stalin's refers to Soviet Armenia, that document was simply the official end of Dashnakist Armenia. Fad (ix) 23:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The quantity is not important for this. - FrancisTyers · 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian Foreign Ministry put on its site books written by various authors as a helpful guidance for readers who need to get acquainted with the region. Doesn't mean the Ministry has to agree with every single sentence written in such books. That particular book was written by Libaridian (who at one point worked for the Ministry, although not as a minister, and soon was booted), way before the Ministry even existed. It is your mere interpretation that the Ministry endorses the sentence. On the other hand, we have a direct official statement by the Minister saying the exact opposite. So, for the issue of Ministry's official position, we have your interpretation vs. the Ministry's official statement. Gee, I wonder which one we should choose.

The governor was rejected by Armenians from the getgo. Only months later (in Feb 1920, according to your source Cornell) Armenians preliminarily agreed to Azeri jurisdiction. Less than two months later, they annuled the agreement.

Armenia never renounced its claims over NK in 1920. What you forgot to mention is that it was an interpretation of an azeri quasi-historian (named Jamal), taken from an Azeri website. You also forgot to mention that Azeris recognized NK as part of Armenia on November 30, 1920 (even according to your sources). Finally, you further forgot to mention that the recognition was confirmed the next day by Stalin himself (according to third party sources provided by Fadix). You do seem to forget much, and I don't know why.--TigranTheGreat 20:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The file that I quoted is not from library, it is from the section of the website of the Armenian MFA called “Karabakh”. And read Potier, he said that Armenia renounced its claims to Karabakh in a treaty it signed with RSFSR in December (and not any other month). Stalin announced Azrevcom decision the same day as Armenia signed the treaty with Russia, probably was not aware of the fact yet. The Armenian MFA website says that “this decree, supported by the central Soviet government and lauded by Stalin, was never put into effect”, i.e. NK never became part of Armenia. Grandmaster 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
And the records I have presented comes from primary publications by people that were there during the negoatiations, thosefor primary sources. You again repeat the same lie. Stalin refused to grant Karabakh to Dashnakist Armenia, Dashnakist Armenia not only renounced to Karabakh, but also by the same token officially renounced governorship against apointed Bolshevic government. Stop distorting. Fad (ix) 23:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a book on Karabakh is not going to be in a section titled "Zangezur." Placing the book in a section titled "Karabakh" would be the easiest way for a reader to find starting info on Karabakh. In such case, the host of the website cannot possibly be expected to endorse every single sentence by every single book on its website. The same section also contains the UN Resolutions--obviously, Armenia doesn't endorse every word written there. Your interpretation about Armenia's official position, once again, runs counter to Armenia's official statements, which obviously take precedence.

In the quote that you provided, Potier doesn't say December. At any rate, it never mentions a year. Could be 1921 (actually it was).

Your final quote is again Libaridian's personal interpretation, and obviously not fact.--TigranTheGreat 21:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a break, consider this version:

After Azerbaijan and Armenia became independent in 1918, Nagorno-Karabakh emerged as a disputed region between both countries. According to various sources, Nagorno-Karabakh was part of either Armenia or Azerbaijan for the subsequent five years. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

Why is it good? 1. We mention that the region was disputed, 2. We mention that according to various sources (that we have listed above) the region was part of Armenia or Azerbaijan — you can discuss the validity of these various sources further in the History section or whatever, 3. We mention that the NKAO was established in Azerbaijan SSR. - FrancisTyers · 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The only two brief periods when NK could be considered as part of Armenia were from 1 December to 2 December 1920 and from 4 July to 5 July 1921. I have not seen any reliable source claiming that NK was part of Armenia in 1918 – 1920. At the same time the British, who represented the Allied Powers in the Caucasus, recognized Azerbaijani jurisdiction over Karabakh until Paris Peace Conference by appointing the Azeri governor to the region. The letter of the British command is available at the website of the Armenian MFA [35] I think we need to go back a little to allow for 1918 – 1920 as well. My proposal:
Karabakh became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. The British, who occupied the region after the end of World War I, provisionally recognized the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan over Karabakh, pending the final decision of the Paris Peace Conference. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially passed a resolution in favor of Armenia, but then reversed it and passed a resolution in favor of Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.
There you have it, the same verb for both. What do you think? Grandmaster 07:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It is severely slanted towards Azeri POV, as it only mentions the British appointment of Huseynov, and omits the non-recognition by League of Nations, Armenian refusal to accept the British appointment, the Armenian declaration of union with NK, and the fact that Azeris never established even de-facto rule over NK, as Armenians kept fighting (as even Cornell states). And NK was part of ArmSSR from November 1920 till July 1921, as clearly stated in the sources.--TigranTheGreat 09:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Francis, it omits *how* NKAO ended up in AzSSR--i.e. that it was first granted to ArmSSR, then AzSSR--these two crucial events are important, as they are the very root of today's conflict. It makes it sound as if NK was naturally part of Azerbaijan (and only at some point taken by Armenia). It also omits the fact that prior to that, NK remained disputed throughout the period (as clearly shown by Sevres treaty, and stated by various sources). I suggest we state that it remained distpued till Soviets, and then it was granted to ArmSSR and then to AzSSR.--TigranTheGreat 09:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There’s no League of Nation document on non-recognition. Nothing to talk about at all. And the sources state that Armenia renounced its claims to Karabakh in December 1920. Also, Azerbaijani governor in Karabakh was Sultanov, and not Huseynov. I don’t why you keep calling him Tabib, while he did not even live at that time. Whether Armenians liked the decision or not is of no relevance, the great powers decided the fate of the lands without asking the opinion of Armenian or Azeri people. British, who represented the allied powers in the Caucasus, did not reverse their decision, and it is a fact, confirmed by Armenian sources as well. Also, we cannot say that NK was given, granted, etc to Azerbaijan, as it is not factually accurate. Instead, I suggest we don’t use such words at all. If you want the same verb for both, we can say that Soviets initially passed a resolution (or adopted a decision) in favor of Armenia, but later changed their mind and passed a resolution in favor of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 10:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, STOP IT !!! Do you have comprehention difficulties? Armenia refers to Dashnakist Armenia, the Armenia recognized de Jure by the United States while they refused to recognize Azerbaijan, this is about Armenia and NOT Soviet Armenia. Also, your statment is simply dumb, I am not saying here that you are dumb, but that your above statment is simply illogical. There’s no League of Nation document on non-recognition. And there is no proof of the non-existance of Santa, or the non-existance of a god etc., what have you else? We present documents of existances, not documents of non-existance. The League of Nations didn't even recognize de Jure, the republic of Azerbaijan and you want a document regarding the non-recognition of Karabakh?
Had this been an usual good faithed discussion, the official maps drawn at the League would have been enought, and Sevres IS an official map, and IT DOES NOT draw the Eastern bordering and request Georgia, Armenia AND Azerbaijan to decide them. Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat AND repeat. Your perspicacity in not wanting to listen what the other is saying is rendering any discussion impossible. The British decision was not the allies decision, the US was against British decisions in the Caucasus, the British took that decision alone WITHOUT consultation, few days after they apointed the governor, not only they left that region but ALSO Baku. On the other hand, the Americans had a mandate on securing Armenia, the Armenia they have recognized de Jure, while they had yet to recognize Azerbaijan.
As for given to Azerbaijan. Why is this factually innacurate? NK was ruling itself, it had its own elected government, and there was no recognition of it being part of Azerbaijan in anyway. You have yet to provide any arguments which would support your claim. But as we are now, you have only shown that your refusal to use such terms is rather a question of national claims than a thesis being backed up. Fad (ix) 16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially passed a resolution in favor of Nagorno-Karabakh being in Armenia, but later reversed it and passed a resolution in favor of it being in Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923

How is that? - FrancisTyers · 10:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is OK, but I think we should start from 1918, when the conflict over the region actually started. The Bolsheviks were not the first arbitrators in the dispute, but the results were almost the same. So I suggest we add this phrase to the intro as well:
The British, who occupied the region after the end of World War I, provisionally recognized the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan over Karabakh, pending the final decision of the Paris Peace Conference.
It is factually accurate and is not disputed even by the Armenian sources, which accept that this was the case. You can read the decision of the British command at the website of the Armenian MFA. Grandmaster 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
We're not including that, it can go in the history section. - FrancisTyers · 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not how it works, you can not decide to add only what you like. If that is to be added, the information about NK government, as well as what weant in the Paris conference, the League of Nations and Sevres Treaty should also be included. Also, when the British did that, there was no de Jure Azerbaijan, there never was a recognized de Jure Azerbaijan by any allied countries unlike the recognition of Armenia at that time by the US. Also to add, there was an opposition between the British and the United States which opposed any recognition of Azerbaijan. While Wilson once in Baku showed being opened, he still refused any recognition of Azerbaijan. The British decision is not a single event worth mentioning in the intro, when there was much more relevant things to add, what the League of Nations decided, what happened at the Peace conference or the Treaty of Sevres are much more notable than the British decision to redraw by placing an Tartar governor to not have to leave a military contingent and defend Karabakh autonomy against Turkey and Azerbaijan invasion.--Fad (ix) 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, it is severely pro-Azeri--omits the crucial points of non-recognition by League of Nations, and refusal of Armenians to accept the Azeri rule, as well as their declaration of union with Armenia.--TigranTheGreat 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's too vague, Francis. "Resolution in favor" could be interpreted as a mere promise to give NK to Armenia. We need to realize that the inclusion of the statement "NKAO was created in Azerbaijan" gives a very strong advantage of the pro-Azeri view--the can be countered only by mentioning that at some point previously it was given to ArmenianSSR. Without it, the reader might think "ok, the land belonged to Azerbaijan all this time, maybe Armenia disputed, and maybe Soviets passed some resolution using favorable words"--the reader will have no idea that at some point it did belong to ArmenianSSR. Therefore, the version that was previously on table and enjoyed most consensus is the best one

After Armenia and Azerbaijan gained independence in 1918, Nagorno-Karabakh emerged as a disputed region, and remained so until the Bolsheviks took over the region two years later. The latter initially granted the region to the newly created Armenian SSR, and later granted it to Azerbaijan SSR. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.--TigranTheGreat 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis this proposition is problematic, because there is no continuity with the last phrase and the rest of the text. Fad (ix) 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, would I be right to characterise your main complaint with the above version is that it suggests NK was in Armenia. Would I be correct in thinking you don't want to allow anything that says NK was in Armenia in the lead? This question is for Grandmaster only. - FrancisTyers · 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My objection is that NK was not granted or given to Azerbaijan. See Kavburo resolution, see the sources that I quoted, see even the Fadix’s sources. He quotes Stalin and Ordzhonikidze, and they both say: Azerbaijan yesterday declared the transfer of Zangezur, Nakhichevan and Nagornyi Karabakh to Soviet Armenia. Note the word “transfer”. NK may have been declared a part of Armenia for 1 day or so, but this decision was never put into effect. We can’t use the word granted with regard to Azerbaijan, as we have sources saying otherwise. I think suggested a good compromise, which should be acceptable for everyone. Grandmaster 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Please can you post the original text for "Azerbaijan yesterday declared the transfer of Zangezur, Nakhichevan and Nagornyi Karabakh to Soviet Armenia" in Russian. Incidentally, "transfer" can be synonymous with "granted". Because it was granted doesn't necessarily mean that it was put into action. For example, I could grant you a million pounds, and then not give it to you. See definitions here. I really think that your objection is as a result of not knowing the meaning of this word. - FrancisTyers · 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Азербайджан вчера уже декларировал в пользу Советской Армении передачу Нахичевани, Зангезура и Нагорного Карабаха. Taken from Armenian source: [36]
Azerbaijan yesterday declared the transfer of Zangezur, Nakhichevan and Nagornyi Karabakh to Soviet Armenia
Translation is correct, transfer = передача. Grandmaster 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The translation from my source was:

" Azerbaijan yesterday already declared for the benefit of the Soviet Armenia transfer of Nakhichevan, Zangezura and Nagorno Karabakha "

Incidentally, "transfer" means in a legal term, "To make over the possession or legal title of; convey.", so instead of "granted", we could say something like "Nagorno-Karabakh was made the possession of Armenia". Personally I still think "granted" is a better word. See synonyms at here for granted and here for transfer. Indeed, in some definitions the words mean exactly the same thing. If this is a purely semantic dispute then I don't think we need to go any further, seeing as I'm the native speaker of English here then I can choose the appropriate word. So, we can use either "transferred" or "granted" for both. Which would you prefer (remember I gave the Armenians a choice between "established" and "created"). - FrancisTyers · 22:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

But we didn't take advantage of the choice:) Actually Golbez made the choice.

On a more serious note--transfer is problematic because it assumes that NK was part of Azerbaijan. You transfer something from something else. "Granted" could mean that it was disputed, and then it was given to Armenia, which is correct. So I think the choice here should be between "recognized" and "granted," not "trasnferred" and "granted." The fact that AzerSSR declaration says "transferred" merely reflects the Azeri POV--AzerSSR claimed its jurisdiction over NK, so it said "transferred." Note that, the Turkish-Russian treaty said "NK is placed under Azeri control," and this was in 1921. So, saying "granted to Azerb." is warranted.

The whole issue about "NK was part of Armenia only for 1 day," while erroneous (it was for 8 months), is irrelevant here. The point is that at one point it was given to Armenia. IF that is the case, then it means, through basic logic, that at a later date it was given to Azerbaijan. Of course the politicians of the time reflected this fact by using variety of words--"placed, remained,"--but the basic logic is that it had to be granted to Azerbaijan. So, it IS accurate. --TigranTheGreat 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "1 day" question is irrelevant. I would not personally object to "transferred" in both cases as we aren't stating who it belonged to. - FrancisTyers · 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it would implicitly say that it belonged to Azerbaijan. "Transfer" is a lateral move--from one place to another. When I give you a gift, I don't say "I transferred a gift to you." I say "grant." I would say, however, "I transferred the title from Fadix to Francis." Here, to make it clear, is the definition of transfer:

transfer

  1. To convey or cause to pass from one place, person, or thing to another.
  2. Law. To make over the possession or legal title of; convey.
  3. To convey (a design, for example) from one surface to another, as by impression.

Stalin and Narimanov may have used the term because, clearly, both were pro-Azeri. What we wanna do is keep it neutral--i.e. it was disputed before 1920. --TigranTheGreat 01:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem using it in the second sense, but we have to use it for both. I would prefer grant, I think it is more accurate. When you give me a gift, you could say "I am transferring this gift to your ownership", we could say, "Nagorno-Karabakh was transferred to the ownership of Armenia/Azerbaijan" if you prefer? - FrancisTyers · 10:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I’m in favor of saying that NK was granted autonomy within Azerbaijan, but not that NK was granted to Azerbaijan. Can anyone show me any official document or resolution of that time that says NK was to be given, transferred or granted to Azerbaijan? We cannot use the same word for both, as Armenia and Azerbaijan were in a different situation. Both Stalin and Ordjonikidze (who was supporting the transfer of NK to Armenia) said that Azerbaijan transferred NK to Armenia, and Narimanov himself in his telegram said that “As of today, the old frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared to be non-existent”. And then the part Armenian sources love to refer to, that NK is given to Armenia. The statement that NK was granted to Azerbaijan has no factual basis at all, it is just an interpretation of the resolution, which we cannot accept as there are others too. We should say that NK was initially transferred to Armenia, but later that decision was reversed and NK was left in Azerbaijan. References: Kavburo resolution, plus some other sources. It is factually accurate. Grandmaster 12:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you confirm that what you want is your POV in the passage and not the other POV? - FrancisTyers · 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, Francis, I don't understand the question. Why is it my POV? Did you see the sources that I quoted? And did you see the Kavburo resolution? It is verifiable info that NK was left in Azerbaijan and was not granted to it. Grandmaster 17:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
"...that NK was left in Azerbaijan and was not granted to it" — this is interpretation. The other side denies it. Other groups deny it, the discussion of which belongs in the history section. For the intro to be neutral and present both sides, in accordance with NPOV, we need to use the same verb for both actions. - FrancisTyers · 18:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
But Francis, “granted” is also interpretation of one of the sides, which the other side denies. If we choose one POV over the other, it is not neutral. I think we should present the facts like the Armenian Foreign Ministry did: [37] Provide a direct quote and let the reader decide without any personal interpretations. Grandmaster 18:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The MFA did no such thing, that piece is Jirair Libaridian's pov and is no way in line with the official stance of the MFA.--Eupator 20:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
1. We're not having a quote in the lead. 2. For the umpteenth time, that isn't their POV. - FrancisTyers · 19:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It can not remain in Azerbaijan when there was no recognized border for Azerbaijan. Clear and simple. There was not a single government in the world which recognized de Jure an Azerbaijan, the US clearly opposed it, it was one of the main point of contention for the Caucasus between the US and the League of Nations. It can not remain in an entity which had no delimitated border and which was never recognized de Jure. When the League decided to discuss about Azerbaijan to be a member, Azerbaijan was already taken by the Bolshevics, but during that period Karabakh was still resisting, it somehow resisted until the fall of the Dashnak government. 'Remained' is simply POV, since Karabakh was never not even officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Fad (ix) 18:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone show me any recognized map in which Karabakh was in Azerbaijan?
  • Can someone show me any evidences that any single natiopn recognized de Jure Azerbaijan?
As of today, the old frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared to be non-existent” you again are distorting, this refers to the incorporation of Armenia in the Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic which after then included Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. This has nothing to do with Azerbaijan annulating its borders including any Karabakh to give it to Armenia, but rather meant that any land in the Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic is to anyone and that there is no dispute anymore as everyone form Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia form one Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic.
NK declared its independence, it had its government, it had its police, its army, its ministry of education etc., so any movement in incorporating it in any entity was a granting. Stop wasting our time. There never was a recognized bordering of Azerbaijan, there never was even a de jure recognition by any countries in the world, and since Azerbaijan did not exist before 1918, you can not use the term remain when Azerbaijan was a creation of 1918 and that this creation was not recognized de Jure. Again, the never ending conflict over few words which you will refuse to accept until your POV is introduced in an article. You have time to waste, not us. Fad (ix) 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any idea when Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic was created? Narimanov specifically talks about frontiers between the two countries, and not in Transcaucasia. Grandmaster 10:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No, he does not, the Trancaucasian Federation existed since 1918, and was a deviding point among the allies, it was meant to include Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Chkhenkeli who was Georgian was ruling it. Since Dashnakist fall, the Bolshevic rulling elite of Azerbaijan were prominent supporter of that so-called Federation and the Sobiet in the Caucasus was already planning the invasion of Georgia and reincoporation of it in such a Federation. Checking Wikipedia for dates doesn't make you knowledgeble about this subject, neither directing me such a question.--Fad (ix) 17:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is just your interpretation. Can you provide any quote from a reliable source to support your claim about Narimanov statement being related to the future Trancaucasian Federation? First Trancaucasian Federation stopped to exist in the same 1918, and we have no grounds to suppose that the statement of Narimanov about abolishment of old frontiers between the two countries had anything to do with the future plans of Bolsheviks on recreation of Trancaucasian Federation in the communist version. The telegram never mentions Trancaucasian Federation. He just meant what he said, the old frontiers that included those territories within Azerbaijan were declared abolished, and they were granted to Armenia. Grandmaster 19:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not. Abolishing the frontiers refers to the abolishing of frontiers, you are the one assuming that he is talking about giving to Armenia, what I understand from that is that there is no frontier existing between the two nations. Fad (ix) 23:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
He said that they were abolishing the borders and giving Karabakh to Soviet Armenia, which did not exist at the time. If the were no borders, why did he need to declare the old borders non-existent to grant the lands to Armenia? Grandmaster 07:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
No, they were accepted being constituant of Armenia as a proof of good faith, to demonstrate that he really believes that be it in Armenia or Azerbaijan does not make a differences for him. The entire speech of Ordjonuikdze makes that clear and is rather implicit. Besides, even had Narimanov believed that, it doesn't change the fact that Karabakh was considered disputed.--Fad (ix) 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially transferred ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, this was later reversed, and ownership was transferred to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

I quite like that. I think that is about as impartial as we are going to get. - FrancisTyers · 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, you are a native English speaker, and if in your opinion "granted" is more appealing to the reader, then why not just use it? This is encyclopedia, it's supposed to have nice style. Why are we complicating with phrases like "trasnfer ownership," when there are so many neutral synomims for granted (give, bestow, recognize etc).

Plus, there is still the problem of the reader's interpretation. I am pretty sure you and me will think "transferred ownership means granted." Any other reader might say "ok, the land was disputed between Armenia and Azerbaijan, right? so... if it was transferred, it must have been trasnferred from one to the other." I don't care if we use established or incorporated, recognized or granted--you know better which style to use--if you prefer granted, let's just use that. And "transfer" was not the only verb used in documents--there were "recognized" (Narimanov's telegram), "placed under" (Moscow Treaty), etc. As authors of encyclopedia, we have the power to choose the style that is best.

Oh, and, as in most versions proposed earlier, "reversed" is unnecessary, redundant, and good place to save space.--TigranTheGreat 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to accomodate Grandmaster here. I think it is important that we get Both wordings are fine by me. I enforced the "same verb" thing in order to maintain a neutral position. You'll remember that Grandmaster cites "transferred" and "remain in" which we aren't precisely using either. FrancisTyers · 02:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And we did the right thing, because they would be POV. I cited "recognized," and "placed under," which we are not using either. I think "compromise" refers to compromising views, not the quality of an encyclopedic article. The reader is going to read a legalese like "transferred ownership" and say "huh? wha? Who wrote that?" --TigranTheGreat 02:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's not too bad. Indeed, NK was transferred to Armenia, as Stalin and Ordzhonikidze said, and then transferred again to Azerbaijan. It just sounds awkward with the word “ownership”, it should say that the Soviets transferred NK to Armenia, and then again to Azerbaijan or something like that. The word “transferred” fits the situation quite well, and we cannot ignore the primary sources, as the secondary ones are just interpretations that differ from one author to another.
And Tigran, Moscow treaty uses no such wording, see [38] As for Narimanov, he also says that the old frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared to be non-existent, before saying that lands are given to Armenia. Grandmaster 10:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan's Narimanov's statement is irrelevant--even if he means what you say he means, that's his POV, and we know that Azerbaijan disputed the Armenian ownership of NK. Your other (Russian) source is unreliable--the text was added by some private user, and we don't know whether he missed something, or whether he checked his sources. Your own sources (Cornell, at [39]), clearly states that in March 1921, "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." So, terms like "left/placed/granted" are used interchangably.

The "transfer" is bad because it essentially states that NK was part of Azerbaijan before being given to Armenia. "Transfer ownership," besides being awkward, essentially tells the same thing (in this case, we transfer the "ownership" of NK from Azerbaijan to Armenia, which again is POV). "granted," or any other synonym thereof, should be ok.--TigranTheGreat 05:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I liked "placed under the control of" much better than "transferred ownership to" We should go with the one above, but with "placed under the control of". That way ownership doesn't come into it, *cool* - FrancisTyers · 12:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we have it people

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially placed Nagorno-Karabakh under the control of Armenia, this was later reversed, and it was placed under the control of Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

Hows that for a compromise ? - FrancisTyers · 15:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

“Placed under control” sounds as if it was not under control of Azerbaijan before, and contradicts the historical documents. I liked the previous proposal better. Grandmaster 07:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't mean that. It means that regardless of whose control it was under previously, it was then in the control of Azerbaijan. Which is true. I think we've got two that are more-or-less equally good. But I'm not sure how we're going to choose which one to put in. We're not going to have a poll, at least not one in which you guys will be participating, but equally, I'm not sure how to choose between two pretty much synonymous passages. Anyone have any ideas? - FrancisTyers · 09:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this one is good. We have sources that say NK was part of Azerbaijan and was left within it, we cannot ignore them. Therefore a compromise should be such that it would not ignore the sources. Grandmaster 11:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We also have sources saying that NK was "annexted to," "ceded to," "incorporated in," Azerbaijan, as well as "recognized as part of Armenia" (before being given to Azerbaijan). We can't ignore them either, we are here to choose neutral and accurate language. Since it was given to Armenia at some point, it follows that it was given to Azerbaijan at a later point--hence "placed under" is accurate. It's also neutral since we use it with respect to both countries.--TigranTheGreat 07:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources are just interpretations that may differ, but we also have primary sources, such as Kavburo resolution, Stalin and Orjonikidze quotes, etc, and they all prove that NK was left in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 09:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki rules encourage using both secondary and primary sources, instead of relying just on primary ones. As for quotes by Stalin and Mr. O, they actually refute what you say--they stated that NK was handed to Armenia in 1920. Since it somehow ended up in Azerbaijan later, then it follows from their quotes that at some point it was given to Azerbaijan.--TigranTheGreat 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On editing environment in general, and 1921 Kavburo decision in particular

It is quite surprising for me why so much time and energy and nerves are being wasted to deal with issues, which have been extensively discussed and sorted out in the talkpage months and even a year (!) ago.

I regret that the editors seemingly disregard the archived discussions and thus, we lose connection between the past and present discussions. As a result, we get renewed disputes, and also create opportunities for attempts for nationalist pov pushing.

Furthermore, this entry has turned into such a battlefield that quickly tires and demoralizes many (esp, neutral third-party) editors, which despite their significant knowledge on the issue and experience in dealing with the past discussions, feel discouraged and simply dont want to get more headache by getting involved in these discussions again. This is an unhealthy editing environment, and very detrimental to the WP standarts.

From time to time certain users try to question the simple fact that Karabakh is de jure part of Azerbaijan, while de facto is under Armenian military control (e.g., see a my summary posting in february 2006. Same editors are continuously and deliberately trying to remove and/or underplay the fact that Karabakh's de facto ownership by Azerbaijan was recognized in 1919 by the Allies, who recognized Khosrov-bey Sultanov (appointed by the Azerbaijan government) as general-governor of Karabakh. e.g., see my posting dated May 10, 2005).

Now, this whole lengthy discussion is centered around another previously discussed topic of Karabakh's belonging to Azerbaijan at the time of the Soviets coming into power. This issue has been extensively discussed by me and some opponent editors, including now banned vandal and ultra-nationalist User:Rovoam (e.g. see my post dated yet February 2005)

The current dispute is very simple in its essence. As we know, the question is how to formulate the sentence describing the 1921 decisions of the Caucasus Bureau of the Communist Party (KavBuro) on Karabakh's legal belonging to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. Hence, the solution to the problem of wording lies in the wording used in the final KavBuro decision itself.

I have to repeat the text of the well-known KavBuro decision dated July 5, 1921:

"Proceeding from the necessity of national peace between the Muslims and Armenians, and economic links of the upland and lowland Karabakh, its constant link with Azerbaijan, to leave [!-my emphasis] the Mountainous Karabakh within the Azerbaijan SSR, having granted it a broad regional autonomy with the administrative center in the town of Shusha included in the autonomous region"

The wording here is very clear. The word "leave" Karabakh within Azerbaijan, as opposed to earlier (overruled) decision to "transfer" Karabakh to Armenia, is a clear indication that Karabakh by the time of Kavburo decision was (at least de facto) considered as part of Azerbaijan (and I need to repeat once again the fact that Allies have also recognized Karabakh's belonging to Azerbaijan in 1919 ([40]). Thus, we should proceed from this decision's wording when formulating the paragraph in question. Thus, I would propose the following wording for the paragraph:

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially passed a resolution in favor of Nagorno-Karabakh becoming part of Armenia, but later reversed it and passed a resolution in favor of it remaining in Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

I hope we more forward, instead of disputing on the same things over and over again.--Tabib 18:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Tabib’s proposal is the most accurate description of the situation, and I support this wording. That’s exactly what the Kavburo resolutions said, and anything else is just an interpretation, and we should not take any of them over the other. If we include any interpretation, we will be assuming a position, and we cannot do that in encyclopedia. And also, this indeed has been discussed so many times in the history of the article, but we have to do that over and over again, when a new contributor starts editing the article. Grandmaster 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Tabib proposal is not the most accurate. Tabib is so good at accusing other members as POV pushers or nationalists. But people here should be aware that he is working with the political parties in Azerbaijan and he is paid for doing that, but it doesn't change that he still accuse others of being POV pushers. Him and Adil in cohord have worked together at least in the siberspace. And both picture from their personal website what is to be POV pushers.
Karabakh ownership has never been recognized de facto by the allies, here we have another example of distortion, that decision was taken by the British alone before evacuating their army from the region and was temporary. Neither at the Peace Conference, neither at the League of Nations had there been any recognition be it de Jure or De facto, that place was recognized as disputedm, during Sevres both parties were asked to discuss about the disputes.
Karabakh could not be left to Azerbaijan, when there was nop De Jure recognized Azerbaijan, andf when Azerbaijan had no recognized bounderies. Those wordinjgs were those of Narimanov, since it was from his opposition that those wordings have emerged.
I am tried of repeating myself. Can there be no apolitical discussion here? Without some political science analyst from Azerbaijan or people having close contact with political parties? Fad (ix) 23:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, it is quote ironic that Tabib accuse others to not read the archives, when he repeat what has been discussed here. Fad (ix) 23:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, perfect point made by Fadix (about Tabib ignoring the recent discussions while accusing others of ignoring outdated ones).

The other points made by Fadix (about Kavburo and British decisions) are valid as well. We simply cannot use the words used in the Kavburo decision because 1) the Kavburo had no mandate to use neutral wording, and we do, and 2), the wording "leave" would be inaccurate, since NK didn't belong to Azerbaijan at the time of the decision (since it had been given to Armenia at some point prior to that).

Also, not even the British (much less the allies) recognized de-facto ownership of NK by Azerbaijan, since Azerbaijan was not recognized even de-facto at the time (!) (it was recognized de-facto only a year later, i.e. January 1920, and never recognzied de-jure). What the British did was merely to support the temporary appointment of an Azeri governor over NK--it was a practical "quick and dirty" decision, without any legal meaning, or any formal diplomatic "recognition of de-facto ownership." Azeris have been trying to make more out of that simple practical act than there is to it. The British letter didn't even use the word "recognition" or "de-facto."

In sum, at the time Soviets took the region, NK was not part of Azerbaijan, so we cannot use "transfer." At the time of Kavburo decision, again, NK was not part of Azerbaijan, and we cannot use "leave."--TigranTheGreat 05:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In sum, when the Soviets took over the region, Narimanov declared abolishment of the old borders between the two countries, Stalin and Ordzhonikidze said that Azerbaijan transferred NK to Armenia, Kavburo said that NK was to remain in Azerbaijan, but according to you logic despite all this NK was not part of Azerbaijan? Was it a case of mass hallucination that all those people said the same thing? Like it or not, but it is a fact that Karabakh was part of Azerbaijan when the Soviets took the region over in 1920, and historical documents attest to that. Grandmaster 07:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It was definitely not fact--just by the virtue of the fact that both Armenia and Azerbaijan disputed it. As well as the fact that Azerbaijan was not recognized even de-jure, that the lands remained disputed according to Sevres up until late 1920--so, there is no way it could be part of Azerbaijan. Stalin and Ordzh. didn't necessarily say "transferred," they said "передачу," (taken from your own Russian sources), which in English can also mean "grant." We have a case of lost in translation, with translators picking one meaning and clearly not giving much thought that we would sit here and interpret that "NK was part of Azerbaijan." Oh, and there is no historical document about NK being part of Azerbaijan before Soviets. --TigranTheGreat 10:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Передавать means to hand over or transfer in Russia, передача is the act of hand over or transfer. See lingvo, the best electronic Russian-English dictionary:
Передача 1) (действие) delivery, handing over; passing; transmission; communication; transfer
Передавать (кого-л./что-л.) 1) pass, hand (over), deliver
I thought you spoke Russian good enough to know that. Grandmaster 11:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you noticed, I never excluded "transfer" as one of the meanings of the word--I said that there were other meanings. And, if you noticed, I was correct (i.e. we have "deliver"). I thought your reading comprehension was well enough to notice all of that.--TigranTheGreat 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha! I quite like "handed to" - FrancisTyers · 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, we've got it down to two! three!

  1. The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially placed Nagorno-Karabakh under the control of Armenia, this was later reversed, and it was placed under the control of Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.
  2. The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially transferred ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, this was later reversed, and ownership was transferred to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.
  3. The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially handed Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, this was later reversed, and it was handed to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

Lets see how we can choose. - FrancisTyers · 09:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I could flip a coin? Heads 1, Tails 2. - FrancisTyers · 09:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1 seems to be the best option here. I would also switch "took the region over" to "took over the region". --Golbez 10:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
2 is better, but I don't like the word "ownership". Normally we don't use such words when talking about regions. Grandmaster 10:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1 is definitely better, Francis, as it does not push on the reader the idea that "NK was Azeri land before 1920." For stylistic purposes, I still think there is no problem with "granted"--much shorter than "placed under control." Again, as a moderator, when it comes to English style, there is no reason for you to compromise the style for best encyclopedic content. I wonder what Golbez thinks here.

Two suggestions about your version. "this was later reversed" is totally redundant. Let's save space and say "initially placed Nagorno-Karabakh under the control of Armenia, and later under the control of Azerbaijan."

The other suggestion--since NK did remain as a disputed are up until Bolsheviks, we should add "and remained so until" between 1st and 2nd sentences.--TigranTheGreat 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would fit in. How do you like 3 btw? Of course this throws my "flip a coin" thing out of the window... I'm sure I've got a dice around here somewhere. - FrancisTyers · 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I like 1, not the best I would think of, far from it (ligustically I mean), but between those three I would prefer 1.--Fad (ix) 15:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fadix. "Placed under control" is the best of the 3, though not as clean as "granted." "Handed" I find awkward--when we are talking about territory (as opposed to, say, a pencil).

As to your question, Francis ("how that would fit in"), the USIP article fitted it in beautifully and neutrally (i.e. the part that NK remained disputed throughout the 1918-20 period):

Nagorno-Karabakh first emerged as a disputed territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both states became independent in 1918. The dispute was not resolved until 1920, when both young nation-states lost their independence to Bolshevik Russia. [41]

It was also nicely fit in in one of your prior suggestions, namely #6:

After the collapse of Russian Empire, Nagorno-Karabakh remained disputed between Azerbaijan and Armenia, until coming under Soviet control. After coming under Soviet control, the region was initially recognised as part of the Armenian SSR. It was subsequently recognised as part of the Azerbaijan SSR, where the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in 1923.

And finally, I still think we should exclude the "reversed" clause due to redundancy--please note that most of the suggestions above (i.e. 1 through 9) do not include it--it's pretty simple, it was first given to Armenia, then Azerbaijan.--TigranTheGreat 22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster opposed that suggestion. - FrancisTyers · 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Objection and Two Proposals

I strongly disagree with all three versions, proposed above below. I regret that the discussions are dominated by one particular group of editors, who having numerical superiority, try to impose their will and arbitrary formulations in the entry. NPOV and factual accuracy standarts are not about simplistically dividing apple into two equal parts. The formulation adopted in the 1921 Kavburo decision to which the paragraph in question is supposed to refer is extremely clear, and there is no way that our fellow Armenian editors can evade this formulation. I call on Francis and all other concerned third-party editors to show a more sensitive and firm stance on the issue.

I propose the following two solutions:

1. Considering that the issue is so controversial and requires detailed elaboration, not put it in the intro as initially planned. Instead, provide a summary explanation of the period from 1918-1921 in the entry's History section and provide more detailed explanation in the section History of Nagorno-Karabakh.

2. If there is still a willingness on part of the majority of editors to make a reference to this question in the intro, I want to remind you once again the version I proposed:

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially passed a resolution in favor of Nagorno-Karabakh becoming part of Armenia, but later reversed it and passed a resolution in favor of it remaining in Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

Alternatively, I suggest the following variant:

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially decided to transfer Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, this was reversed the next day and it was decided "to leave the Mountainous Karabakh within the Azerbaijan SSR, having granted it a broad regional autonomy"[1]. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

[1] Text of the decision of the Communist Party Caucasus Bureau dated July 5, 1921, Archive Ref: PAAF IML, reserves 1, inventory 125, folder 107, list 107 (or any other second-hand source)

The advantage of this option, in my view, is that we directly refer to the decision itself, without resorting to some arbitrary interpretations. --Tabib 05:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your proposals don't meet the requirements. Please read the whole talk page and then try again. - FrancisTyers · 01:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I support this. Any interpretation of the Kavburo resolution is just that, an interpretation, and the purpose of encyclopedia is to provide factually accurate information. I don’t think we should include any interpretation of the Kavburo resolution in the intro, we should quote the original document, and let the reader judge. Otherwise we should remove that line from the intro completely, as I suggested so many times, as we are unable to reach a consensus on the wording of that line. Grandmaster 06:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
"I regret that the discussions are dominated by one particular group of editors, who having numerical superiority, try to impose their will and arbitrary formulations in the entry." Please try reengaging in the discussion when you are actually familiar with it, as there are no numbers being thrown around; if it was simply about that, then we would have completely ignored GM and Adil. Obviously, we have not, their strong POV statements and editwarring tactics (at least in the case of Adil) notwithstanding. --Golbez 06:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Golbez, I'd love to reengage in discussions, pitily I have very limited time and also, I must repeat myself by saying that the editing environment here is extremely unhealthy and detrimental to the WP standarts. The text of the KavBuro decision is there, the facts are clear and undeniable. I call you and all other impartial third-party editors to consider the two solutions that I have suggested above.Thanks. --Tabib 06:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Golbez, pls cite a single occurence of non-factual statement on my behalf -- and weight in on the multiple mistaken (? - A.B.) statements done by some other editors that were uncovered by myself. Meanwhile, as said previously, the Kavburo decision is very clear, as are many other documents from the era, which clearly show NK as Azerbaijan's, and voting to retain/leave NK in Azerbaijan, and not transfer it away to Armenia or "award" it to Azerbaijan, as is mistranslated, maliciously or not, by some authors. Same thing as today -- just because most of NK is temporarily and illegally occupied, doesn't mean it ceases to be de jure part of Azerbaijan -- and as you know, everyone, including the UN and USA, clearly recognize NK as part of Azerbaijan. Hence, historical accuracy and precision are paramount, and the article must use that precise terminology. --AdilBaguirov 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First, you will need to refrain from accusing "a particular group of editors" (who, unlike you, have been actively involved in discussions) in "imposing their will." Especially that your history to impose your POV is quite clear. You will need to assume good faith. Second, your proposals are inaccurate and therefore unacceptable--the "grant" of NK to Armenia, which actually was recognized by Azerbaijan on November 30, 1920, wasn't changed the next day, but full 8 months afterwards. It was reconfirmed on June 4 by Kaburo, and reconfirmed again a month later on July 4 (read the discussions, and you will see why). Third, we don't base this article on a single word used in the Kavburo decision--we use neutral wording, for one clear reason--Kavburo had no mandate to use neutral language, while we do. --TigranTheGreat 08:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean by saying that this entry suffers from extremely unhealthy editing environment. Please, have a look at Wikipedia:Civility and try to change the manner you talk to me. Do not accuse me in POV pushing right from start. And also, talk on the issues, do not divert the debate into personalities. The two solutions I suggested above are firmly based on facts and the text of the Kavburo decision, which we try to depict. There is no way, one can refer to this decision and at the same time evade the formulations adopted in this decision.--Tabib 12:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[removed unhelpful comment - FrancisTyers · 17:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)]

[removed unhelpful comment - FrancisTyers · 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)]


I've copied these posts down as Tabib didn't want his moved. - FrancisTyers · 12:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage all parties who wish to continue the mediation to refrain from responding to Tabib. It is taking us way off track. - FrancisTyers · 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Francis, let me remind you, that as a long-standing Wikipedia editor and a person who have greatly contributed to the development of this entry and many other Azerbaijan-related entries, I am the party to the present discussion too, therefore, my opinion cannot be ignored neither by you or anybody else in here. If you are not happy with this, then I will reject your mediation. I am very surprised by your attitude and I expect some clarifications. --Tabib 12:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You missed the boat and you aren't playing by the rules. - FrancisTyers · 14:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The boat is there as long as I am an editor and this entry exists in Wikipedia. I am also unhappy with the fact that the compromise formulations that we have come to in the past are being continuously and deliberately torpedoed by certain pov pushers (e.g. Karabakh's de jure and de facto status; Allies' 1919 de facto recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan; 1921 Kavburo decision on retaining Karabakh within Azerbaijan...the list could be prolonged further). We should find a common solution, which would be based on NPOV principles and corresponding to factual accuracy. We should not sacrifice factual accuracy to some pseudo-NPOV formulation, which allegedly treats all the parties equally, but in reality distorts the historical facts and goes against NPOV. I very much hope this be the last misunderstanding between us. I've never had conflicts/discords with third-party editors in the past, and have no intention to. --Tabib 17:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I repeat, you missed the boat. Perhaps if you read the whole talk page and play by the conditions of the mediation then you can catch the next one. Wikipedia does not represent the truth, see WP:V. I'm not interested in who is "right" or "wrong", I'm interested in getting consensus. If you are interested in The TruthTM then I suggest you find somewhere else to be, because The TruthTM is pretty much irrelevant in this process, I'm interested in WP:NPOV, WP:V. I am not interested in what your personal interpretations of "factual accuracy" are and I would appreciate it if you stopped describing parties as POV pushers, this mediation is difficult enough as it is without having someone stirring things up. - FrancisTyers · 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd very much prefer if you lower your tone a bit. I am not advocating the "truth" to which nobody here possess ownership. The text of the Kavburo decision that is the subject matter of the present dispute is solidly verifiable. I have to repeat my position: I oppose arbitrary interpretations when referring to this decision and I stand for either omitting mentioning this subject in the intro (discussing it in the body) or referring to the decision as it is, without interpretations.--Tabib 05:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That is one source of the many that were provided. We are not going to base this on one source. You may think that it is the most important source, but that is not necessarily the case. Certainly the other side don't agree. We are having something in the intro, and then in much more (excrutiating even) detail in the body of the article. - FrancisTyers · 11:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that Kavburo resolution is a primary source, and there’s no dispute as to what the text of that document was. Nobody disputes that it indeed said that NK was to be left within Azerbaijan SSR. You can find the same text in Azeri, Armenian and third party sources. In addition to that we have secondary sources, which are interpretations of the above resolution. Those interpretations differ, but even blatantly pro-Armenian sources such as Christopher J. Walker (who are described as such by neutral and Armenian sources) accept the facts that some people here keep on denying. Please see the quotes:

Even after widespread criticism, the British refused to remove Sultanov from his post; and the Armenians sickened by the prospect of further bloodshed, eventually agreed to Azerbaijan's provisional control of Karabagh. Provisional, however, it never was; and Mountainous Karabagh with its large Armenian majority remained Azerbaijani throughout the pre-Soviet and Soviet period, being an autonomous region of the Azerbaijani SSR today; all dating from Andranik's trust of the word of a British officer, and the partiality of that officer and his successor to Azerbaijani landowners.

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.

Within the Soviet Caucasus itself, the status of Karabagh was discussed. In early June 1921, after the whole of Transcaucasia had become Soviet, the Kavburo (or Bureau of Caucasian Affairs) voted by five to two in favour of the union of Mountainous Karabagh to Armenia. But the link between the two territories was never made. Some days later a Plenary Session of the Kavburo, under the influence of Stalin, decided that it should be an autonomous region, but should remain part of Azerbaijan.

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

Grandmaster 08:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First, Walker being "pro-Armenian," even "strongly so," is your opinion and that of some pro-Azeri sources. Second, your highlighted parts are Walkers interpretation of the facts. The main principle here is that we do not rely on one source's phrasing--we have other sources stating that Armenians rejected the British appointment, declared union with Karabakh, and that Karabakh remained disputed up until the Soviets. From the variety of sources/phrasings/interpretations, we stick to facts and choose the neutral wording.

Back to Walker--basically his point (i.e. his interpretation, as a historian) is that the British appointment had long-lasting effects--due to that decision (according to him), NK ended up in Azerbaijan. By saying "throughout the pre-Soviet period and post Soviet period," he is emphasizing the blame he places on the British, saying that the perils of their decision never left NK.

Yet, he later confirms the very factual statements found in other sources, which show that NK remained a disputed land, without any definitive resolution. On page 282, for example, he confirms that as of early 1920, the areas were hotly disputed:

Throughout January and February Armenia was embroiled in her struggle with Azerbaijan, carrying on a guerrilla war in the disputed and cross-populated areas. p282

Later, on page 283, he again confirms that as of April 1920, NK still didn't belong to Azerbaijan (as Azerbaijan demanded Karabakh etc):

The relentless Soviet Azerbaijani demands for Karabagh and Zangezur were part of the logistical battle to secure a link between Soviet and Kemalist forces, and of the political fight to squeeze Armenia as hard as possible while she remained pro-Entente and anti-Bolshevik.

Clearly Azerbaijan couldn't demand a land that it already had.

Similar facts are found throughout the book all the way till the Soviet occupation--i.e. NK remained disputed, with no definitive ownership.

In sum, as in all sources, we separate facts from interpretations. We then consult variety of sources (which, as I explain, refute the idea that NK was part of Azerbaijan, or was left in it). We then formulate the facts, phrasing them in an NPOV fashion. We never rely on a particular single source, or a particular phrase.--TigranTheGreat 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I cited Armenian and pro-Armenian sources that say NK was part of Azerbaijan. In case of Walker he clearly says that "Mountainous Karabagh with its large Armenian majority remained Azerbaijani throughout the pre-Soviet and Soviet period", and "Soviet Azerbaijan agreed, in a fraternal gesture, to hand over to Soviet Armenia the disputed regions of Mountainous Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan", and that "Plenary Session of the Kavburo decided that it (NK) should be an autonomous region, but should remain part of Azerbaijan". It cannot be more clearer than that. You can deny it all that you want, but everyone can read that source and judge for himself. My point is that we cannot add into the intro any interpretation of the original Kavburo resolution, no matter where it comes from, because it is just an interpretation, i.e. POV. We should refer to the original document, the text of which is not disputed by anyone. Grandmaster 09:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You've cited nothing which would support your request. Both sides have agreed with the chronology. Prior to 1918 there was no Azerbaijan, from 1918 to 1920 there was no de Jure recognized Azerbaijan, and its de facto recognition was not followed by any maps. Claiming remained goes against the League of Nations placing Nagorno Karabakh as disputed. Also 'remained Azerbaijani' does not support your contention, Nagorno Karabakh was incorporated in the Karabakh province with a forced Tartar administration and then under Russian rules under Elizavetpol again with such administrative province. So there is a differences between claiming it to remain 'Azerbaijani' and remaining in an Azerbaijan.--Fad (ix) 02:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points by Fadix. Just to add that in 1918 - January 1920, Azerbaijan wasn't even recognized de-facto. Which obviously means that no territory (including NK) could be recognized as de-facto belonging to Azerbaijan--you can't recognize belonging to entity if you haven't recognized the entity itself.

Now, to reiterate, when GM's claims that "he presented multiple sources about NK belonging to Azerbaijan," this merely selects the sources that he chose, while ignoring sources that state otherwise. And as an encyclopedia, we don't rely on sources by a particular editor, but all relevant sources to construct a neutral account.

Once again, we have several sources, stating plainly that the regions remained disputed throughout the period, that NK Armenians ended up rejecting any Azeri jurisdiction, forming their own fully functional government.

About Walker again--his book (Armenia, Survival of Nation) is more of a literary work than a dry historical account--it can be seen from the very first pages. He is telling a story, and as in all stories, he may take slight poetic license when it comes to interpreting the larger picture (while he remains accurate when telling the underlying facts--as a good historian). Especially in such cases, we have to be very careful in distinguishing his interpretations from the underlying hard facts.

The central theme of Walker's book is that Armenians suffered throughout their history, being sacrificed to the interests of the great nations (he is especially judgmental towards his own country--Britain, at some point even saying that "Armenia would be much better off had Britain been out of picture). Written in 1980 (i.e. before the renewed hopes of 1988-92), the book is markedly pessimistic for the most part of Armenia's history, while suggesting hope of optimism only in the end (the "prosperous" Soviet period post 1950). Given the above theme and the general tone of pessimism, it's expected that he would construct a general picture of the events that fit that central theme and tone (again, while accurately stating the actual events). So, he is saying "yeah, the lands may have been disputed, yeah, Armenians may have rejected Azeri jurisdiction, denying Azerbaijan to excercise control over the area, but in the end, none of that mattered--with the British screwing things up." Now, if you are pessimistic about the period, that's what you are going to think and say. So, that's what he is saying when he says that "the region remained Azerbaijani,"--(and NOT that "it in fact belonged to Azerbaijan at every single point," which is GM's desired interpretation). The reason we know this is because the very underlying facts told by him (and quoted by me earleir) make it clear that Azeris had no real control over NK, which remained disputed land throughout the period--and these facts have been repeated in other sources as well.

Now, here in Wikipedia, we don't tell a story, we don't impose a theme of our choosing, other than that of neutrality--which means recounting events in neutral fashion instead of blindly copying interpretations and opinions by a particular source. And looking at all the reputable sources discussed here, we know that 1) NK remained disputed till the Soviets came over, with local Armenians rejecting Azeri jurisdiction and refusing Azerbaijan to have control over the area, 2) Soviets recognized NK as part of Armenia in late 1920 (i.e. at some point it did belong to Armenia) and 3) if it belonged to Armenia at some point, then it follows that it was given to Azerbaijan at a later point--this is really not interpretation, but a fact following simple logic.

Here is a fact: "Kavburo used the term 'left in Azerbaijan'" It is NOT a fact that "Kavburo actually left NK in Azerbaijan" (especially since the phrasing was clearly suggested by Narimanov). In fact, saying so contradicts the very fact that it was given to/recognized as part of Armenia prior to that.--TigranTheGreat 08:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If Kavburo used the term “to be left in Azerbaijan SSR”, then that what was the case. The voting items on Kavburo agenda were formulated the following way:
Карабах оставить в пределах Азербайджана (Karabakh is to be left within Azerbaijan)
Нагорную часть Карабаха включить в состав Армении (Mountainous part of Karabakh is to be included in Armenia).
Even Armenian members of Kavburo did not object to this wording, because they knew it was accurate. And it is your guess that Narimanov proposed this wording, which you cannot support by any evidence whatsoever. In fact, Narimanov had no more authority than any other member of Kavburo, they all had the same right of vote, and the minutes were kept by some Figatner, who voted in support of the Armenian position. So we don’t rely on guesses, we rely on facts only. And it is a fact what Kavburo said, as well as Stalin and Ordzhonikidze.
As for Walker, it was you who claimed on the talk of Nakhichevan that he was “one of the most reputable British historians”, who’s opinion is so authoritative that he could not be ignored no matter what. Now you say that “his book is more of a literary work than a dry historical account”. So he’s a reputable historian when he spreads anti-Turkish and anti-Azeri propaganda, and just a mere literary man when he acknowledges the facts that don’t suit you. At the same time you insist that he “accurately states the actual events”, but not in this case (how convenient, he’s accurate when he attacks the Azerbaijani side and inaccurate when he acknowledges facts that contradict a certain POV). He does not say anything like it “may be” or “could be”, he’s quite unambiguous, when he says that “Mountainous Karabagh remained Azerbaijani throughout the pre-Soviet and Soviet period” and “Kavburo decided that it (NK) should be an autonomous region, but should remain part of Azerbaijan”. It is quite clear that if you support this source you should accept the facts provided in it. Grandmaster 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If Kavburo says something, it does NOT make it a fact--just as in the case of any source (especially a Bolshevik political body). Kavburo can recognize NK's belonging to Azerbaijan from the day of its decision, but it can't do so backward in time--it can't recognize past belonging to Azerbaijan (no political body can). So, the statement reflects the POV of whoever suggested the wording.

The different options at the Kavburo meeting were suggested by those who advocated it, and Kavburo merely adopted one of them without changing the wording. Since Narimanov was the one advocating NK's annexation to Azerb., it's clear that he and his pro-Azeri friends suggested that option, with its wording. The fact that pro-Armenian faction used the word "included" in its suggestion only shows that they were more neutral than the Azeris, which is evident even now on this page.

On the other hand, we know that NK was previously given to/recognized as part of Armenia, which means it had to be given to Azerbaijan at a later point.

I never said that Walker's opinion is reputable (the phrase really makes no sense, so I would never say it). I said that he is reputable--which means he can be trusted with the actual facts recounted by him, even in a semi-literary work such as his book. That doesn't mean that his opinions/interpretations themselves are facts--they never are with any author. So, when he says "NK remained Azerbaijani," he is saying that in the larger picture, the disputed nature of the land, Armenian opposition to Azeri claims, loss of Azeri control of the land--none of that mattered, as in the end NK ended up with Azerbaijan--i.e. he is giving his interpretation as to the general picture as he sees it (i.e. through his pessimistic, blame-the-British prism). He doesn't need to say "may be" to give an interpretation. Yet, he clearly and accurately recounts the underlying facts--"the area was disputed," "Azerbaijan demanded Karabakh," "Armenians were fighting in Karabakh"--all the facts stated in other sources as well, and unequivocally showing that Karabakh did not belong to Azerbaijan, not in de-jure sense, and not in de-facto sense. --TigranTheGreat 00:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Walker does not think that NK did not belong to Azerbaijan. On the contrary, he clearly says that NK "remained Azerbaijani throughout the pre-Soviet and Soviet period". Those are his own words, so if you rely on that source you should rely on all of it, and not only those parts that suit your POV. Grandmaster 09:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"remained Azerbaijani" doesn't necessarily mean "belonged to Azerbaijan"--that's your personal interpretation. Based on the hard facts recounted by Walker, it means "even though the lands remained disputed, even though Armenians rejected Azeri jurisdiction, even though Azerbaijan didn't excercise control over the area, in the end, none of that mattered." Walker clearly says that the lands remained disputed throughout the period, he clearly states that Armenians kept fighing in NK, he clearly states that Azerbaijan didn't have control over the area--he quite clearly refutes your interpretation. If you are relying on a source, you need to take all facts into account, and not just an obscure statement twisted to fit your POV. --TigranTheGreat 21:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is yet another source repeating the basic facts stated in numerous other sources provided here--all indicating that NK did not belong to Azerbaijan prior to 1920, and remained disputed. This is from Atlas of Conflicts by Andrew Andersen. http://www.atlas-of-conflicts.com

For 1918: "Regardless of the Batumi treaty some Armenian troops under general Andranik continued to conduct guerrilla operations against the Turks from the mountain areas of Karabakh-Zanghezur, where another de-facto independent Armenian state had been proclaimed"

"The fragile peace with an unresolved territorial dispute a its background did not last long and the series of Azeri-Armenian wars broke out at the very end of 1918."

"In early March of 1920, regular troops of Azerbaijan attempted to suppress the Armenian-controlled enclaves in Karabakh. That triggered the outbreak of armed clashes all over Karabakh, as well as Naxcivan and Ordubad districts.

http://www.atlas-of-conflicts.com/areas/armenia-and-karabakh/armenia-1919-20.php --TigranTheGreat 02:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Who’s Andrew Andersen and why should we rely on his opinion? The man has a website and expresses his opinion there, but is he a specialist in the history of the region? If so, has he published any books or other works of note on this topic? Grandmaster 20:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is Cornell that we should rely on his opinion of historical events? He is not a historian. Who are the authors of the COE paper, which you have used for historical accounts? We don't know if they are historians. The atlas-of-conflicts.com is a neutral cite, it uses authoritative books extensively, and, as stated on the main page, it is a result of "laborious research using and combining the variety of books and other sources some of which are out of print." It has been used on Wikipedia, including on the Georgian Democ. Republic article. Sounds quite reputable.--TigranTheGreat 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

COE is an authoritative organization, and Cornell is an authoritative scholar, his articles are published in authoritative publications and you can purchase his books in bookstores. Who’s Andersen? What are his credentials? It is not enough to run a website to be considered an authoritative source. Grandmaster 07:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cornell isn't a historian. Nor are the authors of the "Directorate paper" of COE. Yet you rely on them for historical information. The website "atlas-of-conflicts" is based on research of authoritative books which you too can find in bookstores.--TigranTheGreat 21:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

They are reputable sources. Andersen is not. Cornell is a well-known scholar, who published a number of books, and COE is an authoritative international organization. The website owners credentials are uncertain. Grandmaster 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither Cornell nor COE are authoritative when it comes to history. We have used websites much less known than atlas-of-conflicts.com. The site is used on other articles on Wikipedia, and it's based on research on authoritative sources. So, it is reputable.--TigranTheGreat 00:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This website is not authoritative. I can find many such websites and claim that they are authoritative. And the background paper and Cornell are authoritative when it comes to the history of the region, if it was not so, COE would not refer to that document, and Cornell would not be published in many authoritative publications. Grandmaster 05:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is authoritative--it uses reputable sources, and is used elsewhere on Wiki. We have used much less authoritative websites. Just because Cornell is published doesn't mean he is an authority in history. Dr. Phil is published too, doesn't make him a historian.--TigranTheGreat 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine

We're almost there.

  1. (a) The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially placed Nagorno-Karabakh under the control of Armenia, and then it was placed under the control of Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.
  2. (a) The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially transferred ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, and then ownership was transferred to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.
  3. (a) The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially handed Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, and then it was handed to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

Right, there we are. So, how are we going to decide this. As far as I am concerned these all mean exactly the same thing (although 3 is my favourite — even if that means absolutely nothing). I'm not interested in discussing the finer points of what you guys think they mean. I'm interested in knowing how we're going to come to a consensus on this. I re-iterate my coin-flicking-dice-throwing previous suggestion, but welcome others. - FrancisTyers · 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it crystal clear. One of these is going in the article. Then I'm going to archive the talk page, then we're going to start on the next controversial sentence. So, suggestions of how to decide this? I'm still jonesing for the dice thing :) - FrancisTyers · 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment (please do not respond): the trouble with the second version is that it uses "ownership", but one does not normally speak of the ownership of a territory by a state.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's my version:

In 1918, Armenia and Azerbaijan both obtained indepedence, and as a consequence the neighbouring Nagorno-Karabakh region became a subject of territory dispute between the two countries. In 1920, the Bolsheviks obtained control over the region, initially granting political control to Armenia and later transferring control to Azerbaijan. Following the establishment of the Azerbaijan SSR that year, Nagorno-Karabakh became the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast under the Soviet political structure in 1923.

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it, I think it is better than the three propositions above, but I doubt Grandmaster would accept.--Fad (ix) 01:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I liked that too.--Eupator 03:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It ties in all the events of the era nicely and concisely --TigranTheGreat 03:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't helping us choose. - FrancisTyers · 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Tabib, if you want to join the mediation, you have to play by the rules, that means keeping your posts short, and not reverting me when I'm trying to make things easier to follow. If you refuse then you can use the rest of the talk page for your discussions, but not the section where I am leading the mediation. - FrancisTyers · 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, if you want to continue acting as a mediator, you need to stop acting like an arbiter. You moved your posting below mine, which was posted in response. I consider this an attempt to ignore my posting. This doesnt bring you much credit as a neutral mediator. --Tabib 05:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer not to have to act like an arbiter on this, but considering both sides have extremely strong feelings about this one particular sentence, and find it very difficult to compromise there is a certain amount of forcefulness that is required. I'm not suggesting that the whole mediation will be like this (I certainly hope not!) I was attempting to minimise the disruption your posting had on the proceedings. You had clearly not read the rest of the page and were jumping in with two suggestions that obviously wouldn't be accepted by the other side. - FrancisTyers ·
Since you are admittedly not part of the discussion, I don't think you can simply discard Francis like that. He's doing a hell of a job. --Golbez 07:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to calm down, all of us. So, I'm not going to express my feelings about your comment. Nobody discards noone, we're all equal parties to the discussion here. --Tabib 10:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, thank you for cleaning up the Talk page--otherwise noone could make heads and tails as far as the recent proposals were concerned. Hopefully now we can work on them to decide the final version.--TigranTheGreat 07:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So Tigran/Golbez/Tabib (if you want to be involved) how would you suggest we go about getting consensus for one of these versions ? - FrancisTyers · 11:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Ok, Francis, I do believe we are very close, and I thank you for doing a colossal job.

As I stated earlier (and as Golbez, Fadix, and Eupator agreed), #1 is better. "Placed under control" is more fitting than the others, when we are dealing with territory.

Having said that, to make the version as neutral as possible, I believe we should indicate that the region was disputed throughout the 1918-20 period. First, this is factually accurate. The parties submitted the dispute to the allies, and the dispute wasn't resolved when Soviets arrived. This is confirmed by the Sevres treaty of 1920, as well as reputable secondary sources (see User:TigranTheGreat/Karabakh):

Besides being accurate, the addition is also neutral. The two fundamental principles for the passage are 1) not giving preference to either party in the pre-Soviet period 2) do the same for the Soviet period. When we say "Soviets placed NK under control of Armenia," we are kinda saying "it was not recognized as part of Armenia before." In order not to lead the reader to think that Soviets took NK from Azerbaijan (which would give preference to Azerbaijan for pre-Soviet period), we should state that it remained disputed until the Soviets. We can do it by something like this:

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918, and remained so for the next two years. When the Bolsheviks took over the region in 1920, they initially placed Nagorno-Karabakh under the control of Armenia, and then it was placed under the control of Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

--TigranTheGreat 22:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope Francis does not mind, and I pray that I have not misinterpreted things, but I think the request was for no pastes of any kind, for you to cite or what not through your own userspace. To keep things simple and civil, I have snipped your comment. --Golbez 23:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at the three choices again. To simplify things, let us remove all of the sentences that are equal in all three versions:

  1. (a) [the Bolsheviks] initially placed Nagorno-Karabakh under the control of Armenia, and then it was placed under the control of Azerbaijan.
  2. (a) [the Bolsheviks] initially transferred ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, and then ownership was transferred to Azerbaijan.
  3. (a) [the Bolsheviks] initially handed Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, and then it was handed to Azerbaijan.

This single sentence is the problem. a: placed under control of Armenia, then placed under control of Azerbaijan. b: Transferred to Armenia (transferred from who?), transferred to Azerbaijan. c: Handed to Armenia, handed to Azerbaijan. Wow, these mean exactly the same thing, except for the implication of a "from who" in b and c. I personally don't like the wording from an aesthetic point of view, I don't like the repetition. But there's no other way around it. I can now see how c would be different - it implies Armenia had no claim before, when some say it did. Likewise, it implies Azerbaijan had no claim, when some say it did. Christ. Anyway, I would place c at the bottom of the list. As for b, I too dislike the usage of "ownership" and when you transfer something, you're always transferring it FROM a TO b. This does not mention the from (for obvious reasons), so it's lacking. Therefore the best solution seems to be a. --Golbez 23:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I do, however, rather like NicholasTurnbull's version as well, as it removes both the repetition and the path issues. But only when pertaining to that one relevant sentence, not the rest of his suggestion. --Golbez 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you accidentally snipped a non-quote comment of mine:) I restored it, while putting the quote in my userpage.

And I agree that the current versions kinda make it sound like Armenia had no claims over the area when Soviets came over. To cure this, I believe we should clarify that the region remained disputed up until the Soviets, which is what I proposed earlier.

Oh, and I do like Nicholas' version too. --TigranTheGreat 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thats your views on the matter. As far as I am concerned, I think 3a is best, "handed". When we say "handed to", I understand it as handed from the Bolsheviks to Armenia, then to Azerbaijan. e.g. The Bolsheviks had control of the region, they knew it was in dispute, as far as they were concerned it was theirs, first they handed it to Armenia, then to Azerbaijan. It doesn't mean that it belonged to anyone before hand. It just means it was in Bolshevik jurisdiction to dispose of as they saw fit. - FrancisTyers · 00:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It *doesn't* mean, but it *could* mean (that it was taken away from Azerbaijan). While this is not what you might think when writing the passage, it's something that the reader would probably think when reading it. Why not just state what's obvious to you (as Wiki rules always encourage)--state that it remained disputed till Soviets (in either 3a or 1a versions).--TigranTheGreat 03:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I now agree with Francis that 3 is the best option, though I still think a better verb can be found than "handed." Granted? Gave? . --Golbez 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Granted" is indeed linguistically more appealing than "handed." Though I still think "placed under" is more neutral.--TigranTheGreat 00:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for more input from Grandmaster... I'm still happy with "handed" to be honest, although "granted" would be my second choice. We really have to have consensus. - FrancisTyers · 00:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is another source using "granted": http://www.atlas-of-conflicts.com/areas/armenia-and-karabakh/treaty_kars.php (courtesy of User:Clevelander).--TigranTheGreat 02:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet another source talking about how "Caucasian Buro had awarded Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan after it had been granted to Armenia" [42] (thanks to Grandmaster for providing the link). Granted seems to be the preferred word in alot of sources. Just an observation. --TigranTheGreat 09:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the word "allocate"?--MarshallBagramyan 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Francis, I supported the version with the word “transferred” minus the word “ownership”, which sounds quite awkward. Also, if we reject Azeri and Armenian sources for their obvious POV, we are left with third party sources, which can be divided into two groups: a) those who say that NK was given, granted, awarded, etc to Azerbaijan, and b) those who say that NK was left or remained within Azerbaijan. On top of that, we have the text of the original Kavburo resolution, which said that NK was to be left in Azerbaijan. I still don’t understand why we should go with the sources from the group a and ignore the sources of the group b. The neutral wording should be the one that takes no position in the dispute. The accurate one should be true to the wording of the historical document. That’s my opinion. Grandmaster 20:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And group a) is the one that takes no position, while group b) does. It probably is inappropriate to divide the range of terms into two separate groups--there is an entire set of wordings--some increasingly pro-Azeri, some less so, some going in the other direction. On one extreme is "left in Azerbaijan," on the other is "annexed to/ceded to" (both quoted from sources). Both are inherently POV, so the more neutral versions are "placed under control" or "given to" (if used towards both countries). The wording of the "historical document" in question here reflects the POV of its authors, and hence is not neutral. Nor is it accurate, since it contradicts the clear chronology--NK was given to Armenia, hence it had to be given to Azerbaijan later.--TigranTheGreat 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
With respect to the 3 versions, if we are to use the version 3 (as opposed to 1), I think it becomes more important from NPOV standpoint to clarify that the region remained disputed for the full 2 year period. Version 3 uses stronger term ("handed to," as opposed to softer "placed under control"), which makes it likelier for a reader to think that it was taken from Azerbaijan--unless we specify that it was disputed up until the Soviet era.--TigranTheGreat 22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Both groups take position, and while sources of the group a make their own interpretation of Kavburo resolution, the sources of the group b follow the facts strictly. I see no reason why we should follow the sources of the group a and ignore the sources of the group b. We should take no sides in the dispute.
And NK was under Azerbaijani control in pre-Soviet period, even pro-Armenian Walker and the website of the Armenian foreign ministry say so. Grandmaster 07:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

NK was never under Azerbaijani control before Soviets, even pro-Azeri sources like Cornell make it clear by saying how Armenians who rejected Azeri rule denied Azeris such control. And Walker as well as bunch of other sources repeat the same.

"Group b" doesn't state a fact, since the fact is not "Kavburo left NK in Az," but "Kavburo used the word "left" in its resolution" (which is not what group b says). They are essentially saying "Kavburo's wording was telling God's honest truth," which obviously is an interpretation and an incorrect one (since it relies only on one of many sources, and since NK belonged to Armenia before).--TigranTheGreat 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cornell: The British who replaced the Ottomans after their withdrawal reaffirmed Karabakh’s belonging to Azerbaijan, by appointing a Muslim governor in Shusha. This led to protests among the local Armenians, who only reluctantly accepted Azerbaijani jurisdiction in February of 1920.
Walker: Mountainous Karabagh with its large Armenian majority remained Azerbaijani throughout the pre-Soviet and Soviet period
You may interpret this the way you like, I prefer to stick to their original texts.
Group b states a fact, since the Kavburo resolution stated that NK was to be left in Azerbaijan. If they were including NK into Azerbaijan, they would have said “NK is to be included in Az.SSR”. But if you think that the fact is that Kavburo resolution said a certain thing, then why don’t we include that fact into the article?
The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially decided to include Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia, this decision was reversed the next day and a resolution, which stated that "mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR, receiving wide regional autonomy", was passed. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923. Grandmaster 11:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Because there are other wordings contained in other documents and sources, and we would have to include them as well. We take into account all sources and facts, and construct a factual and NPOV wording. The reason Kavburo didn't say "include in Azerb" was that there were several pre-worded suggestions on the table during both Kavburo meetings (July 4 and July 5), and the one containing "remain in Azerbaijan" had been worded by its proponents (i.e. Narimanov and co.), and hence reflected their POV.

Your 2 copy-pastes from Cornell and Walker reflect their POV's and/or interpretations (taken out of context). I prefer to stick to all facts contained in sources instead of a single out-of-context interpretations. Here are a few factual statements by Cornell, Walker, as well as other sources, all showing that Azerbaijan had neither de-facto nor de-jure control over NK:

  • Cornell: Meanwhile guerrilla fighting went on, especially in the mountains, as the Dashnaks never accepted this arrangement [i.e. appointment of Azeri governor]
  • Cornell: the Red army entered Baku in April 1920, as the Azerbaijani army was locked up in Karabakh fighting an Armenian uprising
  • Walker: Throughout January and February Armenia was embroiled in her struggle with Azerbaijan, carrying on a guerrilla war in the disputed and cross-populated areas.
  • Walker: The relentless Soviet Azerbaijani demands for Karabagh and Zangezur were part of the logistical battle to secure a link between Soviet and Kemalist forces.
  • Sevres treaty: The frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Georgia respectively will be determined by direct agreement between the States concerned.
  • Mirfendereski: On January 15, 1920, the entente powers recognized de facto, that it is as a matter of fact, the Azerbaijan republic as an independent country. ... As distinguished from de jure recongition, that is as a matter of law, the de facto nature of the recognition admitted that there was doubt or an unresolved issue.
  • USIP: Nagorno-Karabakh first emerged as a disputed territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both states became independent in 1918. The dispute was not resolved until 1920, when both young nation-states lost their independence to Bolshevik Russia.
  • NESL: From 1918 to 1920 Nagorno Karabagh possessed all necessary attributes of statehood, including an army and legitimate authorities. The League of Nations and the leading world powers recognized the disputed status of Nagorno Karabagh. The League of Nations neither recognized the sovereignty of the Azerbaijan Republic over Karabagh nor accepted the Azerbaijan Republic as its member-state.
  • NESL: [in 1920] the Ninth Karabagh Assembly nullified the treaty in whole and pronounced union with Armenia.

I posted the above since you decided to post direct quotes from your sources. Of course Francis is more than welcome to move quotes by both of us to discussion section.--TigranTheGreat 07:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Both Cornell and Walker make it pretty clear that Karabakh was part of Azerbaijan before the Bolshevik takeover. See my above quotes. Dashnaks might refuse to recognize it, but their recognition was not required anyway. The British did not remove Sultanov from his position as the governor-general of Karabakh. You can find more quotes here: User:Grandmaster/Karabakh Grandmaster 08:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't put words on authors mouth, I know under anonymity you have little concern about that, but it is not nice. I already told you about Walker, and this is not what Walker says.--Fad (ix) 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Walker says no such thing (that "NK was part of Azerbaijan")--he says "remained Azerbaijani," which in the context means something quite different--that in the end, the disputed nature, Azeri lack of control, Armenian protestations didn't matter. Just because British didn't remove doesn't mean they kept endorsing Sultanov--after all, the British were soon gone. And Dashnaks not recognizing Sultanov matters--that means NK wasn't Azeribaijani even de-facto. Actually, the British appointment didn't matter, since they had no legal right to give the land to anyone.--TigranTheGreat 08:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Tigran, "remained Azerbaijani" meant that it did not remain Azerbaijani, very convincing. Grandmaster 12:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said such thing. I said it didn't mean "NK belonged to Azerbaijan all the time" (and Walker makes it *very* clear that indeed that was never the case). "Remained Azerbaijani," in Walker's book, means that it ended up with Azerbaijan despite all the disputes.

Actually you are making yourself less convincing by continuously misquoting me and your own sources.--TigranTheGreat 00:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, 3a takes care of your complaint, as we use the word "handed", which is the same word that was used in the resolution. I seriously can't see any reason why you are still opposing this. - FrancisTyers · 21:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I think you meant "it's the same word used in Stalin's and Orjonikidze's speeches." Which are historical documents as well, and, as we agreed, use the word "handed" (translation of Russian "peredacha"). So, I agree with you, GM shouldn't have a problem with the wording.--TigranTheGreat 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, looks like we can go with 3a, unless there are any serious complaints. We've been discussing this for over two weeks and this is the best candidate we've got. - FrancisTyers · 13:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it then.--Fad (ix) 16:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't support 3a version. I supported the version #2. I don’t think “handed” is an appropriate word here. Territories cannot be handed out the like candies. Grandmaster 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw, two weeks is not much. Articles like Safavids or Azerbaijani people have been disputed for years. Not that I propose to extend this dispute for that long, but so far we have no consensus. Also, I really appreciate efforts of Francis to help find a solution for the dispute. Grandmaster 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, this article has been disputed for much longer :) I'm talking about this single sentence here. I think that in the terms of the Soviet Union, we can certainly use "handed", consider for example Bukhara and Samarkand, would you not say they were "handed" to Uzbekistan? - FrancisTyers · 19:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think we need to move on to other parts of the article--we can't get bogged down on this sentence forever. And though I preferred #1, I am willing to compromise and go for #3 ("handed"). As I said before though, if we use the stronger "handed," we should definitely clarify that the region remained disputed for the full 2 year period. By using a stronger verb, we make it likelier for a reader to think that it was taken from Azerbaijan--unless we specify that it was disputed up until the Soviet era--TigranTheGreat 00:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

New proposal

I think I found a solution which should be acceptable to both sides.

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. When the Bolsheviks took the region over two years later, they initially decided that Nagorno-Karabakh should belong to Armenia, this decision was reversed and it was decided that it should belong to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

This is not exactly accurate, as it contradicts the historical sources, and I still think that we sacrifice the factual accuracy to neutrality, but it is still better than any other wording proposed, as it does not support the sources of either the group a or the group b. For the sake of compromise I’m ready to accept this solution, if other Azeri editors agree to it as well. Grandmaster 06:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Er.. sacrifice factual accuracy for neutrality? Did I read that right? You'd rather have a "neutral" article than an accurate one? (And if you don't have an accurate one, then you can pretty much make up what defines neutral) --Golbez 07:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
NM, I think I misunderstood, you said that by picking one of these compromises, we're sacrificing factual accuracy for neutrality. I don't see how, because, guys, really, face it - There is never, EVER going to be a reconciliation on the history of Nagorno Karabakh before 1923. Period. So stop trying to make it happen. Point out both sides, point out that their statements are diametrically opposed to each other, and MOVE ON. --Golbez 07:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That's what I suggested from the beginning. Just to present all existing veiws within the main text of the article, because it is very hard to fit such a disputed issue into a couple of lines. What do you think of my proposal, btw? Grandmaster 07:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I think its pretty good, we should mention that the ownership of the region was disputed. But then I think we've got a winner. What say the rest of you? - FrancisTyers · 10:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the first line back too. Grandmaster 12:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not happy with this formulation, and I understand and share GM's concerns, but for the sake of compromise, I would also tend to accept it.
I feel the need to reinstate that I think "neutrality" is not always at *equal distances* from both sides and by insisting right from start that formulations applied to transfer of NK to Armenia should be equally used for Azerbaijan was wrong, because the historical evidence clearly demonstrates that the situations were not identical.
The only advantage of the present formulation is that it avoids using all those explosive words like "transfer", "remained", "given" "handed over" etc. and simplifies the historical reality. --Tabib 11:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this. Particularly the "reversed" portion. Francis I thought you said this is not helping us choose? If we are going to entertain new proposals here, in that case I suggest we also include the one proposed by NicholasTurnbull. --Eupator 11:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I stronglu oppose too, Grandmaster still hasn't moved an inch from the beginning. What this phrase is saying is that at first it was decided that it belonged to Armenia, and that later it wa shown to not be accurate as it was decided it was to Azerbaijan. This formulation isen't neutral, the neutral impression is just an artifice. Grandmaster again isen't showing any inclination.--Fad (ix) 15:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Grandmaster has made compromises. Now, would you still oppose if "this decision was reversed and" was removed and replaced with "later"? - FrancisTyers · 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes! I will oppose it too, this is not a concession. He already admitted above on the proposition two acceptance, the text of the proposition could have meant what he claims, which is an acceptance of misleading sentence. Belong is not and can not be neutral, he still target and request a sentence which talk about that land belonging to a group, this time he just found a new way of doing so. When the word belong is used, the last has precedence, I may not be a native English speaker, but I know enough about language structures to know that a strong verb of possession like this one can easily have a hidden intend, which in this cases it has. Also Francis, I decided to respect you and stopped presenting propositions, I didn't know that the period of propositions was still oppened.--Fad (ix) 16:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Which begs the question, are we now scrathcing the 3a's and moving on to new propositions? Free for all? --Eupator 16:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
We have to get consensus on this. We're (very gradually) getting compromises from both sides, and when the discussion is being productive I don't mind carrying it on for a bit. If the discussion stalls then I start to think that we can speed things up. - FrancisTyers · 12:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Why do you oppose the "reversed" portion? Was it not reversed? Grandmaster 11:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Would you be amenable to removing "this decision was reversed and" and replacing with "later"? - FrancisTyers · 12:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It does not make sense, we should explain what happened to the previous decision. Grandmaster 12:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It can make sense. The decision to award it wasn't necessarily reversed, just they made a new decision, which had more priority. - FrancisTyers · 13:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the new proposal as well. One of the principles that was suggested by Francis from the getgo (and also one of the reasons why the current version, i.e. "incorporated," was considered wrong) was that the sentence should reflect that at some point NK was given to Armenia. GM's proposal makes it sound like "Bolsheviks were thinking, in purely theoretical terms, that maybe they should give NK to Armenia, but then decided "oh well, let's leave it with Azerbaijan" "--i.e. this is another way to sneak in the idea of "left in Azerbaijan. Hence, this is not a compromise at all on the part of GM. And I agree that scratching off the result of long mediation and all of a sudden accepting GM's new proposal is not helpful.--TigranTheGreat 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Seeing as how I sense this is going to slide further and further into the tar pit that it already is, I have a suggestion. Both sides come up with the version that makes the most compromises and present them. After this has been done, I will evaluate them both and come to a decision, taking into accounts both points of view and present this. If both sides agree then fine, if not then I just make the final decision. You are welcome to put in italics sections that you will not budge on.

Grandmaster, you have to understand that we don't have forever and I find your current practice of ignoring the debate and then jumping in at the last moment with a new version extremely unhelpful. - FrancisTyers · 16:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not happy with any of the 3 options, only the one with the word “transferred” was acceptable, minus the word “ownership”. I think I made my position pretty clear from the very beginning. My new proposal was an attempt to find a solution, acceptable to both sides. It was rejected just because it was proposed by me. So I don’t understand why you think it is unhelpful. You yourself said that it was good. Grandmaster 06:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with proposition 3. My problem would be with strong posession words like belong, no matter for which side it is used. It is best that we do not use words sending us some subliminal message of inherited ownership. Also, we have discussed enought, I trust your judgement it is time to impose, and in few days I'll be away until late August or beginning of September so I will not take part in the discussions.--Fad (ix) 17:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am OK with prop. 3 with the necessary modification. It reflects significat compromises:

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918, and remained disputed for the next two years. When the Bolsheviks took over the region in 1920, they initially handed Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, and then it was handed to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923. --TigranTheGreat 22:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Francis, I think the intro should be based on a compromise, otherwise it will be a constant cause for edit wars. Therefore I suggest we keep on discussing the issue until we find a solution. If solution cannot be found, then we should remove that line from the intro completely. I know by experience that it helped solving many disputes. Some disputes are impossible to fit into a couple of lines, and it is better to provide a detailed description of the dispute than try to reconcile irreconcilable views. I agree with Golbez on that. And I contribute to the discussion when I have something to say, but I see no reason in repeating the same thing endlessly. I don’t understand what is wrong with my proposal, I think it is much better than anything proposed so far. It does not take any sides in the dispute. I understand that the opposite side wants the intro to say in some form that NK was given to Azerbaijan, but it is inaccurate statement and I will not agree to any wording saying that NK was granted, given, incorporated etc to Azerbaijan, as it contradicts the historical evidence and many sources, including Armenian and pro-Armenian ones. I’m inclined to think that the best solution would be removal of the disputed line from the intro. Grandmaster 05:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You can not request something from others which you have shown incapable of. You still admit here but this time explicitly wanting the sentence to subliminaly say what you think fits as being 'accurate.' That you still think that the word incorporated is not accurate neither neutral when it does exclude the need of a possessive word should be [and have been] a mark of refusal to make any inch of concession. Words like granting, handing etc., fits regardless of what you think since they exclude the need of passing a message of position like to whom it 'belonged.' It is about time that you recognize your share of responsabiliy on the current situation.--Fad (ix) 05:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It is about the time you stop taking things to a personal level. You've been repeatedly blocked for that. If we say that Soviets decided that NK should belong to one side, but later changed their position and decided it should belong to the other side, it is perfectly neutral and does not suggest to whom it belonged or did not belong before. Words "granted", "incorporated", etc take a position, shared only by some of the sources (group a), and contradict the primary sources, as well as sources of the group b. So use of any of such words is not acceptable. Grandmaster 05:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Repeatdly blocked for that? 2 times, and both because the supposed victim was you and for offense which you were as guilty of but that I refused to play the report card unlike you. How does granted take position? Belong is a possessive word which would undo the legitimity of its prior uses and only the last becomes effective. It simply suggest a prior decision was a mistake, and such a suggestion is POV. We should not fool ourself, you already admited wanting the article incorporate such a statment on ownership, and your arguments of acceptance of proposition 2 speaks for themselves.--Fad (ix) 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
How does it suggest that previous decision was not legitimate? It just says that Soviets annulled their previous decision, but does not imply any interpretation of its legitimacy. And I still support the version that says NK was transferred to Armenia, but you oppose it. Grandmaster 05:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Your attempted innocence is almost cute.--Fad (ix) 16:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster's proposal above was a genuine attempt at mutually acceptable compromise. I'm absolutely sure that if this proposal would be made by Francis or anyone else, it would be acceptable to all those opposing users. In such a discussion environment, without good faith we will find no solution. And I must reiterate, any solution should be based on consensus, if there is none, then this will mean that the issue in question will not be put in the intro.--Tabib 06:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In the same sentence you refuse to assume good faith(your suppositions on the reason of the refusal) and then criticise the lack of good faith. First, I doubt that proposition was worked by Grandmaster but rather you, you master subtilities not him. We both know why that proposition can not get concensus and it doesn't take a PhD in English language to understand the hidden message in there with the word belong. Armenian editors here have accepted for long to not incorporate a word of possession such as belong, it is now time for you and Grandmaster to do the same.--Fad (ix) 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
...I master what?.. You must be reading too much conspiracy theory stuff...--Tabib 04:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The hidden message can be seen only if you read the line backwards. Try it and see for yourself. I sent a subliminal message to all the readers to support Azerbaijani position on Karabakh issue, but unfortunately you revealed my evil intent. :) Grandmaster 06:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I applaud your sarcasm, it was almot honnest.--Fad (ix) 16:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think every single one of you misses the whole point... The contentious issue for this whole topic lies in Nagorno Karabagh's right of self-determination and their long stuggle to gain it, and every single sentence in the intro should relate this reality as directly as possible! The people who consult Wikipedia don't care at all about the factual debates (I quote Fadix's wisedom in this matter: "It is best that we do not use words sending us some subliminal message of inherited ownership"), they want to understand the reality of the current de facto vs. de jure reality conflict as concretely as possible. Yes, the Bolsheviks initally transfered/handed/whatever NK to Armenia SSR (this was an officially documented fact, therefore no topic of discussion), and yes, it was then handed/transfered/i'm-getting-tired-of-this back to Azerbaijan (again, Fadix said it best) and the NKAO was established within the Azerbaijan SSR (within, without, over, under, doesn't matter). But what is not being said, and what I believe is the most imoprtant part, is that the latter act was done WITH THE OPPOSITION OF THE PEOPLE OF NK, thus creating the contentious issue that we need to highlight... It should certainly be said that NK has been struggling to gain their independance ever since... As for the facts, let the lawyers & politicians establish their own realities... Don't fool yourselves, none of us can even pretend we posses the right to "resolve" this matter, regardless of how knowledgable we believe we are...

For the record, I also completely oppose the solution presented above since it fails to clearly state NK's strong willingness to seperate from Azerbaijan. I must also state that GM's proposal that "it is better to provide a detailed description of the dispute than try to reconcile irreconcilable views." should seriously be considered for this matter. Francis, you must understand that whatever compromise we arrive to in here, it will most probably still create disputes in the future when others will read the article and disagree with the statements. It is not up to us to find a solution, but to present the problem in un unbiased & factual format... HyeProfile 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input, but I would ask that you refrain from commenting here. Judging from the "Hy" in your name and your position I will take you as being an Armenian. This kind of lengthy reply is not helping anyone.
Grandmaster, removing it from the introduction is not an option. The problem being is that you would be happy with this, but the other side won't. If you think by taking an uncompromising stance eventually I will get bored and agree to removing it, this is not the case. The possible eventual outcome of this kind of tactic is a broad ranging article ban for all uncompromising users. The fact that I was happy with your proposal doesn't particularly mean anything, as I've been happy with the proposals of the other side too. The important thing here is consensus. - FrancisTyers · 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Francis, & I would ask you to please refrain from acting like a judge, jury, and executionner... Such rights do not bequeath from your title. I might be Armenian, but that doesn't neccesarily imply that I have a stereotypical narrow POV about this issue... I'm a realist by nature & it is my right to post my opinion about this subject in the interest of moving forward, and you must respect it fully else risk looking the credibility and integrity required to moderate this topic...
As for helping the debate, it seams that Tabib said it best: in order to reach consensus, there must be genuine good faith involved, and a good portion of compromise... You, as moderator, must clearly praise displays of good faith, and therefore act accordingly to require a reciprocal result from the opposing side. Now I say this respectfully, not wanting to sound too harsh in my critisism, but then again I had actually made a huge compromise in my statement which you failed to even notice, so it seams clear to me that you do not mediate for consensus, but for absolution...
As for concensus, we need to see that GM & Tigran both made huge compromises and even presented a very acceptable solution, but it was immediately shot down because of the fact that they're the ones who made the suggestion... If Francis had made such a proposition, it would have been regarded more favourably from the others... This shows the inherent bias involved in this debate. As for their proposition, it shows good faith on GM's & Tigran's part, which hasn't been fully reciprocated(I must give the Azeri side credit for at least overcoming certain wording issue). Instead of requiring the same show of good faith from the other side, it seams that Francis is still advocating additional compromises on our end. Ironically, this reminds me of the actual Minsk Group mediation where Armenia keeps on offering and offering, without getting anything in return... We all must surely see where this will lead to: frustration and refusual to cooperate, and more importantly, a return to an extremist & unwavering POV on both sides...
Realistically speaking, whatever the compromise, there will be many who will read the article and still object, so all of this concensus will be for nothing... You must take that into consideration or this will never end... Mind you, it still does not hide the fact that this matter will NEVER be resolved in this forum, or in this format for that matter. If you understand that consensus is practically impossible without sacrificing the integrity of the article, you will realize that the gap is just too wide to bridge... You will then come to understand that the best way to solve the matter is to state the facts and the contentious issue, and be done with it... I don't belive that eliminating the portion will solve the problem, since the battle will be faught somewhere else, on another battlground...
So I simply ask for unbiased moderation on your part... HyeProfile 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Your reply was unnecessarly harsh. What Francis was trying to say is that this section is the suggestion section regarding that single sentence and the discussion should revolve around this.--Fad (ix) 16:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It was harsh, granted, but it was provoked... As for my position on all of this, I believe that the terms "without consulting the people of NK" should be added after the part which states that "the NKAO was established..." since that is the root of the entire conflict regarding their right for self-determination. However, for the sake of compromise and to show my support for the idea of a consensus, I believe that GM's proposal is adequate since it makes the most comprimises in terms of inherent ownership & doesn't engage in unnecessary POVs. I also support Tigran's proposal, but somewhat less than GM's since "handed" is a very vague term that leaves room for various factual & legal interpretations... HyeProfile 17:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
HyeProfile, from your initial contribution to the discussion, I could sense that you sincerely want to come up with a solution, I appreciate this attitude. However, I must underline one fact, putting something like "without consulting the people of NK" would not be appropriate. You can refer to the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, but in now way to the "people of Nagorno-Karabakh" because the Azeri population clearly supported Nagorno-Karabakh remaining part of Azerbaijan.--Tabib 04:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Tabib, the reality is that neither the Armenians nor the Azeris of NK were consulted, so my statement is absolutely correct... Some Azeris preferred independance as much as some Armenians opposed it!!! Anyhow, the important thing is that a dictatorial decision was imposed upon NK, hence the contentious issue...

My proposal uses "handed" because it was one of the choices that we narrowed down to, and it's one of the 3 versions towards which concensus seems to be leaning. I am trying to follow the guidelines of mediation, instead of jumping in with completely different versions (as GM did), which will only provke further unnecessary arguments.

What we need to realize is that GM's starting point was much farther from a neutral point than the position of my side--he consistently wanted a version that would give preference to the Azeri side (by using "left in" "ganted autonomy in" etc). In such a case, it is natural to expect further compromise from the less neutral side than from the more neutral one. Otherwise, if we just pick the midpoint between two sides (say, -5 and +1, with neutral position being 0), we will end up off from the nutral position (in this example, at -2). We have given up "incorporated" (which really wasn't that bad), the neutral sounding "recognized" and "placed under control," we have been ok with the harsher "handed to." GM's proposals seem to be variations of the same idea of "NK was left in Azerbaijan." First he goes with "let's use left in," then with "granted autonomy in" (which basicaly says the same thing), and finally this "should belongs." The impression of the latter, again, is like saying "bolsheviks were thinking whom to give it to, in the end they just decided to leave wiht Azerbaijan." Of course it completely ignores the basic fact that NK was in fact recognized as part of Armenia on November 30 (and not simply "should be recognized." Hence, the "should belongs" version is neither neutral nor accurate.

Now, we could have started with HyProfile's suggestion in the beginning (i.e. include the opposition of the NK's populuation), but as I said, our starting point was closer to the neutral position than GM's, since we did want to keep the sentence as much in compliance with Wiki policies as possible.--TigranTheGreat 00:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I’ve made compromises on my part. I made a number of suggestions which were all rejected just because they were coming from me. Some people read too much between the lines and try to find hidden messages that don’t exist. They even go as far as constructing conspiracy theories. Obviously, Tigran and Fadix want the article say in some form or shape that NK was given, granted, handed, etc to Azerbaijan, which is something I opposed from the very beginning, as it is a POV wording. I’m not going to change my position with regard to that now. I would like to ask everybody seriously consider my last proposal with the word “belong”. I think it is a real chance to resolve the dispute without taking any sides. If anyone thinks that he can force the other side to accept his position, it is not gonna work. The compromise involves voluntary agreement of both sides, and if one of the sides does not agree, then there’s no compromise. And if compromise is not possible, then the line in question should be removed from the intro and the issue should be dealt with in the main text of the article. Alternatively, we should keep on searching for an acceptable solution. I agree with Francis that we should reach a consensus, but consensus means such a wording that is acceptable to both sides of the dispute, and not just one. As you can see, out of 3 versions proposed by you the parties to the dispute selected different ones. I selected # 2, and Tigran and Fadix went with # 3. That means no compromise has been reached. And I don’t see how my position is uncompromising, while position of Tigran and Fadix is. I’m really surprised with your words. Also please note that it is not just my position, none of the Azeri contributors supported the proposals saying that NK was granted to Azerbaijan by the Soviets. Grandmaster 05:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that # 3 was agreed to everyone else except GM (and this includes Francis and Golbez). I am not sure it's fair to let one person stall the mediation unless it suits his POV.

And about letting "the issue be dealth with in the main text of the article," if GM is unwilling to accept a solution here unless it favors the Azeri side, we are going to have the same problem in the main text of the article.--TigranTheGreat 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


You must all be glad I'm currently listening to Mogwai. I had another thought while I was laying in bed last night. We work out the bits that we agree on first. Grandmaster, I haven't said that you haven't compromised, I know very well you have to a certain extent.

The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918, . When the Bolsheviks took over the region in 1920, they initially to Armenia, and then to Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established in the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.

Am I right In thinking that we are only searching for and  ? - FrancisTyers · 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We are searching for a mutually acceptable solution. If the solution will come in the form of acceptable x and y, I will be glad to agree to it. Grandmaster 13:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, Francis. And everyone here except GM agreed to assign #3 to x. [removing verbose comment - FrancisTyers · 10:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)] --TigranTheGreat 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How about Tabib and Adil? Did they agree to # 3? Did any Azeri editor agree to it? Grandmaster 06:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No. - FrancisTyers · 10:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so now we have agreement on the majority of the words, we just have to find values for and — could you please set up subpages on your userpages XandY or something and put down all the ones you would agree to. - FrancisTyers · 10:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Anything that the Crown desires:) User:TigranTheGreat/XandY--TigranTheGreat 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t understand what the problem is with y? I think the first line is fine for everybody. The region became a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence in 1918. I don’t think anyone can argue with that. So there’s no y. As for x, please see here: User:Grandmaster/XandY. Grandmaster 12:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The y is regarding the request from the other side that we have "and remained disputed" or something similar. - FrancisTyers · 15:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. Which (i.e. y), I might add, is fully sourced.--TigranTheGreat 02:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also fully sourced (even from the Armenian MFA and Walker) that NK was part of Azerbaijan republic before the Soviet occupation. So I don't think we need to add anything to the first line. Grandmaster 04:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you denying that NK was disputed between 1918 and 1920 ? - FrancisTyers · 08:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the first line in its current form pretty much says so. But saying “remained disputed” omits the fact that NK was under the Azerbaijani administration, and it was recognized by the British, who were representing the Allies in the Caucasus. If we are going to expand this line, we need to mention this fact as well. Grandmaster 09:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually propose to say that in 1919 the command of the British forces reaffirmed Khosrov bey Sultanov, appointed by the government of Azerbaijan, as a governor of Karabakh, pending the final decision at Paris Peace Conference. This information is factually accurate, and I can even cite the Armenian sources in support of this information. Grandmaster 09:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is undeniable that NK was disputed in 1918-20, as stated in primary and secondary sources. The first line does not say so--it merely says that it was disputed when both countries became independent (i.e. in 1918). One might think that it later became part of Azerbaijan, and was taken from it to be "handed to" Armenia, which is incorrect. To avoid such interpretation, we should mention that NK was disputed throughout the whole period.

Neither Walker nor the official Armenian MFA site deny this, nor do they ever say "NK was part of Azerbaijan before 1920." In fact, primary source documents (such as Sevres treaty), as well as secondary sources (including Walker) make it absolutely clear that the lands were disputed, that Armenians denied Azeri jurisdiction, that Allies regarded the lands disputed, and that Azeris had not even de-facto control over the area. The British never officially recognized any Azeri ownership (since Azerbaijan wasn't even de-facto recognized at the time)--they merely appointed an Tatar governor as a practical temporary solution. The Azeri side tries to infer legal significance from this, but it's in interpretation. We should not include that level of detail in the intro. We can include it in the main text, along with the facts that 1) the lands remained disputed, and were regarded by Allies as such, 2) Armenians denied Azeri jurisdiction, and 3) Azeris had neither de-jure nor de-facto control over the area.--TigranTheGreat 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the information one can find on the official website of the Armenian Foreign Ministry:
It is as a result of British support of the Azeri-Turkish position on Karabagh, despite the predominant Armenian majority in the area, that this region was included in the independent Republic of Azerbaijan.
And this is what pro-Armenian Walker says:
Mountainous Karabagh with its large Armenian majority remained Azerbaijani throughout the pre-Soviet and Soviet period
I know that Tigran will insist that the sources meant by those words completely the opposite, but everyone can read and judge for himself. So I see no reason to make any additions to the current version of the first line. If any additions are required, we should mention that the region had an Azeri governor before the Soviet takeover. That is important information, which really needs to be included in the intro. Grandmaster 07:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A "governor" that was temporarily appointed by the British, recognized by nobody and without de facto rule, until the final status could be decided in Paris. Whoop dee doo.--Eupator 17:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing to note here is that GM admitted that in fact, NK remained disputed throughout the whole 1918-20 period. In response to Francis' question "Are you denying that NK was disputed between 1918 and 1920 ?" he replied "the first line in its current form pretty much says so"--i.e. GM isn't against the idea, and he isn't against the paragraph to "say so." Well, since the idea is undisputed, there is no reason for the paragraph not to say it explicitly. This resolves the issue right there. All the other talk about the British and what have you is just background noise.

Still, since GM once again decided to repeat the same background noise (in the form of misleading and out of context quotes), I will repeat my earlier response. None of the quotes dispute the fact that the region remained disputed throughout the period. What GM decided to hide (again) is that the first quote is not by the Armenian MFA, but taken from Libaridian's book, which, among other sources, is posted on the MFA site for guidance. The first qoute reflects Libaridian's interpretation, who, by the way, does not have pro-Armenian POV. We rely on facts, not on individual POV interpretations.

The second quote (by Walker), doesn't say "NK was part of Azerbaijan," but "NK remained Azerbaijani"--which is Walker's interpretation of the events, and (in the context of the book) means that NK ended up with Azerbaijan regardless of all the disputes and what have you. I understand GM prefers to pick two out-of-context interpretations and ignore the facts stated by these very authors, which, undeniably, state that the region remained disputed. As to the governor's appointment, it's only one fact, and it should not go into the short introductory paragraph at issue here. If it goes to the main article, we should also include the other facts--that Allies never recognized Azeri ownership of NK, nor Azerbaijan itself.

As to the hard facts supporting the point that NK remained disputed, here are again the multiple sources stating them, including Walker, and pro-Azeri Cornell himself:

  • Cornell: Meanwhile guerrilla fighting went on, especially in the mountains, as the Dashnaks never accepted this arrangement [i.e. appointment of Azeri governor]
  • Cornell: the Red army entered Baku in April 1920, as the Azerbaijani army was locked up in Karabakh fighting an Armenian uprising
  • Walker: Throughout January and February Armenia was embroiled in her struggle with Azerbaijan, carrying on a guerrilla war in the disputed and cross-populated areas.
  • Walker: The relentless Soviet Azerbaijani demands for Karabagh and Zangezur were part of the logistical battle to secure a link between Soviet and Kemalist forces.
  • Sevres treaty: The frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Georgia respectively will be determined by direct agreement between the States concerned.
  • Mirfendereski: On January 15, 1920, the entente powers recognized de facto, that it is as a matter of fact, the Azerbaijan republic as an independent country. ... As distinguished from de jure recongition, that is as a matter of law, the de facto nature of the recognition admitted that there was doubt or an unresolved issue.
  • USIP: Nagorno-Karabakh first emerged as a disputed territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan when both states became independent in 1918. The dispute was not resolved until 1920, when both young nation-states lost their independence to Bolshevik Russia.
  • NESL: From 1918 to 1920 Nagorno Karabagh possessed all necessary attributes of statehood, including an army and legitimate authorities. The League of Nations and the leading world powers recognized the disputed status of Nagorno Karabagh. The League of Nations neither recognized the sovereignty of the Azerbaijan Republic over Karabagh nor accepted the Azerbaijan Republic as its member-state.
  • NESL: [in 1920] the Ninth Karabagh Assembly nullified the treaty in whole and pronounced union with Armenia.

--TigranTheGreat 02:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The first line in its current form is OK. There’s no need to add any POV interpretations. Karabakh became a source of dispute in 1918. Quite balanced and NPOV. As for Walker, he explicitly says that Karabakh remained Azerbaijani throughout the pre-Soviet period. Tigran may provide any personal interpretations he likes, but I suggest to include this line in its present form in the article. If it does not say that NK was part of Azerbaijan before the Soviets took the region over in 1918, then Tigran has nothing to be afraid of. And I think we should definitely add the line about the Azeri governor, it is a verifiable info, even from Armenian sources. since no one denies the fact, it should be mentioned in the intro. I'm not going to spam the talk page, for more sources please see User:Grandmaster/Karabakh. Grandmaster 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Since even GM agreed that the region remained disputed throughout the period, then there should be no problem to mention it--it is factual, and not POV. The present form merely talks about the fact that it was disputed in May 1918, so we should add that it remained disputed, to prevent a POV intepretation that it was taken from Azerbaijan and given to Armenia, especially if we use terms like "handed to/granted to Armenia." Walker's POV interpretation of the events (about NK remaining Azerbaijani) alone should not be the basis of the intro, as this would be inserting a source's POV into the intro, while there are other views of the events. GM may try to insist on a single interpretation that he likes, and he may try to hide the facts as much as he likes, but the pure facts, stated by Walker and others, state clearly that NK remained disputed. We absolutely should not add any details about the 1918-20 period--if we added the Tatar governor, we would have to add the Armenian reaction, the non-recognition of Azerbaijan and its jurisdiction, etc. The intro is supposed to be short, and these facts can be mentioned in the main article. Since GM finally decided to stop spamming the talk page with quotes, I won't respond to the quotes directly. The sources are there on my and Fadix' userpages (User:Fadix/Karabakh and User:TigranTheGreat/Karabakh), and they have been extensively discussed earlier, and they clearly state that NK remained disputed. All the other interpretations (about NK belonging to Azerbaijan) are at least disputed and at most inaccurate, and should belong in the main text of the article.--TigranTheGreat 23:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that it would be good to have in, however we only have so much space, and including it might warrant the inclusion of other verifiable, cogent information. - FrancisTyers · 01:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. Could both sides let me know when they have finished adding values for 'x' and 'y' to their user pages. The sooner the better, but the more values the better too. Note: I'm going to Romania on the 14th and wouldn't it be nice to get this sorted before I leave? - FrancisTyers · 01:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I've finished with "x", and "y" is not required. Of course it would be really nice to finish with this as soon as possible, but there can be no guarantees for that. Grandmaster 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if Bush cared for global warming? (it's freakin hot beyond unbelievable where I am). We can still try.--TigranTheGreat 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it remained disputed is an overall, "cover" fact permeating the period. And it takes no sides. The other factual info--Azeri governor's appointment--is more specific, and calls for facts "of the other side"--rejection of his rule by Armenians etc.--TigranTheGreat 01:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate my position: The first line is OK the way it is. We have plenty of sources, saying that NK was part of Azerbaijan Republic in pre-Soviet times. We have even Armenian and pro-Armenian sources confirming the fact. Therefore we cannot say that it remained disputed, we would be ignoring all those sources. We can only say that Armenia laid claims to this part of Azerbaijani territory. So I suggest leaving the first line alone, it says that NK became a source of dispute in 1918, and that’s fine. I already made a concession by not insisting on inclusion of the fact of appointment of the Azeri governor to Karabakh. It is verifiable info that you can find in any reliable sourse on NK history. But if Tigran wants to expand the line about pre-Soviet history, let’s do it properly and mention the facts and not interpretations. Grandmaster 04:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your position is that NK did in fact remain disputed throughout the region, so it's OK to include it. Saying "it ignores all the other sources" makes no sense, since all the other sources agree that it remained disputed. That is an undisputed fact, and therefore should go in the intro. Saying "it was part of Azerbaijan" (which is only mentioned by one non-Armenian pro-Azeri source (Potier) and another Armenian pro-Azeri source (Libaridian)) is actually disputed--and we can't include disputed interpretation as fact in the intro. I made numerous concessions, including not stating that Azerbaijan's jurisdiction over NK was never recognized by the allies, so we shouldn't include the British appointment either. But if GM wants to include the latter in the main text, we should include all the other facts about how NK wasn't in fact part of Azerbaijan.--TigranTheGreat 08:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My position is accurately stated just above your last posting. As I said, you can find the info about NK being a part of Azerbaijan before Bolshevik takeover on the website of Armenian MFA and Walker's book, among many other sources. We cannot include the statements that contradict the sources from both sides, as well as neutral sources. And of course all verifiable facts should be included in the article. Grandmaster 09:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw, this is info I found on the website, which you claimed was an authoritative source:
The situation in Karabakh was even more complicated due to the fact that local Armenian warlords continued guerilla warfare against the Soviets even after the cease-fire agreement was signed on August 10 1920, by Armenia and the Soviet Republics of Russia and Azerbaijan leaving Karabakh within Soviet Azerbaijan. [43] Take a look at the map as well. Grandmaster 09:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, none of your sources dispute that NK remained disputed. It is your position as well, which is stated in resonse to Francis. So it should go to the intro. Saying "NK was part of Azerbaijan" itself is disputed, so it cannot go to the intro.

As I said, the MFA website never states that NK was part of Azerbaijan. It's only stated by pro-Azeri Potier, and in Libaridian's pro-Azeri (and rather inaccurate, considering his account of NK's ancient history) book. Walker never says it was part of Azerbaijan, in fact he makes it clear that it was never subject to Azerbaijan prior to 1920. Numerous other primary and secondary sources confirm it. The website that you mentioned merely repeats Kavburo's statement--and "leaving" is used in literature interchangably with "included" and "placed under control" The same website, in fact, uses "included" and "incorporated," which I stated earlier. You are making much more out of a single word than there is to it.--TigranTheGreat 09:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is actually a reference to pre-Kavburo period (10 August 1920). As for MFA of Armenia and Walker, everyone can check those sources for himself. So I see no reason whatsoever to add anything to the first line, other than info about the Azeri governor of Karabakh. Grandmaster 10:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The word within doesn't unequivocally mean "part of," otherwise we would use the term in the very first line of the article, which you opposed (if you are now changing your position, we may consider inserting the word). The website is careful to use the word "within" since obviously the region, even after the ceasefire, was neither de-facto nor de-jure part of Azerbaijan. It wasn't de-facto since, as the website clearly states, "local Armenian warlords continued guerilla warfare against the Soviets even after the cease-fire agreement was signed on August 10 1920. And it wasn't de-jure either, since the ceasefire agreement agreed only to temporary *occupation*, and not jurisdiction, of the area by the Bolsheviks (otherwise we could say that the 7 Azeri rayons around NK are de-jure part of NKR). In fact Walker makes this absolutely clear:

On 10 August the two sides (i.e. Armenia and Bolsheviks) 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. (Walker, p. 290).

So, the land did remain disputed, both by Armenia and local Armenians (who by the way never accepted the ceasefire). Yes, I am sure people can read Walker and all the other numerous sources (listed on User:TigranTheGreat/Karabakh) which undeniably state that NK remained disputed. Since this is agreed by all, even by you, we should include it. --TigranTheGreat 03:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It was not agreed by all, including me. And it is strange that you claim that if some political party or a military group did not agree to inclusion of NK into Azerbaijan or waged a guerilla war, then the region was not part of Azerbaijan. It does not follow. IRA and ETA also wage guerilla or terrorist war, but the regions they try to separate still remain parts of their respective countries. So those quotes don’t support your position. Grandmaster 04:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. It means that they were not de-facto under Azeri control. As long as local Armenians didn't recognize Azeri control, it held true. Your example of "IRA and ETA" is irrelevant, as you try to bring in de-jure recognition, which is not what I am talking about.--TigranTheGreat 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So is that a yes you've finished? - FrancisTyers · 10:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Grandmaster 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have finished too. I knew I had missed a few, so I looked through sources and added a few more values.--TigranTheGreat 03:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I found this paragraph on User:TigranTheGreat/Karabakh:

"On January 15, 1920, the entente powers recognized de facto, that it is as a matter of fact, the Azerbaijan republic as an independent country. ... As distinguished from de jure recongition, that is as a matter of law, the de facto nature of the recognition admitted that there was doubt or an unresolved issue." A Diplomatic History of the Caspian Sea,Guive Mirfendereski, Palgrave 2001 p. 101

Apparently, in Tigran’s opinion the above quote is supposed to prove that NK was not under Azerbaijani administration. I checked the above source, and this what the paragraph quoted by Tigran actually states:

The grant of recognition in international law means that the recognizing entity is willing to treat the recognized country as an international person, a state, or treat the recognized government as representing the country in international affairs. As distinguished from de jure recognition, that is as a matter of law, the de facto nature of the recognition admitted that there was doubt or an unresolved issue. In the case of Azerbaijan, the Russian claim to sovereignty over Baku and the rest of the Azerbaijan justified a de facto recognition. At the same time, a de facto recognition of Azerbaijan by the allies was a nuisance for the Bolsheviks and Soviet Russia in their struggle to gain control and legitimacy over the territories and peoples of the former Russian empire.

Guive Mirfendereski. A Diplomatic History of the Caspian Sea: Treaties, Diaries, and Other Stories

As one can see, Tigran’s quote is selective and it is obvious from the context that Azerbaijan received only de-facto recognition because of the Russian claims to Azerbaijan’s territory. It had nothing to do with NK. Grandmaster 09:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Another quote, this time from another extremely biased Armenian source. This one does not make even a slight attempt at objectivity. But as this source has its biases at cross purposes with Azerbaijani ones, it proves an obvious fact:
The Azerbaijani government had managed to overcome the stigma of its Turkish birth to win the sympathy of influential British military and political officials. In the bitter contest over the highlands of the Elisavetpol province (guberniia), it had registered a major victory by establishing provisional jurisdiction over Mountainous Karabagh.
Richard G. Hovannisian. The Republic of Armenia, Vol. III: From London to Sèvres, February-August 1920

The "provisional jurisdiction" was rejected by Armenians, and never implemented in practice. And it's not a fact, it's Hovhannisyan's interpretation. The fact is that the governor was appointed. Whether that "established jurisdiction" or not is a matter of interpretation. As to Azerbaijan's de-facto recognition, I don't see how your additions change anything. The quote doesn't say the Russian claims were the *only* reason of the de-facto recognition. The recognition was made in January 1920, and at the time Russians were far away. So it couldn't be the only reason. The main point is that Azerbaijan wasn't recognized either de-facto or de-jure prior to 1920, and so it could not have a recognized jurisdiction over any area (only claims).--TigranTheGreat 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know if you indeed read the quote, but it actually says that Azerbaijan was recognized de-facto, but not de-jure. All 3 Transcaucasus countries received only de-facto recognition at the time. The reason they were denied de-jure recognition was that Russia claimed the region. Grandmaster 06:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)