Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Proposed revision for the "History" section

Here it is so far. What do you guys think? -- Clevelander 22:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tigran's comments (I)

There is no reason to exclude the verifiable statements about massacres of Armenians--they are sources, we even have primary documents confirming it, and they are phrased neutrally. Namely, the following (from Walker, and Hohler):

At the same time, the Azeris, under encouragement of Turkish forces, launched a massacre on Armenian civilians.

In response to a massacre against Armenians and Greeks, Thomas B. Hohler of the British embassy in Constantinople privately expressed his concern over the situation to colleague George Kidston in London on August 4. "I think things are perhaps a little worse than ever," he wrote. "There seems to be a fine old massacre going on in Nakhichevan."

United States Colonel W.H. Haskell attempted to mediate the land disputes between both countries. Haskell initally persuaded Azerbaijan to recognize Nakhichevan and Zangezur as a neutral zone under American authority, while holding onto Karabakh. However, the violence between the two countries continued to escalate and battles were fought in all areas by mid-November. On November 23, Haskell's deputy, Colonel Rhea managed to to get Armenia and Azerbaijan to sign a pact, agreeing to end hostlities and pursue diplomatic ways to solve their territorial differences. This agreement had little effect, however, and in mid-December, Azeris from Ordubad attacked the nearby town of Lower Akulis (whose population was 80% Armenian). Subsequently, Armenian civilians were massacred, though some managed to escape to the Upper Akulis stronghold. However, this was destroyed too.

Also, in the Sovietization, it is important to mention, after the referendum, that as recently as 1917, Armenians were 40%--again, it's verifiable and sourced:

The Armenian population of the area (which constituted 40% in 1917[20]) decreased considerably by 1926 (down to 15%) [21]) due to forced emigration and persecution

Note that the above information (taken from Walker and others) have been around for a while on the article. Contrary to them, Cornell's quote, which was added recently, is not neutral--saying "Dashnaks chased Muslims out" presupposes a preplanned intent on the part of Dashnaks, which obviously is Cornell's pro-Azeri POV. The info taken from Walker is, on the other hand, factual and not interpretational (and it's verified by primary sources).--TigranTheGreat 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know what I think, I believe that both Walker and Cornell are biased (each in their own way) and I don't think that it would be in accordance with Wikipedia policy to include them. This is why I made sure not to because even if we agreed to keep them both in then we still are not representing a neutral point of view.

I don't see why we should re-include the Menteshashvili reference as still remains questionable (nobody has found the "Russian Journal" piece to confirm if it was a direct reference to the statistics or quoting the British politician). On the other hand, I felt that using a credible source from a book would be more plausable by Wikipedia standards (and Tigran, it's the exact same statistic just from three years earlier).

There was more I wanted to add too (especially regarding Nakhichevan's railway link to Iran and its importance during Soviet times), but I seem to have misplaced the reference to that. -- Clevelander 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleve, every source has a bias--there is no rule that says "exclude biased sources"--we would have to exclude all. The difference is that we include factual info from Walker's book, while GM tried to copy POV phrases from Cornell verbatim--that's what's excluded.

There is nothing questionable about Menteshasvhili--he is a reputable source, and he states a fact. It would be Original Research to try to verify the sources used by him. GM knows this, he in fact has tried to argue on the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic talk page in favor of including questionable data by an author named Karimzadeh, just because "the information comes from reputable source, and it's the end of the story" (check his arguments here: [3]). Obviously, he has no right to change the rules on this page just because they don't suit him here.

And three years makes a big difference in the unstable years of WWI and immediate aftermath. The info should be included to show that, very close to the year of referendum, Armenians were 40%.--TigranTheGreat 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster's comments (I)

My problems with your text:

The government of Armenia did not recognize that new state formation and sent its troops to the breakaway region.

This sounds as if Nakhichevan was part of the Republic of Armenia and tried to break away from it. This is not true, Muslim majority never accepted Armenian claims to the region and resisted attempt of Armenia to occupy the region by force.

Then we'll remove the word "breakaway."

In response to a pogrom directed against Armenians in the area, Thomas B. Hohler of the British embassy

There’s no evidence that there was pogrom directed at Armenians in Nakhichevan. Hohler apparently was referring to mutual violence between Armenians and Azeris. We cannot go with Walker’s interpretation of the letter, as it has an obvious bias and no one else shares his position on this issue.

It's very clear that the pogrom was directed at Armenians (and I'm not using Walker as a back-up source). The reason being because Hohler expresses security concerns over them in the same paragraph where he specfically mentions violence in Nakhichevan. I don't see why you would have a problem with this as the article specfically mentions mutual violence and this would be an example as such. Also, I was careful to use the word pogrom instead of the stronger word massacre. Also, although the violence that Hohler describes was directed against Armenians we don't know who was responsible for it. I also plan to use a quote by British journalist C.E. Bechhofer who, on a travel to Armenia, was sickened and dismayed the mutual violence between Armenians and Azeris.

The document does not make it clear that violence was directed at Armenians. It’s your interpretation of the document. I interpret it as mutual violence. It could be even violence directed at Azeris. He just says that there was a "fine old massacre" in Nakhichevan, without explaining who was massacring whom. So I suggest just to provide a quote from the primary source without any POV interpretations. Grandmaster 13:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

But why else would he express concern over the Armenians specfically (and in the same paragraph)? -- Clevelander 13:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

He was expressing concern over Armenians and Greeks in Turkey, and not Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 15:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove that? -- Clevelander 15:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Prove what? Here's your quote: "I wish I had shewn the same wisdom as regards the repatriation of Greeks and Armenians," he said. "We have quite rightfully turned out a lot of Turks and given the poroperty back to Armenian and Greek owners, but there is no good in doing that unless we are able to gurantee their permanent security."" Now tell me what Greeks and Turks have to do with Nakhichevan? It had neither Greek, no Turkish population. Azeris were refered to as Muslims or Tatars at the time. This line is absolutely irrelevant and should be removed from the article. Grandmaster 05:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll concede to this. We'll claim that Hohler was describing mutual violence in the region. -- Clevelander 11:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, agreed. Grandmaster 11:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As of today, the border disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared resolved. Mountainous Karabakh, Zangezur, and Nakhichevan are considered part of the Soviet Republic of Armenia.

Again, this is wrong translation of Narimanoiv’s telegram. I suggest to remove the quote from the article or provide the accurate translation (available in the book by Potier). We can even ask neutral Russian speakers for assistance, if Tigran keeps on insisting that the above version is accurate translation from Russian.

I have no problem with using the alternative variation of the quote.

As for Kazemzadeh, to whom Tigran refers, he’s a very reputable American scholar, professor of Yale university, advisor of Bill Clinton, and even Walker refers to him to describe March events. Almost every research of the period between 1917 - 1921 refers to him. It is not the same as the quote by Georgian professor, which actually comes from the authorites of "NKR". Grandmaster 10:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with Kazemzadeh. As a matter of fact, I even used his book as a source. -- Clevelander 12:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Firuz Kazemzadeh an Azeri? The name is Iranian but he was born in Moscow?--Eupator 15:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what ethnicity he is, but if he is Azeri then we cannot reference him in the history section. -- Clevelander 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

He sounds more like a Persian to me: http://bahai.haifa.ac.il/kazemzadeh/CV.pdf as Persian (and Russian) history seem to be his main fields of interest. His father also worked at the Iranian embassy in Moscow, so this explains his birth place. I would also need to see proof that he is an Azeri. -- Clevelander 15:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Kazemzadeh is Persian. He's not even Muslim, he's Bahai. Grandmaster 05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleve, Hohler and the other primary sources know pretty well the difference between pogrom and massacre. Since they use massacre, we should do the same. And it's beyond clear that it was Armenians being massacred--the area was under joing Turko-Tatar invasion, and ARmenians were overwhelmed--it's clear they were being massacred. The document says "fine old massacre" not "massacres"--in fact, if it were mutual violence, they wouldn't say "massacre" at all, they would use other terms such as "violence"--massacre by definition is one sided. And once more, we are not historians, Walker is, if his expert historical research concludes Armenians were massacred, it would be against the rules of Original research to exclude it.

As to the Georgian professor, once more GM is trying to suppress the sources he dislikes while keeping sources that fit his POV. Mentesheshvili is a professor, he is published, and his report is fully sourced--he is a reputable source, and we should use him.

I have a problem with not using Croissant--his quote was there before being changed by GM, who again is trying to suppress sources that don't suit him--this has become a pattern.

Finally, Clevelander, Naxichevan was a breakaway region from Armenia. Take a look at the Atlas of Conflict website, which as been used by you and others on Wikipedia (of course GM would attempt to attack this source as well, since it wouldn't fit his POV). Nakhichevan is within the borders of Armenia (look at the map): [4]

From Armenian perspective, the troops of the First Republic had legal right to invade Sharur due to the fact that the «Soviet Socialist Republic of Naxcivan» proclaimed there on July 29 1920 under Soviet-Turkish protection, was officially not a part of Soviet Russia or Soviet Azerbaijan and could thus be considered as a breakaway part of Armenian Republic. [5]

So, Naxhichevan was definitely a breakaway region of Armenia--whether local Muslims disliked Armenian rule or not doesn't matter--in fact, that's the point, since they broke away from Armenia, it was a breakaway region. So, we should keep "breakaway"--TigranTheGreat 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Andersen’s website is not an authoritative source, as I said many times before. Andrew Andersen is not an expert in history, and we cannot refer to him just because he has a website. With regard to massacres part see above, if you want Walker included, so should be Cornell and Alstadt. The primary source, to which Clevelander refers says nothing about Armenians being massacred in Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 05:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Andersen is both authoritative and credible. My Georgian friend, Kober who told me of him and his website presented me with his biography here:

Dr. Andrew Andersen was born in the USSR and grew up in Siberia and Latvia. He received his Master's degree from Moscow State University in 1980 where he later taught. His Master's thesis covered the influence of the World Wars on 20th Century American literature. In 1984 he obtained his Ph.D. from Moscow State University. Andersen's Ph.D. thesis analyzed the evolution and transformation of American public opinion and mass-media coverage regarding the US role in the Vietnam War (1962-75). At the beginning of Perestroyka, Andersen left the USSR and settled in Germany where he coordinated a number of Eastern European seminars, courses and projects organized by Wirtschaftsakatdemie in Kiel (Schleswig-Holstein). In 1994 Andrew Andersen immigrated to Canada. Upon landing in Toronto (Ontario) he worked as a TV reporter and show co-host at Mix-TV Broadcasting Company. In 1996 he moved with his family to British Columbia. Between 1996 and 2003 Andrew Andersen taught various Political Science courses at the University of Victoria. In 2003 he was granted a position of research fellowship with the Centre of Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. Andrew Andersen has written a number of books and articles for national and international professional magazines on ethnic, territorial and ideological conflicts, as well as on other international security-related issues.[6].

Thus, we shall use Andersen as a source but at the same time, I still say we should cut the word "breakaway" in the name of compromise. -- Clevelander 17:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander, the whole article is pounding the idea that Nakhichevan's history has been mainly Azerbaijani. I think including a small fact that it was a breakaway region from Armenia is a tiny step towards balance, but still necessary.--TigranTheGreat 22:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I still see no logic in a statement that since “Soviet Socialist Republic of Naxcivan” was officially not a part of Soviet Russia or Soviet Azerbaijan, from the Armenian perspective it could be considered as a breakaway part of Armenian Republic. How does that make it a breakaway region of Armenia, especially after Nakhichevan was occupied by Bolsheviks and made into Nakhichevan SSR and Armenia had no control over it before that? It could be an Armenian perspective, as this source claims, but it does not make it logical anyway. This is probably a reference to another war of Dashnak Armenia, this time with Soviet army, and again the army of the Armenian republic was defeated. See this Russian source: [7] Grandmaster 06:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The site clearly states that Nakhichevan was recognized as part of Armenia, so clearly Nakhichevan was breakaway. And your logic is irrelevant here--Anderson is much more qualified to make expert analysis of the events, he is a reputable source. It's an important fact, and the article should mention (that Nakhichevan was breakaway region).--TigranTheGreat 02:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Karki dispute

During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, areas in Armenia's southern province of Syunik were reportedly being shelled from Nakhichevan. [17] Armenia responded by invading and occupying Nakhichevan's Karki exclave.

I want the exact quote of the relevant paragraph from your reference. The fact is that the village of Karki was occupied in 1989, when there was no shelling. Armenians were deporting Azeri population from Armenia, and this village was attacked as well. The information is completely wrong. Also, nothing is said about the attack of Armenia to Nakhichevan, which led to an international crisis. It was absolutely unprovoked and is described in detail in Croissant's book. See my quote above. It should be mentioned as well.

I really don't want to get into a dispute over this, but Croissant never explicitly stated that the Armenians (or the Azeris for that matter) started hostilities or why they even attacked in the first place. He just said that the Armenians attacked and that it prompted concern from Turkey. Saying that someone attacked could be also be interpreted as a response to an earlier assault. I just wanted to get that in, so please, let's not dwell on it. Anyway, here's the quote:

Azerbaijani forces of Nakhichevan (cut off from Azerbaijan by a strip of Armenian territory), then began shelling Armenian villages accross the border. This led to an Armenian attack on the enclave city of [Karki in] Sadarak, and so the war widened further. World Today Series - Russia And The Commonwealth Of Independent States by M. Wesley Shoemaker, p. 169.

Why you put Karki in the square brackets? Is it the same way in your original source? Karki is not a city, it’s not even a town, it is a village. Something is wrong with your quote. Could you please cite the whole paragraph verbatim, without any explanations and additions? I’m going to check it anyway. And can you also quote the preceding phrase? Azerbaijani forces of Nakhichevan then began shelling Armenian villages. Why then? Was there something that forced them to do that? And also, the village of Karki was occupied in late 1989. At that time both countries were part of the USSR. They did not have any artillery, only rifles and Kalashnikovs. Looks like it is a reference to a later period, the attack on the town of Sadarak and not to the occupation of that village. Grandmaster 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

...and I don't think that Armenia's invasion and occupation of Karki sparked, as you call it, an "international crisis" (an overexaggeration which makes it sound on par with something like the Cuban Missile Crisis). Turkey was the only country deeply concerned with the move as it implied that the Armenians sought to advance into mainland Nakhichevan and thus threatened them with being cut off from Azerbaijan. In my research, I have reread the Croissant book and he does not specfically say that the attack was unprovoked. Also, it should be noted that the date for the attack was May 1992 (according to Croissant and Shoemaker), not 1989 as mentioned on the article previously.

Invasion of Karki did not spark international crisis, both countries were part of the USSR at that time. But attack of the Armenian forces to Nakhichevan in 1992 sparked an international crisis. It is described in much detail in Croissant’s book, I provided a quote from it. Turkey said that as a guarantor of Nakhichevan’s status it would interfere in the conflict, and Russia said that it will support Armenia, so it was on the brink of the conflict between NATO (of which Turkey is member) and Russia. Armenian forces stopped their attacks and shelling of NAR after Turkish warning and harsh reaction of international community. Grandmaster 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Armenia's 1992 attack on Nakhichevan WAS the invasion of Karki. The Karki invasion is mentioned in the Shoemaker book within the timeframe of 1992 and if Armenia did attack the main territory of Nakhichevan, I'm sure we would've heard something about it. They didn't want to, because Turkey was constantly threatening them. It should also be mentioned that Croissant's reference to the Armenian attack on Nakhichevan was its attack on Karki (he does not mention any seperate 1989 attacks, nor does any other source). -- Clevelander 13:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not. Karki was occupied in 1989, in Soviet times. In 1992 Armenians attacked the town of Sadarak on the border with Turkey. It led to the international crisis. Croissant does not mention Karki in his book. Does your source mention Karki or you added it yourself in the square brackets? Grandmaster 13:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are your sources that say it was occupied in 1989? And are they reliable? -- Clevelander 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a common knowledge in Azerbaijan. I remember reports in Azeri media back at the time, and it was in late 1989. I saw the villagers on TV, they said that Soviet soldiers that were protecting the village left and they had to flee from the attacks of Armenian paramilitary forces. Grandmaster 13:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but "common knowledge" doesn't cut it. Do you have a neutral, preferably non-Azeri source to back-up your claim? -- Clevelander 13:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Azeri sources don't even say 1989, they say 1990: http://www.azerigenocide.org/hist/hist13b.htm

Furthermore these same sources mention no other attacks on Nakhichevan (and again we would've heard about it). -- Clevelander 13:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got Azerbaijani official source: [8] According to it, it was occupied on January 13, 1990, in Soviet times. Could you please answer my question? Grandmaster 13:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Still, that's an Azeri source. Show me something non-Azeri and I'll answer you. -- Clevelander 13:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait, nevermind, I already found a neutral source that backs up my claim: http://www.geocities.com/fanthom_2000/hrw-azerbaijan/hrw-contents/hrw-azerbaijan2.html

Here's what it says:

Human Right Watch/Helsinki, "Indiscriminate Bombing", p. 7.

In May/June 1992 there was intensive fighting near Sadarak, in northern Nakhichevan. Armenian forces seized the small Azeri enclave of Kyarki, just north of Nakhichevan. The area is part of Azerbaijan but lies inside Armenia.

Need I prove my point any further? -- Clevelander 13:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Still this does not support your claim that Azerbaijani forces began shelling of Armenian villages and Armenia in response occupied the village of Karki.

I gave you a quote from my earlier source of World Today Series - Russia And The Commonwealth Of Independent States:

Azerbaijani forces of Nakhichevan (cut off from Azerbaijan by a strip of Armenian territory), then began shelling Armenian villages accross the border.

So you see, Azeri forces were indeed shelling Armenian targets from Nakhichevan. -- Clevelander 15:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please quote the preceding line? Grandmaster 05:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Azerbaijan was going through a great deal of domestic political turmoil at this point, at least partly because of its military defeats. Before this the opening of the Lachin corridor is mentioned, so if you wanted to, I guess we could say that the shelling was in response to that. Or, given Marshall's sources, we could compromise and say that "Armenians claimed that areas were being shelled from Nakhichevan." -- Clevelander 11:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Croissant says that Armenian forces attacked Nakhichevan, and HRW says that there was a fighting and the village was seized. So those 2 lines should be removed anyway. I suggest we go with HRW version, as it is the most neutral and does not make any claims with regard to who started the fighting. Still I’m sure that HRW version is not accurate either, as I very well remember that the village was occupied before Black January. I will look for more sources, but for the moment let’s go with HRW version, as it is the most reliable source so far. Grandmaster 15:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll think about it. -- Clevelander 15:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You still did not answer my question. Does your source mention that particular village? Grandmaster 13:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, Karki was not specifically mentioned in World Today Series - Russia And The Commonwealth Of Independent States. I placed the name "Karki" in brackets as that is what the author, Mr. Shoemaker, was referring too. By mentioning the word "enclave" he is certainly not referring to the city or the main region of Sadarak - both of which are geographically connected to the rest of Nakhichevan. To call Sadarak an enclave of Armenia makes no sense for this exact reason. However, to call Karki, which is offically part of the Sadarak rayon an enclave of Armenia would be much more accurate. -- Clevelander 13:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's your guess, and Karki was not specifically mentioned. Moreover, he was refering to a city, i.e. Sadarak, while Karki is a village. Grandmaster 15:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not my guess, it's fact and last time I checked Sadarak was geographically part of Nakhichevan and in no way an enclave of Armenia. -- Clevelander 15:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So I was going through the media databases and even I was unaware of the Nakhichevan military operations (I guess Lachin and Shusha took over the headlines back then. Anywho, here are some stuff I found from the newspapers from that time:

"The Armenians say they took the heights around Sadarak because for more than a year the Azeris were using those same hills to blast away at Armenian villages.

The mayor of the region, a 42-year-old physicist named David Zadoyan, said that the Armenians lost patience after months of firing by the Azeris. "If they were sitting on our hilltops and harassing us with gunfire, what do you think our response should be?" he asked." From: Armenian siege of Azeri town threatens Turkey, Russia, Iran. The Baltimore Sun. June 3, 1992

"A foreign ministry statement also confirmed Armenian forces had captured hills overlooking Sadarak in Nakhichevan. The statement denied any Armenians had crossed the border into Nakhichevan, although they were shelling Sadarak and other villages to silence Azeri guns." From: Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: May 20, 1992

This is so far I can find, I have to look further.--MarshallBagramyan 19:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

HRW and Marshall's sources (Toronto Star etc) say that Armenians took over Karki in 1992, and Shoemaker clearly says that it was in response to Azeri attacks on Armenian villages. So, we should use them all. Again, while GM is trying to suppress Shoemaker as a source, we do not discriminate against sources just because we don't like them. And Clevelander, we shouldn't use the word "reportedly" in the sentence "areas in Armenia's southern province of Syunik were reportedly being shelled from Nakhichevan"--as Shoemaker clearly states it as fact that they were in fact being shelled. We can't use doutbful language for the Azeri attack and a doubtless language for the Armenian attack--that's POV. I am sure if a source stated that Armenians attacked Azeri villages, GM would use that verbatim instead of putting "reportedly" or "allegedly". --TigranTheGreat 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Croissant says that Armenians attacked NAR, and does not mention any shelling of Armenia. Marshall's sources both refer to the Armenian side and don't say that the area was indeed used for shelling of Nakhichevan. And Karki is not mentioned in any of those sources. Grandmaster 04:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

An Armenian source says that Karki was occupied in 1990:

Tigranashen, until 1990 the Azerbaijani enclave of Kyarki, is now inhabited by a mixture of local Armenians and refugees from Azerbaijan. [9]

And here’s info about native Karki inhabitants: [10] Grandmaster 05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

More from HRW about May 1992 figting in Nakhichevan. HRW says Armenians attacked Nakhichevan:

Nakhichevan

After four years of heavy fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh, the civil war has now also spilled into Nakhichevan, an Azerbaijani enclave to the south which is isolated from the rest of Azerbaijan by Armenia to the north, and Turkey and Iran to the south. The hostilities broke out around May 4 when three people were killed in the first Armenian attack on Nakhichevan, and have escalated subsequently. The heaviest fighting there took place on May 18 when it is reported that Armenian forces captured the hills surrounding the town of Sadarak using rockets and shells, allegedly leaving as many as twenty Azerbaijanis dead and 120 injured. Armenian authorities have denied any official Armenian involvement, maintaining that the Armenian advances are being perpetrated by irregulars.

The President of the Nakhichevan Majlis (parliament), Geidar Aliyev, declared a unilateral ceasefire on May 23 and now apparently is seeking to conclude a separate peace with Armenia, although the legality of these efforts has been contested. Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian has expressed his willingness to sign a cooperation treaty with the Republic of Nakhichevan to end the fighting.

The reaction to the crisis among regional powers has been mixed. In the face of the cease-fire, Turkey, which frequently has expressed its strong support for Azerbaijan in the conflict, opened a new border into Nakhichevan on May 28 - to date the only operative one - through which to bring in supplies and reinforcements, and has promised the region $100 million in credits.

Turkey justifies its avuncular interests in Nakhichevan by pointing to the 1921 Treaty of the Kars that grants Turkey special legal responsibilities over the enclave. Iran has also become involved, sending observers on May 21 to monitor the extensive border it shares with the volatile region. Neighboring Georgia, too, has proposed calming measures, including establishing a Caucasian regional consultative council to try to broker a settlement. [11]

Another one:

A buildup of Turkish troops in early September along the Turkish border with Armenia raised fears that the conflict might widen. Prime Minister Tansu Ciller added to these fears when she announced in September that any Armenian advance on Nakhichevan would trigger a declaration of war against Armenia. [12] Grandmaster 05:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Karki resolution and compromise

We can say: while Armenians claimed that their territory was being shelled from Nakhichevan, according to HRW the hostilities broke out around May 4 when three people were killed in the first Armenian attack on Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 11:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this?: During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenian sources claimed that villages in Armenia were being shelled from the Sadarak rayon in Nakhichevan. Armenian forces then attacked the area on May 4, after which three people were killed. David Zadoyan, the mayor of the region, said that the Armenians lost patience after months of firing by the Azeris. "If they were sitting on our hilltops and harassing us with gunfire, what do you think our response should be?" he asked. The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians had captured the Nakhichevan exclave of Karki, which presently remains under Armenian control. Hostilities in the area concluded when Azeri President Heydar Aliyev declared a unilateral ceasefire on May 23 and sought to conclude a separate peace with Armenia. In the end, Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian signed a cooperation treaty with the Republic of Nakhichevan to end the fighting.

Sound good? -- Clevelander 12:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, we should make it clear that according to HRW hostilities started after Armenians attacked Nakhichevan and killed 3 people. Grandmaster 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph clearly states that Armenian attacks did indeed result in three deaths and when it goes on the page HRW will be referenced by the statement. Still, for the sake of compromise, I've altered it so the word "killed" is in there instead of just "deaths." -- Clevelander 12:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This line should be included exactly the way it is: According to HRW the hostilities broke out around May 4 when three people were killed in the first Armenian attack on Nakhichevan. We cannot change the sources to suit POVs. Nice try at presenting the situation in favorable for the Armenian side light, though. Grandmaster 12:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, please, I'm not trying to show it from the Armenian side. I can assure you, it will be referenced, right by the statement. To say that "Armenian forces then attacked the area on May 4, after which three people were killed" is not a POV statement in the least. It's a fact.

Look, I know how you feel after this whole thing, but resolving the dispute over Karki allows us to resolve the most controversial aspect of the history section. Please accept this in the name of compromise and know that I'm not trying to push the Armenian point of view (I'll even include further information about Azeri casualties on the May 18 attacks). Let's just end this. -- Clevelander 12:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how's this?:

During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenian sources claimed that villages in Armenia were being shelled from the Sadarak rayon in Nakhichevan. Armenian forces then attacked the area on May 4. According to the Human Rights Watch, three people were killed during the attack. David Zadoyan, the mayor of the region, said that the Armenians lost patience after months of firing by the Azeris. "If they were sitting on our hilltops and harassing us with gunfire, what do you think our response should be?" he asked. The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians had captured the Nakhichevan exclave of Karki, which presently remains under Armenian control. Hostilities in the area concluded when Azeri President Heydar Aliyev declared a unilateral ceasefire on May 23 and sought to conclude a separate peace with Armenia. In the end, Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian signed a cooperation treaty with the Republic of Nakhichevan to end the fighting. -- Clevelander 13:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not acceptable. It sounds as if there is some credibility to Armenian claims of Azeri attacks. If you want to cite the sources, cite them the way they are. Both HRW and Croissant explicitly state that it was the Armenian side that started the attack. So that what the article should say, that according to those sources such and such thing happened. It should say that according to HRW the hostilities started after the Armenian attack. Btw, there's no need to dedicate so much space to this, it's better to describe international controversy in more detail. Grandmaster 13:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following wording:

During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenian sources claimed that villages in Armenia were being shelled from the Sadarak rayon in Nakhichevan. However according to HRW the hostilities broke out when three people were killed in the first Armenian attack on Nakhichevan. The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians had captured the Nakhichevan exclave of Karki, which presently remains under Armenian control. Hostilities in the area concluded when the sides agreed on ceasefire.

I made it shorter and removed the words of the Armenian mayor, because Azeri position is not presented. Grandmaster 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a few tweaks to it. Tell me what you think:

During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenian forces attacked the Sadarak region of Nakhichevan by shelling on May 4, claiming that villages in Armenia were being shelled from Nakhichevan. According to the Human Rights Watch, three people were killed in the attack. The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians captured the Nakhichevan exclave of Karki, which presently remains under Armenian control. Hostilities in the area concluded when the sides agreed on ceasefire.

This should be an acceptable compromise. -- Clevelander 13:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I contacted FrancisTyers to help us find a solution. -- Clevelander 16:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ouf, Nakhichevan again. I'll have to say that I don't think I'm up to mediating this. I'm already dealing with Nagorno-Karabakh which is taking up a lot of my thought. I can recommend that you contact one of the other avenues for dispute resolution, i.e. MEDCAB or MEDCOM, although I'm not sure how backlogged they are at the moment. Another option would be to file an RfC, I would be happy to comment there. - FrancisTyers · 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenian forces attacked the Sadarak rayon of Nakhichevan by shelling on May 4. According to Armenian sources, villages in Armenia were being shelled from the Sadarak area. According to Human Rights Watch, the hostilities broke out when three people were killed in the first Armenian attack on Nakhichevan. The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians had captured the Nakhichevan exclave of Karki, which presently remains under Armenian control. Hostilities in the area concluded when the sides agreed on ceasefire.

Suggestion without any understanding of the situation. - FrancisTyers · 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not too bad though I would change this statement "According to Human Rights Watch, the hostilities broke out when three people were killed in the first Armenian attack on Nakhichevan" to "Human Rights Watch cited that hostilities escalated when three people were killed when Armenians began shelling the region." What do you think? -- Clevelander 17:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We should use the words of Human Rights Watch. - FrancisTyers · 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but I still say that "when three people were killed in the first Armenian attack on Nakhichevan" should be changed to "when three people were killed when Armenians began shelling the region." It's basically the same thing and it makes the situation more clear to the reader. -- Clevelander 17:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with either wording. Or we could combine them, "...were killed when Armenian forces attacked for the first time, shelling the region..." - FrancisTyers · 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've revised it like this:

During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenian forces attacked the Sadarak rayon of Nakhichevan by shelling on May 4. According to Armenian sources, villages in Armenia were being shelled from Sadarak. Human Rights Watch cited that hostilities broke out when three people were killed when Armenian forces began shelling the region. The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians had captured the Nakhichevan exclave of Karki, which presently remains under Armenian control. Hostilities in the area concluded when Heydar Aliyev (at the time President of the Nakhichevan Majlis (parliament)) declared a unilateral ceasefire on May 23 and sought to conclude a separate peace with Armenia. In the end, Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian signed a cooperation treaty with the Nakhichevan authorities to end the fighting.

How's that? -- Clevelander 17:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the other stuff, we'll have to see what GM thinks. - FrancisTyers · 18:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not too bad, but it misses one important element: Azerbaijani position. If we present the reason the Armenian side gave for the attack, we need to present the view of the opposite side as well. Here’s info from the US government, which condemned attack on Nakhichevan and said that it would not accept any unilateral changes in the status of Nakhichevan on the basis of military actions or violence. It also presents positions of both sides. [13] I suggest the following wording:

During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenian forces attacked the Sadarak rayon of Nakhichevan by shelling on May 4. According to Armenian sources, the reason for the attack was shelling of the villages in Armenia from Sadarak. Azerbaijani side denied these charges. Human Rights Watch cited that hostilities broke out after three people were killed when Armenian forces began shelling the region. The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians had captured the Nakhichevan's exclave of Karki, which presently remains under Armenian control. The conflict caused harsh reaction of Turkey, which together with Russia is a guarantor of Nakhichevan’s status in accordance with Kars treaty. Turkish Prime Minister Tansu Chiller announced that any Armenian advance on Nakhichevan would result in a declaration of war against Armenia. Russian military leaders declared that “third party intervention into the dispute could trigger a Third World War”. Hostilities in the area concluded when parties agreed on ceasefire.

I don’t know the source for the cooperation treaty being signed, so I excluded that part. I’m also not sure if separate peace was indeed concluded, HRW just says that NAR leadership was trying to achieve it at the time. Grandmaster 19:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include the bit from "...The conflict caused harsh reaction of Turkey, which together with Russia is a guarantor of Nakhichevan’s status in accordance with Kars treaty. Turkish Prime Minister Tansu Chiller announced that any Armenian advance on Nakhichevan would result in a declaration of war against Armenia. Russian military leaders declared that “third party intervention into the dispute could trigger a Third World War”. Hostilities in the area concluded when parties agreed on ceasefire" ? Otherwise its ok it seems. - FrancisTyers · 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that Turkey's reaction should be mentioned but included after the cease-fire line. The cease-fire statement itself should be revised as "Hostilities in the area concluded when Nakhichevan and Armenia agreed on a ceasefire." It makes it sound a bit more exact. -- Clevelander 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Azeris shelled Armenian positions is not just the Armenian position, it's also stated in Shoemaker's work as fact. Azerbaijani forces of Nakhichevan (cut off from Azerbaijan by a strip of Armenian territory), then began shelling Armenian villages accross the border. This led to an Armenian attack on the enclave city of [Karki in] Sadarak, and so the war widened further. World Today Series - Russia And The Commonwealth Of Independent States by M. Wesley Shoemaker, p. 169. If we state the Armenian attack as fact, we should state this as well. Croissant never says that Armenians started the hostilities. HRW is not clear that the everything started per se with the Armenian attack--"the hostilities broke out" could refer to the on-foot attack, not the shelling--remember, throughout the whole period prior to that, shellings were going on all the time, this clearly wasn't a first time thing. HRW may be omitting the shelling of Armenian villages, but given the complexity of the history, no single source is going to include every single event. Also, under wiki rules, every source has a hidden POV, and HRW is not exception. Being a pro-victim organization, and Azerbaijan in this case being perceived as the victim, the HRW report does have bias (in fact when I read HRW's Ms. Holly's response to Armenian foreign ministry, it was reeking with pure contempt).

In sum, we have sources stating that Armenian positions were shelled, and we should state so. I don't think we should include HRW's wordings verbatim, since it's not clear that they meant *the whole fight* started with Armenians (as opposed to on-foot attack), and their wordings could reflect bias. We should go with the following wording:

During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenian forces attacked the Sadarak rayon of Nakhichevan by shelling on May 4, following shelling of villages in Armenia from Sadarak. According to Human Rights Watch, three people were killed during the hostilities. The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians had captured the Nakhichevan exclave of Karki, which presently remains under Armenian control. Hostilities in the area concluded when Heydar Aliyev (at the time President of the Nakhichevan Majlis (parliament)) declared a unilateral ceasefire on May 23 and sought to conclude a separate peace with Armenia. In the end, Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian signed a cooperation treaty with the Nakhichevan authorities to end the fighting.--TigranTheGreat 22:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither HRW, nor Croissant say that Azerbaijani forces did shell Armenian villages. So you cannot present it as a fact. On the other hand, the Armenian attack on Nakhichevan is admitted by everyone, including the Armenian side and Shoemaker. So the attack is a fact, shelling of Armenia from NAR is allegation. Plus, Shoemaker’s report is very dubious anyway. This led to an Armenian attack on the enclave city of Sadarak, and so the war widened further. Enclave city? What is it? Karki is a small village and not even a town, let alone city. If it is a reference to Sadarak, it is a town in Nakhichevan, which is rather exclave than enclave. This person obviously is not familiar with the region good enough to be a source of reliable information. So we should present position of the sides to the conflict and HRW version. Also, I think it is important to mention the international reaction, as Armenia stopped attacks and shelling of Nakhichevan only after Turkey threatened to declare a war on Armenia and there was a real threat of the conflict between NATO and Russia. Grandmaster 05:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither HRW nor Croissant say that Aliev has a brain--doesn't mean we should assume that he didn't. Just because they omitted an info, doesn't mean it's unsourced--it is in fact very much sourced. You may call Shoemaker dubious all you like, but he is a reputable source, and he clearly states it as fact. Definitions of exclaves and enclaves can often be confused, that alone doesn't make a report dubious.--TigranTheGreat 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch debate

That's a gross lie. Turkey's plan of invasion was revealed by Greek spies and realayed to Russia and Armenia by Greek ambassadors, as soon as Russia threatened Turkey they immediately backed down. In Addition, if we are to use one source that backs the Azeri verison of events we will use another one for the Armenian version. It's not up to you to decide which source is more credible. HRW is a very controversial organization and their statements are not any more credible than any other source. See the Wiki article: Human Rights Watch--Eupator 05:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How could Greek spies reveal something openly declared by Turkey? Also, versions of both sides should be presented, but while Armenian attack on Nakhichevan is something that no one denies, including the Armenian side, the reason they gave for it is disputed and cannot be presented as fact. As for HRW, it is known for its uncompromising approach to human rights violations, and no suprise it has its detractors. But it does not make them unreliable source, as their reputation is very solid. Grandmaster 05:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Idle threats and confirmation of actual plans are far from eachother. I found something even more interesting about the Chechen Khasbulatov's role in it: [14]. The reason given is disputed by you, and we don't care. What you call uncompromising, others may see as unfactual and hysterical. Rememebr the Jenin mssacre? Their reputation is as solid as PETA's reputation.--Eupator 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's absurd and you know it. - FrancisTyers · 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire, half of the article about HRW right here on wiki is dedicated to controversies surrounding their findings.--Eupator 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Its controversial about Israel because some Israelis don't like being told that what they're doing is wrong. And besides, most of that is about quantity not quality. They are upset that they think that HRW covers Israel more than the rest of the Arabs. Read the criticism and then come back with relevant comments. - FrancisTyers · 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's more than enough to question their objectivity in a very similar matter. As far as I know, no controversy surrounds the work of Prof. Wesley Shoemaker, so I don't see why I have to take HRW's ambiguous statement (interpreted quite differently by Grandmaster) as a solid fact while ignoring a clear cut and detailed version by Shoemaker.--Eupator 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You're comparing Israel's actions in Palestine with the actions of Armenia in Azerbaijan? Well thats a new one. I wasn't arguing against Shoey, I was arguing against your absurd attempt to paint "HRW" as a "controversial" organisation in terms of this situation. - FrancisTyers · 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nakhichevan shells Armenia, Armenia retaliates against Nakhichevan. So yes. What does it mean in terms of this situation? Is the organization considered controversial or not? It certainly is. In addition, most of the arguments made by Israel against HRW can almost verbatim be made by Armenia.[15], even Indians consider HRW unprofessional. --Eupator 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I understand that as someone having strong feelings about human rights, you feel strong about HRW. However they are an organization with an agenda, and no organization is without bias, and HRW is not exception. They are pro-victim, and in their report they portray Azerbaijan largely as the victim, which unwittingly makes their report slanted in favor of the Azeri side. I am not saying it's unreliable, but it's not neutral either, and it should not be taken as the ultimate authority on facts. They got someone there by the name of Holly Cartner, and I read her response letter to Armenian MFA, and my impression was either she was stupid, or she was pretending to be stupid. She totally misquoted and distorted the Armenian letter, completely misunderstood and/or misrepresented the MFA's prior letter. If something is lead by people like that, I take their reports with grain of salt.

Now, back to the issue of Karki. It is not just Armenian claim that Azeris shelled Armenia. It is clealry stated by Shoemaker, and it has to be stated in the paragraph not as an Armenian claim. Furthermore, HRW's sentence is too elastic and open to interpretation--we don't know what *level* of hostilities started with the Armenian attack, we know that some hostilities were *always* going on, and we can't interpret the sentence to mean that Azeris didn't shell Armenian villages. And just because Croissant doesn't include that event, doesn't mean it didn't happen--no single source to my knowledge has recounted every single event in the conflict. --TigranTheGreat 02:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Say what you will about HRW, it's still an authoritative source. Moreover, HRW are different from office researchers in that they actually travel to the places they report about. So in general they are a more reliable source. And also, how the following line is open for interpretations: "The hostilities broke out around May 4 when three people were killed in the first Armenian attack on Nakhichevan, and have escalated subsequently". If it is indeed so, let's include it in the article and let the reader be the judge. Grandmaster 11:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Say what you will about HRW, it has an agenda and is necessarily biased. Travelling to places doesn't ensure accuracy--you may still not get the whole story. The line is ambiguous because it doesn't make it clear what level of hostilities broke out. Ambiguous statements should be kept out of Wikipedia in order not to confuse readers--we should only include facts.--TigranTheGreat 00:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Revised revised version of the Nakhichevan history section

How does this look now? -- Clevelander 15:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tigran's comments (II)

The Karki segment is unacceptable--it relegates the shelling of Armenian villages to mere Armenian position, even though it's clearly stated in Shoemaker's book. The HRW didn't cite anything, it said that "hostilities broke out ..." And since the statement is open to interpretation, we should omit the 'hostilities' part and include the factual info--i.e. the death of three people.

We should go with the following version:

During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenian forces attacked the Sadarak rayon of Nakhichevan by shelling on May 4, following shelling of villages in Armenia from Sadarak. According to Human Rights Watch, three people were killed during the hostilities. The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians had captured the Nakhichevan exclave of Karki, which presently remains under Armenian control. Hostilities in the area concluded when Heydar Aliyev (at the time President of the Nakhichevan Majlis (parliament)) declared a unilateral ceasefire on May 23 and sought to conclude a separate peace with Armenia. In the end, Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian signed a cooperation treaty with the Nakhichevan authorities to end the fighting.

As to the rest of the article--Tatars didn't just drive out Armenians in 1918, they massacred them, which is fully sourced and verifiable. We should mention them, including the following lines:

In December 1918, Jafar Kuli Khan declared the Republic of Araks in Nakhichevan, and his Tatar forces with Turkish support massacred thousands of Armenians

in mid-December, Azeris from Ordubad attacked the nearby town of Lower Akulis (whose population was 80% Armenian). Subsequently, Armenian civilians were massacred, though some managed to escape to the Upper Akulis stronghold. However, this was destroyed too.

You can keep Bechhofer's quote, but we should also include Hohler's quote, as it is from a different year:

In response to a massacre against Armenians and Greeks, Thomas B. Hohler of the British embassy in Constantinople privately expressed his concern over the situation to colleague George Kidston in London on August 4. "I think things are perhaps a little worse than ever," he wrote. "There seems to be a fine old massacre going on in Nakhichevan."

The fact that Nakhichevan was a breakaway region is mentioned in sources, and we should include it.

I see no reason to delete the 40% Armenian population of 1917, after mentioning the referendum. The fact that large number of Armenians potentially didn't accept the transfer to Azerbaijan should not be suppressed.

Finally, we can't use Croissant's name when we do not include his quote. His quote has been there for a while before GM tried to change it, it is repeated on the Armenian MFA's site, and should be used. Potier is less reliable due to mistakes in his book.--TigranTheGreat 02:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster's comments (II)

It is OK, but I have a few comments to make. The claim that Aliyev “asserted Nachichevan's near-total independence from Baku” is inaccurate. NAR has always been de-jure part of Azerbaijan, and never declared independence from it. Aliyev did not coordinate his activities with Mutalibov and Elchibey, as they were not in good relations, but he never declared independence of the region from Baku. So the above line should be deleted, same as this one: “Nakhichevan subsequently rejoined the rest of Azerbaijan but managed to maintain its autonomy as the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic”. It is absurd. No one was trying to eliminate the autonomy, and even if someone wanted to, it is not possible. The autonomy of the region is guaranteed by Kars treaty, and Russia and Turkey are its guarantors.

Again, my information comes from your own source, the Library of Congress's country study on Azerbaijan - see here: http://countrystudies.us/azerbaijan/32.htm

And what's the source of the second line? Grandmaster 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It was based on my assumption that Nakhichevan was completely out of Azerbaijan's orbit until Aliyev came to power, which I see now won't work. I'll change that. -- Clevelander 13:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How is this?:

Today, Nakhichevan retains its autonomy as the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic and is internationally recognized as a constituent part of Azerbaijan governed by its own elected parliament. -- Clevelander 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also this part not very encyclopedic:

This became apparent at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 when delegates representing the ADR quarreled with representatives of the DRA, who presented documents accusing the Azeris of exaggerating the number of Muslims in Nakhichevan as well as Karabakh and of "harbouring sinister designs against innocent Armenians."

If we present the view of the Armenian side, we should present the views of Azerbaijani side as well for balance.

Then, we shall remove that entire section.

I reverse my earlier position. Kazemzadeh also states the Azeri position in his book which I should have probably made more clear in my own statement. Here is the entire paragraph from his book:

A sharp conflict developed at Paris over the Nakhjavan [sic?] district, the Azerbaijani delegation trying to prove that this area, claimed by Armenia, should really belong to Azerbaijan. The Armenians were not to be outdone. They came back with stacks of documents, accusing the Azerbaijanis of exaggerating the number of Muslims in the Nakhjavan district and in Karabakh, and of harbouring sinister designs against innocent Armenians.

I fixed it up like so:

This became apparent at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 when delegates representing the ADR quarreled disputed with representatives of the DRA over the region's status. The ADR sought to prove that Nakhichevan should belong to them, while the Armenians responded by presenting documents accusing the Azerbaijani delegation of exaggerating the number of Muslims in Nakhichevan as well as Karabakh and of "harbouring sinister designs against innocent Armenians." -- Clevelander 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see that this adds much factual information about the history of Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 10:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It helps to illustrate the dispute to the reader. -- Clevelander 11:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to remove it again as it really adds nothing to the text. I've also fixed it up a bit with more information from Andersen as well as the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. -- Clevelander 14:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In December 1918, Jafar Kuli Khan declared the Republic of Araks in Nakhichevan and with Turkish support drove out thousands of Armenians.

De Waal does not relate events to Jafar Kuli Khan personally. I quote the relevant section:

The two nationalist regimes that took over Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1918, led by the Musavat and Dashnaktsutiun parties, quarreled over where their common borders lay. They fought over three ethnically mixed provinces, lined up on the map from west to east, like dominoes leaning against one another: Nakhichevan, Zangezur, and Karabakh. In Nakhichevan, the westernmost, Azerbaijan consolidated control that year, with Turkish support, driving out thousands of Armenians. In Zangezur, across the mountains to the east, the ferocious Armenian guerrilla commander known as Andranik swept through the region, burning Azerbaijani villages and expelling their inhabitants.

Would you like to mention the deeds of Andranik as well? He took over Nakhichevan briefly in 1919, but was driven out by the Azerbaijani forces.

Before going any further, who exactly proclaimed the Araks republic? Was it the Musavat party or Jafar Kuli Khan or both?

I think it was Jafar Kuli Khan Nakhichevanski, who had support of Musavat. But the information about Araks republic is very scarce. Grandmaster 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I will only make the concession of removing the "driving out thousands of Armenians" line if you promise not to include any mention of Andranik on the Nakhichevan or Syunik articles. I think that as long as we claim that there was mutual violence, we should be fine.

Agree, let's keep this out of Nakhichevan and Zangezur. Grandmaster 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Further territorial adjustments in 1931 ceded a portion of Armenia's Syunik region to Nakhichevan. This act however was not completed without compensation for Armenia's loss and the Armenian-inhabited region of Lori was ceded from Georgia to Armenia.

It would be good to have a confirmation for this information from some other source as well. I know that in Azerbaijan they claim that during Soviet times many Azeri territories were ceded to Armenia. Grandmaster 07:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this piece is just fine the way it is. Andersen knows what he's talking about, so I say we should allow this to remain as is. Just think of it, Grandmaster, as your concession. We all need to make them. -- Clevelander 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t mind concessions, I just think that we should double check controversial info. I may agree to it, but someone else will not. The dispute will start all over again. Any such info should rely on really good sources, and preferably more than one. There's a lot more chance that it will remain in the article in that case. Grandmaster 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright here's something interesting. According to another one of your own sources (Svante E. Cornell) by the early 1930s, the territorial adjustments as described by Andersen were put into effect. Here's a quote from Cornell's book, Small Nations and Great Powers (ISBN 0700711627) in paragraph three, page 74:

Interestingly, a 1926 map in the first volume of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia had the NKAO touching upon Armenia at one point; however, one of the border changes of the oblast that were made evidently cut the region off from the Armenian republic and, by 1930, maps had been adjusted accordingly leaving the Lachin corridor under sovereign Azerbaijan territory, separating the NKAO from Armenia proper.

The territorial adjustments of Andersen seem to correspond with the description by Cornell (Andersen shows a small portion of Armenian territory touching Karabakh in his pre-1931 map). In another move which may shock you even more, Cornell references his source to Altstadt from a book non-other than The Azerbaijani Turks. Fortunately I got this book out at my local library too and on page 127, paragraph two:

By the time the volume on Nagorno-Karabakh was published in the early 1930s, the borders had been changed and no part of the oblast touched Armenia

This in turn is referenced to Bakinskii Rabochii (presumably someone who worked for the Soviets). -- Clevelander 03:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is about the changes of borders of NKAO, and not the borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Initial borders of NKAO included Lachin and Kalbajar, but since those areas had no Armenian population, they were later excluded from NKAO, which was an autonomy for Armenians. Grandmaster 10:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, as Karabakh was considered an "autonomous oblast" of Azerbaijan it was still part of it. Thus any border adjustment that would distance Armenia from the NKAO was technically between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Also, neither authors mention that the area included the whole of Kalbajar and instead Cornell states that the Soviets left "the Lachin corridor under sovereign Azerbaijan territory, separating the NKAO from Armenia proper." By definition, the Lachin corridor is only the small area between the lower portion of Armenia's Syunik province and the southwestern tip of Karabakh. The Lachin corridor is not the entire Lachin rayon, a common misconception. Furthermore, Altstadt prior to mentioning the border change described the borders of the NKAO at this time:

The AONK [Autonomous Oblast of Nagorno-Karabakh] was carved out of the mountainous portions of the districts in Azerbaijan that constituted historic Karabakh. North to south they were Javanshir, Shusha, Kariaginsk (today Jebrail), and a small portion of Kubatlinsk (formerly part of the Zangezeur uzed). -- Clevelander 11:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the whole paragraph in question:

The AONK was carved out of the mountainous portions of the districts in Azerbaijan that constituted historic Karabagh. North to south they were Javanshir, Shusha, Kariaginsk (formerly Jebrail), and a small portion of Kubatlinsk (formerly part of the Zangezur uezd). These four districts bordered the Armenian republic; the AONK initially touched the Armenian border at one point, as shown in the first volume of the Bol'shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia published in 1926. By the time the volume on Nagorno-Karabagh was published in the early 1930s, the borders had been changed and no part of the oblast' touched Armenia. The AONK borders were drawn to include Armenian villages and to exclude as much as possible the Azerbaijani Turks' villages. The resulting amoeba-shaped district ensured an Armenian majority as well as numerous disputes among villages (which led to border changes) and with nomads. The Russian term Nagorno (mountain) was affixed to the Turkish name Karabagh. The rest of Karabagh remained separate, though Karakozov tried to speak for it as well. The name was changed to the Nagorno-Karabagh Autonomous Oblast' (NKAO) in 1937.

It appears that Alstadt talks about borders of AONK, and not Armenia and Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 11:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it says nothing about borders of Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 11:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My point, Grandmaster, was that there were indeed border changes in the early 1930s, thus lending further credence to Andersen as an authoritative source. -- Clevelander 12:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is from Cornell:

Interestingly, a 1926 map in the first volume of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia had the NKAO touching upon Armenia at one point; however, one of the border changes of the Oblast that were made evidently cut the region of from the Armenian republic, and by 1930 maps had been adjusted accordingly, leaving the Lachin corridor under sovereign Azerbaijani territory, separating the NKAO from Armenia proper. Grandmaster 12:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you post the exact same quote that I did above instead of explaining it to me? I understand your point which appears to be that both authors specifically cite changes to Karabakh's borders only.

I'm not saying that there were no border changes, but I think they were made both ways to transfer territories with their population to both republics. Therefore I think we need more info on this. Grandmaster 12:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I will continue to look for more substantial information to back up Andersen's work. -- Clevelander 12:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about double quoting, I thought this one was slightly different. I will also look for more information on this, if we find another reference, we should include it in the article. Grandmaster 12:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -- Clevelander 12:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the logic behind removing the Paris Peace conference line. The position of the Azeri side is clearly stated--Armenians killed Muslims. So, the Armenian response should be mentioned too--that Azeris grossly exagerated the events.

As for removing the massacres and Andranik's actions--I am opposed to creating the impression as if the mutual violence was equal. The sources clearly state that in 1918 Tatars massacred Armenians. And it was after that that Armenians retaliated and *drove out* Tatars from *Zangezur*. Since this article is about Nakhichevan and not Zangezur, I see no reason to mention the events there--otherwise we could mention the massacre of Armenians in Shusha in 1920.--TigranTheGreat 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for addressing the Paris issue, Cleve. You might want to change the verb "quarrel"--not very encyclopedic.--TigranTheGreat 00:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis's comments (I)

Possible points of contention:

• If you're going to have the quote about "Nakhichevan is part of Soviet Armenia", then you should have a quote from when it was handed to Azerbaijan.

Sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure where we can find such a quote.

• 'the Kremlin carried out a gradual process of "de-Armenianization" of the region' -- Did, or reportedly did according to the source?

I'll need to see the book I referenced that from again when I get home from work.

Update: This is stated as a fact in the New States, New Politics book:

After becoming part of Azerbaijan, Nakhichevan underwent a gradual process of de-Armenianization. p. 444.

I may have exaggerated this comment by adding in the Kremlin as if Armenians were being forced from Nakhichevan during the Soviet years, which I don't have any proof of. So, I changed my original statement to read:

As a part of Soviet Azerbaijan, Nakhichevan underwent a gradual process of "de-Armenianization." -- Clevelander 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite a POV statement, nonetheless. It actually works both ways. We can say that Armenia went through the process of de-azerification or something to that effect. I’ve got sources for that. For example, de Waal:

Yet by the twentieth century the Azerbaijanis people, who had lived in Eastern Armenia for centuries, had become its silent guests, marginalized and discriminated against. The Armenians asserted their right to their homeland at the expense of these people. In 1918 – 1920, tens of thousands Azerbaijanis were expelled from Zangezur. In 1940s, tens of thousands more were deported to Azerbaijan to make way for incoming Armenian immigrants from Diaspora. The last cleansing, in 1988 – 1989, got rid of the rest. Grandmaster 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While, I don't think it's a POV statement (as de-Armenianization in the context the author uses does not necessarily mean that the Armenians were forced from their homeland as it does that most of them emigrated), I really don't want to see the Syunik article plastered with "de-Azerification." So, as the term "de-Armenianization" creates too much controversy and because it's inclusion isn't totally necessary, it shall be removed. -- Clevelander 10:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Grandmaster 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• "A village destroyed in Nakhichevan as a result of the skirmish between Armenian and Azeri forces in May 1992." -- I wouldn't have thought villages would be destroyed in skirmishes, a battle maybe. This should probably be changed.

I changed "the skirmish" to "hostilities."

I'd also like to hear what Grandmaster has to say. - FrancisTyers · 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -- Clevelander 16:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think overall it is OK with consideration to the comments I've made above. I also suggest to remove the following line, unless it is properly sourced:

Although Armenians and Azeris managed to put their differences aside and get along with one another under Soviet rule, the Kremlin carried out a gradual process of "de-Armenianization" of the region.

Again, I need to check this out, but in the end it might scrapped (if not shortened).

With regard to Francis’ comment, you can quote the line from the Kars treaty that states that Nakhichevan is to become an autonomous region within Azerbaijan.

That's fine.

Also, the line you added to the Russian rule section is unsourced and POV: (who had fled the region as a result of numerous invasions). I suggest you remove it. Grandmaster 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove that line if you allow me to change the words "massive settlement" to "massive resettlement." Specifically, the Russian reference provided for that line regarding the Treaty of Turkmanchai states and I quote: "the government of Iran has undertaken to not interfere with resettlement of Armenians to Russia." Again, if you make this concession, I will remove the contested phrase that I added. -- Clevelander 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem here. - FrancisTyers · 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Clevelander, you added an absolutely unsourced line and suggest to remove it if I make a consession? Something is not right here. But I will make a consession nonetheless, just as a good will gesture. Let's move on. Grandmaster 10:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you really must know, my first response to your comment was terrible [16] as I had no basis to back up my argument on. However, when I checked out the source to the "massive settlement" statement, I felt that I actually had an argument. I apologize if you thought there was something more behind it. -- Clevelander 11:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Grandmaster 11:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether we mention Kremlin's role in the de-Armenianization of Nakhichevan, the sharp population decline of Armenians is sourced and should be mentioned.--TigranTheGreat 00:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Vacation

I'm going to be on vacation this weekend and will be leaving Saturday morning and returning Monday. Therefore, I will not be able to participate in further mediation until then. I would prefer that we put things on hold until I get back as I would like to continue playing an active role in ironing out all (and I do mean all) of the issues with this article before it becomes unprotected. Thanks in advance! Sincerely, Clevelander 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We will resume the work when you come back. Have a nice vacation. Grandmaster 04:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a good one, Cleve.--TigranTheGreat 02:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! :) -- Clevelander 02:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm back and we can continue work. I'll be at the library tomorrow. -- Clevelander 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Done?

Just checking, have we reached a consensus or near consensus on the Imperial Russia to present day sections? I hope so because it looks like we're just about done with it and I'd like to move on to a discussion on the area's early history. What do you guys say? -- Clevelander 22:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be OK with it. Grandmaster 12:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, we aren't. Clevelander, about the Karki events--we simply can't state that only according to Armenian sources "villages in Armenia were being shelled from the region"--given that non Armenian sources (Shoemaker) state the same. We can't ignore a source that confirms the Armenian version, while using other sources (such as HRW).--TigranTheGreat 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find another source that states this as a fact (in other pieces regarding Karabakh, usually the statement that "villages in Armenia were being shelled from Nakhichevan" follows the line "according to Armenian sources"). I think that we should just keep it like it is to stay safe (until we can find a credible non-Armenian source that confirms the shelling). -- Clevelander 11:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

More sources on this:

The next peace attempt was made in mid-1992, when Turkey offered to mediate following Armenian attacks on Nakhichevan, a strategic area of Azerbaijan along the Turkish and Iranian borders. This initiative was quickly stalled by Russia's disinterest, which also contributed to the failure of a similar Iranian effort.

During the Karabakh conflict, Turkey sealed its frontier with Armenia, provided substantial assistance to the Azerbaijani side, and came close to intervening directly in 1992 following an Armenian attack on Nakhichevan.

K. Weisbrode. Central Eurasia - Prize or Quicksand? Contending Views of Instability in Karabakh, Ferghana, and Afghanistan.

Grandmaster 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Early history

This is the history section as it stood on August 3rd (without the Russian history):

The oldest material culture artifacts found in Nakhichevan date back to the Neolithic Age. The region was part of the states of Mannae, Urartu and Media in 8 – 7 BCE, Achaemenid state in 6 BCE, and later became part of the Armenian Kingdom. In the 5th century, Nakhichevan was conquered by Sassanid Persians, in 623 by the Byzantine Empire, and in the middle 7th century by Arabs. In the 11th century, Nakhichevan fell under control of Seljuks.

In 12th century the city of Nakhichevan became the capital of the Ildegezid Atabegs of the Azerbaijan state. The magnificent 12th century mausoleum of Momine khatun, the wife of Ildegizid ruler, Great Atabek Jahan Pehlevan, is the main attraction of modern Nakhichevan. In 13 – 14 centuries the region was invaded by Mongols and Tamerlane. In the 15th century, the territory of Nakhichevan became part of the states of Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu. In the 16th century control of the region passed to the Turkic-speaking Safavid dynasty of Persia. Because of its geographic position, it frequently suffered during the wars between Persia and the Ottoman Empire in 14th – 18th centuries. In 1604, Shah Abbas I Safavi, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy. He forced most of the local population, regardless of ethnicity or religion, to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia. Many settled in a neighborhood of Isfahan that was named New Julfa since most of the residents were from the original Julfa (a predominately Armenian town which was looted and burned). The Nakhichevan khanate emerged in the region in 1747 after the death of Nadir Shah Afshar, the ruler of Persia.

There are a few problems with this. In particular, details the area's Armenia history seem to have been skimmed over and information regarding Nakhichevan's history under the Kingdom of Georgia (Kober can fill us in on this) is completely absent. However, keep in mind, we need to make use of unbiased sources only when doing further research on this. -- Clevelander 12:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This section is mostly based on the article from Great Soviet Encyclopedia and is well-referenced. However, if you have any well-sourced information, we can add it to the above text. Grandmaster 12:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the early history section needs only two things: a) mentioning that Nakhichevan was once part of the Armenian Kingdom's Vaspurakan province and b) that it was once under Georgian rule. I can reference both of these with credible sources without having to go into great detail. Once this information is added, then we can move on to the Etymology section and we'll be finished (with the history section at least - we still need some more pictures of Nakhichevan). -- Clevelander 14:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the early history section and added the two statements regarding Vaspurakan and Georgia. I also re-added and revised the etymology section. Comments? -- Clevelander 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nakhichevan as part of Georgia

Please check the article about atabeks of Azerbaijan in Iranica. It says that atabeks paid tribute to Georgians and nominally accepted their overlordship, when the state of atabeks was in decline. But it does not say that Nakhichevan was part of Georgian state. It might need better wording. Grandmaster 04:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to bring in our Georgian expert, Kober to help us out on this. -- Clevelander 11:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem at all. Grandmaster 11:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, now I’m really confused. I’ve checked a couple of sources and they are frequently contradictory. Some sources say Nakhichevan was taken over by Queen Tamar’s commanders, Zacharids, from the atabeks, while others say the area was frequently raided by the Georgian-Armenian armies, but they don’t specify whether or not it was annexed to the Georgian kingdom. What I know for sure is that Nakhichevan was under the atabeks in 1205 and the Zacharids invaded the region in 1209. I’d suggest the following formulation:

"...At its heydays, the Ildeguzid authority in Nakhichevan was contested by the kingdom of Georgia, and the warlike Armeno-Georgian princely house of Zacharids frequently raided the region when the atabek state was in decline in the early years of the 13th century… [Mongols], [Khwarezminas], etc." --Kober 12:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would revise it slightly like so:

At its heydays, the Ildeguzid authority in Nakhichevan was contested by the Kingdom of Georgia. The Armeno-Georgian princely house of Zacharids frequently raided the region when the atabek state was in decline in the early years of the 13th century. It was then plundered by invading Mongols in 1220 and Khwarezmians in 1225. The Zacharids gave up any claims to the area to the Mongol lords in 1236 when the Caucasus were invaded by Chormaqan.

How's this? -- Clevelander 12:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a little more research on this, which I will do tomorrow. Overall, it is safe to say that Ildegizids waged wars with Georgian rulers over the authority in Arran, and by the time Ildegizids were in decline they seem to be losing to Georgians. Grandmaster 13:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked again the article about atabeks from Iranica, and it does not look like that Nakhichevan was ever lost to Georgians. But the article states that the last atabek paid tribute to Georgians.

Mozaffar all din Uzbek (the last atabek) lost all of Arran save Nakhjavan, accepted overlordship of Kharazmshah in 614/1217-18, and paid tribute to Georgians.

But Nakhichevan was in firm possession of atabeks, even though they accepted overlordhip and paid tribute to other rulers. So I think the above text is OK. I suggest to make this paragraph as follows:

In 12th century the city of Nakhichevan became the capital of the state of Atabegs of Azerbaijan, also known as Ildegizid state, which included most of Iranian Azerbaijan and significant part of South Caucasus. The magnificent 12th century mausoleum of Momine khatun, the wife of Ildegizid ruler, Great Atabek Jahan Pehlevan, is the main attraction of modern Nakhichevan. At its heydays, the Ildegizid authority in Nakhichevan and some other areas of South Caucasus was contested by the Kingdom of Georgia. The Armeno-Georgian princely house of Zacharids frequently raided the region when the atabek state was in decline in the early years of the 13th century. It was then plundered by invading Mongols in 1220 and Khwarezmians in 1225 and became part of Mongol empire in 1236 when the Caucasus was invaded by Chormaqan.

The last line is not necessary, because Khwarezmians also laid claims to the region, so I modified it. Grandmaster 09:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Kober, what do you think? -- Clevelander 11:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, Grandmaster. Kudos, --Kober 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Babak uprising

Why Babak uprising was removed from the text? It is mentioned in great soviet encyclopedia. Nakhichevan was one of the main areas of Babak movement, that’s why one of the rayons is named after him. Grandmaster 11:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? I'm not sure. Again, I was using a version of the text from August 3rd so if this information was added I suppose it was lost in one of our revert wars. In any case, I'll re-add it. -- Clevelander 11:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Greek name?

There is a mention both on this page and elsewhere on the web that the name comes from the Greek Naksuana (actually as the transliteration of a Greek word it should be spelt Naxuana). However this doesn't doesn't mean "sweet water" or anything else. In ancient Greek, sweet is "hedys" and water is "hydor". If anyone has concrete evidence to the contrary, i.e. from which Greek words it derives exactly, please post it here.

Naxuana seems to be simply a corruption (i.e. Greek version) of the ancient Armenian name which comes from nakh (first) and chevan (encampment). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.106.44 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 August 2006.

Agreed. The etymology section is messed up and needs major rework.--TigranTheGreat 08:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Professor Michelson, "Naxuan" is a Greek term meaning "Noah's Zion" or the capital city of Noah. [17] Grandmaster 08:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Culture section

Equipped with information from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, I enhanced the culture section. However, as the information provided to me by the GSE is possibly out of date, I was wondering if somebody could verify it for me. Also, the Azerbaijani artists mentioned have abbreviated names, so perhaps somebody can help on that too. Thanks! -- Clevelander 00:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is OK for the moment, but I will expand it in the future. I just need to do some research on it. Grandmaster 10:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Control of Nakhichevan

I don't think the following line is correct:

Although fighting between Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijan's regular army continued, both the Nakhichevan and Zangezur regions came under stable but temporary Armenian control.

At that time Armenia was defeated in a war by Turkey, and Nakhichevan was under the control of Turkish army. Armenia could not have a stable control over the region, it controlled only Yerevan and some adjacent areas. Turkish army surrendered Nakhichevan to the Soviet army on a condition that it would be part of Azerbaijan. It was reflected in the treaties, signed between Turkey and Russia. So I suggest to replace the above line with the following:

Turkish army led by general Karabekir took control over Nakhichevan in March 1920.

This info can be found in the book of Alstadt. Grandmaster 10:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Can it be found in another book? You should have really brought this up earlier when we were discussing revisions - this particular line was on my user page version for awhile. Also, the Turkish Invasion of Armenia did not take place until July-September 1920 (whereas Nakhichevan came under Armenian control by mid-March 1920) and this was primarily concentrated on Armenia's western wing. The Ottoman Turks only occupied the region once and that was in June 1918 (this was when the Treaty of Batum was signed) before the British replaced them under the Mudros armistice of 30 October. -- Clevelander 10:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The info about stable Armenian control of Nakhichevan in March 1920 also comes from the only source, and not the best one. It needs more research. Grandmaster 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can use both versions as these were Andersen's original paragraphs:

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. In the middle of March, Armenian troops launched an offensive in all the areas disputed with Azerbaijan.

By the end of March, heavy fighting was going on in Karabakh for the towns of Shusha, Xankendy, Terter, Askeran. Zanghezur and Naxcivan were put under stable Armenian control. Skirmishes in Kazakh-Shamshadin reached western outskirts of Ganca. During the war both sides reportedly committed numerous crimes and performed ethnic cleansing in the areas with mixed Armenian-Azeri population. That added to already existing prejudice and planted seeds of the future conflicts between the two peoples. [18]

Clashes in Nakhichevan could have meant a brief occupation by Ottoman forces. Also, I need the change to line anyway to read "late March" instead of "mid-March." -- Clevelander 10:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is too long and some of the text is not relevant to Nakhichevan. We need to establish through another reputable source who controlled the region before the Soviet takeover. The above source obviuosly has major flaws, it says that Azerbaijani troops tried to supress Armenian-controlled enclaves in Karabakh, while even Armenian sources say that the Armenians started a revolt in Karabakh that was put down by the Azerbaijani army. Grandmaster 11:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To say that they "attempted to suppress the Armenian-controlled enclaves in Karabakh" is essentially the same thing as saying that they supressed an Armenian revolt in Karabakh. In any case, I'm not going to argue with you over Karabakh as Karabakh is irrelevant to this topic.

I suggest this wording:

The cease-fire lasted briefly, but by early March 1920, more fighting broke out, primarily in Karabakh between Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijan's regular army. This triggered conflicts in Nakhichevan as well. In the ensuing chaos, the region came under occupation by Ottoman forces led by General [first name?] Karabekir who later became instrumental in securing Azerbaijan's claims over the region. However, in mid-March Armenian forces launched an offensive on all of the disputed territories and by late March, both the Nakhichevan and Zangezur regions came under stable but temporary Armenian control.

This is a compromise utilizing both of our sources. Tell me what you think. -- Clevelander 11:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is good, but do we have any source that says that Armenian forces drove Turkish forces from Nakhichevan? For the moment we have conflicting info on this period. But overall the article is very good, I wish the one on Zangezur was as detailed and elaborate as this one. We need more research on this part, though. Grandmaster 11:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, no, I do not have a source that says that Armenian forces drove Turkish forces from Nakhichevan (this isn't mentioned in my compromise paragraph either, if you read it closely - I just say that the Armenians launched an offensive on it and that it came under Armenian control). I say that we use this version for now. In any case, I don't think that anybody knows for sure was really happened in March 1920. -- Clevelander 11:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this period is quite obscure and we don't have good sources on it, why don't we put it like this:

The cease-fire lasted briefly and by late-March 1920, more fighting broke out, primarily in Karabakh, and spread out to other areas with mixed population, including Nakhichevan.

No mention of either Turkish or Armenian control, until we have better sources. What do you think? Grandmaster 11:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this?:

The cease-fire lasted briefly and by early March 1920, more fighting broke out, primarily in Karabakh between Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijan's regular army. This triggered conflicts in other areas with mixed populations, including Nakhichevan. -- Clevelander 11:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is OK. Grandmaster 12:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The following is also dubious information:

Further territorial adjustments in 1931 ceded a portion of Armenia's Syunik region to Nakhichevan. This act however was not completed without compensation for Armenia's loss and the Armenian-inhabited region of Lori was ceded from Georgia to Armenia.

Can this be verified from any other source? Grandmaster 12:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Original maps of the region from before and after the adjustments show the changes. I'll be getting these soon in case you wanted to know. -- Clevelander 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. And who created those original maps? Grandmaster 12:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Who else? The government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. -- Clevelander 12:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. Grandmaster 12:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

1931 territorial adjustments

Here are some maps of the Soviet South Caucasus prior to 1931 (all post-1931 maps of the region look just like those of today). These confirm Andersen's claim of territorial adjustments during the early 1930s. Maps can also be found in Grazhdanskaya vojna v Zakavkazji by A.B. Kadishev, Atlas Etnopoliticheskoj Istorii Kavkaza by Artur Tsutsiev, and of course Andersen's own book The Historical Atlas of the Caucasus. This is not counting references to the adjustments by Cornell in Small Nations and Great Powers. -- Clevelander 10:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• From Atlas Istorii SSR by Konstantin Bazilevich
  From Atlas Istorii SSR by Konstantin Bazilevich
• From Atlas Istorii SSR by Konstantin Bazilevich
  From Atlas Istorii SSR by Konstantin Bazilevich
• 
  From a western map of Europe [1]
• 
  From another western map of Europe [2]

It is really hard to pass judgment based on those maps, they are not enough detailed. Compare those maps with the modern map here. Nothing really changed. It is also interesting that they all show Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 11:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

They looked detailed to me (especially the first three). The Lori as well asthe rayons of Balakan, Zaqatala, and Qakh are also shown as parts of Georgia (they were transferred to Armenia and Azerbaijan respectively in 1931. -- Clevelander 11:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Only the second one is more or less detailed, and it corresponds with modern borders of Azerbaijan, except for Zakataly, which is shown as part of Georgia. Grandmaster 11:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Look closely at map two and the frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan by Syunik and Nakhichevan. Notice the border differences between both countries in this map and a map of the South Caucasus today. Also notice a big chunck of the area that corresponds to Azerbaijan's present-day Qazakh rayon is part of Armenia as well; in the north Armenia appears to have access to a territory immediately west of the Kura River and since today Armenia shares no border on the Kura there can only be one explaination. A territorial adjustment of the region. Additionally, since all maps that show the region to correspond to its present-day borders began to appear in 1931, then it becomes clear that the adjustments occured during that year. -- Clevelander 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleve, the maps are quite accurate for Nakhichevan. Specially the first three. Ldingley 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind. I got to the bottom of this. I contacted Dr. Andersen and he told me that he had made a mistake (which he has since corrected on his website). There were indeed territorial adjustments, but they did not effect Nakhichevan (not significantly anyway). He sent this scan to me from Artur Tsutsiev's book, Atlas Etnopoliticheskoj Istorii Kavkaza showing his mistake (this is also a more detailed map than the ones I uploaded above):

File:Tsutsiev.jpg

From Tsutsiev's book

Dr. Andersen also brought to my attention the Kars treaty which defines the borders of present-day Nakhichevan (save for Karki which seems to have been added to it during the Soviet years - I don't know when exactly yet but I'm going to look into it more). In this case, I shall remove the information regarding the 1931 border adjustments to Nakhichevan from this article. -- Clevelander 17:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Control of Nakhichevan revisited

BTW, A.B. Kadishev's Interventsija I Grazhdanskaya vojna v Zakavkazji as well as Artur Tsutsiev's book Ethno-Political Atlas (p. 56-57) confirms that the Armenians did indeed have Nakhichevan under stable control in March 1920. Both are neutral sources and counting the information by Dr. Andersen, this puts it at odds with Altstadt's work (3-1). I will re-add my earlier statement. Likewise, the information regarding Sir John Oliver Wardrop's border proposal is in Kadishev's book. -- Clevelander 12:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sharur-Daralagez uyezd

Grandmaster, if you check out any map of the administrative divisions of the South Caucasus within Imperial Russia, you will see that the Nakhichevan and the Sharur-Daralagez uyezds did not cover the entire area of the present-day NAR. Some areas (especially what are today the Julfa, Ordubad, and Shakhbuz rayons) were within the borders of the Elisavetpol governate (in fact, the boundaries of modern Nakhichevan were not defined until the Kars treaty). -- Clevelander 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should include phrases like this: At the same time, surrounding regions that would form present-day Nakhichevan also had mixed populations (some with Armenian majorities and others with Azeri majorities). Nakhichevan ASSR included only areas with Azeri majority, so what do areas with Armenian majority have to do with it? We should refer only to areas that became part of modern NAR. Most of today's Nakhichevan was part of those two uyezds, and also some areas with Azeri majority might also have joined the region. Armenian sources say that the Armenian population constituted 34% of population of what is NAR today according to the last Russian census. Grandmaster 09:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, we should not say that the clashes in 1905 were a result of something, unless we have sources supporting such claims. That would be an original research. We should only state the fact that during the first Russian revolution Nakhichevan was a scene of ethnic violence. Grandmaster 09:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not, Grandmaster, the area that is now Nakhichevan had a mixed population. If you were to count the entire area of present-day Nakhichevan and set it against the backdrop of Imperial Russia in the early 20th century, then you will see that the second largest group in the region were the Armenians (34% - still a pretty substantial number) who claimed the land for historical reasons. Additionally, not all of the areas of the modern-day NAR were pure 100% Azeri. This lead to ethnic tensions over the region which culminated again into another Armenian-Azeri clash.

Also, I would think that the rayons of Julfa, Ordubad, and Shakhbuz (which were not included in the two uyezds) make up a pretty big chunk of Nakhichevan's area and should not be ignored when taking into account the area's total demographic makeup. -- Clevelander 11:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Nakhichevan did not have mixed population. I just don't see what the point of this line is: At the same time, surrounding regions that would form present-day Nakhichevan also had mixed populations (some with Armenian majorities and others with Azeri majorities). As if someone says that areas surrounding Nakhichevan uyezd did not have mixed population. I think that line is pointless and redundant. Just say that population of the areas forming modern day Nakhichevan was such and such, it is enough. And we don't know what was the reason for the ethnic clashes, so we cannot include our own ideas. Grandmaster 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your question "Nakhichevan ASSR included only areas with Azeri majority, so what do areas with Armenian majority have to do with it?" seems to imply that Azeris completely dominated the region of present-day Nakhichevan. I was just pointing out that this could not be true given that the area had a mixed population.

In any case, I propose an easy resolution to this dispute and that is to change it back to how it previously was with one minor revision (which I have highlighted in bold):

According to the official statistics of the Russian Empire, by the turn of the 20th century Azerbaijanis made up 57% of the uyezd's population, while Armenians constituted 42%. During the Russian Revolution of 1905, conflict erupted between the Armenians and the Azeris, culminating in the Armenian-Tatar massacres which saw violence in Nakhichevan in May.

My intention for this move is not to "suppress" information but I think that it would be easier for the reader to follow this statement as it is. If we go into mentioning the demographics of the Sharur-Daralagez uyezd, then it would only be logical to discuss the status of the other uyezds that form present-day Nakhichevan that were within the Elisavetpol governate (Julfa, Ordubad, and Shakhbuz). Then we would be going into way too much detail. Additionally, seeing as how we focus on the Nakhichevan uyezd specifically, I don't see a point in bringing up a region that, at the time, was not central to the history of Nakhichevan.

Ultimately, I would be more in favor of you moving the demographic information to the Sharur rayon article specifically (I don't mind it being on Wikipedia, it's just that I don't see why we should cram it into Nakhichevan's history). Please know that I want to do this article right and I have been very respectful of your point of view in regards to this matter. All I ask for is that we can agree on this point and move on. I'm anxious about somebody getting photographs of the region. -- Clevelander 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to keep this page factually accurate, but NAR was indeed formed of two uyezds, so we need to provide statistics on both of them. Ordubad and Julfa were part of Nakhichevan uyezd, and if there were some minor territories with Azeri population that joined the area, we can add such statistics if we find them. But in general Azeris were in clear majority in this region, Armenian population being about 34%. So I think that we should provide information on both uyezds, otherwise it creates wrong impression on population statistics, presenting higher figures on Armenian population based on Nakhichevan uyezd only. Grandmaster 06:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn't correct. Significant portions of present-day Nakhichevan were part of the Elisavetpol governate. Do you have sources stating that Ordubad and Julfa were part of Nakhichevan uyezd? -- Clevelander 08:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The article on Julfa from Brokhauz says that Julfa is a village in Nakhichevan uyezd, and the article on Ordubad says that it is a town in the same uyezd. Please stop removing the info on Sharur. I don’t want to engage in an edit war, and this information is relevant and verifiable. Grandmaster 08:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's odd that they would mention Ordubad as part of Nakhichevan since some pre-Soviet maps of the South Caucasus under Russian authority show Ordubad as part of the Elisavetpol governate. Still, I would trust Brokhauz. I say we keep the information in for now. -- Clevelander 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. If you find any information on population of any other territories that form part of NAR, we can include that as well. Grandmaster 10:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this map of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan within the Russian Empire in 1882 from Wikimedia Commons showing Julfa and Ordubad as part of the Nakhichevan uyezd (to confirm Brokhauz). It appears that only the Shakhbuz region as well as a few other parts were transferred to it later in the Kars treaty. -- Clevelander 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to judge. To me it looks like Shabuz was part of the uyezd, and some parts of it were transfered to Armenia. To make good judgement we need a very detailed map which we can compare with the modern one. Grandmaster 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How many?

A question to Nameneko: When saying Armenians abundantly lived there what figures are we talking about? 100%, 90%, 80%, 40%, 30% or 10%. What years and what centuries these figures refer to? And by the way what does Nakhichevan mean in Armenian? Are you sure it is in Armenian? Former name of the town of Norashen - I may think for a while, but Naxuana?

--Ulvi I. 07:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nakhichevan is believed by some to be an Armenian term meaning the "place of descent," a reference to Noah's Ark. Historically the area had been home to Armenians and had been part of Armenia; but due to numerous invasions by foreign powers, their numbers began to shrink. By the time it fell into Russian possession, Armenians only constituted 17% of Nakhichevan's population. By the end of that year, with the resettlement of Armenians, that number increased to 45%. Around 1890-1907 Armenians were 42%, then 40% by 1914, 15% by 1926, 1.4% by 1979, and 0% today. -- Clevelander 08:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from the "History" section of Nakhichevan: "Note: the sources for my addition are all over the internet. Considering that the original author has made no use of sources either, I do not see why I should add sources for something so obvious. Only someone who does not speak Armenian or has entirely ignored the Armenian element in Nakhichevan would not know that Nakhichevan is an Armenian word and that until the 20th century Armenians abundantly lived there with hundreds of churches and monasteries and even more cross-stones. Search for Nakhichevan on the internet as source number 1." -Nameneko 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Pictures of Nakhichevan

Does anybody have any pictures of Nakhichevan? Thanks! -- Clevelander 08:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have some, plus, you can find some from the internet. Nakhichevan city itself is not as beautiful as it used to be some 10 years ago. Just like Baku, this city has suffered from the "modernization" and "tree trimming" of the local authorities. It is difenately less green today compared to early 1980's late 1990's when I saw it for the first time.

--Ulvi I. 07:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Noah

which is ancient Greek for "Noah's Zion" or the capital city of Noah

No it isn't. The Greek for Noah is Νωε [19], ignore the typo; the Greek for Zion is Σιων[20]. This source for this[21] cites a adjunct professor of Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech [22]. JCScaliger 17:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that ancient Greek or modern Greek? I say for now the easiest solution is just not to specify any meaning for the "Naxuana" term until we can find one that's 100% accurate. -- Clevelander 17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greek; the links above are to the Septuagint. Nauxana is not Greek, and is unlikely to have any meaning which can now be found, unless the Persic etymology is correct. JCScaliger 04:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Josephus

Josephus does not state what term he is translating (into Greek, the language in which he wrote) as Place of the Descent. Asserting that it is Nakhichevan is pure conjecture, which should be avoided. JCScaliger 04:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would consent to the omission of this claim, which is barely notable and most unlikely; but claiming it in WP's voice seems to be the alternative - and sunlight is the best disinfectant. JCScaliger 04:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an improvement; it does not misrepresent Josephus, Hubschmann himself would be a better source than this tract - if someone can read his paper; and a current dictionary of Armenian (preferably Armenian-English) would be better than a single scholar writing a century ago. I will see what I can do. JCScaliger 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Karabakh War

Regarding the conflict between Nakhchivan and Armenia in the context of the Nagorno-Karabagh war. I was in Ordubad in 2005 and while passing a semi-derelict house was told that it had been hit by a rocket in 1992, fired from Armenia. I don't see any particularly good reason to disbelieve that information. Several people within the house were killed, I was also told. So it would appear that the conflict was wider in scale than just the Sadarak rayon. Meowy 14:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have actually read that at least four areas in Armenia (specifically in the provinces of Syunik, Vayots Dzor, and Ararat) were shelled from Nakhichevan by Azeri forces in 1992. This then prompted a response from the local residents of those areas (apparently against the wishes of former Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian). One of the areas shelled by the Nakhichevan Azeris was in southwestern Syunik (perhaps Karchevan). The semi-derelict house in Ordubad was probably part of the response given by the Armenians. -- Clevelander 15:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)