Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh

How come there is not a single Azerbaijani weblink below your page on Nagorno-Karabkh? How can you maintain impartiality when you have four website links which are all pro-Armenian? I am sorry to see that Wikipedia is far from impartial on these issues and thus looses credibility...

Truly worrying...

Kubilay Gultekin

---

Say, are those ethnic statistics correct? I thought Many Azeris left during the war

The numbers probably refer to the last census (pre-war). There are no Azeris left in NK. I'll rewrite this page when I have time apoivre 12:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

i have no personal knowledge. available references give the current stats as i modified them. Badanedwa 21:07, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

---

wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a battlefield. do not remove one language/ethnos or the other, or link to racist web sites. Badanedwa 21:07, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

I can see a map from Estonian Wikipedia. We asked Estonians to put Slovene names into the map and they did it so I can see no reason why they wouldn't do it with English --Fpga 07:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article is entirely Point of View, copied from the web site of the NKR office in Washington, DC. Zfr 23:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see that it is. The article pretty much just describes facts and events, and I don't think I've ever heard a different description of the conflict.

For comparison, here's a statement that clearly isn't NPOV: "The Azerbaijani government has contributed very little towards the resolution of the conflict, presumably waiting for the economic burden of holding a cease-fire and reductions in trade with other countries to force Armenia into retreat, while Azerbaijan itself is not significantly affected economically, and enjoys high levels of trade with other countries because of its oil reserves."

The above statement is strongly believed in by most Armenians, and would generally be cosidered an only mildly biased point of view. Since the article doesn't even come close to saying statements like that, I would say it's safe to call it a NPOV article.

Oh, and if anybody is aware of different interpretations of the conflict, please mention them here, I, for one, would love to hear them. --Aramgutang 04:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

removed paragraph

I added a paragraph, that Aramgutang removed. In deference to his experience with the subject, I'll trust his judgment -- but let me just say that this question is what draws some to the NKR question, not as an abstract problem but as one of the relationship between ethnicity and territory.

Here is the excised paragraph:

The dispute is a problem of border geometry: Nagarno-Karabakh, mostly populated by Armenians, is essentially surrounded by Azerbaijan, while the Azeri-populated enclave Nakhichevan is surrounded to the North and East by Armenia. If Armenia and Nagarno-Karabakh are to be united as a contiguous territory, it would require keeping Azeri-populated land in between and permanently separating Azerbaijan proper and Nakhichevan; likewise, if Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan are to be united in contiguous borders (once true, but no longer realistic), it would require seizing much Armenian-populated land, particularly Nagarno-Karabakh. -anonymous.

This is simply wrong. Look at the maps and you will see yourself. Only a thin slice of southern Armenia will help connect mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. Separation of these two is completely unrelated to Karabakh, geographically. roozbeh 19:55, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph because Nakhichevan has very little to do with Karabakh, and there's no dispute concerning its borders. Azerbaijan has never expressed intent to form a contigious border with Nakhichevan, and Armenia is not trying to form a contigious border with Karabakh either. However, since there are less than 10km separating the Karabakh border and Armenia next to the town of Lacin, Armenia is pushing for an open transport corridor through it, not a unification of the border. In fact, if you find a more detailed map, you will see that there are 2 other small regions enclaved by Armenian territory that are controlled by Azerbaijan, and 1 other such region enclaved by Azerbaijan, yet controlled by Armenia. Thus both countries are fine with having enclaves they control separate from them, as long as the ethnic majority of an area determines who it's controlled by (except for the case of Karabakh, obviously). The separation of Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan has not been an area of dispute and has existed thoroughout history, and thus has pretty much nothing to do with the Karabakh conflict. Also, I find that the sentence "If Armenia and Nagarno-Karabakh are to be united as a contiguous territory, it would require keeping Azeri-populated land in between and permanently separating Azerbaijan proper and Nakhichevan" simply doesn't make sense. Please explain or correct it if you can. --Aramգուտանգ 01:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where is truth?

As far as I see all the information about Daglig Garabag is subjective. It is obvious that it was written by armenians. So it is completely biased and cannot be taken as fact, since it is given in one format and one point of view: armenian. To be fair the information should be given regarding only facts not assumptions. Or if you insert information it should not be describing only one position of armenians but azeri's as well. Let's say if you write massacres over armenians in some azeri towns were conducted, you should also mention massacres conducted by armenian vandals over azeri population in azeri city of Hodjali in Daglig Garabag in 1992. You should mention that over 300,000 azeri people were forced to leave their homes in armenia where they lived for centuries. You should mention that there also was azeri population in Garabag which was against the independence of autonomous republic. You should mention that until 18 century the majority of the population of present armenia (not even Garabag) consisted of azeri people not armenians. It is after russian politics the christians (armenians) from Persia and Eastern Ottoman Empire started to move and dislocate to present Armenia and Garabag territories. It's not just words, it's fact, which you can discover in archives (of course if you wish). So the point here is not deny everything presented by armenians, but to put information that would reflect the true historical events. The matter is to deliver to the readers the very objective and rich information from different points of view, not just armenian. And let the reader deside what to choose, let him search the truth.

Well, of course, that's the whole point behind Wikipedia. That's why there's a notice on top of the article about its disputed neutrality. And like I've said before, you're welcome to add any valid couterpoints to the article, as long as they're backed up with sources. As an Armenian, I have little motivation to go out and find arguments against what I've believed in all my life, it is you who should collect the facts you wish to be known and incorporate them into the article. Also, I would disagree that the article has assumptions in it (besides maybe the phrase "Karabakh was subdued by Azerbaijan, with approval from the Allies interested in the oilfields nearby Azerbaijan's capital, Baku."), it mainly describes only facts. Like you said, some facts may be missing, so feel free to fill them in. Also, please try to provide neutral sources, since for every Azeri site claiming one thing, I can find you an Armenian site claiming the opposite, it is the hard to find independent press (non-Turkish, which are Azeri biased, and non-Russian, which are Armenian biased) aticles and international body reports on the subject that count.

P.S. A word of advice, in the future, try to sign your posts (by writing "--~~~~"), and also, your contributions and opinions will be held in higher regard if you have a registered username. --Aramգուտանգ 10:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

comparative example

This is a letter I sent to an Armenian university professor, Dr. Papazian, at U of Michigan-Dearborn, after reading some of his questionable comments.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO RESPOND

I have a special interest in learning about the Nagorno Karabakh region and in my search came across your fact sheet. I was born in Baku, but I am Jewish and in no important way consider myself Azerbaijani, for obvious reasons. I am also a college student and very interested in international political developments.

The reason that I am contacting you is for some sort of clarification on the information you provided as well as a response to an Azeri view that I have found on the following web site:

http://www.ehtiram.s5.com/whats_new.html

All of my relatives from Azerbaijan, Jews, of course, believe that ultimately N-K is a part of Azerbaijan. From what I've read, I also believe that to be true.

Real independence can only be granted by an international organization, such as the UN. There is also never a situation where solely a majority vote justifies independence, even in a legal region. Legally, I have a unique US address that no one else may have, but I have no right whatsoever to independence due to a majority vote of my home's inhabitants.

On the web page provided, they make a argument that self-determination is granted to colonies, and never to autonomous regions of already formed nations, unless both sides agree. Neither is the case with N-K. Even the UN guarantees the territorial integrity of its members. In addition, an Armenian country already exists.

I am constantly comparing the case to the establishment of Israel, which is of great personal interest to me. Unlike N-K, the territory was: (1) a colony (British), (2) was given independence by an international body (UN), (3) a similar Jewish nation did not previously exist.

However, I am in favor of a Palestinian country, one with UN recognition, simply because no other alternative exists. The Palestinians cannot move to another Arab country because that would benefit Israel, and would not lead to its destruction, a goal shared by most Arab nations. That it why they keep the Palestinians in limbo.

Why can't Armenians in N-K simply move to Armenia?

The added notion that N-K should be independent is ridiculous. Armenia denies trying to annex N-K. Since no N-K nation ever existed, there is no need for one to exist now.

posted by User:Kalbagdola on 13 January '05

---

From the POV of a neutral American, I would dispute any claim that any individual or group of individuals doesn't have a right to self determination. Self determination is a core ethic of the UN as well as its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so asserting that NK would need UN approval to be independent is factually wrong. Furthermore, as an American, which was founded on the principle that all sovereign power originates in the people AS INDIVIDUALS, and only delegated to governments, the people of NK can decide whatever they want. Finally, as to the issue of contiguity, such a concept has no ethical, moral, or legal mandate whatsoever. Many nations have non-contiguous territory (the US among them), so why can't you people just get along? - User:Mlorrey 17 Jan 2005

---

RESPONSE

By your reasoning, the population of Manchester, NH would have the option of leaving the union and taking the town with it. Certainly that is not ever going to happen. As appealing as secession is, even to me, it is illegal. Your comments concerning U.S. are plainly wrong. In addition, I have no contiguity issues, as Azerbaijan itself has an exclave.

The question here is a modern one. Putting aside histrical rights, does one sovereign nation have the right to occupy another's territory for non-defensive reasons? That is why there is not a single government that recognizes N-K, including Armenia. (kalbagdola, 1/17/2004)

---

The term "separatists" is not neutral and should not be used in the article.

---

"(3) The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility of the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self- determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations." See: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted UN General Assembly Resolution 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December 1966.

States have ratified or acceded to the Covenant (as at April 1999): Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan.

Also Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

---

The term "separatists" is not neutral and should not be used in the article.

Also it is not a correct statement that .."Nagorno-Karabakh, formally part of Azerbaijan, is now predominantly ethnic Armenian..".

It is well known, that Nagorno-Karabakh was always predominantly ethnic Armenian (75%), and it was part of the Soviet Azerbaijan, which does not exist now.

Rovoam 11:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rovoam changes

Version 1:

Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijani: Dağlıq Qarabağ or Yuxarı Qarabağ, literally "mountainous black garden" or "upper black garden"; Russian: Нагорный Карабах, translit. Nagornyy Karabakh; Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ, translit. Lernayin Gharabagh), referred to by Armenians as Artsakh (Armenian: Արցախ), is a region of Azerbaijan, in southern Caucasia, located about 270 km (about 170 mi) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian and effectively under Armenian control. The local Armenian separatists declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country in the world.

Version 2:

Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijani: Dağlıq Qarabağ or Yuxarı Qarabağ, literally "mountainous black garden" or "upper black garden"; Russian: Нагорный Карабах, translit. Nagornyy Karabakh; Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ, translit. Lernayin Gharabagh), historically known as Artsakh (Armenian: Արցախ), is a region of former Azerbaijan Soviet Republic, in southern Caucasia, located about 270 km (about 170 mi) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. This predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923. Karabakh has declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not yet recognized by any country in the world.

Version 1:

Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was conquered by Tigranes II, ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia. In the early 4th century AD Alwanians managed to regain Artsakh, and eventually in 387 AD it became a part of Alwania again. In the 5th century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania.

Version 2:

Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was part of the Kingdom of Armenia, ruled by Tigranes II. In the 4th century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania.

Rovoam, please discuss why are you reverting both of these paragraphs. —Cantus…☎ 18:30, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Cantus, if you pay a little bit more attention to what other people say, you will be able to find my messages, in which I had already provided the answers to all your questions.

As you perhaps know, Karabahk had always been Armenian populated region, not just now. According to the Soviet population census (as of 1979), the population of Karabahk was 162 000, from which there were 123 100 Armenians (75,9%) and 37 300 were Azeri people (22,9%). That's why it is correct to say that this autonomous region was predominantly Armenian populated, even before the conflict.

It is also well known fact that this autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923. And I don't see any reasons why this fact must be hidden.

The term "separatists" also does not look right.

Christianity become the official religion in Alwania in 4-th century, NOT in 5-th. It is also well known fact.

Karabahk initially was never a part of Alwania, as it was always separated by the Kura river. This opinion is based on the study of ancient writes such as Strabon, Josephus Flavius, Plinius Secundus, etc. In addition, we have a lot of old maps, which clearly show the border between Armenia and Alwania, which was always along the Kura (Kir) river.

I have made several attempts to negotiate and discuss these issues with you, but you have never responded to any of my messages.

I strongly believe, that you are in the violation of the very basic principles of Wikipedia. The Wekipedia should present only facts without any political propaganda. And, in all cases, you have to discuss issues with others, and not to ignore messages sent to you.

If you disagree with the above statements, let's bring this matter to the Arbitrator and let him decide who is right and who is wrong here...

Regards,

Rovoam 22:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

In responce to Rovoam's post in my talkpage.

Dear Rovoam, I also hope we with you won’t be dragged in another protracted dispute and we will settle our differences through civilized discussion. With all my respect, I want to say it straightforwardly from the very beginning that your edits do not correspond the Wikipedia NPOV standards. Let’s compare the initial version (btw, created by other mostly neutral Wikipedians!) and your edits, I have shown the changes in bold to make the changes more visible.

Paragraph 1

Initial version:

Nagorno-Karabakh […] referred to by Armenians as Artsakh (Armenian: Արցախ), is a region of Azerbaijan, in southern Caucasia, located about 270 km (about 170 mi) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian and effectively under Armenian control. The local Armenian separatists declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country in the world.

Edit by Rovoam

Nagorno-Karabakh […] historically known as "Artsakh" (Armenian: Արցախ), is a region of former Azerbaijan Soviet Republic, in southern Caucasia, located about 270 km (about 170 mi) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. This predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923. Karabakh has declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not yet recognized by any country in the world.

1) Nagorno-Karabakh […] referred to by Armenians as "Artsakh" VS. Nagorno-Karabakh […] historically known as "Artsakh"

• “Artsakh” is a pre-Islamic name for the region. I am sure you would agree with me on this. “Karabakh” is a name given in medieval times when Islam came to the region and also when the Turkic tribes began to flow to the Caucasus in XI-XII cc. I am sure you know this too. In this circumstance both names (“Artsakh” and “Karabakh”) are *historical*.

Artsakh was a region of Caucasian Albania and was also captured at times by ancient Armenian kingdom. However, contemporary Azeris, which claim (“rightly” or “wrongly”, another question) to be descendants of ancient Caucasian Albanians, do not call the region “Artsakh” but call it “Karabakh”. Therefore, the pre-Islamic name “Artsakh” even though not of Armenian origin by itself, is mostly referred by the Armenians and this is clearly stated in the Wikipedia article. Having said that, I believe, the initial version pointing to this fact is more correct and appropriate.

2) The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian and effectively under Armenian control. VS. ??

• Why erase this sentence? Currently the region is predominantly ethnic Armenian (although historically it was not always the case), and it is under Armenian control/occupation. POV should be avoided here too.

3) The local Armenian separatists declared independence …. VS. Karabakh has declared independence

• Rovoam, you claim term “separatist” is not an “objective” terming. But this is the term used in international documents and proceedings, as well as the international media outlets with regard to the local Armenians in Karabakh. I could bring you hundreds of examples, but for now I would limit myself to two most recent examples: the Council of Europe resolution, which clearly spells out the term “separatist”. [1] and US State Department fact sheet on Karabakh [2], which clearly says stipulates territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

4) This predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923

• Mentioning of Stalin in this manner is not correct and doesn’t correspond to NPOV. This issue has been disputed for decades. Armenians claim Karabakh was put under Azerbaijan by Stalin’s “arbitrary decision”, while Azeris claim that it was Stalin who gave part of Azerbaijan to Armenia (Zangezur part of Armenia separating mainland Azerbaijan from Nakhchivan) and also forced Azerbaijan to accept autonomy for Karabakh Armenians within Azerbaijan. My suggestion would be to omit this controversial issue for the sake of avoiding future disputes and POV edits and instead, to focus on the facts.

---

Paragraph 2

Initial version:

Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was conquered by Tigranes II, ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia. In the early 4th century AD Alwanians managed to regain Artsakh, and eventually in 387 AD it became a part of Alwania again. In the 5th century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania.

Edit by Rovoam:

Nagorno-Karabakh comprises one of the historical parts of Alwania, or Caucasian Albania. In ancient times the region was called Artzakh. In 95 BC it was part of the Kingdom of Armenia, ruled by Tigranes II. In the '''4th''' century Christianity become the official religion in Alwania.

• Why delete historical reference to the fact that Artsakh was *conquered* by Armenian king Tigrannes and put instead a vague edition saying that in “95BC it was part of the Kingdom of Armenia”? And why delete reference to the fact that Albanians regained this territory from the Armenians later afterwards? I do not think a person concerned with NPOV would make such editions.

In short, I call Rovoam to be more impartial in his edits. Certainly the page is not perfect. I myself have some objections to the content. But before making some changes, one should first explain his suggested editions in the talkpage, receive feedback and only after that it is reasonable to change the content.--Tabib 10:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Tabib! You are right, both "historical" names - Artzakh and Karabakh - are correct. The modern (official) name of this region is Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is now also a historical name, and it is also correct. However, when we use term "historical" we usually mean "first historical". Taking this into consideration, it is correct to say that historically this region is known as Artzakh, and this is Armenian name.

If you would like, you can say "first historical name", but this would not make any sence. The first known name is Urtehe, which is known from Urartu period. This name is used by Strabon (together with other name - Orhistene) in his description of ancient Armenia. Movses Khorenatsi calls it Sunik, etc., etc. So, the subject is more complicated then you see it...

You really beleive that it is prohibited to mention Stalin's name in Wikipedia? How about other names? Are they prohibited too? For example, may I mention Hitler when I speek about Word War II? Would this correspond to NPOV? However, it was Stalin who created all this mess in Nagorno-Karabakh! This is a FACT!!! No doubt about this!

I know, Azeri also blame Stalin for Armenia very existence. After Turkish invasion into that region almost 2/3 part of Armenia was taken to Turky and approx. 1,5 million Armenians died. Speaking of Karanahk, more then 40000 people were killed by turks only in one sity - Shusha.

Now, if we agree that all names of political persons are prohibited, as it violates NPOV rules, why you refer to Armenian king Tigrannes? Don't you think, it's also wrong to mention his name in connection with this subject?

Why you refer to Caucasian Albania in this article? Does it really matter? -- The subject of "Caucasian Albania" today is a part of the modern Turkish and Azeri propaganda, and it has nothing to do with the reality. I know how you feel about your matherland, but please, be aware that Wikipedia is not a Turkish encyclopedia!

Talking about Caucasian Albania, it is well known that this country was situated on the left side of the Kir (Kura) river, and Karabahk was never part of this country. This fact is based on Strabon, Plinius, Phlavius et al. See this map, for example -

Armenia, Kolhida, Iberia and Albania. Plus, do you mean that this land should now belong to Albanians?!

My dear Turkish friend! Please understand one thing here. The Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda. No matter what you write here, it would not change the reality. We read Wikipedia to learn something new and to share our knowledge with others, but not to influence political desicions. It's simply impossible! Trust me!

With best regards,

Rovoam 12:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My Armenian colleague Rovoam. Frankly, I expected a more civilized and sincere discussion based on facts and not on bias and propaganda. While you call me your "Turkish friend" the content and implications of your postings and esp. your edits are not friendly at all. So far I didn't seriously interfere with this page and I want to stress that the contents of the page (before your POV edits) were largely a product of third party Wikipedians and also another Armenian editor Aramgutang, whom I haven't had an honour to know well, but who seemingly was more balanced in his approach to this particular page than you. As I said before, I am not fully content with the initial page (i.e. page version last edited by Cantus, before your edits) either, because in my view the initial version also has some Armenian bias (that's why label NPOV was placed there) but your edits are extremely biased and provoke new edit and revert war. The arguments you bring are irrelevant and with all my respect, senceless. What the term "first historical name" is supposed to mean? Didn't I explain you that both names, no matter "first" or "second" are *historical*? And who said that mentioning Stalin is "prohibited"? Why you misinterpret my words? And what relevance has Stalin to ancient Tigrannes?? As to your claim that territory of "Karabakh was never part of Albania", then you contradict yourself, because even in your edition, you couldn't avert mentioning of Artsakh being part of ancient Caucasian Albania.

In short, I repeat my earlier suggestion. Please, do not start an edit and revert war and discuss your views in talkpage, receive feedback and only after that, if consensus is reached, make substantial changes to the content. This is the way Wikipedia functions and develops. --Tabib 14:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Tabib! Yo haven't answer to any of the above arguments! You have to stop your violent Turkish vandalism and listen what other people say about you. Otherwise, I will have no choice, but to restrict your access to this site forever.

Rovoam, Come down to earth. You are nobody “to restrict my access to this site forever”. Where disappeared your sham politeness in previous messages? I believe so far I was rather deferential in my replies and didn’t give you pretexts for such kind of statements. Such attitude and words are not worthy of a person who wants to engage in a civilized and factual discussion. I advise you to choose the words you are using more prudently, and carefully consider your own arguments and editions in the light of Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. --Tabib 21:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the edit war

Hi all. I was asked by Tabib to offer an opinion on the edit war currently raging here. I am no expert on the subject, but I did edit this page a few times, mostly to flesh-out the infobox; see:[3] plus a few subsequent adjustments. I have had no prior contact with Tabib or Rovoam; I have had some prior (contentious) interactions with Cantus.

This is obviously a controversial subject and I see POV in both Rovoam's edits and in the version of the article that Tabib and Cantus are reverting back to. I also see relevant information in Rovoam's edits. I would suggest that folks calm down and talk about specific changes. I will try and assist on the talk page. Everyone please cease wholesale reverts to any of the prior versions (as I write this, Rovoam's have been reverted; I do not mean to specifically endorse this).

"arbitrary decision of Stalin" — is this factual? if so, it merits mention in some form in the article.

"not yet recognized" — 'yet' is POV-pushing.

— Davenbelle 19:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

So far ALL contributions on Wikipedi brought by Tabib (Azeri Turk) revolve around Turkish people GOOD PEOPLE/Armenian and Persian People BAD PEOPLE. One really wonders who at Wikipedia should be interested in his personal problems. Instead of profiting from new learning, we are being pestered by banalities and trivial POV. This is SICKENING, man.--84.154.60.174 21:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User 84.154.60.174 (aka 84.154.102.141, aka 84.154.63.43, aka 84.154.114.240, aka 84.154.109.26) is a known vandalizer of the page on Safavids. Please refer to the relevant talkpage and Safavids history log to see his vandalism in progress. --Tabib 21:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit War II, The Redirects

Maybe this page should be about the 'Republic of'. Maybe there should be two pages. But there should not be warfare. There should be talk. — Davenbelle 21:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Davenbelle, Thanks for your positive reaction to my request for third party opinion. I hope presence of you and Cantus as third neutral parties will discourage Rovoam from engaging in a revert war and also, will make the discussion more sensible and fruitful.

First, I want to clearly tell you that creating a new page under name "Republic of" is unacceptable. Nagorno Karabakh is an internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan and this is an indisputable fact. All the questions regarding the Karabakh conflict and the Karabakh's current situation should be dealt here. I understand that you are not well familiar with the topic, therefore, I will cut short my criticism of this suggestion of yours.

Second, I want to stress once again, that I am not content with the initial version last saved by Cantus either. Especially I am not satisfied with the way the Nagorno Karabakh fact box is designed, with only writing in Armenian on the top (before that there was only Nagorno-Karabakh and no protracted Armenian description of the self-proclaimed republic, which is not correct in my view, but this is for later..). But so far I didn’t want to interfere in the discussion because generally the page content seemed to be rather even handed. I am not claiming to be an impartial person, but I certainly did not push my POV in this page as Rovoam and my only contribution to this page so far was simply reverting obvious biased POV edits by Rovoam to previous less erroneous edits by third party editors.

My stance regarding the page content is that we should focus on the facts and not on some vague and controversial statements. Rovoam attempted to remove the term “separatist” describing the Karabakh Armenian authorities, he exposed his biased POV by adding “yet” to the sentence on Karabakh’s non-recognized status. (“The NKR's sovereign status is not [yet (-?!)] recognized by any country in the world.”), he tried to misinterpret the legal status of Karabakh by arguing that it was allegedly “Soviet Azerbaijan” who had Karabakh as its part and this doesn’t apply to present-day independent Azerbaijan Republic, nonsence can’t be more obscene. This list of biased POV editing is far from being complete and all these facts show that throughout the whole edit history in this page Rovoam was not objective, to put it mildly.

I want to say briefly about Stalin. I actually do not mind mentioning Stalin in the Karabakh page. BUT, if accepted as expedient, this mentioning should be construed in an objective manner not favoring the position of one party and discrediting other’s position. Stalin’s negative image in the history has been continuously exploited with propagandistic goals by both Armenians and Azeris. In a sense Stalin became a scapegoat and a propaganda card for both sides. As I mentioned above, Armenians claim that Stalin arbitrarily placed Karabakh under Azerbaijan. Azeris claim that Stalin gave Zangezur to Armenians and similarly wanted to give Karabakh and Nakhchivan to Armenians as well. This is really a long story and a very complicated one, therefore, for the sake of avoiding continuous biased editings and promoting certain political agendas I suggested avoiding mentioning Stalin (whose role is often being exaggerated in this conflict) from the page. In any case, these are my preliminary suggestions. If needed I am ready to further substantiate them.--Tabib 21:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, agressive tactics like messing with redirects and adjusting every page that links here is not going to make the anons (yes, possibly Rovoam) many friends. You guys need to talk and work this out or the edit war will continue. If you don't, this will end up in dispute resolution. I am also going to suggest that you consider a mediator. — Davenbelle 00:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

User Tabib, keep personal problems out of here, once and for all!! Please!

Why start edit wars (edit world wars?) on every page you descend on, with your apparent Turkic/Turkish/Turkey problem? All you do is post POV or delete other's texts, on account of POV. Cut it out. --84.154.120.102 22:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)