Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:21, 16 February 2006

Previous material on the discussion page has been archived to Talk:Nakhichevan/archive; please go there to see earlier discussion (prior to medcab; April 2005 onwards.) Sdedeo (tips) 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

medcabal

OK, I've arrived as part of medcabal, see this request: .

As far as I can tell, this dispute is between User:RaffiKojian and User:Grandmaster.

(I have removed a long discussion here; see Talk:Nakhichevan/archive)

compromise first paragraph

This was compromise para the first. There may still be one or two issues remaining with word choice, but people are in general agreement about it and I personally think it is good-to-go.

Nakhichevan's border with Armenia has been closed since 1989; the border was closed by Armenia in retaliation to Azerbaijan's closure of the rest of its borders as part of a larger conflict the two countries were involved in (see Nagorno-Karabakh.)

Sdedeo (tips) 19:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of large blocks of text without discussion by grandmaster

Several times in the history of this article grandmaster reverted the article without discussing any of the changes made. Not once did he bother using the talk page nor did he try modifying the text or anything, he just reverts. One good example is here, a user though an anon tried to bridge the historical gap of several centuries in this article and grandmaster reverted as usual without any discourse: Revision as of 10:05, 12 January 2006--Eupator 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, thanks. If you know of any other major deletions recently, please paste there here so that we can possibly reintegrate some of that information. Wholescale removal of content is an indication of a major problem. Sdedeo (tips) 16:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (let me add that we're going to stay focused on doing para by para first, so take your time if you like, but we will get around to it. Sdedeo (tips) 16:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

In addition to the above here's another one: Revision as of 06:38, 25 December 2005 Additions(with decent sources) were poorly worded and formatted but deserved to be rewritten and not deleted.--Eupator 18:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

These edits had serious POV problems. Some examples from the text:

artefacts of the Armenian culture, systematically ruined by Azerbaijanian vandals.

But this ancient Armenian land again and again became an object of aggression in the time of Turks and Azeris

March 1921, by the Moscow treaty between Soviet Russia and Kemalist Turkey, Armenia was devided between them as Poland in 1939 between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

The second one completely deleted all the Muslim and Turkic history of the region and added phrases like this:

It was beyond any doubt that Nakhichevan was an Armenian territory which was passed to the protection of the Soviet Azerbaijan deriving from the interests of the world revolution. Otherwise, how could an Azerbaijani territory be passed to the protection of Azerbaijan itself?

Some of the information was absolutely out of touch with reality and no credible sources were provided. Example:

In 1918-1920, as a result of two Turkish invasions, part of the Armenians populace (25000 persons) of the former Nakhichevan province (later – a district) was assassinated by the Turkish occupants and bands of Mousafats, and part of them was forced to leave their homeland.

How could I keep such edits with no reference to any sources? There are rules for adding information to the article, and they were obviously violated, so I had to revert these edits.

Grandmaster 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all you cannot just delete it. Wikirules state that much. You can request a citation via or on the talk page. Change the wroding etc. Second of all you removed a ton of other information with references as well as names of prominent historical persons born in Nakhijevan, not to mention the Armenian etymology of the name but as Sdedeo said we will get back to this once everything above is settled. --Eupator 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This edit completely removed the existing text, which I restored. Grandmaster 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No large chunks of texts were removed, only new facts were added.--Eupator 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a copy-paste of an article from one of Armenian sites. That’s why there were rhetoric questions in it. Misplaced Pages does not allow unauthorized copying from other resources. Grandmaster 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Provide the source of your claims please.--Eupator 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You know that I always do. The text was copied from this Armenian propaganda site: Grandmaster 06:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster also deleted the photo of the Armenian khachkars I had added right away without discussion, and quickly put up a picture of an Azeri mausoleum. When I called him on it his defense was, You have that picture in the article about Julfa, and that is enough. No need to include it in every single article about Nakhichevan. There are better things in Nakhichevan than the tombstones, and this mausoleum is one of the better known landmarks of Nakhichevan. btw, "every single article" at that time meant two, including this one, not that it's important. This has been resolved, but I just want to illustrate that this remove without discussion approach is not constructive, and his explanation shows that the removals themselves can be POV. --RaffiKojian 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only me, but also other users, who were not from Azerbaijan removed this photo, thinking that it is not appropriate here. Indeed, there are better known landmarks of the area, one of which I included into this article. And there’s no real proof of Armenian allegations, so why that picture should be here, considering that you included it into another article about Nakhichevan as well? There are only three full text articles on Nakhichevan, and two of them have this picture now. Grandmaster 06:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Under Misplaced Pages guidelines on Abundance and Redundancy, inclusion of the same information in more than one article is perfectly permissable and even encouraged. "In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content."--TigranTheGreat 13:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This dispute is actually resolved. We were arguing about which picture to include and ended up keeping both. But still I’m sure there are people who may consider that picture inappropriate on this page. Raffi inserted it in two out of three pages with text about Nakhichevan. Whatever. I comment on this because Raffi touched upon this issue. Grandmaster 13:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's keep the discussion focused on para-by-para; we will have to come back to this later, it seems. (Just trying to focus everyone's attention on one step at a time.) Sdedeo (tips) 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, since Raffi has to leave, I won't be able to take care of this unless you wish to join the mediation: then I can mediate between you and GM. Is this OK? Sdedeo (tips) 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I hope we cam get one step closer towards removing the tag after unprotection.--Eupator 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

my 2 remaining issues

Since I already said twice I was fine to drop the population change line, only two changes remain, the problem in these cases was a lack of dialogue which I think is being addressed now.

From the line "It now exists and is internationally recognized as a part of Azerbaijan governed by its own elected parliament.". I removed "and is internationally recognized". It is redundant. The first line of the article says it is an enclave of Azerbaijan. It is. The sentence still says it is a part of Azerbaijan, which even that is redundant, but the internationally recognized when there is no dispute over it's status is a bit excessive and frankly paranoid. That's how I feel and frankly Sdedeo can decide for me if it is needed or not, I really don't feel strongly about it, it just became a part of this package of reverts and Grandmaster thinks I have some ulterior motive in this. So we can consider this issue closed when Sdedeo says whether it should stay or go, I'm fine with either. --RaffiKojian 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The LAST issue! I am strongly against including the following text following mention of khachkar destruction by the Azeri govt: Azerbaijani authorities claim these accusations as a propaganda campaign on part of Armenia to distract international attention from destruction of Azeri monuments, which according to Azeri authorities takes place in Armenia as well as in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. Yes, it is standard operating procedure for Azerbaijan to claim innocence. They did it the last time and they are doing it again. They also like to accuse the Armenians of behaving the same way they do (thus the Karabakh mention). But that reply should not be mentioned for a variety of reasons. 1) it is irrelevant both in that it lays in Karabakh, and that it would not justify destruction anyway. 2) Karabakh is open for anybody from anywhere, even for Grandmaster to go and visit. I have pictures from May. The Mosques are still there and can be visited. Jugha and the Armenian sites in Nakhichevan are closed to outsiders or to everybody but the military. 3) There has clearly been no state policy to destroy Azeri cultural items by Armenians, while the destruction PHOTOGRAPHED of Azeri destruction of Armenian khachkars was by large numbers of Azeri soldiers with heavy machinery. Clearly state sponsored, and the European Parliament called for an end to it. So to even try to make this into a "he said, she said" instead of a stand-alone issue is just wrong, ugly, distracting, and serves the purposes of evil. Sorry, but it does and I am not going to say otherwise. It is like genocide apologists. Excuses and distractions do not belong in a clean, factual entry unless they are labelled clearly as such. If you want my suggestion on a compromise, I could live with "Azerbaijan denied the charges". But any more than that I think is wrong for the reasons above. --RaffiKojian 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Raffi -- thanks for giving a shot at resolving this dispute quickly. Here are my responses:

1. I agree that "int. recog." is redundant because I believe you are right in saying there is no actual dispute. But redundancy is way down on the list of wikipedia no-nos, so if Grandmaster wants to keep it, we can keep it in the interests of clearing up the dispute. GM, please post a response if you still want it.

It was there from the beginning, so let it stay there. I don't see why it shouldn't be there. Grandmaster 21:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source; in every dispute, there are (at least) two sides, and we must report what the other side says. If there are sources that dispute the claims, we can also include them. As I've noted above, you may have very good personal evidence to the contrary, but we can't include it in the wikipedia article. To put it another way, if you want to argue with the Azerbaijani government, your best bet is to write an article and publish it in a newspaper; then other editors can include it in the entry. I completely understand your passion about the subject here, but this is just how the wikipedia works, and we (the whole project) does its very best to explain this fact to people. Your best step at this point would be to find a newspaper article or something similar that explicitly disputes the charge made by the Azerbaijani government.

If you are still around, do respond to this before you leave! Thanks very much, Sdedeo (tips) 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I will try to get this resolved before I head off, and hope to check in while I'm away too, but if necessary Eupator can step in (assuming willingness). So the remaining issue I have I don't think depends on a tertiary source. As I said - Azerbaijan has been told to stop destroying Armenian khachkars in Julfa by the European Parliament. I would like to point out that in their response, they do not deny the allegation, something I just noticed and that should be mentioned. Their response is that Azeri monuments are being vandalised in Karabakh. If their response was to say that the earth is flat and by the way martians have landed in Baku, should it be included? They are being accused of destruction of cultural monuments in Nakhichevan, so whether or not Azeri monuments have been vandalized is an irrelevant response and a distraction from the charges leveled - as I said, it is not a defense to say, "but they are also destroying things in other places". If it is taking place elsewhere those claims can be put in the appropriate article. So I disagree that this section should remain as is and propose the much briefer, succinct point below. --RaffiKojian 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

* On January 19, 2006, the European Parliament called on the Azerbaijani authorities to put an end to the demolition of medieval Armenian cemeteries and khachkars (intricately carved stone crosses) in southern Nakhichevan, which according to the Parliament was in breach of the terms of Azerbaijan's 1993 ratification of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. Azerbaijani authorities did not deny the allegations in their response.

Raffi -- thanks for providing a source. I am a little busy tonight and tomorrow, but will get around to proposing a paragraph here that incorporates both the Armenian response and the EU parliment source. If you have any other sources you would like me to look at as well that bear directly on this question, please let me know. If the Armenian government claims in an official document that Martians had landed as their response, we would indeed include it. Again, this is the nature of wikipedia. Thanks to everyone for being very civil in this discussion, it is definitely helping us resolve things much faster and better. Sdedeo (tips) 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think anything has been written about this by third parties, and it seems in a case like this wikipedia's rules hurt the quality of the article. Well I hope you do at least make it a point to mention that Azerbaijan does not deny the allegation in it's response. --RaffiKojian 04:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani authorities did deny the Armenian allegations. See the letter of Azerbaijani ambassador.

(to save space I've cut this; just click the link)

I think the reaction of Azeri authorities should be included in the article as well. For the moment more attention is given to the Armenian allegations. Grandmaster 05:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, if we are quoting from articles, we should leave the words as they are instead of editting them. I realize you prefer the name Shusha for the city (which presumably is an Azeri name) as opposed to the Armenian Shushi. The Azeri author of the article, however, apparently was fine using the Armenian version. You can explain the difference after the quote.--TigranTheGreat 13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a mistake of the Russian translator of Regnum agency, because Russian version is correct. And why you removed the link to the article on the city? Grandmaster 13:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, gentlemen, hi, Sdedeo. It's nice to see the dispute is being mediated. Since I too was involved in the editting of the paragraph on the destruction of monuments in Nakhichevan, I would like to voice my concerns with the paragraph too. I believe the last sentence ("Azerbaijani authorities claim these accusations as a propaganda campaign on part of Armenia to distract international attention from destruction of Azeri monuments, which according to Azeri authorities takes place in Armenia as well as in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone") should be replaced with "Azerbaijan has denied the charges." This will comply with the NPOV rules of presenting both views on the issue at hand. The relevant issue here is the state of monuments in Nakhichevan. We say "Armenians accuse so and so," and then we say that Azerbaijan has denied the charbes. The issue of monuments in Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia, and the views that each side holds on them, have nothing to do with the topic of that particular segment, which is, again, monuments in Nakhichevan. It just introduces a distraction to the segment and shifts the focus from the intended topic to an unrelated topic. Also, note that now we have 2 views on the monuments in Nakhichevan, but only the Azeri view on monuments in Armenia, which is not NPOV. Here is the danger of allowing unrelated issues added to a paragraph like this. If as a matter of policy we include, as part of the second view, something that has nothing to do with the main disputed topic, then we would potentially be allowed to add "Armenia denies the response of Azerbaijan, and considers it an attempt to distract attention from destruction of monuments in Shahumian (a region of Karabakh under Azeri control)." Then we would add "Azeris consider this response an attempt to distract attention from Armenia's occupation of Azerbaijan," after which we could add "Armenia considers this response an attempt to divert attention from the killing of an Armenian officer by an Azeri officer in Hungary (which is true)" and so on. The point is not whether in reality such views of Armenia have been published. The paragraph would grow endlessly, and the topic of monuments in Nakhichevan would be totally lost. The point is not whether these views of Armenia have been published, the point is that if we adopt that practice as a matter of policy, then we face the danger that I just described (and let's face it, one day we could find published sources with those views). We should simply present the views on the issue of Nakhichevan. Armenians accuse, and Azeris deny. As for the Martian example, if indeed Armenians had that view published, I think it would still be inappropriate here (as its' irrelevant), though it would be relevant in an article on Martians.--TigranTheGreat 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Azerbaijani position should be properly reflected. It is unfair that we dedicate so much space to Armenian allegations and then would just say that Azeri authorities deny them. We should give an explanantion of Azerbaijani position as well, and it should take the same amount of space. Grandmaster 13:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Azerbaijan has evidence on the specific issue of the destruction of the Nakichevan monuments (videos or whatever), then sure, we can include it. But if the additional facts in Azerbaijan's response have litte to do with these monuments, then it's a distraction and has no place. We are introducing a new fact and only one side on that fact (Azerbaijan's). Also, about equal space, it's not just Armenia's position but EP's position as well, so it makes sense to devote more space to the positions of Armenia and EP.--TigranTheGreat 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tigran. Thanks for your input. I've explained before why we should include the response of the Az. government. As I've said, I understand your passion on the issue. I will also say this again, everyone needs to be very brief when discussing their problems.

I see we now have another source on top of the Az gov. and the EU parliment (the Regnum article). This is very helpful. I cannot stress enough that these are the main things that matter here in this little mini-debate.

Tigran, I don't quite understand what you want here, but why don't you propose a paragraph? Please provide all the sources you can to establish the facts. It can't take more than three sentences: one for Az position, one for Armen response, one for international/press discussion. Each sentence should be sourced.

I'm sorry, but the specifics of the Az response need to be included. Tigran, please read WP:NPOV; the viewpoint of the Az. government you consider ridiculous, I understand, but it is a "mainstream" viewpoint. The way wikipedia works is we present the facts, readers judge for themselves; one of the important facts here is what the two governments claim; it is part of international diplomacy. If we were writing a newspaper article, we could discount and possibly even ignore the Az. response, but we are not. If you still don't understand this, please take a look at , which is part of a discussion I was involved with last year (in a very different subject area) where these same issues arose.

Sdedeo (tips) 15:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for response, Sdedeo. This is not about passion, it's about making the article comply with the Wiki policies, which is the goal of all of us.

For my proposed paragraph, all I want is to replace the last sentence ("Azerbaijani authorities claim these accusations as a propaganda campaign on part of Armenia to distract international attention from destruction of Azeri monuments, which according to Azeri authorities takes place in Armenia as well as in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone") with "Azerbaijan has denied the charges."

I read your FIRE discussion, I have read NPOV, and my complaint with the Azeri claim (Armenians destroy Azeri monuments in Karabakh) is not that it's ridiculous, but that it's not on the issue that's the topic of the paragraph, i.e. whether monuments in Nakhichevan are being destroyed or not. Hence it's irrelevant. I agree that the specifics of the Azeri view should be included, but only if they are on the issue at hand (e.g. "the charges are false because ..."). Monuments in Karabakh and monuments in Nakhichevan are two separate issues. I didn't find anything in the NPOV policy saying that, when we introduce an opposing view on an issue, we should include new issues mentioned in the opposing response. In other words, if we state positions A1 and A2 on an issue A, where does it say in the NPOV that we should include the position B2 on a new issue B, if the 2nd person stated A2 and B2 in the same response?--TigranTheGreat 16:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. However, I am very reluctant to remove information from the wiki, and this is indeed information, and important. In general we follow the argument where it leads; we don't judge whether or not a response is "irrelevant", but only whether the responder is significant enough to include. We leave it to readers to decide whether, e.g., the Az. response is off-topic. I will ask again: do you have a source that disputes the Az. claim? Sdedeo (tips) 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani authorities claim these accusations as a propaganda campaign on part of Armenia to distract international attention from destruction of Soviet era Azeri monuments, which according to Azeri authorities takes place in Armenia as well as in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. The monuments in question are some modern statues that were damaged during the war and apparently found in Georgia. That should be noted, so the reader may compare a 1400 year old religious artifact destroyed entirely by a government during peace time to a soviet statue damaged during war time (siege of the city of Shushi).--Eupator 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s not just about modern statues, it’s about destruction of the historical part of the town of Shusha, including mosques, museums, houses, etc, all that was of great historical and cultural value. I’ve got pictures as well to illustrate what I’m talking about. Grandmaster 17:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, how about this?

"Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side do not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction." (http://www.regnum.ru/english/574041.html)

This way, the specifics of both the Armenian and Azeri claims are presented. As for the destruction of Azeri monuments in other parts of Azerbaijan (outside Nakhichevan), I believe a more relevant place is the article on Azerbaijan, instead of the one on Nakhichevan.--TigranTheGreat 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, that is important, thanks for bringing that up. Tigran, this new sentence you propose is much better, since it provides a link and also some information. Let's pause here. Grandmaster, what do you feel about that sentence, which I'll repeat just to be clear:

Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side do not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction.

This is more focused on the dispute than the previous more general denial in the EU parliment. Sdedeo (tips) 17:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I would like to compare it to the first part of the paragraph in question, i.e. allegations of Armenian side. I want to know how specific and detailed that part would be to keep it balanced with Azeri reaction. Basically, I would prefer both parts to be as brief as possible, because this article is about Nakhichevan Republic and there’s virtually no information about the region in the article other than disputes, both historical and modern. Grandmaster 17:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

continuing discussion of 2nd para

Hi, just making a new section for convenience.

GM, can you present the full paragraph now as you would like to see it, replacing the previous sentence with Tigran's new version? Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It should look something like this:

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations. Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction.

Grandmaster 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but I want to see the European Parliament link incorporated somehow: ,Calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to put an end the demolition of medieval Armenian cemeteries and historic carved stone crosses in southern Nakhichevan, which is in breach of the terms of its 1993 ratification of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention;--Eupator 18:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let’s wait for Sdedeo’s reaction, he could help to shape the final wording. Grandmaster 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about (after some tweaking and slimming):

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations (SOURCE REQUIRED); the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction .

We still need a source for the first thing (Armenian accusation). Otherwise, I think we are good to go on this one; I am very happy that we are including a maximal amount of information and sourcing on this controversy. Can someone provide a source for the first bit? We may be very close to unprotection (though there are a few remaining issues.) Sdedeo (tips) 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's great. The correct wiki link is khachkar btw. I guess we can use the MFA as an Armenian source. This site is ran by the Foreign Ministry and has several links on the main page: http://www.armeniadiaspora.com

Link directly from the MFA site: http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/movie/jougha1-qt.html Link with pictures plus video: http://www.armenica.org/history/old-jougha/index.html --Eupator 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. People can check the links and judge for themselves, who’s right and who’s wrong. Grandmaster 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's the essence! Can someone provide a source for the Armenian accusations, and then I think we are good to go on the specific paragraph disputes. Next step is to look over the two diffs Eupator presented and see if anything can be salvaged. Sdedeo (tips) 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the diffs that grandmaster removed was a copy/paste from a web site. Grandmaster provided the link above (not copyrighted though). Still it was obviously wrong even though the information within was right. I have mixed feelings about that one now. Can we tweak such infotmation? The article as it is now only has information regarding modern Nakhijevan and nothing about pre-Turkic days or when it was under Armenian control.--Eupator 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's just briefly table this until we have agreement on the particular para above! Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Final version (I am going to go ahead and assume everyone is OK with this.)

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations ; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction .

I think we are good to go here. The only thing that I think is missing (but can be inserted later) is a link to an official Armenian government statement about this issue (right now, we only have material from a non-profit group.) If there are no major objections, we can now move to the final thing. Sdedeo (tips) 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. If grandmaster is ok with it.--Eupator 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Much better than it was. Grandmaster 20:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Small mod.: saw that we can also provide a link to an official Armenian gov site, so that solves the minor problem I mentioned above. Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am against the final version. Grandmaster has deleted important info--UNISEF violation, description of khachkars (not just grave stones), the specifics of video in Armenian claims (i.e. "soldiers." I actually provided Azeri view's specifics on the contents of the video), EP's language is distorted (not just Azerbaijanis, but Azerbaijan), the fact that this is not the first time Armenia presents the accusations--all relevant to the topic of the paragraph.--TigranTheGreat 20:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have all the specifics, we should have all the specifics of Azeri response as well. Much of it is omitted here. For example, no mention of the fact that Azerbaijan authorities view this as propaganda campaign to distract international attention from destruction of Azeri cultural heritage in Karabakh. It also has the word khachkar, with explanation of what it is, since most people don’t know. It has an internal link for more info. Azerbaijani ambassador said that it is not the first time the Armenian side is making such groundless charges, etc. I think it’s better to make it as brief as possible to give readers a chance to check the sources and judge for themselves. Grandmaster 20:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all the specifics, just the main ones. EP's view has too much specifics taken from it. Azeri view has more specifics on the video than the Armenian view (100 soldiers). Description of khachkar has nothing to do with the Armenian view and should be included. People don't need to click on a link to find out basic info on khachkars. Azeri accusations re Armenia and Karabakh are off topic--we already provide on-topic specifics, that's enough.--TigranTheGreat 20:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Azeri accusations are not off-topic, they explain the reasons for this new propaganda campaign. Grandmaster 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is a para that responds to some of Tigran's concerns:

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations ; the European Parliament has formally called for Azerbaijan to stop any such destruction as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction .

I do not think we need to redescribe what khachkars are -- there is a separate article for a reason! Furthermore, while it is possible that khachkars may be something other than gravestones (I am not sure), the EUP only talked about the destruction of "medieval Armenian cemeteries and historic carved stone crosses in southern Nakhichevan". Finally, I don't think we need to get into the details of is it soldiers, etc. etc. Sdedeo (tips) 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As I stated below, the entire section on the Armenian view (which had really not been subject to dispute until deleted by Grandmaster during mediation) was replaced by a word-by-word forumaltion of the view by the Azeri author of the Regnum article (http://www.regnum.ru/english/574041.html). This is very odd concidering that the segment is referenced by Armenian articles on the Armenian view. I agree that we need to include basic facts in this segment. I believe some of the basic facts were removed. Here is my proposed paragraph (changes are in bold)--I have added back some of the facts (itemized later). Since you insist on having both views (Azeri and Armenian) cover comparable spaces, I have added a few more facts from the Azeri response:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, appealing to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction . The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, calling them a propaganda campaign, and stating that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory. They have further stated that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. .

• Several times since its independence,: It is important to mention that this is not just an isolated incidence. The Armenian articles mention that it has happened before, notably in 2002.

• systematic: According to Armenians, this is not just something random, which I think is important aspect of the allegations. The source article calls it "genocide." We don't need to use the g word, systematic is less emotional.

• historic carved stone crosses: The "grave-stones" is the formulation of the Azeri author copied by Grandmaster. I believe EP's definition of khachkars is more appropriate than the Azeri one--it's more accurate. I realize we have a separate article, but we are not copying everything from there--this is basic info just to help the readers get the idea. We say khackhars, and briefly define it for the users. Plus, it's a neutral background info, and should not be seen as contributing to the "weight" of Armenian view.

• 6th - 9th cc.: I replaced the "historical" from EP's definition with more accurate phrase. . First, an important aspect of Armenian accusations is that these things are old--they are not just recent stuff erected at a site of a medieval cemetery. Second, Medieval is big--in Caucasus it lasted till 18th century. This is important both as information of Nakhichevan's rich cultural heritage (which should be matter of pride for Azerbaijan), and for more accurate portrayal of the Armenian view (the phrase was used to Arm. President Kocharyan).

• appealing to international organizations to intervene: This is a serious claim, not just something Armenia said in a press-release. The fact that Armenians felt the need to go high up is an important fact.

• soldiers: I think it's important that the videos show that it's the government, and not some random guys, which is the very basis of Armenian allegations. I think it is unfair and unclear when the Azeri view on the video contains specifics (no nationality, no crosses), but the Armenian portion does not.

EP's view

• the demolition of medieval Armenian cemeteries and khachkars: This is the language of the EP statement that I copied from the EP website. It shows that according to EP, the demolitions take place. When we say "any such destruction," it sounds like "if you guys are doing it, stop it." I know we are repeating the "cemeteries and khachkars," but I minimized it, and there was no other way to do it for conveying this basic position on the part of EP. By the way, this sentence is the international position, so it should not be seen as part of the space of the Armenian view.

By the way, this is not presenting all the specifics in Armenian claims, just the important ones. I left out the part about "intention of Azerbaijan to erase Armenian culture's traces." I also left out the number of the soldiers (numbers don't belong here, I believe), or the mode of the destruction (heavy machinery). The Azeri view contains several facts: the denial, propaganda campaign, high importance placed on protection, no clear nationality in the video, no clear stones. I don't think we should introduce the whole issue of Azeri monuments here, since it will invite the Armenian response (), which will lengthen the segment even more, and then the entire focus of this segment will be shifted from Nakhichevan's monuments to monuments in Karabakh and Armenia, which is not appropriate.

Finally, for Grandmaster's concern that the issue takes disproportionately large segment of the article on Nakhichevan--this article is going to grow. Right now it's little more than a stub. The issue of khachkars will eventually be like 2% of the entire space. No need to penalize this section just because the article is currently incomplete.--TigranTheGreat 12:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

replacing material

OK, Eupator has given two diffs where GM may have removed material that could be reincorporated.

I have looked over the diffs --

: this one has some serious POV problems later, and it is totally unsourced. My feeling is that the first two paras of the diff should be reincluded, with a link to the original website from whence they came.

The remaining material is way too POV to include wholesale, however, it does have some legit info in between. What I suggest is that we really should cover things such as forced resettlement, but that we should probably just "start again": i.e., people with knowledge about these issues should put it in with sources and in a super neutral fashion. I don't think the reminaing paras of this particular diff can be used as is.

also has major major NPOV problems (it is also one giant paragraph and very hard to read.) My guess here is that there is some useful and legit info, especially about early history, but that disentangling it from the POV is too hard and it would be much more efficient for the editors we have right now to go ahead and start adding their own info (again, not to be repetitive, but with all sorts of super NPOV phrasing and awesome citations.)

So: my suggestion here is that the only action we take on this is to reinclude the first two paras of the first diff. Are there any serious disagreements with my suggestions and comments here? Sdedeo (tips) 20:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll work on the history section with Tigran and Grandmaster. Thanks for your time and patience Sdedeo. --Eupator 20:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please copy here the paragraphs you feel need to be included? Grandmaster 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They are the first two paras of the first diff (oops -- noticed a little POV straggler that I've removed); these could definitely be slimmed, but there is good general info here.

The city of Nakhichevan was first mentioned in Ptolemy's "Geography" as Naksuana and was said to be established in 4400 BCE. Nakhijevan is ancient Armenian for the "First Station" or "First town" of Noah the Patriarch. Naksuana is ancient Greek for "the land of sweet water". Nakhijevan was one of the prominent cities of the Kingdom of Armenia. Since it changed kingdoms (Armenia, 2492BC-428AD, 885-1045, Zakarian Armenian Princedom XII-XIIIcc., Republic of Armenian 1918-1920), empires (Iran, Byzantium, Arabia, Russia), sultanates (XVc.), and khanates (1639-1828), the name of Nakhichevan was altered many times, changing to: Nakhijevan, Nakshijahan, Nuhchikhan (the place where Noah landed), Nesheva and etc. Throughout history Nakhichevan land brought up prominent persons such as VII c. medieval Armenian poet Vahan Goghtnetst, the brother of the academicians Levon and Hovsep Orbelis - Ruben Orbeli the founder of the soviet underwater archeology, the national artist of Armenia - Hasmik (Taguhi Hakobyan), Hakob (Jacob) IV of Julfa (Jugha) - the Supreme Patriarch (Catholicos) of the Armenian Holy Apostolic Church, Alexander I of Jugha - the Supreme Patrirch of the Armenian Holy Apostolic Church, Lazar I of Jahuk (Shahbuz) - the Supreme Patrirch of the Armenian Holy Apostolic Church, poet Yeremia Sahakyan, professor, doctor Stephan Melik-Bakhshian - a prominent Armenian historian from an aristocratic house of Nakhijevan province, professor, engeenier-technologist Z.Khojanetyan, professor, psychologist Gro (Grigor Ter-Hakobyan), Hindushah ibn Nakhchivani, Abdurrakhman en Neshevi, Ekmouladdin Nakhchivani, Ejemi Nakhchivani, Generals Garegin Nejdeh (Ter-Haroutyunyan) - the great philosopher and a leader of the Armenian Liberation Movement against the Bolsheviks, Kemalists and Musavatists, Lieutenant Genereal G.Ter-Gasparyan, Major General H.Hakhnazaryan, Ehsan, Kelbali, Ismail, Hussein, Jamshid khan Nakhichevanski and others.

The oldest material culture artifacts found in Nakhichevan date back to the Neolithic Age. The region was part of the states of Armenia, Ararat-Urartu, Mannae and Media in 8 – 7 BCE, Achaemenid state in 6 BCE, and later became part of the state of Atropatene a vassal kingdom pf Armenia then of Iran. In 3 century Nakhichevan was conquered by Persia from Armenia for some months, in 623 by Byzantium, and in the middle 7th century by Arabs. In 8th century this area was ruined by Babak uprising. Nakhichevan was part of feudal states of Bagratides Armenian Kingdom, then after 1045 of Sajids and Salarids in, and fell under control of Seljuks in 11th century.

Sdedeo (tips) 21:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the first thing that caught my eye is this: 2492BC-428AD

A Kingdom by the name of Armenia did not exist before the fifth century BC :) The 2492 date is a legendary date. The rets is fine just needs to be wikified. Some names are transliterated incorrectly etc.--Eupator 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My problem with this is that it makes no references to any sources. As for prominent people, I don’t know any of those added to the existing list, but I think we should keep just a few very prominent ones or remove completely, it takes too much space. Grandmaster 21:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither does the stuff added by the azeris have references ;) I think the text should be added. Then we should wikify it. Then you should add references for the azeri stuff and vice versa for the Armenian stuff.

Nor do I see anything prominent about the azeri list, I mean compare it to a Catholicos of all Armenians in the world. Just needs to be wikified. --Eupator 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so there is definitely some stuff here that is wrong and taken from purely legendary sources, which pretty much casts into doubt the accuracy of the rest. I guess I'm going to say that we should add stuff from the list here onto the main article only as we find sources for it; yes, there is plenty of unsourced material on the wiki, but here we have reason to believe this particular chunk will have particular problems. So, let's not add this stuff in all at once, but rather leave it on the talk page for Eupator, GM, and everyone to add onto the main article as they satisfy themselves about the particular accuracy of a fact. Sdedeo (tips) 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the history section, except for the first paragraph. It’s based on the material from Great Soviet Encyclopedia, a trustworthy source in Russia. I’ll give you the link. I also used some other sources, all of them are cited. As for the prominent people, click the link for Hussein Khan Nakhichevanski, he was general-adjutant of Russian emperor. The article about him was featured on the front page of Misplaced Pages, I also wrote it. Ejemi Nakhichevani was the architect of the mausoleum, the photo of which is featured in the article. And then we have Garegin Nejdeh from your list, who killed thousands of innocent Azeris and later served in the army of Nazi Germany. Quite controversial, I would say. Maybe it would be better to not list anybody at all. Grandmaster 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sdedeo. Let’s get the facts checked first. Grandmaster 21:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the current article which you wrote ergo the tag! Njdeh has never touched a single innocent soul, only bloodthirsty invaders. Also he served in the same Wehrmacht that had over 25, 000 Azeri volunteers :) I agree, we will list all or list none. I will begin a major rewrite of the article once I'm finished with the Chechen, Al-Quaeda stuff in the Karabakh article. --Eupator 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Don’t forget to provide sources for the information you wish to include. So far Raffi failed to provide a citation I asked for the paragraph he included, so if I don’t get a source of information soon I’m going to delete it. Grandmaster 20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As for Njdeh, his gangs exterminated whole villages with Azeri and Kurdish population in Nakhchivan, Karabakh and other parts of Azerbaijan, as well as in the territory of modern day Armenia. And I didn’t include any of those Azeris who served for Wehrmacht in the lists of prominent people. Grandmaster 21:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, pause now. Misplaced Pages is not the place to discuss your personal opinions ! The only thing I've said here is that we should leave this on the talk page for now because there are concerns with the accuracy given that at least some of the information seems to have been drawn from legend as opposed to historical sources. If anyone has a problem with that, please let me know. Sdedeo (tips) 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, I am curious, are you getting paid for doing this?--TigranTheGreat 04:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee. No, obviously! But I find it very interesting. This is something like my sixth mediation, and I've learned a huge amount about conflicts and people (though I definitely have screwed up from time to time.) Sdedeo (tips) 18:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask Sdedeo what he thinks about the paragraph about prominent persons from Nakhichevan? Grandmaster 20:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with including a list and links to a list of prominent Nakhichevans; as I've said, the current list is problematic and should stay for now on the talk page as a reference source for people adding to the main talk page. In general, additional info about each person should be contained in a separate article (if they are famous enough to mention extra info about them on the page, they should be famous enough to deserve their own article.) Sdedeo (tips) 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Also have a look at the writing under the photograph of the gravestones, do you think it complies with the NPOV standards? And please have a look at the related article for Julfa, which was written by Raffi, in my opinion it has serious POV problems. Grandmaster 20:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The caption seems just about OK (I understand why it bothers you.) If you want to remove the stuff about the EU parliament, etc., go ahead -- the information is contained elsewhere in the article. I looked briefly at the Julfa article; it needs work. I will post a brief thing about it after we fix the current one. Sdedeo (tips) 20:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don’t we just make it “Examples of khachkars from Julfa”? Grandmaster 20:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a fine version. Let's wait to see if others have a problem with this. I don't think it's a huge problem either way. Sdedeo (tips) 20:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is a new issue that was not disputed before the mediation started, and I don't think it should be removed lightly. The history of the caption is this: Raffi and GM kept reverting each other, with GM deleting Raffi's "Khackhars that are under threat of destruction by Azerbaijan." GM then added "allegedly" which Raffi kept removing. I modified the section, considering the fact that "allegedly" is among weasel words (WP:AWW which are discouraged by Wiki as they potentially contain hidden POV--"according" was better. GM didn't object to it until now.

The pictures are what they state they are--examples of stuff that are under the threat of destruction, and they are listed in the dispute section. The part is NPOV as it attributes the views to their holders. Sdedeo, you said it seems OK. I propose we just leave it there, to avoid future edit wars, as Raffi considered it important (and so do I). Pictures are to illustrate something already in article--just because the dispute is thoroughly explained in the article, doesn't mean we shouldn't give a brief background info on the picture, just for clarity.--TigranTheGreat 12:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, Tigran, you object; as I've said, I don't think it matters much either way. Tigran, you would like the accusations mentioned prominently, and Grandmaster would like them minimized. As an outside reader, I can promise you it doesn't matter as long as the dispute is properly discussed in the text. If GM wants to object to the caption then we can have a whole new round.

My worry is that after we hammer out the compromise below, everyone will go back to fighting over something else related to the article because you guys have not yet learned to work together. Sdedeo (tips) 15:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, it's understandable that as an outsider you view this a quarrel between two biased parties. We don't deny our biases, we try to face them--that's the way to stick to the policy and not the biases. I believe my insistence on the caption is not compelled by bias: I don't think the accuasation will be displayed prominently--this page is going to grow much bigger, this thing will be miniscule in the final version. Just as any picture, it's an illustration--and an illustration always repeats some info already discussed in the article in more detail. The caption was a result of prior negotiations before you came here, and all parties seemed to agree--disturbing it now will cause more fighting later. It provides minimal information, and is NPOV. It illustrates two important aspects of Nakhichevan's past and present--it's rich cultural history, and the fact that there is a dispute. It shoots two birds with one stone, which I think is efficient.

If you have concerns about us, please tell us, and agian we will take it as constructive criticism. I believe despite our differences, we have treated each other (the parties here) with utmost restraint and respect.--TigranTheGreat 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My opinion here is that the best way to do this is to go with GM's caption. We have hammered out (are hammering out) an appropriate paragraph for the main article, and having a caption that selectively reproduces info from there is leading to trouble. This happens a lot of times when information appears in multiple places in an article (e.g., in the intro and then later), and the best thing to do is to reduce the number of points of conflict. Sdedeo (tips) 18:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

One comment. Saying "selectively reproduces from the article" suggests that we first had the paragraph in the article, then took stuff from there and put it in caption. The caption was was in its current form, after a long edit war, agreed by both sides, long before we reached the current version of the paragraph. Do you think that changes your opinion about the stablity/legitimacy of the caption?--TigranTheGreat 18:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. As I've said, the history of who put what in where is not important; the important thing is that we have a good, sourced, NPOV section so that everyone involved can get back to more useful work in other areas of the article. Sdedeo (tips) 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, then since the caption introduces just the basic positions (Armenia and EP accuse...), why don't we add "Azerbaijan denies the charges" at the end of the caption, to answer your concerns of selectiveness (even though I still think the language is very NPOV).--TigranTheGreat 18:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have been having a long discussion of how to discuss this issue, and are near a compromise paragraph below! Do you see where this is going? (i.e., towards including the whole paragraph twice.) Again, the simplest thing to do here is just have a minimal caption; I consider it a bit of a waste of everyone's time to have another multi-day discussion of how to produce a slimmed down version of what we have below. Sdedeo (tips) 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's going to be much more waste of time if we leave from this with a sense of unresolve issues and either resume another edit war or go into a long arbitration. Plus, you are enjoying the process, so are all of us, and it's a good pracitce. It is quite simple to include only the basic positions, without any details whatsoever--Armenians accuse, EP accuses, Az denies. The issue is important, the picture is in the dispute section, a picture always reproduces something from the article in a shorter form. --TigranTheGreat 19:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say find this discussion interesting. You have rejected a compromise (minimal caption, details in article.) I am going to try something else, then. Here is a possible caption:

Examples of khachkars from Julfa. According to Armenia and the European Parliament, these are under the threat of destruction by the government of Azerbaijan, a position which is strongly disputed by Azerbaijan.

Sdedeo (tips) 19:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There never was a compromise, there was a unilateral offer to delete the caption by GM, and a unilateral instruction to him on your part to do it. In fact, the current version (w/o Azeri version) was reached as a compromise before, so it's GM who rejected the compromise. I offered a more "compromisable" version by adding "Azeris deny." The caption includes the basic positions--without qualifications. If we are adding "strongly" to the Azeri view, it would be fair to add "strongly" to the Armenian and EP views. I say, we just leave out adjectives, and stick to basic verbs.--TigranTheGreat 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I proposed a compromise which was GM's version, you rejected it. That's fine. Here is the new version:

Examples of khachkars from Julfa. According to Armenia and the European Parliament, these are under the threat of destruction by the government of Azerbaijan, a position which is disputed by Azerbaijan.

Let's wait to hear from GM. Sdedeo (tips) 19:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree to this.

One more thing: I would say find this discussion interesting. SD, I am sensing condescending attitude. If it reflects concerns/suggestions/advice that you have, this might be time to voice them. Again, dont' take this as an accusation, but rather an invitation for input--TigranTheGreat 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant to write "I would say I find this discussion interesting." It is one of the more difficult ones to mediate, because very often each side removes material they think makes their country look bad, and inserts material they think makes their country look good. So we go back and forth a huge amount here. Sdedeo (tips) 20:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I’ve got a question for a start. How do we know that these grave-stones are really from Julfa? Grandmaster 08:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

resolution of dispute

OK, as far as I can tell we have a resolution of the dispute. We have two paragraphs:

Nakhichevan's border with Armenia has been closed since 1989; the border was closed by Armenia in retaliation to Azerbaijan's closure of the rest of its borders as part of a larger conflict the two countries were involved in (see Nagorno-Karabakh.)

and

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations ; the European Parliament has formally called for Azerbaijan to stop any such destruction as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction .

which are the consequences of a long series of negotiations between the two sides. We also have an agreement on the next step to take with some older material (see ).

I am going to wait 24 hours. If you are fine with these paras and compromises, you don't have to do anything. If you have a serious objection, and by serious I mean very serious, please let me know. After 24 hours, I will request page unprotection, put the new paras in, and post some final thoughts.

Sdedeo (tips) 18:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I do. Please wait.--TigranTheGreat 09:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am back. Sdedeo, the "very serious problem" here is that for the second paragraph, the process was rushed and thus the result does not represent full negotiations. When you first started the mediation, you stressed the importance of taking it slowly, which is necessary to make the process final and avoid future edit wars and expensive arbitration. We need to respect that principle, instead of artificially rushing and overlooking serious problems. Here is one example.

Grandmaster unilaterally deleted the entire section on the Armenian view on the destruction of Khackhars. This part actually had not been subject to dispute until he raised it during the mediation. Which is fine, but that means when we are introducing new issues of dispute, we need to take it seriously. Second, he replaced the deleted part with an Azeri interpretation of the Armenian view, taken directly from the Regnum article written by an Azeri author ), even though the references for that part are not from Regnum. Which again is fine, he is an interested party and an advocate. I was very surprised that the extensive changes were so easily accepted by Eupator--I later found out that he is quite busy now, which tells me that he has overlooked this. After that, your response was that of an auctioneer--"Going once, going twice, sold!" within just a few minutes. Which again is fine, we appreciate the fact that you are busy just as all of us, but it can hurt the finality of the process--you, me, and Eupator may not be around on this page when Raffi comes back, it's again going to be Raffi vs. Grandmaster, and if Raffi feels the changes introduced by Grandmaster were unfair and rushed to final solution (which I am very confident will happen for the current version of the paragraph), the edit wars will resume--we don't want that. Since you enjoy the process as you said, let's not rush through it, let's wait for listening to legimitate concerns of the parties currently involved in this dispute (me, GM, and Eupator). If you want the page unprotected, we can do that and post little notes right before the disputed paragraphs (right now it's one) requesting editors not to touch it.

I posted my proposal for the second paragraph. I have no objections to the first paragraph (on the closure of borders).--TigranTheGreat 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the history of who deleted what. I also do not appriciate being criticized as an "auctioneer". As far as I can tell, if everyone continues behaves as they have before, then you will find a different paragraph to argue and fight about. In the meantime, my concern is to resolve the dispute as quickly and fairly as possible; I gave a twenty four hour waiting period on further objections because I felt that the paragraph responded to everyone's concerns and we were close to done.

Re: Raffi: I explained to him that if he left we could either pause the moderation or keep it going and that if we kept it going he'd have to stick by our conclusions. As Eupator and you both seem to share his POV, this shouldn't be a problem.

You have now raised several new issues and expanded the paragraph considerably. I am cutting and pasting your suggested paragraph, and making some minor tweaks. Here is a new version.

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction . The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, calling them a "propaganda campaign," and stating that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory (SOURCE NEEDED). They have further stated that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. .

I have found an unsourced claim that the Azeri authorities have claimed a "propaganda campaign"; this has been sitting in the article for a long time, but if you click on the link (to a CoE document containing only Armenian statements), I don't see it. GM may have a different source.

Again, I'll wait twenty four hours; if anybody has serious objections, please raise them, otherwise I'll go ahead. Sdedeo (tips) 16:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(There may be a misunderstanding here: when I said I'd wait 24 hours, I just meant that I'd wait 24 hours for complaints. If there are complaints, the "clock is stopped" and we begin again. It's just a way to handle things when one editor or the other disappears. Sdedeo (tips) 16:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Sdedeo, with all due respect, you assumed that GM's radically new change was final within minutes, not withing 24 hours. GM voiced his concerns on the Armenian view part and replaced it at 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC). The edits continued for 2 hours until 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC), when you proposed to "just briefly table this until we have agreement on the particular para above". It took you 5 minutes to assume that the agreement was final: "Final version (I am going to go ahead and assume everyone is OK with this.) 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC) This is rushing, and it goes against your initial approach of "lets take this slowly so we will reach an agreement." Please don't take this personally, take it as a useful input to improve the value of your mediation practice. You want us to learn from you, it's absolutely fine for you to learn from us. Yes, we need to move quickly, but not as quickly as to jeopardize the second necessary component--fairly. The history of deletions is important here because it deleted a statement A supported by Source A and copied a new statement from Source B and still cited Source A. I am sorry, but I believe that is odd.

The "propaganda campaign" part was introduced by GM as part of the Azeri view. I believe that's the shortened version of the "Armenians try to raise these questions to distract attention from monuments in Karabakh and Armenia," except that it doesn't mention the monuments in other section, which I believe should be the case, as otherwise it will invite the Armenian response that I provided, and shift the focus of the paragraph. So, I find it supported by Regnum and the PACE sources.

I believe the best way to avoid fighting over paragraphs in the future is to make sure that our views and objections were at least heard, instead of just rushing. If you believe we need to learn on our behaviour, please tell us, we are completely open to any criticisms that you have as a veteran mediator. Thank you --TigranTheGreat 16:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the source on the "Azerb. places high importance" is the Regnum article itself.--TigranTheGreat 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am sorry if it appeared that I was trying to rush things. I was unable to find the word "propaganda" in the .ru article, so here is the new version:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction . The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as "groundless" and an attempt to draw attention from the bloodshed over the "occupied territories" of Azerbaijan. They have stated that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory and further that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. .

Do people object to this? Sdedeo (tips) 18:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I found the "propaganda campaign" as a short paraphrasis of the "groundless" and an attempt to draw attention from the bloodshed over the "occupied territories" of Azerbaijan. If you insist on using the exact words from the source, my objection here is that it uses disputed terms, inviting the Armenian view on the "occupied territories." In other words, we present both views on one disputed issue (destruction), but only the Azeri view on another disputed issue ("occupied territories"). Armenians find that term negative. Their view is "liberated Armenian territories formerly under Azeri control." Actually, when the "occupied terrotories" appeared in a recent report by a Council of Europe rapporteur (Atkinson), not just Armenians but Russia's representative (in the peace negotiations) objected to the term as pro-Azeri and harming the negotiation process, so it's clearly POV.

Why don't we (if we are doing away with propaganda campaign stuff) state "Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as "groundless" and an attempt to draw attention from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict", a phrase that is more neutral and actually appeared in the pre-protected version of the article, and was agreed upon by all parties after long edit wars.--TigranTheGreat 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point. Here's a new version:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction . The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as "groundless" and an attempt to draw attention from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. They have stated that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory and further that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. .

Sdedeo (tips) 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, I read the version, and though I would like to hear comments from others on this, I object to the inclusion of "groundless" on two grounds (no pun intended :) ). First, it's too strong, too emotional, and therefore not as encyclopedic. Second, it's clear from the Azeri description of the video ("nothing is clear") that they regard the charges without evidence and hence groundless, so why stress it. Plus, we are taking out one fact from the Azeri view (propaganda cmpgn) and replacing with 2 facts ("groundless" and "NK"), thus adding an additional fact to the Azeri portion. I think the Azeri portion already has enough facts added to it to make it "fair" with the Armenian view. Again, we can hear from others, but I would suggest removal of "groundless" and.--TigranTheGreat 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You have previously suggested that "groundless" be included and provided arguments as to why! It is in quotation marks, indicating that it was a direct quote from the Az. officials, and hence if you consider it too emotional, I suggest you take it up with them. :) Second, it conveys information. As for stress and not stress, I cannot see how including it is a problem. That said, I don't consider it to be a very problematic thing to either include or dispense with, and I suggest we now wait to see if GM is OK with this version. Sdedeo (tips) 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't suggest, I acquiesced to inclusion of the entire portion if the "propaganda part" wasn't an option. Now I object to a portion of the part that I acquiesced, and given that this is an ongoing negotiation, I find it legitimate. Whether it's taken from the Azeri side, since we are insisting on presenting both Armenian and Azeri parts fairly and equitably, loading it with an emotionally charged word violates the balance (after all, I didn't use the "genocide" word from the Armenian source on that very same ground). Stressing the same point is problematic, and you have suggested it yourself with respect to the picture. Finally, as I said earlier, it adds an additional fact to the Azeri view, and I believe that portion already contains enough facts to make it comparable to the Armenian view. I still believe that part needs to be removed.--TigranTheGreat 19:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am going to assume you are OK with the rest of the paragraph. Here is the new version. Let's now wait for GM to weigh in on whether or not he is OK with it.

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction . The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as an attempt to draw attention from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. They have stated that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory and further that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction.

Sdedeo (tips) 19:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of grammar, shouldn't there be some kind of verb after "further?"

By the way, Eupator made a minor edit on this page, so he is around. We should listen to his view as well. I wonder what he is doing.

Other than that, I agree with the version.--TigranTheGreat 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to this. We should not distort the source. It should say that Azerbaijani authorities view this as "groundless" and an attempt to draw attention from destruction of Azeri cultural heritage in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. We should not judge whether this is true or not (by the way, it’s true, as international organizations consider NK and other territories of Azerbaijan under Armenian control as occupied, I can provide sources). We should just reflect the point of view of Azerbaijani authorities as it is. Grandmaster 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We are not distorting, we are leaving out a word that is unnecessary and too emotional. We can't always include the entire statement that someone makes. "Occupied territory" is disputed. We dispute, Russia's Kazimirov objected to it as pro-Azeri. If you include it, we will have to include Armenia's view that it's not "occupied territory." By the way, you did agree with the neutral term "NK conflict" before the mediation even started.--TigranTheGreat 19:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter whether it’s disputed or not. We should reflect Azerbaijani position the way it is. Armenian view on it is irrelevant. We include only Armenian accusation and Azerbaijani response. The issue of occupied territories has nothing to do with Nakhichevan and should not be discussed here. Since it’s position of international community, "occupied territories" is quite a legit term, plus this is what Azerbaijani ambassador said, and his words should not be edited. I did agree with "NK conflict", but now I don’t, since Eupator also agreed with previous version of this paragraph, and now we starting all over again. Grandmaster 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, good. In general, silence == assent. I am keen to wait now for GM to tell us whether or not he is OK with this paragraph. PS: "they have stated X and further Y" is good Queen's English; further functions as an adverb attached to "stated". Similar grammatically to saying "He said that Jones was tall and, confrontationally, too tall to ride the rollercoaster." Sdedeo (tips) 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the current version of this paragraph now? I can't seem to tell. Someone post it so I can voice my position.--Eupator 20:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Right now we are waiting for GM to post his suggestion. All the paragraphs so far have been rejected. Sdedeo (tips) 20:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

resolution of dispute #2

Hi GM, welcome back. As far as I can tell from the source, the Az.s make two claims: 1. that Armenian has done its own destruction of monuments and 2. that this is part of the larger NK conflict. So I am going to propose a compromise paragraph (actually now split into two paragraphs):

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction . The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention .

Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as an attempt to draw attention from Armenian destruction of Azeri mosques, madrassas and museums elsewhere in the region. They have stated that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory and further that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction.

Both Tigran and GM please weigh in. Sdedeo (tips) 19:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

SD, introducing the issue of Azeri monuments will necessarily invite inclusion of the Armenian position on the monuments, which will lengthen this portion even more, and shift the focus from Nakhichevan's monuments to an entire different and quite big issue (Azeri monuments elsewhere, which Armeniand dispute). This issue may belong to an article on Azerbaijan, it's just too big to thrown in in a bulleted item on Nakhichevan khachkars. You replaced the "NK conflict" with "Azeri monuments." The first is neutral form, the second is disputed, it's preferable to stick to the first.

Also, to respect the integrity of the process and the rules, we shouldn't assume too early that Eupator is agreeing. He might be busy, let's give him the benefit of 24 hours after the clock starts.--TigranTheGreat 19:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, you proposed a version. GM complained that the Az. response was not properly presented. I went into the article, and provided the exact response that Az. made. You may dispute the Az. response, but you now need to provide sources if you want this section to extend into a third paragraph disputing the disputation. Sdedeo (tips) 19:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make it clear, where according to Azerbaijani authorities the destruction takes place. According to the ambassador, Armenians destroy Azeri cultural heritage in the territory of Armenia and the part of Azerbaijani territory, which is under Armenian military control. Grandmaster 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "NK conflict zone," to which you agreed before, makes it clear that there is a conflict, and Azeri monuments are being destroyed in that conflict zone. By the way, the PACE response to Azeri complaint on the Azeri monuments uses that exact term--NK conflict Zone. I still think we should leave out the issue of Azeri monuments for the reasons I stated earlier and below.--TigranTheGreat 20:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The disputation of disputation is here: http://felist.com/archive/media.arminfo/200309/10233601.html. It has two parts--Armenia's church leader denies, and Karabakh's church leader denies. But I dont' want to include this, and I don't want to include the Azeri monuments issue either--it lengthens the issue and introduces an entirely knew issue which shifts the focus of the segment from its intended (Nakhichevan) to unintended (Karabakh) topic. To propertly represent the Azeri view, we don't need to copy the entire respose of the Azeri side. We are not including, from the Armenian side, the terms "cultural genocide," or the accusation "Azerbaijan tries to erase the history of Armenia on its territory," details about soldiers, etc. So, choosing one part of the response and leaving another out does not violate the NPOV policies. Saying "an attempt to distract from NK conflict" isntead of "attempt to distract from destruction of Azeri monuments" takes one part of the response, a more neutral formulation, and leaves out another part of the Response--a disputed and and entirely different issue. Since we are picking one and leaving another anyway, I say we include the one that's worded more neutrally, and doesn't invite the Armenian disputation of dispute (or however you phrased it).--TigranTheGreat 20:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is probably too much detail; the article covers the N region. It is possible that this discussion will start to explode and there is not NPOV way to depict part of it. In that case, we will have to create a separate article, or move the discussion to the N-K page. This is a possibility. Sdedeo (tips) 20:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But what was wrong with the previously agreed brief version? Why do we need all those details, if we provide references to the original documents anyway? I think Tigran tries to gain maximum propagandistic advantage from this, but it’s not the purpose of this resource. Grandmaster 20:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

First, we need to assume good faith, instead of assuming "maximum propagandistic advantage." Second, we never agreed to the brief versoin, in fact before the mediation started, we agreed to the longer version, which you then replaced unilaterally with a sentence from the Regnum article. My goal is to present the basic facts. If I was tryign to gain propagandistic advantage, I would include "cultural genocide," and "Azeris try to erase traces of Armenian culture," and the number of soldiers, how they pulverize the stones with heavy machineries etc. No, I exclude them. But, there are certain important basic facts, and since SD originally said that on Wiki, we don't exclude important information, let's stick to that principle. --TigranTheGreat 20:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. Including the issue of Azeri monuments will make the discussion explode. It belongs to another article, perhaps AZ, not N. Choosing "distract from NK conflict" is much simpler, shorter, and NPOV. --TigranTheGreat 20:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But that was not the point of ambassador’s response. He provides very detailed list of destroyed cultural heritage, we can’t just leave it out. Grandmaster 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi GM -- not sure what you mean by "previously agreed brief version." Can you paste in the paragraph you mean, making edits that you think will make it acceptable to Tigran et al.? Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant the version, which Eupator previously agreed with. I don’t understand what was wrong with it, we left most of details out to let the readers judge themselves by reading the references. It could save us from all this lengthy dispute and the current stalemate situation. Grandmaster 20:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The previously agreed version was the version that I am proposing, which is now on the protected article, and was agreed upon, as clear from the editting history.--TigranTheGreat 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator agreed, but I didn't, and given that Eupator is quite busy (as he told me) and apparently overlooked the fact that you replaced the Armenian view with a sentence from an Azeri source, I think we need to weigh in my opinion as well to achieve maximum finality. As SD stated earlier, we should keep important info on WIKI. The details, which you removed and I replaced, are essential to the Armenian claims, as I explained in the bulletted list earlier. And as I said, I am exluding other, less important material.--TigranTheGreat 20:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What’s wrong with the version that was agreed? It says that Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations. Is it not the essence of Armenian point of view? Didn’t they accuse, presenting photo and video of the alleged event? It’s all there. If you gonna go further into details, it will grow endlessly. Grandmaster 20:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, we will rewind. Here is the brief version that both GM and Eupator are OK with. Tigran, on second look are you OK with this?

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations ; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction .

(prior comments: Fine with me. If grandmaster is ok with it.--Eupator 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC); OK. Much better than it was. Grandmaster 20:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

Sdedeo (tips) 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the version I like. Lets see what Tigran thinks.--Eupator 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the Azeri response is simple, it's draws attention from Nakhijevan and goes on to the alleged destruction of Tatar (there was no such thing as Azeri prior to the 1920's) in places far from Nakhijevan. That in essense calls for a response to the response and that goes far ebyond the sphere this article should cover. --Eupator 20:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Precisely!--TigranTheGreat 20:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

GM. I understand you want quick resolution, but trust me, unless you want continued edit wars with Raffii (who will definitely not agree to this version, despite SD's rule that raffi should stick to it), after me and Eupator and SD are gone, or a lenghty arbitration, you don't want to rush this.--TigranTheGreat 20:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s not about quick resolution, it’s just about resolution. You want to go into details about Armenian position, but don’t agree to provide details of Azerbaijani position under baseless excuses. We either provide detailed position of both sides or give a short version of them and refer the readers to references. Grandmaster 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

When you sneak in a watered-down Azeri perspective on the Armenian view and present it as if it's taken from the Armenian sources, it doesn't help with the resolution, it backfires. While you have deleted important details from Armenian view, I have so far only added details to the Azeri view (contents of the video, the Azeri policy on its monuments, the propaganda campaign bit, etc.). --TigranTheGreat 12:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, gentlemen, it was pleasure, but I need to leave now. Clock starts after all of you agree on something, and then wait for me. Since Raffi invited both me and Eupator for assistance, it's appropriate and necessary (for finality) to have both of our opinions. Eupator, please read carefully my comments and objections that I provided earlier. I will see you guys later.--TigranTheGreat 20:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A parting comment--GM, I understand you want to include things form Azeri response in their entirety, but that's not necessary. You don't wnat us to include stuff about cultural genocide, erasure of Armenian culture, and the other details that I mentioned. We don't need to include everything.--TigranTheGreat 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait, do you like this last version that I agreed to as well as Gm? Edit: Nevermind, I guess you did.--Eupator 20:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw I will be absent throughout Superbowl;) --Eupator 20:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that's what the "Precisely" refers to. Anyway, there's plenty of time for people to complain, Raffi is travelling, so we'll wait for him. Sdedeo (tips) 20:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, "precisely" refers to Eupators objection to including details on Azeri monuments.--TigranTheGreat 12:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have skimmed the vast amount of discussion that took place (phew!) and will defer to Tigrans judgement since I agree that there is a problem simply presenting the Armenian and Azeri views on *this* issue, when the Azeri view/response on this issue is in fact introducing a wholly new issue to the matter. So if the summary of the Azeri response mentions places outside of Nakhichevan, I think an Armenian counter-response is valid, if the summary of the Azeri response does not mention places outside of Nakhichevan, then an Armenian counter-response is not needed in my opinion. So I will leave it up to Grandmaster and TigranTheGreat to decide which way is best. It would probably be good to develop a new article on the subject however at some point. I'm sorry I can't contribute more now, but I am on the road and again it seems I won't be able to log in for a couple of days minimum... maybe a week. --RaffiKojian 20:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

final para

The following paragraph is agreed to by Tigran, Eupator and GM. Tigran has suggested we wait for Raffi to return, so let's do that. Raffi, when we hear from you, we are good to go.

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations ; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction .

Sdedeo (tips) 20:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually never agreed to this, and in fact believe it gives greater details and weight to the Azeri view than to the Armenian view. I was surprised that SD would consider that I agreed to it, despite the fact that we spent several pages in which I stated and restated my objections to this very paragraph. Since we are rewiding, I will provide my original proposed paragraph below again.--TigranTheGreat 12:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I dont' think we should wait for Raffi. If me and Eupator agree to changes, he won't have a legit reason to object to the "final" (whatever that means in an unbinding setting) result.--TigranTheGreat 12:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry for misinterpreting. Discussion continues below! Sdedeo (tips) 15:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

TigranTheGreat's proposal

Here the version that I propose:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction . The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, viewing them as a propaganda campaign , and stating that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory . They have further stated that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. .

Basically, it restores the Armenian-view section which I think contains essential details, which was agreed upon before the mediation started, and which was later replaced by Grandmaster with an Azeri formulation of the Armenian view ("Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations"), which was taken verbatim from the Regnum article, and has serious problems in terms of watering down and giving inaccurate definition of khachkars, and omitting important basic aspects of the Armenian claims. In return, to make the spaces covered by Armenian and Azeri views comparable, I have added additional facts from the Azeri view (propaganda campaign, Azeris placing high importance on their cultural heritage), which is in addition to the details that I had added earlier (that the nationality of perpetrators is not clear, the stones are not clearly khachkars). I believe this gives enough basic and space to both views to make the paragraph NPOV.--TigranTheGreat 12:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with it. Why are you editing Azerbaijani position? Azerbaijani ambassador accuses Armenia in destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Armenia and occupied territories. This should be reflected, whether you like it or not, because it’s the official position of the Azerbaijani side. Misplaced Pages policies require to include the views of both sides, and you can’t select what you like or dislike in such positions, you should reflect it the way it is. Grandmaster 12:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to reflect Azerbaijani position as follows:

Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as an attempt to draw attention from Armenian destruction of Azeri historical and cultural monuments in Armenia and occupied territories of Azerbaijan. They have stated that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory and further that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction.

Grandmaster 12:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but we can selectively refuse to choose info from sources that will cause the paragraph to unnecessarily explode. Like it or not, this introduces 2 disputed view points by Azeri side--one on Nakhichevan monuments, the other on Karabakh monuments. To be NPOV, we need to provide the Armenian view point on both. This will just keep making it bigger and bigger.

I have provided alot of facts in the Azeri view, and it's comparable in size to Armenian view. I don't see what you don't like about it. --TigranTheGreat 12:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We don’t do fact check, we just report the sources, and since this is what Azerbaijani ambassador said, it should be reported the way he said. We must include both Armenian accusation and Azeri response the way they are, and there’s no need to comment on the situation in Karabakh in the article about Nakhichevan. Just opinions of both sides. Grandmaster 13:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that GM's main edit here is to change "propaganda campaign" to a specific description of the Azeri response. In that vein, it seems like a reasonable change to make. I suggest that a compromise paragraph (again, broken for legibility) go like this:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction . The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention .

Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as an attempt to draw attention from Armenian destruction of Azeri historical and cultural monuments in Armenia and occupied territories of Azerbaijan , and stating that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory . They have further stated that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. . The controversy is connected to the larger Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and Armenian authorities dispute many aspects of the Azeri response to the accusations .

Another option, if Tigran does not want to go with either this or the much-slimmed GM/Eupator version, is for us to really get in-depth here and move a lot of this discussion to a separate article. Sdedeo (tips) 15:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(PS: I will be working today, so will only be able to check in a few times over the course of the day. Please do your best to establish compromise! The only way to finish here is if Tigran and GM can come to agreement; there is no way for me to legislate an answer. Sdedeo (tips) 16:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

I find this to be a lot better. Let’s see what Tigran thinks of this. Actually, he did not mind the existing current version and even made edits to make it look like it is now. See the article for Nakhichevan, it says now:

Azerbaijani authorities view these accusations as a propaganda campaign on part of Armenia to distract international attention from destruction of Azeri monuments, which according to Azeri authorities takes place in Armenia as well as in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.

He changed his mind after mediation started and decided to edit Azerbaijani position. The only question I have is do we need to add Armenian response to Azerbaijani response? Normally we need to present the two existing positions, accusation and response.

Grandmaster 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is all a waste of time. The version that GM and I agreed to was the best imo. It was brief. It did not minimize the Armenian claim, it had the EU response and all that jazz. I have a feeling I wont like what becomes of this new version.--Eupator 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, I have to agree. We are going down the same path that we started on the last time around. Tigran, can you please reconsider your opposition given that both GM and Eupator, who have in the past been opposed to each other's edits, are in agreement over the current "brief version" draft of the earlier section? Sdedeo (tips) 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think the brief version is preferable. And I actually think that all this controversy could be included in the article about Julfa and not in that about the autonomous republic. But whatever. Grandmaster 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, GM, and Eupator, thank you for all of your inputs. Sdedeo, I realize that now it looks I am opposed to both GM's and Eupator's versions. However, before reaching a compromise, I want to make sure that we all understand our reasons for the positions that we hold, and whether those reasons are legitimate, consistent with the Wiki policies, or not. I still see some misunderstandings and areas in need of clarification. I realize you can't legislate, I believe me and GM can talk things out and reach an agreement. We are all reasonable people here.

Let me tell you where we are. We are clear on basic rule and policies. That's a huge difference compared to the time prior to mediation, when Raffi and GM just kept blindly reverting each other. We are also listening to each other, and clarifying things bit by bit. This is huge progress, and you, Sdedeo, ought to be proud of it as a mediator. I don't think we are starting things all over again. Yesterday we were all writing at the same time, and we were just not listening to each other. Now I can feel we are. This is good.

First, Eupator, let me ask you. You said you won't like what will come out of the final version based on my proposal. Tell me what exactly you won't like. I am not asking what you like about last version--you already said it--it's brief. I am asking what you won't like about the final version.

Second, sdedeo. I want to keep my version of the Armenia view, because I believe it contains important information. As you stated earlier, this is Wiki, and we are all reluctant on excluding important information, as long as it conforms with other standards, such as balancing views and NPOV. Now, given that we should keep the basic info on Armenian view, I believe your proposal of Azeri view gives it way too much space compared to the Armenian view. My proposal gives 2 sentences for Azeri view, 1 for EP view, and 2 for Armenian view. The Armenian and Azeri views are balanced. The "details" are balanced. Adding any more info will make it not balanced. Note that one of the details that I added to the Azeri view--that nationality of people and nature of stones is not clear--gives a very strong "weapon" to the Azeri version, it virtually blasts the only evidence that the Armenian view contains. This gives fair (and perhaps more) coverage to the Azeri view.

Grandmaster, first about fact checks. We are not fact checking the Azeri response. My complaint to the Azeri view is not that it's false, but that it introduces the Azeri view on Karabakh monuments, without giving the Armenian view. This has NPOV problems. NPOV is not about balancing responses, otherwise it would be called NPOR(response). It's NPOV(iew), we balance positions. And it's perfectly ok to edit or summarize what we take from a source. For example, if a source said "A said 'F your mama,'" it would be perfectly fine to say in Misplaced Pages "A cussed." A Misplaced Pages is not a collage--we don't cut clippings from newspapers and post them here--we take info, sometimes using their words, sometimes summarizing. We are not including all the stuff that Armenians said -- we are not spedifying UNESCO (one of organizations we appealed to), we are not repeating the phrase "cultural genocide," we are not saying "Armenians said that Azeri's intention was to erase the Armenian culture in N. " By the way, since we are excluding the Armenian view on Azeri intent (erasue of Arm. culture), it's ok to exclude the Azeri view on Armenian intent (i.e. distract from Azeri monuments).

It's not that I agreed to your version of including the distruction of Azeri monuments, I was waiting to see how you and Raffi would agree to it--Raffi kept adding "These claims on Azeri monuments have been proven false" and you kept deleting. I was merely waiting as to how you guys would resolve it.

Yes, we can create a separate article, and it will include way more details than those few sentences in my proposal. It will talk about the response by UNESCO, the history of the khachkars, the involvement of the Azeri spiritual leader, the responses by Armenian spiritual leaders--the Armenian view given by me gives minimal but important info, and the Azeri view gives balanced position of the Azeri side. And I have added alot of facts from the Azeri response (regardless of whether I believe in them or not). I ask you to consider that both parts are balanced and therefore it should be ok to include both.--TigranTheGreat 10:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tigran. As I said before, I cannot agree with Azerbaijani position being edited and important part of Azerbaijani response, which clarifies motives of this campaign, being omitted. We should either agree on a brief version or report views of both sides the way they are. Grandmaster 10:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you agree with editting of the Azeri version? We edit sources all the time--we never include the entire text of the source. We are editting the Armenian view. We are not saying the motive behind the destruction--to erase the history of Armenians in N.--TigranTheGreat 11:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it’s an important part of Azerbaijani point of view. It explains, why in the view of the Azerbaijani side this propaganda campaign was initiated. Grandmaster 11:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And your explanation of your attitude towards the existing version is also very interesting. You say “I was waiting to see how you and Raffi would agree to it”, so what would have happened if Raffi had agreed with it? If you new that he was not going to agree, what was the point in creating it? And if you were not going to agree with it if Raffi agreed, then what? You were going to withdraw edits you made yourself? It’s difficult for me to understand your position, when first you agree with the things and help to shape the version that is currently included, and then change your mind and say I helped create the current version to see how others would resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 11:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, Tigran, what I got out of that long stretch was that you are not OK with the brief paragraph. Basically, as you can tell, GM is not OK with your "summary" of Azeri responses. Are you OK with this:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, and has appealed to international organizations to intervene. In support of these accusations, Armenia has presented photos and video which, according to Armenian authorities, show Azeri soldiers carrying out the destruction . The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention .

Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as an attempt to draw attention from Armenian destruction of Azeri historical and cultural monuments in Armenia and occupied territories of Azerbaijan , and stating that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory . They have further stated that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. . The controversy is connected to the larger Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and Armenian authorities dispute many aspects of the Azeri response to the accusations .

I understand that you do not want the Azeri view presented more fully, but you are not going to get that: Eupator and GM both support a version where the view is presented. I hate "counting sentences", but the para above has three sentences on the Armenian view, two on the Az. response, one on the Ar. response to the Az. response. Here the compromise is that there is a "final round" of responses from the Armenian side.

We have been going around in circles here. Let me know if this is OK. If not, here is my other suggestion:

Several times since its independence, Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of systematic destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan; see Armenian-Azerbaijani destruction of cultural heritage controversy.

Finally, you can go with the Eupator/GM brief para. Please choose. If you want, propose a new version of the paragraphs above. You are aware of what GM and Eupator feel at this point, so be sure to propose something that they can live with. We'll have one final round here, with GM and Eupator weighing in on your suggestion, and then we may have to go with the separate article.

Sdedeo (tips) 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with all the versions, including Tigrans. :) I don't see why as much space is left to accusations of destructions in Nakhichevan and Karabakh. I find it irrelevent to add more than saying that Azerbaijan denies the charges. Fad (ix) 20:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fad -- do please read the length discussions prior to this. We'll wait for Tigran to weigh in, and then we'll take it from there. That we have other people showing up is, I think, an indication that we need to resolve this quickly. Sdedeo (tips) 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To say the truth, the only reason I ended up here was because I was searching something in Misplaced Pages about a related issue and ended up here. :) As for reading the entire issue, I have read the last discussions about it, and as far as I am aware of, accusations of destructions of monuments are common from both sides, but this last accusation was considered more than just accusations and other parties took sides by accusing Azerbaijan; this can not be dissolved by simply making of this recent accusation as similar as the previous ones from both sides, for this reason I believe that we should only point that Azerbaijan denies the charges and that more than that would be misleading, we can not give equal space for something that was recorded and that other sides have condemned Azerbaijan for it, while the previous accusations were left unheard from most part in the rest of the world. Fad (ix) 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

yet more debate

OK, so Fadix has just chimed in here. We now have Raffi (MIA for now), Eupator, GM, Tigran and Fadix.

I'm afraid I don't see how I can continue to mediate as before; not that I'm upset (Fadix has just as much right as anyone to weigh in), but that I don't think it's going to be helpful for me to be "in the middle" passing things between each other. So I'm going to try something new.

What I'm going to do at this point is step back for at most 24 hours, and ask that everyone please try to work together here. I'm going to begin with the paragraph that has the most "consensus" so far, which is:

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations ; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction .

I suggest that people begin working here. Eupator and GM have both considered this OK with them. I further suggest that the criterion for consensus be "U-1", i.e., we would need more than one objection to not go ahead. (In case people get bored and decide to leave.)

In order to get this done quickly, I suggest that people not enter into extended debate. Simply cut and paste the paragraph above, altering it, and see if you can get others to agree. Make minor alterations, and please read the talk page a little so you understand where people are coming from.

I'll come back in 24 hours and see what the paragraph has turned into. If things get resolved before that, please drop me a line on my talk page. After 24 hours, I will request that the page be unprotected with the assumption that people have matured enough not to get into edit wars. It is wrong to keep this page protected for so long (approaching a week now.) Sdedeo (tips) 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I explained my position before, it has not changed. I agreed to the brief version, but if we decide to go for a more detailed version, I disagree with editing of Azeri position. NPOV rules require equal coverage of positions of both conflicting sides, and therefore Azeri position cannot be shortened or distorted. For the moment I’m outnumbered by Armenian guys, and every time another one of them joins the discussion, we have to start it all over again. But this can’t go on forever, if we remove protection now without having the conflict resolved, I’m afraid that the revert war will resume. If Sdedeo’s efforts to achieve a compromise fail, we will have to take a next step in dispute resolution. Right now I would like to thank Sdedeo for everything he’s done so far, he was able to resolve other disputed issues. Grandmaster 05:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a weak understanding of Misplaced Pages neutrality policies. So according to you, that various organizations such as ICOMOS or US congressmen accusations, or that archeologists, historians and academicians signing of a petition during the American Archeological Institute's 107th annual convention heald here in Montreal... according to you, all those accusations from non Armenian parties should all be reduced to have equal coverage as the Azeris government, which its historian even denied the existance of those Armenian monuments? Or what about the resolution in January 19, 2006 from the European parlement requestion Azerbaijan to stop its destruction of Armenian cultural sites? Or what about the various newspapers, from every corners of the world? Like Italian newspapers such as La Stampa. Were you not the one heavly relying on newspapers? How many times the PACE raised the issue? Equal spaces between Armenian 'allegations' and 'Azeris allegations' OK fine, but by giving equal space to the two paragraphs you are giving more space to "Azeris allegations' because the accusation not being restricted to the Armenians, the Armenians 'allegation'is taking 1/5 of the Azeris positions space. What do you say we add internation position? As for your 'outnumbered by Armenian guys' comment, could you be kind enough to tell us what you intend by this? Fad (ix) 18:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we have two important new inputs. Yesterday Raffi deferred to my judgment (see above), and Fadix believes that the discussion of the accusations should not be extended. Therefore, I will agree with a *modified* version of the shorter version:

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of 6th - 9th cc. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations ; the European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop demolition of these cemeteries and khachkars as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, disputing the clarity of the video presented by the Armenian side. .

The original short version I find unacceptable and violating NPOV. Since the Armenian side does not discuss the details of the video, the Azeri side should not do that either. Here, we state the Armenian side (accusation, and the evidence), the international position (EP), and Azeri side (denial, and dispute of the evidence).--TigranTheGreat 12:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Why Azerbaijani position should get less coverage than Armenian? I think that both positions should be covered equally in accordance with NPOV policies. I agreed to the previous brief version, but I don’t agree with your version. Grandmaster 12:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It gets perfectly equal coverage. Armenians accuse, and present evidence. Azeris deny, end dispute the evidence. Basic, brief, elegant. Perfectly NPOV. This is as far as I will agree.--TigranTheGreat 17:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I now see why Tigran didn't like that version. Saying the clarity is not good enough should be sufficient for Azeri view. I find the part where it says the nationality of the people is unclear laughable. They're not Norwegians. Notice that no Azeri ever disputed the location! --Eupator 17:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! Note that the segment with "no nationality, no stones" was proposed by me, and I only did it with the longer version. With the shorter version, i.e. without any details on the video in the Armenian portion, it provides too many details and too much force to the Azeri side (plus it's laughable as you said).--TigranTheGreat 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is just a waste of time. I already explained my position and said that I find your new version absolutely unacceptable. If we are not able to resolve this dispute via mediation, let’s move to the next step of dispute resolution in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. Grandmaster 19:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that the arbitration committee will accept a cases over few lines of dispites, if that is what you intended of course. Fad (ix) 21:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(Stepping in briefly: don't debate, propose! Good luck. Sdedeo (tips) 17:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of 6th cc. - 1604 CE. khachkars (Armenian carved stone crosses) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations ; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction .

Sdedeo, thanks again for stepping in, I think we are pretty close. I cannot log in, but it is Raffi here, and I propose the above text for discussion. It is basically Sdedeo's proposal, but briefly tells what the khachkars are - leaving the claims of the two sides as you wrote them. So, let's see what the others think of this. I think it's pretty good for the size, so what does everyone think? Also, Sdedeo, I think it's good that we put some of our background/beliefs on our user pages. Nobody can say we are covert or undercover... I stick to the truth as I know it, and am always willing to hear out counter arguements and read new sources which disagree... --60.226.156.219 10:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (RaffiKojian)

I see pointless description of the grave stones in the article, since there is an article in Misplaced Pages about them and we provide a link to it in the article. But with the purposes of putting an end to this endless dispute I will make another compromise. I agree with this version. Let’s move ahead. Grandmaster 13:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Raffi, from day one it was agreed by all parties that, at least in the short version, each of the 3 positions (Arm., Internationa., Az.) should get one sentence each. I think we should stick to that. Also, I believe we should put 2 details in each position--Arm (accuse, evidence), EP (call on, violation), Az. (deny, dispute evidence). This means the EP position should include the "violation of UNESCO" part, otherwise it will be underrepresented. Note that it was accepted in the version originally agreed by GM and Eupator. Also, note that both me and Eupator believe that "Azerbaijan disputes the clarity of the video" should be enough, isntead of going into the details of the video, since this is the short version. I don't think we need to specify 1604, centuries will do just fine (Kocharyan, in the linked source, says 6th-9th). I do think that the definition of khachkars as "grave-stones" (taken from an Azeri article in Regnum) is ridiculous. The definition is "historic carved cross-stones," as mentioned in EP. --TigranTheGreat 12:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, I take your points, obviously, but we need to reach a middle ground of what is mentioned, and I think this is the best we can do for now. I think if there is a description of what khachkars actually are (which Grandmaster has agreed to and I think he'd be ok with your description of "historic carved cross-stones" would be fine and in that case we wouldn't even need to mention the dates (and there ARE more recent ones all the way up until the Armenians were deported). So consider leaving out the UNESCO thing which they can get in the link, and just move on. It's up to you obviously, but I am ok with this. (and again using some wireless signal which is not secure, and so will not log in, but it is me, RaffiKojian). --60.226.156.219 19:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't need to delete the UNESCO thing for agreement. It was in the following paragraph proposed by Sdedeo and accepted by both Grandmaster and Eupator.

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations ; the European Parliament has formally called for Azerbaijan to stop any such destruction as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction .

What we need to decide upon is the correct definition of Khachkars, and whether to keep the detailed "no nationality" part, which as Eupator has agreed sounds silly, or replace it with "disputing the clarity of the video presented by the Armenian side." Perhaps when you come back and get a chance to read some of the discussions, it will be easier to make a decision.--TigranTheGreat 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian historic carved cross-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations; the European Parliament has formally called for Azerbaijan to stop any such destruction as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, disputing the clarity of the video presented by the Armenian side..

How's this?--Eupator 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I agreed with the one above, but not with this one. It’s not acceptable. And Eupator, how many times a person can change his position on the things he agreed with? Grandmaster 21:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As many times as one deems necessary. Present your case now regarding why you don't agree with the last one I posted specifying the exact lines. --Eupator 21:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Simple. Azeri position is not well presented, Armenian takes a lot more space. I’m not even going to discuss this nonsense with “clarity” any more. Just a waste of time. Talk to you tomorrow. Grandmaster 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But you're not saying what you want to replace it with. Armenian lines=3, Azeri lines=2. EURO lines=2. Add one line to the Azeri reponse. Whoop dee doo.--Eupator 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, Tigran - I really think for the sake of brevity, which in this case will make the whole dispute more easily comprehendible to the uninitiated, removing the bit about UNESCO is better than adding "something" to the Azeri response... my new proposal below, though if Grandmaster is ok with "Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, disputing the clarity of the video presented by the Armenian side." instead of what I wrote below, that is his call...

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian historic carved cross-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations ; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction .--RaffiKojian 04:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I’m fine with your new proposal. Grandmaster 05:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, gentlemen, we need to address the concerns of a party to make the resolution fair and lasting. Grandmaster's concern is that the version agreed by me and Eupator does not fairly represent the Azeri view. It is a valid concern, so let's address it, before we decide about exact wordings etc. Here is the version agreed by me and Eupator:

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian historic carved cross-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations; the European Parliament has formally called for Azerbaijan to stop any such destruction as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, disputing the clarity of the video presented by the Armenian side..

Grandmaster, we understand that you are worried about unfair representation of the Azeri view. Under the rules of NPOV, when we have a minority view, and a majority view, or views of differing proportions, it is not OK to give them equal "space." Doing so is misleading. This is the rule. And this is the rule that Fadix was talking about. And if we agree on a version that goes against this rule, someone in the future, who knows about this, is going to come in, notice it, change it in accordance with rules, and we will start the edit wars again.

Under the above rule, we can't give equal treatment to Azeri view on one side, and the EP+Arm view on the other. We can give equal details to Azeri and Armenian views, and equal details to EP and Azeri views, but EP+Arm can't be equal to Azeri. Also, EP can't take less "coverage" than the Azeri view, otherwise we would be saying that EP (which represents entire europe) is less than the Azeri side. This, according to clear rules of NPOV, would be misleading.

Also, when we give equal coverage to competing views--we don't equate *space*, we equate important *details*. This again is according the NPOV rules:

Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial.

So, once we understand these basic rules, we can move on to specific wording.

Raffii, we don't need to add an additional detail to the Azeri view just to have the UNESCO view in EP. If we compare the details, in the proposal by me and Eupator, Armenia gets 2 details regarding it's views (accusation, and evidence), EP gets two (calling on Az., UNESCO), and Azerbaijan view gets 2 (deny, and dispute the evidence). This gives fair comparison of Azeri and Arm. views, and fair comparison of Azeri and EP views. Now, let's just forget about the unpleasant interactions for the past week, and just think about this. If we think calmly, I think we will agree that each view gets fair representation.--TigranTheGreat 10:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, I already stated that this version is not acceptable to me, and I see no point in repeating the same thing million times. Nobody gives equal coverage to Azeri view on one side, and the EP+Arm view on the other. Stop distorting the facts. We cover three views, Armenian, Azeri and EP. Two of them support your position, but still this is not enough for you and you try to cut Azeri position even more, despite the fact that I agreed to exclude that Azerbaijani authorities view this as a propaganda campaign to distract international attention from the destruction of Azeri monuments by Armenian side. Your position makes compromise absolutely impossible. Grandmaster 10:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is not just to have you repeat your positions but to understand and address your concerns behind your objections. We appreciate that you agreed to exclude that particular fact from the Azeri position, and we have agreed to exclude significant facts from the Armenian position. We all made sacrifices. Now, the question is, not what we sacrificed, but why you find that the paragraph above represents the Azeri view unfairly. We are cutting down the Azeri portion to make it fairly balanced with the Armenian view. Saying "Azeris dispute the clarity of the video presented by Armenians" makes it equal to the corresponding component in the Armenian section, i.e. "Armenians presented photoes and video." We talk about the evidence on general terms on both sides, without going into the details of the evidence. Again, the important part is not what we cut when, but the final result. So, in the final result, what do you find unfair about Azeris dispute the clarity of the video presented by Armenians vs. Armenians presented photoes and video.--TigranTheGreat 11:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know my opinion with regard to this proposal, please see my previous posts. In the meantime I suggest my version, which I find very balanced as you find yours.

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government of destruction of khachkars at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan ; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop any such destruction . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, describing them as an attempt to draw attention from Armenian destruction of Azeri historical and cultural monuments in Armenia and occupied territories of Azerbaijan , and stating that Azerbaijan gives high importance to the protection of historical monuments on its territory . They have further stated that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction. .

I hope it’s OK with you, because as I understood from your endless rants we don’t need to fairly represent the existing views and should only insist that others would agree with our vision of the things. Grandmaster 11:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I believe in fair representation of various views, and that is why I suggested the paragraph above. The problem with your paragraph, as you I am sure understand, is that it gives 5-6 important details to the Azeri view, while Armenian and EP get 1 important detail each. This is not balanced, and is obviously against the rules.

Now, I have read every single argument that you have written, and none of them have answered why you find Azeris dispute the clarity of the video presented by Armenians vs. Armenians presented photoes and video unfair. They both talk about the evidence in general, without going into contents. We are ready to listen to your concerns, but you need to state them, and they need to be legitimate. Otherwise, we will never have a final and stable solution.--TigranTheGreat 12:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, I’m a busy person. Please don’t waste my time. I said that I don’t think this fairly represents Azerbaijani point of view and that’s enough. I don’t want to count the words, etc. you can do it yourself. I prefer to keep Azeri position the way it is now, I’ll add the link to the Azeri ambassador’s speech and a couple of good citations and Azeri position will be pretty well represented. If you think that by insisting on your version you can make me accept it you are wrong. Grandmaster 12:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, we are all busy people, and we all are trying to find a solution. The difference is that you refuse to participate in the discussion, which can only indicate that you have no valid reasons for your position, and you are simply sticking to your POV just for the sake of sticking to it. Discussion is a necessary part of any dispute resolution before even mediation can be attempted, as mandated by the Dispute Resolution policies (WP:DR). The administrators have protected this page so we talk about the disputed issues instead of engaging in edit wars. By refusing to talk, you are sabotaging the resolution process, which does not reflect well on you, and basically means you are leaving the process. In which case we will have to proceed with what we have without you. You won't get anywhere by staying away from discussion, and you won't get anywhere by resorting to insults and theatrics. Saying "I dont like this" is not a valid objection, we need to know what legitimate reasons you have. It is in your best interests not to boycot the discussions.

The rules of NPOV state that balancing views should not be based on "counting words" or "actual space." What matters are the important details of each view. So, if you have legitimate concerns, tell us what do you find unfair about "Azeris dispute the clarity of the video presented by Armenians" vs. Armenians presented photoes and video. It talks about the evidence in general terms on both sides, without going into the details of the evidence--TigranTheGreat 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t refuse to participate in discussion, but everything was discussed a million times already. You version is not acceptable, as it favors Armenian position and unnecessarily cuts down Azeri one. You removed important details and replaced it with some ridiculous words about clarity, as if Azerbaijan wants these videos on DVD or something. I said this so many times already. If you think that by insisting on this horrible version you can make me accept it you are wrong. There’s one possible solution, let’s wait for Raffi’s reaction. You can proceed without me if you wish, same as I can proceed without you. You disrupted the mediation process, insulted the person who tried to help achieve compromise, and still got the nerve to claim that I should agree to your ridiculous version. If you want to see theatrics, see your last post, addressed to Sdedeo. By the way, protection is removed, you can make your edits, and I can make mine. Mediation officially failed. Grandmaster 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying "we discussed million times" over and over doesn't mean we did. My and Eupator's version was proposed on the last day of mediation, after which you kept refusing to discuss your objections. So it couldn't possibly have been discussed. I never insulted the mediator, I explained to him why his tactics failed, which is my moral duty as an editor, and if that improves his future mediations, then I have succeeded. Mediation failed because you refused to discuss, which was encouraged by Sdedeo. If you think you will be able to avoid discussion by resorting to personal attacks, hysterics, and jumping to irrelevant topics (i.e. what was told to Sdedeo), then you are mistaken, it only weakens your position. Your best bet is to stick to discussion to resolve the issue.

This is the first time we are hearing about as if Azerbaijan wants these videos on DVD, so let's talk about it. I agree that Azerbaijan's attack on the clarity of the video's contents is ridiculous--that is not our fault, that's the fault of the Azerbaijani position, we report it whether it's ridiculous or not. Making their position more detailed won't change its ridiculous nature--their "defense" is that the contents of the video is not clear, which is an absurd defense. As Eupator agreed, specifying "nationality is not clear" makes it no less ridiculous. So, we don't need to worry about the ridiculousness of the Azeri position, that won't change. However, let me ask you this. If you want to specify the exact elements that Azeris disputed, why shouldn't the Armenian side specify the contents of the video too (e.g. it was done by soldiers). Wouldn't it be balanced (since we provide the details of the video on both sides). One form of bias disallowed by NPOV rules is when we provide an explanation of one view, but omit an explanation of the opposite view:

Biased or selective representation of sources, eg: Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial

So, in your proposed solution, we are saying why Azeris think the evidence doesn't support the Armenian claims ("nationality not clear"), but are omitting why the same evidence would dispute this position (i.e. there are soldiers in the video, hence it's unlikely that non-Azeri soldiers would do this on an Azeri land). This is an example of impermissable bias. So, if we are omitting the details on soldiers (in the Armenian side), why shouldn't we omit the details on the Azeri side?--TigranTheGreat 11:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Raffi, by the way, the EP section needs to be corrected as it's inaccurate. It distorts the language and meaning of the EP Resolution. The Resolution doesn't say stop "any such" destruction, it says stop "the" destruction of the monuments:

67. Calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to put an end the demolition of medieval Armenian cemeteries and historic carved stone crosses in southern Nakhichevan, which is in breach of the terms of its 1993 ratification of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention;

"any such destruction" sounds as if "we don't know if you are destroying, but if you do, stop." Whereas the actual resolution makes it clear that the EP believes the destructions are going on. There are two ways to correct this. Either this:

The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop these destructions as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.

Or to put the relevant part in quotation marks so the intention of the EP resolution is not distorted:

The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan "to put an end to the demolition of" of these khachkars and cemeteries as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.

Let me know what you think (Eupator too).--TigranTheGreat 19:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian historic carved cross-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations ; the European Parliament has formally called for the Azerbaijanis to stop the demolition . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction .

I have changed the last version GM has agreed to in order to reflect this correction. I think what we have above is ok to use in the article, Tigran. It is factual, it is brief, and it is linked to sources. If ppl want more info on the EP resolution, they can click on it, if they want more info on the Azeri position, they can click on it, and if you are willing to write a much more detailed article on the whole affair, that would be great too. I would of course like to see UNESCO mentioned, but for now, for the sake of compromise, I think we have something that we can use... Also, since this version is much closer in any event to an agreement than the one currently sitting on the page, I think it should be put it on there. --RaffiKojian 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Raffi, the UNESCO part was included in the version agreed to by GM, Eupator, and Sdedeo, so it does not need to go for compromise. Here, take a look:

OK, as far as I can tell we have a resolution of the dispute. We have two paragraphs:

Nakhichevan's border with Armenia has been closed since 1989; the border was closed by Armenia in retaliation to Azerbaijan's closure of the rest of its borders as part of a larger conflict the two countries were involved in (see Nagorno-Karabakh.)

and

Armenia has accused the Azerbaijani government in destruction of Armenian grave-stones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in the town of Julfa in Nakhichevan, presenting photos and video in support of these accusations ; the European Parliament has formally called for Azerbaijan to stop any such destruction as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention . Azerbaijani authorities have denied the charges, stating that the video presented by the Armenian side does not clearly show the nature of the destroyed objects or the nationality of the persons involved in the destruction .

which are the consequences of a long series of negotiations between the two sides.

The disputed part was how detailed should Azeri position be. Now, since I am not actively involved on this page, and since you will be the one dealing with GM on this article, I will defer to your judgment as that of a fellow Armenian brother. Whatever you decide, I want it to be an informed decision. I want you to know that the rules are on your side with respect to the Azeri section--if we are saying "nationality and nature of stones not clear," the rules would allow us to include "video shows soldiers doing demolition," just for balance. Also, given GM's uncompromising stance and refusal to discuss, I want you to think whether you want to reward that kind of behavior. Now, if you still want to reach a quick compromise and make the sacrifice re Azeri position, that's fine with me, I will respect your decision.--TigranTheGreat 21:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, you make some strong points... so let's give GM another day to stop ignoring this thread and discuss. If he continues to ignore this, we can then move on without his input. --RaffiKojian 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

stopping mediation

Hello all --

OK, it seems that I haven't succeeded in mediating a compromise even though we've been at this for seven days.

The principle problem, from my point of view, is that people have not been amenable to compromise, and instead of presenting alternative solutions, have generally "stuck to their guns." There are a number of good solutions here, but none of them have been OK'd by all of the people involved. WP:NPOV doesn't really give precise guidance here at this low level; in general, the dispute is because people think one side is being made to look bad. I promise that this is illusory, but I don't think I'd be believed.

It is also a problem that many people have clearly identified, here and on their user pages, that they have a particular POV that they wish to promote. This is a very bad thing, IMO. I would suggest that people remove this material from their user pages; it is inappropriate (although now common) to describe one's political views on wikipedia, and it leads to problems.

On the other hand, good faith efforts have been made by everyone involved here. People have been civil, which is great, and people have gotten much better at providing sources when they make points.

What I am going to do at this point, because I don't believe I am helping, is halt the mediation. I will then request page unprotection. I suggest people begin editing the page again. I expect people to be controversial, but I should say that you should not get into edit wars. Do not revert each other; allow the article to evolve. I can promise, promise, promise you that going to formal arbitration is not going to help very much, and is going to waste everyone's time.

We do have a minor solution to the borders sentence; please put that in (the text is above) once the admins get around to unprotecting the page.

Good luck reaching a solution, and thank you all for giving it a shot with me. If you haven't already, I suggest reading the "tips" page appended to my signature.

Sdedeo (tips) 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sdedeo. I would like to thank you for what you’ve done, you did really a good job and helped find a solution for the most of the disputed issues. Unfortunately, some people see this resource as a haven for propaganda, and managed to disrupt the efforts to achieve the compromise, which was almost agreed. But I can reiterate that I cannot agree to Azerbaijani position to be reduced to minimum and Armenian propaganda take most of the space. This was a real good chance to find a solution for the dispute and stop endless revert wars, but the chance was lost. Anyway, thanks again and I hope you will be checking this page from time to time to offer your advise on disputed issues. Regards, Grandmaster 05:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, throughout this discussion, you kept removing segments from the Armenian portion of paragraphs, while I kept offering addition of points to the Azeri portion, my goal being to make sides balanced, to which you resisted rigidly. I say that shows your intention to minimize the Armenian view and push the Azeri one. I do not blame you, however, as it's largely Sdedeo's fault. Your position became uncompromising due to his blatant partiality and overall incompetence. I understand you want to praise him, but the fact is his mediation did damage to both parties and their relationships (gee, I wonder when we have seen that happen, say, for the past 100 years at least). I know you will keep defending him and yourself, but my goal is not to lay blames. I believe we can still recover the damage done by Sdedeo and work together. I believe we all should take a couple of days off, it will help us regain some perspective. I also think that if we ever try to resort to dispute resolution on this issue, we need to start over--please read WP:DR--there is a host of steps (RFC, voting, informal mediation) before even trying something like this. To achieve maximum consensus, we need to try the available initial steps first. Before that, we should try to work with each other, and before that, we need to take break. --TigranTheGreat 12:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, first, I appreciate the time you took to attempt the mediation.

Second, I believe the mediation failed largely because of you. You failed to do your job as a mediator and relegated your duties first to an advocate of one side, and then to a mere copier.

• You damaged the process by taking sides (giving green light to one party's offers, while trying to put pressure on the other), you further violated your duty of neutrality by applying rules with inconsistency. This had a huge effect on some parties "sticking to their guns."

• You failed to even address concerns and arguments made throughout discussion, or to correct obvious misunderstanding and misapplication of rules by some parties. Instead, you acted as a mere copier of the proposals made by various parties. We don't need a copier, we can do it ourselves, we wanted a neutral mediator. This was a lazy approach, which brought the mediation to a dead end, prevented any progress in mutual understanding and thus a possible compromise.

• You further broke your own professed rules of "assuming good faith" and "civility,"--from day one you assumed that the parties here were just POV-pushers guided by "passion" instead of reason, even making some quite juvenile remarks (e.g. "you will have matured enough"). Such condescending prejudice sabotages your own job and inevitably puts parties on defensive, destroying any chances of a compromise.

• In fact, the dispute here was not even ripe for a formal mediation, there are several other stages that parties need to go through before one (WP:DR), the parties here didn't know that, but you did, and it was your duty to suggest that we try those, which you failed to do.

In sum, you did much more damage than good to an already tense relationship, and we will need some time to repair it. I believe at this stage, you have no job doing mediations. I suggest that you seriously consider not attempting your seventh one, at least not until you read what I have just wrote (calmly), and consider incorporating it into your practice.

Thank you.--TigranTheGreat 12:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tigran, but in my opinion the only reason the meditaion fails is your unconstructive maximalist position and unwillingness to let the other (Azeri) side of the conflict to fairly state it’s case, which is the requirement of NPOV policy. Several times you disrupted the compromise between me and other Armenian editors, and keeping on doing it right now. So instead of blaiming the mediator check the history of the discussion and see how many times your position prevented achievment of a compromise. Regards, Grandmaster 13:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As an editor on this article and a party of mediation, I have the right to voice my concerns on propositions that I see problematic, even if other parties agree on it. Noone has to just accept something for granted if he sees serious issues with it. As the discussion above shows, the version that you and Eupator initially agreed upon actually did have problems. I could just as well blame you for the disruption, since you did not agree to my version, to which Eupator would have agreed as well. In fact my versions are quite balanced, and you have persistently rejected them, instead trying to take away as much as possible from the Armenian view. However, whatever position each party holds, it is the obligation of a mediator not to take sides, to listen to different sides, to guide parties through the applicable rules, and to resolve obvious misunderstandings. This mediator has failed on all counts. --TigranTheGreat 13:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

“My version is balanced” etc is just your point of view. I don’t find your versions balanced and think that they have heavy bias. You can blame me, you can blame the mediator, you can blame everybody else and find no faults with yourself, but if you really want to move forward and not to return to the stage of revert wars, which is why this article was protected, you should make a step towards compromise and stop pushing your POV at any cost. Sorry, but I still think that it is you to blame that we have a stalemate situation here. Grandmaster 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The revert war actually wasn't between you and me, you got yourself into it before I even intervened. In fact my earlier intervention helped resolve some of the issues that you were unnecesarily fighting over. Your constant attempts to take away information on Armenians is the best manifestation of you trying to push your POV. Your constant referral to the Armenian-related info as "propaganda" is another. Compromise doesn't mean accepting your POV, it means balancing views, which I have proposed, and you have rejected. Until you learn this, you will always get into revert wars.--TigranTheGreat 14:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So you think it’s because of me all the revert wars started. Fine. Just note that the only edit wars I got into are this article and the one for Karabakh, with the same editors as here, and mind you, those are not the only ones I edit. And you proposals were so out of touch with reality that there was not a slight chance that I could take them seriously. If you make proposals knowing that they won’t be acceptable for the other party, it’s nothing but a sabotage of the mediation process. I’ve been accused of many things, but you failed to prove my guilt in anything so far. And it was Raffi who applied for mediation, I never knew Sdedeo before, you guys brought him here, and now you started attacking him for not supporting your position and blaming your failure to substantiate your claims on him. It’s simply not a nice behavior. I’m not going to defend Sdedeo, he can do that himself if he wishes so, though obviously he sees no point in engaging in such useless discussions. I just think that you should have some courage to accept the outcome of the process which was started by your fellow Armenian editors, or else move to the next step of dispute resolution without personal attacks on the mediator. Take care. Grandmaster 06:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Is it possible to archive some of the older discussions on this page? The page takes time to load, archiving could help. Thanks. Grandmaster 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be able to help. How much would you like archived? --Khoikhoi 06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think everything up to my discussion with Raffi can be archived. Thanks for your help. Grandmaster 07:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just keep (for now) everything from the "medcabal" para on down (and possibly more if someone wants!) Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 15:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, please have the page archived. If the negotiation is to move fast, the page has to load fast.--TigranTheGreat 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Done! Sdedeo (tips) 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Census of 1897

After the February Revolution the region was under the authority of Special Transcaucasian Committee of the Russian Provisional Government. In 1918 Musavat Party proclaimed in Nakhichevan the Republic of Araks, while the Armenian Republic claimed Nakhichevan for itself, as 57% of the population were Azeris, and 42% were Armenians. At the same time, Azeris constituted plurality (49%) of population of Erivan, which became capital of Armenian Republic, while Armenians were 48% .

I fail to see how the census of 1897 could represent 1918. I don't know who placed this sentence there, but it is totally misleading. 'Erevan' had a population of 29 thousand in 1897,(Tartars popularity over the Armenians was less than 1%) the next population records of 1926 presents 64 thousand, and the increase of population was only for the ethnic Armenians. In 1918, Erevan recieved thousands of Armenian refugees survivors of the Armenian genocide, the city became pratically a giant orphanage, and anyone here could run a search on google and I doubt they will have any problem finding such photos. Examples . During that period (1918), the Armenian population was clearly outnumbering the Tartars by the thousands, as Erevan recieved over 20 thousand Armenian refugees, to not say that from the period between 1897 to 1915, many Armenians crossed to borders while the empire was declining and the Armenians situation worstning in the Ottoman Empire. There is no way that the same % was kept in 1918 and very far from it. Fad (ix) 01:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The figures represent the situation before the collapse of the Russian empire. I can add the line to reflect this. After Erivan became the capital of the Armenian republic most of the Azeri population had to flee for their lives, so the sensus held in first years of Soviet rule in Armenia shows decrease of Azeri population in that terrritory. Grandmaster 05:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not true, those figures are according to the census as the one of 1897, which dumped also most of the Kurdish population as Tartars too. It does not represent the population of 1918. I have visited the link of the reference, yet the figures are those of 1897. In 1914, the Armenians already started constitution the majority on the land. As for the Azeris fleeing, this is also not accurate, there is no credible sources that shows that the Azeris population left Erevan after, in fact, the Azeris population statistics for Erevan remained about the same, what happened on the other hand was that Erevan Armenian population increased, for instance, the 1926 records shows that the increase of population was from the side of the Armenians. Keep in mind that when you have less than 30 thousand people, and that nearly half are of one ethnic group, when you add 34 thousand more people from that ethnic group, an increase that represent more than the actual population you clearly get a majority. Just for comparaison, in 1939, the population jumped to about 200 thousand. Fad (ix) 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn, Fadix, you know Russian too :)? You are a genius :) You are right. The current dates in that edition of Encyclopedic Dictionary are 1897-1900.--TigranTheGreat 18:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know Russian, but I know all the census and statistics taken on the region, and the figures there were exactly those of the Census of 1897. Also, I have Systran Premium with many languages and translate the materials. :) Fad (ix) 18:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, the problem is that you provide the information that is impossible to check right away. You can check my source of info, but I can’t check yours, since you don’t name it.

Brockhaus Encyclopedia provides the following figures: Population of Erivan uyezd consists of 69588 men and 57484 women, of them 53,5 % aderbeijan tatars (Azeris), 37 % Armenians, 8% kurds, 1% aysors and 0,5% Russians. 62% Muslims (52,5% Shiah), 37% Armeno-Gregorian and about 1% orthodox. Population of Erivan town was 17345 men and 11688 women = 29033. Russians 2 %, Armenians — 48 % aderbeijan tatars — 49 %; others — Georgians, Jews etc.

Now, where did you take the 1926 census figures from? It’s good when we can check each others figures to establish the facts. As for the kurds, apparently they did not live in significant numbers in the town of Erivan, because there are numbers for Erivan uyezd, and if so, what was the point for Russian administration in hiding the numbers for the town? As for the date the figures represent, the current version is a result of uncoordinated edits. It should be amended to read “before the collapse of the Russian empire the population numbers were such and such”. Grandmaster 07:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are not the same localities, Erevan of today, was the Erevan that the census of 1897 has recorded 17345 men and 11688 women, the census figures for the Uyezd of Erevan, is more exactly the district of Erevan, also the former so-called Khanat which did not entirely border the slice of the 'Erivan' Guberniia that gave birth to the current republic of Armenia. Presenting such figures when they cover lands that are not part of the actual republic of Armenia is misleading, because every piece with a considerable Muslim population of above 35-40% in 1918 were sliced from what was to become Armenia. So the district of Erivan is not to be compared in any way to the city of Erivan, but rather the fortified city AKA town that is the current ‘Erivan.’ As for my sources, are you kidding me? They are the official census records, they are published in every major works of population datas, that you don't know those basics I hope does not represent your overall knowledge of the region. BTW, the census from that encyclopaedia are those of 1897, Universalis also present the same for Erivan, and all the datas from the past to the records of the 90s(1990s). The same could be said about Baku.

If you really want the records so that you could check, Общий свод по Империи результатов разработок данных первой всеобщей переписи населения, произведенной 28 января 1897 года, you can order the CD-ROM, if you have access to an inter-loaning program, you could try having a microfiche, as I didn’t myself had a problem having it. For the 1926 census, the original is more difficult to obtain if you don’t have interloaning access they will probably make you pay over a thousand $$$ to get it. (Всесоюзная перепись населения 1926 года). Since you know Russian, maybe you could find a site from the web in Russian.

Also to note, that don’t forget that Baku was in the same situation in the 19nt century, in 1860 for instance it hadn’t a recorded more than 15 thousand as population, and many were mostly investors as the oil flowing there was half of the world petrol production. How many were Azeris Tartars? You should use the same standards there Grandmaster. Fad (ix) 19:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Baku and Erivan is not the same. Yes, in the beginning of the century Azeris were not the majority in Baku, though they still were the largest ethnic group and the majority in Baku uyezd and governorate. When Baku was made a part of the Russian empire, its population was less than 30 000 and they were all Muslims. After the oil boom the population rapidly grew and reached 200 000, as many people from all over the Russian empire moved to the city. During the Soviet times the Azeri population grew and became overwhelming majority, Armenian population also grew, and only Russian population started slowly decrease, as elsewhere in the USSR, because migration stopped, and the birth rate was low. If we look at Erivan, it had something about 15 000 Azeri population in early 20th century, by the late 70s Azeri population was almost equal to zero. Azeri population was being forced out from Armenia, and even physically deported in Stalin times. Many of those people settled in Nakhichevan. So decrease of Armenian population in Nakhichevan was part of the migration processes in the region. And please don’t remove any information without my consent, even if you think that it is not appropriate here. Grandmaster 06:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are irrelevent to justify your reintroduction Grandmaster, in 1918, there was over 175 thousand Ottoman Armenians crossing the borders, plus those of Kars etc., Erivan Armenian population was representing over 65% of the population of what was to become the city in 1918. As for your consent, you still persist keeping what you now know to be a wrong information. I will remove that, both you and I know it is not true, why then you persist keeping it?

It does not say 1918 now, it says the beginning of 20th century. You can’t say it is not true, information is taken from a reputable source. Grandmaster 07:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What reputable source? Already in 1897, the year of the census, Armenians already became a majority in Erivan(the immigrants were excluded). The population count started in 1896 the years when thousands of Ottoman Armenians who were persecuted crossed the border to escape the Hamidian regime which costed the live from 1894 to 1897 to over 150 thousand Armenians. The Armenians did not constitute a majority because of Nakhichevan Armenians leaving for Erivan, this is your claim, it is personal research, but rather because of the concentration of Armenians in a tiny region while the Azeris population was left intact. Also, anyone having a clue of the process of this census know that nomadic Kurds were mostly dumped with Azeris Tartars in such population counts.

Also, the reason I decided to shut about Baku is because it has exposed your double standard and you have even not understood what my silence meant. In 1905, when the population there jumped, 74 thousand were Russians, 72 thousands were Azeris Tartars and Persian Tartars(but of course you'd rather only include Persian Armenians as immigrants) and 34 thousands were Armenians.

So here is where we are at, the beginning of 20th century is wrong, because Armenians were the dominent groupe at that time in Erivan.

Also, the claim of Armenian immigration is simply maintained by the Azerbaijani Academia of Science.

With the onset of Russian rule, Russian government organized massive resettlement of Armenians from Persia to the Caucasus with the purposes of changing the demographics of the region. This process was described in the letters of Russian envoy to Persia A.S. Griboyedov

The records don't show any massive resettlement, neither as a singular purposes to change the demographic, in fact the decision of immigration was taken after the losses of 20 thousand Armenians from 1795 to 1827 who left for Georgia. The differences of population makes 30 thousands to compensate Armenian immigration in Georgia and elsewhere in the future. The numbers Ivan Shopen provides (Istoricheskii pamiatnik sostoianiia Armianskoi-oblasti v epokhu eia prisoedineniia k Rossiskoi-Imperii (St. Petersburg: V tip. Imp. Akademii nauk, 1852)) are far from massive immigration, also given that some of the regions from where Armenians immigrated from became also part of the current republic of Azerbaijan. Not to forget that many Persian Azeris also immigrated, and I already provided one example with Baku. 30,000 differences of population that also compensated the future immigrations doesn't change the demographic of the region, when also in the same time Persian Tartars were immigrating too, don't forget that Tartars were nomadic for the most part and that the only way for the Russians to bring some stability in the demographic of the region was to compensate the possible losses of Armenian population in the profit of other regions, because when Armenians leave they leave, they do not change places and return seasons to seasons as nomads do.

Grandmaster, honestly, the relevance of the population in Erivan at the time is a big question mark here. If you can show that the Armenians of Nakhichevan went to Erivan, and the Azeris from there were moved to Nakhichevan, then nobody is going to remove it. But you aren't showing that. You have added what amounts to a random and out of place number. So basically you need to tie this into the article in a meaningful way or it must go. I am not removing it this moment to give you a chance to respond and tie it in, even though it does not belong on the page until you can tie it in (which I wonder if you have any sources for this), but you have in the past been VERY fast to take down things which in fact did belong, so I hope you appreciate the difference and begin to work in the wiki way. --RaffiKojian 10:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raffi. I refer you to Tigran’s post above. He said:

Under Misplaced Pages guidelines on Abundance and Redundancy, inclusion of the same information in more than one article is perfectly permissable and even encouraged. "In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content."

Grandmaster 10:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What would you say that I also add the records of 1905 for Baku placing the Azeris Tartars as a minority? The claim you make is not accurate beside being irrelevent to be included, that is why I have deleted it. -Fadix

Grandmaster, nobody ever said information CANNOT be relevant in more than one article, I myself said this to you in regards to Jugha, which is relevant to Jugha, Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Persia, Russia and the Ottoman Empire! That doesn't mean everything is relevant on every page. So again, either make this information relevant by tieing it into Nakhichevan or it doesn't belong here. You don't seem to be able to tie it in, so I am taking it off now. You are welcome to add it again when you can show some relevance to the article, or else, as Fadix said, we are going to put the Baku population figures as well as Karabakh and Tblisi if we feel like it, which would be just as ridiculous unless they are tied into the article properly. --RaffiKojian 22:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first, Grandmaster, regarding Abundance and Redundancy. Any information added to an article has to be relevant. Under the Abundance and Redundancy rules, we can repeat the same information in multiple articles, but it still must be relevant to the article. For example, in the case of Raffi's khachkars, they were relevant to the article, so it was ok to include them, and the Abundance rules allowed to included it in other articles as well (as long as it's relevant). Otherwise, we could add info on Santa Clause here. In sum, we can be redundant, but not irrelevant

Second, any editor can remove an information that is not supported by a source.

Now, how these rules apply to the section in question. Saying "in the beginning of 20th century" is misleading since all the current dates given in Brockhause encycl. are either 1899, or 1900. 1900 is still in the 19th century (centuries start with x01), so none of the dates go beyond 1900 and into 20th century. For example, in the Erivan part, the encycl. says:

Население Э. (17345 мужчин и 11688 женщин) слагается из русских — 2 %, армян — 48 % и адербейджанских татар — 49 %; остальные — грузины, евреи и проч. Фабрично-заводская промышленность в Э. развита слабо; преобладают кустарно-ремесленные промыслы, обороты которых достигают 157300 руб. (1900 г.).

The current population is given, then the part talks (in present tense) about the current economy, i.e. "guilds prevail, and their business reaches xxxx rubles" (I paraphrased), and then the date is given for that current situation--1900. The both articles (Erivan and Nakhichevan ) are filled with such current, present-tense descriptions, followed by either 1899, or 1900. Therefore, the only thing that your source supports is "around 1900," which includes 1899 or 1900.

Second, saying

Armenian Republic claimed Nakhichevan for itself, as in the beginning of the 20th century 57% of the population were Azeris, and 42% were Armenians. At the same time, Azeris constituted plurality (49%) of population of Erivan, which became capital of Armenian Republic, while Armenians were 48%

is unsupported material. In other words, your sources support that Armenia claimed Nakhichevan, they support that around 1900, the population was so and so, but they do not support that Armenia claimed nakhichevan *because* the population around 1900 was so and so. (In fact, Armenia claimed Nakhichevan for a variety of reasons other than population, including primarily administrative (N. was part of Erivan province), historical (Arm saw N. as its historical part), geographic (proximity) etc.). Since your *connection* is not supported by your sources, it can't be here. Therefore, the population records should go to their chronological places--before the 1917 revolution.

Third, since we can't establish that Arm. claimed Nakh. *because* of population data given in Brockhouse, the Erivan population is irrelevant on this page. E.g. on California article, we don't give the population of Washington DC, and in LA article, we dont' give population of Sacramento. --TigranTheGreat 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the figures in that work are the ones of the 1897 census even thought the book was written later, they don't even represent 1899 or 1900. Also, already the year of 1897, which the data included also those of 1896, yet the new Armenian refugees escaping the Hamidian regime in late 1896 and 1897 are not included. Also, one should not forget the nomadic Kurdish population included with nomadic Tartars. -Fad(ix)

I totally agree with you and believe you. Now, if you can copy relevant segments from your source, and provide the citation information (publication date, name, etc), we can include it. It doesn't have to be available online, we trusted GM with his Washington Times article though I never felt like paying $3 to check it, he shall trust us as a matter of good faith. --TigranTheGreat 22:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Brochauz encyclopaedia was published in 82 volumes during 1890—1907, so how can you prove that this info relates only to 1900? Plus, it’s the only verifiable source of information on the population of the region. Also note that Muslim population figures were much higher than those stated in the official data. You can see from the figures, that the number of men is much higher than the number of women. Normally it should be the opposite way. Russian officials complained that many Muslim people didn’t allow to register their wives and daughters because of religious reasons (they didn’t want to show their women to strangers). Also read carefully Misplaced Pages:Abundance and redundancy, your interpretation is highly disputable.

Nakhichevan and Erivan were part of the same governorate, why can’t we include info about the capital of the governorate Nakhichevan was part of? It’s relevant to the article and it shows how Armenians laid claims to the lands of Nakhichevan, while Azeris prevailed even in the town that became the capital of their country. Of course this information should also be included in the article about Erivan, along with information about destruction of Azeri cultural heritage there. The same Brochauz article says that there were 7 mosques in Erivan, currently there’s only 1 left. De Waal describes destruction of an Azeri mosque in Yerevan in 1991. After all this hoopla with alleged destruction of the grave-stones I don’t see why this should not be included in the article about Armenian capital. Grandmaster 06:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also I’m going to remove the picture of the grave stones. It clearly violates the Misplaced Pages rules, because it contains the advertisement of another resource. See Misplaced Pages:Image use policy:

user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. I hope everyone is OK with this. Grandmaster 07:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't know when the particular articles where you took your info were published, what we do know is that the current dates in the articles do not go beyond 1900. Since that's all we know, that's all we can use--going beyond what we know from the source would be using unsupported information, which is forbidden in Misplaced Pages.

I have read Abundancy and Redundancy rules, and there is nothing there to suggest that we can include irrelevant information. The Yerevan figures would be relevant if you could establish that Armenians claimed Nakhichevan because of those particular (i.e. around 1900) figures, with a reputable source. You cannot establish that connection--in fact, the population could have changed between the date of the Brockhaus statistics and 1918 (actually they did change, due to the Armenian genocide). Since you cannot establish the connection, you cannot imply the connection. Without the connection, the Yerevan data is irrelevant. I understand that Nakhichevan and Yerevan were part of the same governance, but this article is about Nakhichevan, not about the entire Yerevan governance, hence the population of a city outside Nakhichevan does not count. Otherwise, we could have Baku's population just because Baku and Nakhichevan were part of the same vice-royalty (the Caucasus Viceroyalty). Or we could have the Washington DC population in the article about California, which would be equally absurd.

Do not remove Raffi's pictures. Sdedeo spoke to Raffi about the watermarks, and you can ask Raffi, but from what I recall, he found pictures to be ok.--TigranTheGreat 09:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Read again:

Abundance and Redundancy is an informal policy dealing with similar material being shared among separate articles, and debates over the removal of said materials on the basis of context: It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war. In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.

So stop removal of my edits, I’m going to develop this particular paragraph, and your attitude is simply not justified by any rules. Grandmaster 10:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also if in some places reference is made to 1900, it doesn’t mean that every information contained in the article relates to the same date. It’s simply your assumption, and we don’t make judgments on the basis of somebody’s assumptions. Grandmaster 10:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

IT. MUST. HAVE. RELEVANCE. Nobody here has said that information cannot easily belong on two pages, we are the ones who taught you that. We are saying THIS information does not belong here. You are really trying our patience. We will start adding material about the Armenian Genocide next and then tell quote you the Abundance and Redundancy rules. Can we cut out all of this nonsense and just work on the basis of common sense? If you cannot tie this information into the article properly, it does not belong. If you can, then nobody will mind it. Simple enough for you? Ufffa. --RaffiKojian 13:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Raffi, let's not use the term "belong here," otherwise Grandmaster will copy the same word from the "Abundance" rules and say "you can't use that argument," ignoring the fact that the whole point of "Abundance" rules is relevance. Saying "it's not relevant" shall be enough. It's best to choose words carefully to avoid confusion. I will explain to him how the "Abundance" rules don't mean "include irrelevant stuff."

By the way, Raffi, what's the whole deal with the watermarks on your pics? I think Sdedeo said the pics were ok, but you may want to explain more just to ease GM's mind here.--TigranTheGreat 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Grandmaster, back to you. Stop distorting the rules and reading only what you want. The "don't exclude, include" rule applies to relevant material, not irrelevant one--that's the whole point of the "Abundance" rules. Here is the paragraph immediately following the one you quoted:

Since most articles are very small (under 10k), and size, therefore, is not an issue, there is no valid reason to exclude material on the basis of its redundancy of external material alone. Ease of reading is facilitated by the inclusion of relevant material, rather than disinclusion. In fact, if we weren't "redundant", following this logic, every article would be chopped up into tiny little bits - each of which would link to very specialized articles that you had to piece together.

This and the rest of the "Abundance" page make it clear that "relevance" is needed when we include stuff on multiple pages. The paragraph that you quoted, the whole point of the paragraph is that we should avoid edit wars by not excluding relevant material on multiple pages. I am not saying your information belongs somewhere else, and not here--I am saying it's not relevant here--it makes no contribution to any point that the article is trying to make. The "it doesn't belong here" argument was used by you and other Azeris here to exclude Raffi's photoes, by arguing "it appears on other pages, so it does not belong here." The reason that argument failed is because the pictures were relevant on this page as well. Your info on Erivan is not relevant on a Nakhichevan page, and the rules don't say "include irrelevant stuff." Otherwise, as Raffi said, we could include info on Armenian Genocide, Baku, etc. Now, if you are developing the paragraph, you are more than welcome to include the info if your paragraph can make it relevant. For now, it's irrelevant, and it shall go.

As for 1900, the references to it aren't made just in "some" places, it's in the very same paragraph where the population data are given, and the date is given as the *current* date, after giving the population data and economic situation in *current* *present-tense* format, meaning that the 1899 and 1900 are the latest current dates available to the publishers of the article. That's all we have, we do not have any other dates there, so you cannot imply any other dates. --TigranTheGreat 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, they are the official census of 1896/97, they are available on microfiche and I have presented to Grandmaster what to search. It is also included in Universalis. -Fad(ix)

Fadix, do you now have access (without having to pay anything, I wouldn't want you to spend your hard earned dollars, especially those Canadian ones:) ) to the relevant 1897 stats either on microfiche, or Universalis, or that CD-ROM you talked about. If you have, could you please copy the relevant paragraph here, and provide the citation information (if it's CD, state that info, and the date of issuing, the issuer, the menu/article name etc.). That would be great.--TigranTheGreat 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, why don't you check Britannica 1911 online edition? Here is what it says: ERIVAN, or IRWAN, in Persian, Rewan, a town of Russia, capital of the government of the same name, situated in 40 14 N., 44 38 E., 234 m. by rail S.S.W. of Tiflis, on the Zanga rivera from which a great number of irrigation canals are drawn. Altitude, 3170 ft. Pop. (1873) 11,938; (1897) 29,033. And it is EXACTLY the same number Grandmasters source provides when you add the women and male populations(17345 men and 11688 women = 29033. Russians). This census is an official one, you can find it in most major encyclopedias, as I have already said, Universalis. Why would Britannica lie on this? Still Grandmaster persist on this after I made it clear that those figures represents 1897 and yet excluded the Armenian refugees of 1896 that were yet not still registered. Also, this article clearly say that Armenians in Erivan proper were a majority. Grandmaster has a point thought, it is true that women were undercounted, but this was not proper to Muslim, in fact in statistic datas based on half pyramids, it is better to use the women half pyramids. But also, Armenians for instances who immigrated for work in Erivan were not registered, also a phenomen proper to Armenians and also Jews, was that many Armenians not only in the Russian empire but also in the Ottoman Empire were registered as foreigners. Also to not forget that since Tartars were mostly nomadic, they had to have a registering place and this is open to double counting dependending of the different dates of the census in different regions.(people are not all counted in one shut) -Fad(ix)

Excellent. The official 1897 Britannica numbers equal the Brockhaus numbers to the very last man, so the date for the Brokhaus numbers must be 1897.--TigranTheGreat 23:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Brokhaus uses the 1897 official census its for population data. This is from the article "Erivan Governance":

Население Э. губернии (429689 мужчин, 375068 женщин, по переписи 1897 г.) слагается из армян (56 %), адербейджанских татар (37,5 %), курдов (5,5 %) и русских (0,6 %); остальные 0,4 % приходятся на айсоров, греков, грузин, евреев и цыган

Population of E. governance (429689 men, 375068 women, according to 1897 census) consists of Armenians (56 %), Azerbaijani Tatars (37,5 %), Kurds (5,5 %) and Russians (0,6 %); the remaining 0,4 % consist of Aysors, Greeks, Georgians, Jews, and Gypsies.

Another important info from the article:

Территория Э. губернии вошла в состав России в 1828 г., по Туркменчайскому трактату, в виде ханств Эриванского и Нахичеванского, получивших первоначально название Армянской области. В 1850 г. из Армянской области, с присоединением Александропольского уезда, была образована Э. губерния.

Territory of E. Governance became part of Russia in 1828, according to Turkmenchai Treaty, in the form of Erivan and Nakhichevan khanates, which were named Armenian region (oblast). In 1850 Erivan governance was formed from the Armenian region and Aleksandrapol uyezd.

The relevant parts about history Nakhichevan khanate and Erivan governance need to be changed accordingly in the article.--TigranTheGreat 00:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also from the Soviet Encyclopedia

В 1828 была образована Армянская область, переименованная в 1849 в Эриванскую губернию. (In 1828 the Armenian oblast was formed, which was renamed Erivan Goverance in 1849). http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/057/375.htm

--TigranTheGreat 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Resettlement of Armenians

I read the entire letter by Griboyedov (http://feb-web.ru/feb/griboed/texts/fom88/ps88_150.htm), and there is nothing there saying that Russia's goal was to increase the percentage of Armenians and decrease that of Muslims (actually, the notorious Russian policy was "Armenia without Armenians," and the settlement of Russian cossacks in the lands instead of Armenians). All that Griboyedov's letter says is that Armenians moved to Nakhichevan (which, according to Soviet Encyclopedia, was allowed to Armenians under the Turkmenchay Treaty, ), that Muslims didn't like it, and Griboyedov was recommending Paskevich to be nicer to Muslims and move some Armenians from the "angry Muslims" areas to Daralagyaz (a bordering area between Nakhicehvan and modern Republic of Armenia). Therefore, the whole statement with "Russia's goal was to change demographics" is unsupported (and actually false). The whole purpose of the paragraph is to serve the notorious Turko-Azeri propaganda that "Armenia was created by Russia at the expense of native Muslims," which is false. I have therefore modified the paragraph to make it more supportable by the sources.--TigranTheGreat 22:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As I previously said, there was no massive resettlement of Armenians, this information first appeared from publications of the Azerbaijani academia of science. I have presented the official data, and it clearly show a differences of population of 30 thousand supposed also to compensate for the future Armenian losses of population. -Fad(ix)

Where did you say it?--TigranTheGreat 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am reposting it.

Also, the claim of Armenian immigration is simply maintained by the Azerbaijani Academia of Science.

With the onset of Russian rule, Russian government organized massive resettlement of Armenians from Persia to the Caucasus with the purposes of changing the demographics of the region. This process was described in the letters of Russian envoy to Persia A.S. Griboyedov

The records don't show any massive resettlement, neither as a singular purposes to change the demographic, in fact the decision of immigration was taken after the losses of 20 thousand Armenians from 1795 to 1827 who left for Georgia. The differences of population makes 30 thousands to compensate Armenian immigration in Georgia and elsewhere in the future. The numbers Ivan Shopen provides (Istoricheskii pamiatnik sostoianiia Armianskoi-oblasti v epokhu eia prisoedineniia k Rossiskoi-Imperii (St. Petersburg: V tip. Imp. Akademii nauk, 1852)) are far from massive immigration, also given that some of the regions from where Armenians immigrated from became also part of the current republic of Azerbaijan. Not to forget that many Persian Azeris also immigrated, and I already provided one example with Baku. 30,000 differences of population that also compensated the future immigrations doesn't change the demographic of the region, when also in the same time Persian Tartars were immigrating too, don't forget that Tartars were nomadic for the most part and that the only way for the Russians to bring some stability in the demographic of the region was to compensate the possible losses of Armenian population in the profit of other regions, because when Armenians leave they leave, they do not change places and return seasons to seasons as nomads do. -Fad(ix)

Very interesting interpretation of the source. It is not just about Azeri population not being happy, he says that indigenous local population was expressing their discontent with the region being overfilled with Armenians and that local Azeri (Tatar) people had to suffer and live in difficult conditions because so many Armenian settlers moved to the region. Griboyedov also said that their complaints were justified and recommended to move some of the newcomers further to Daralagez. As for the claims that Russia did not want to change the demographics, why then a special clause that allowed resettlement of Armenians from Persia was included in the Turkmanchay treaty? What was the purpose of it? This is even accepted by Armenian historians, read Armenian websites.

В ходе дальнейших русско-турецких войн в 1853-1856 г.г. и 1877-1878 г.г. кампания по переселению армян из Турции в Закавказье, преимущественно в Эриванскую губернию и на Черноморское побережье Кавказа, продолжалась и носила широкий размах. Заселением русскими и армянами завоеванных земель Россия намеревалась окончательно закрепить за собой эти края.

Russia intended to permanently secure this region as its possession by resettlement of Russians and Armenians in the conquered lands.

Интересы царского правительства требовали увеличить численность населения присоединенной к России части Армении, восстановить ее экономическую жизнь и сконцентрировать в этой пограничной области как можно больше армян, у которых особенно сильно выражалась русская ориентация. Был выдвинут план переселения в Восточную Армению армянского населения, оставшегося под турецким и персидским владычеством. По требованию России как в Туркменчайский, так и Адрианопольский договоры были включены статьи, разрешающие переселение армян в русские пределы—в Восточную Армению и Закавказье. Для осуществления репатриации армян была создана специальная комиссия.

The interests of the Tsarist government required increase of population of the part of Armenia, that passed to Russia, rehabilitate its economic life and concentrate in this frontier region as many Armenians as possible, since they had the strongest Russian orientation. etc

And this is from the book Переселение армян аддербиджанских из Персии в пределы России by S.Glinka, the author cites the order of Russian general Paskevich:

13. Вообще соглашать Христиан, дабы они следовали в Нахичеванскую и Эриванскую области, где предлагается увеличить, сколько можно, народонаселение Христианами. Впрочем жителям деревни Узумчи и 3-х близ ея находящихся Армянских селений, позволить следовать в Карабах, так как сия провинция к ним ближе…

Grandmaster 07:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, nothing about changing demogrpahics. It just says the government wanted to icnrease the population for the skae of a stronger economy and work force.

Why didn't you translate the whole quote you have there? You left this out: A plan was put forward to resettle Armenians that remained under the Turkish and Persian yoke to Eastern Armenia. Under the requirement of the Turkmenchai and Adrianople treaties, Armenians were allowed to resettle to Russian controlled regions of Eastern Armenia and Transcaucasus. For the realization of the REPATRIATION of Armenians a special commision was created.--Eupator 15:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So concentration in the region as many Armenians as possible was not intended to change the demographics, right? The purpose of that was to keep the demographics the same, wasn’t it? Grandmaster 19:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you simply have no reputable sources stating that either the Russian government organized the resettlement, or that it was especially done with the purpose of changing "demographics." The Griboyedov letters don't state either, and the only semi-reputable sources here--the Soviet Encyclopedia, simply states that Armenians were allowed to resettle to Russia:

правительство Ирана обязалось не препятствовать переселению армян в Россию. (government of Iran was obligated (by the treaty) not to hinder the resettlement of Armenians to Russia)

Therefore, saying "Russia organized resettlement" and then "THIS was allowed by Turkmenchay treaty" is an unsupported information--Turkmenchay treaty didn't allow the organization of the resettlement by Russia (in fact it didn't say anything about how it would be done), it merely allowed that Armenians can leave. I said semi-reputable since the historical sciences in USSR were under tight communist control, which means that the Soviet Encyclopedia was pro-USSR-policy therefore pro-imperial-ethnic-policy therefore pro-"let's maintain the status quo" therefore pro-"let's keep Nakhichevan and Karabakh with Azerbaijan" therefore pro-"don't let Armenians remember too much of their history" which naturally made it pro-Azeri regarding these issues (the stance of Soviet Encyclopedia can more briefly be described anti-Armenian-national-revival). But, given that it's the most "authoritative" in USSR, I will agree to its use in this case. At any rate, as I said, it says nothing about Russian sponsorship, or hidden agenda.

You say "why then a special clause that allowed resettlement of Armenians from Persia was included in the Turkmanchay treaty? What was the purpose of it?" For you the answer is "because Russia wanted to change demographics," for me it's "to prevent another Armenian Genocide, this time in Persia". Actually, Russia preferred to populate the new areas with cossacks, malakans, and other Russian groups, the Tzar feared rise of Armenian nationalism and didn't look favorably to many of the requests of Armenians (to establish Armenian autonomy etc.), and obviously populating the area with Armenians might promote such nationalistic feelings (hence the famous "Armenia without Armenians" imperial policy). That's besides the point, however, under the rules of "No Original Research" (WP:NOR) we cannot impose our interpretations (either yours or mine), we can just report what reputable sources state. And all we know is that:

• the treaty allowed Armenians to resettle from Persia to Russia,
• many Armenians moved accordingly (presumably to avoid Persian reprisals), and
• the local Russian government perhaps helped the newcomers with the settling once they arrived there.

We don't know (without reputable sources) whether the entire process of moving (from Persia to Russia) was organized by the central Tsarist government, or whether it was organized by local Armenian activists, whether the local Russian generals delegated the task of organizing to local Armenian activists (which is not the same as the Russians organized the resettlement: when I tell you organize your desk, I delegate, and you organize), or whether leaving of Persia was organized at all: after all, Armenians could have just left Persia to avoid reprisals, and once they arrived, then the settling could have been organized there. In this case we wouldn't say X organized the resettlement of Armenians but Armenians resettled from P to A, and X organized the settlement of the newcomers in A.

Finally, I don't care if it's 30,000 Armenians or 100,000, "massive" is a subjective characterization and therefore prone to POV. "Many" is much more neutral. Let the readers check the sources to decide whether it's massive or not--we don't impose our subjective interpretations on readers.

As for the sources that you quoted, none of them are reputable, or even what you made them look like. You said This is even accepted by Armenian historians. There was not a single Armenian historian in any of the sources provided by you. The first article is written by some "Ivan Semonov," whose caption says nothing about him being a historian, much less a reputable one--he is "head of the Fund of Assistance to "Russian compatriots" in Armenia." His concern is to improve relations between Armenians and Russians, and from what I read in the article, it's filled with the message "we Russians did so many favors to you Armenians"--therefore his interpretation of the resettlement is suspect. At any rate, he is not a reputable source, and we can't use him.

The second source is an Armenian-Russian website, and there is no information (not even a name) for the author of the text--we dont' know if it's a historian (much less a reputable one) or some guy just writing out of his rear. I have never heard of this http://armenia.h1.ru website, there is no author--it can't be reputable. Normally, you don't find Armenian websites reliable here--you can't consider them reputable when they favor your POV, and non-reputable when they don't. By the way, there is much information on this site about how Armenians were being expoited by Muslim khans etc, obviously you wouldn't want to include that information. There are dozens of such Armenian websites, some of them claiming that Armenians have been in Transcaucasia for over 5000 years--again, you wouldn't include that kind of info, no reason to find it reputable just because in this case they happen to favor your POV.

As for your third quote (to which you didn't provide a link), it's found in every single azeri website out there, including this: http://karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/armyanstvo/arm24-2.php. When you actually find the book and copy from there, then we can talk about including info from there--otherwise, it's info from an azeri site.

By the way, even if those sources were reputable (which they are not) they still don't say that Russia organized a massive resettlement, much less with the purpose to change the demographics. Your first quote (from Semenov) talks about 1853-1856 and 1877-1878, not 1828. Second, when talking about 2nd half of 19th c., the quote sentence says:

Заселением русскими и армянами завоеванных земель Россия намеревалась окончательно закрепить за собой эти края.

The correct order of clauses in the sentence is this:

With settlement of the conquered lands by russians and armenians Russia intended to finally secure these areas.

In this order, the sentence could mean that once russians and armenians settled there, Russia said "this is good, we will use this fact to secure these lands." Which is different from "Russia did it with the purpose of so and so"

In your second quote, you omitted the sentence immediately preceding your quote, which actually supports Fadix' idea:

Следует отметить, что в начале XIX века, в результате беспрерывных разорительных войн и усобиц между ханами, бесконечных набегов разбойничьих банд и т. д. значительная часть деревень и населенных пунктов Восточной Армении и в особенности Араратской равнины была разрушена и покинута жителями. Интересы царского правительства требовали увеличить численность населения присоединенной к России части Армении, восстановить ее экономическую жизнь и сконцентрировать в этой пограничной области как можно больше армян, у которых особенно сильно выражалась русская ориентация.

Which reads:

One needs to note, that in the beginning of 19th c, as a result of incessant destructive wars between khans, endless raids by bands etc, significant portion of villages and towns of Eastern Armenia and especially the Ararat valley was destroyed and abandoned by its residents. The interests of the Tsarist government required increase of population of the part of Armenia, that passed to Russia, rehabilitate its economic life and concentrate in this frontier oblast as many Armenians as possible, among whom Russian orientation was expressed especially strongly.

The text doesn't directly state what was the purpose of the government, it says what would suit its interests, and consequently it at most suggests that those could be the purpose. And the suggested purpose, as opposed to ambiguous "change of demographics", were:

• restoring the depleted population
• restore economics
• concentrate in the frontier oblast (i.e. the Armenian oblast, not the entire Caucasus) Armenians.

Saying "change the demographics" is too vague and prone to various POV interpretations not supported even by this source, including "achieve domination of the region by Armenians," "assimilate the Muslims" etc.

Finally, your third quote sounds more like a recommendation by a Russian general (to settle Christians, remember Russians wanted to settle Cossaks and Malakan Russians), instead of a plan by Russian government to organize the resettlement.

But, we don't need to worry about the above, since these sources aren't reputable first place.--TigranTheGreat 06:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Golbez

Hi Golbez. To me it's very amusing that Armenian editors resist so hard to inclusion of this short sentence. Why are you guys so ashamed of this fact? And what’s so wrong with inclusion of information about the centre of the province this region was part of? I mean there’s so much irrelevant information in the articles about the region, I don’t see how this short piece of info can do any harm to the article. Obviously, ethnic picture of the region significantly changed after Azerbaijan and Armenia became independent countries in 1918. There were massive shifts of population in both directions. Situation in Nakhichevan cannot be viewed separately from the whole picture. Basically, I have Azeri sources that claim that Azeri population was forced out from Armenia and particularly its capital, and many of the refugees fled to Nakhichevan, and some of them were living in the open air along the river of Araks in Nakhichevan. I’m currently looking for good independent sources, as population movements between two countries were part of the history of the region. That’s why I asked to keep this info for the moment, as I’m going to develop this section. Grandmaster 10:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the fact that they are even azeris is disputed. Be their designation tatars, tartars or azerbaijani tatars. As far as Erivan goes i'm quite certain that the majority of those tatars were Kurds. All muslims were branded as tatars. To suggest somehow that they were all a people that will be called in the future as "Azeris" is absurd.--Eupator 13:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian authorities knew the difference between Kurds and Azeris (or as they called them aderbeijan tatars). They are registered as two different ethnic groups, and there’s no proof of the opposite. Grandmaster 13:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

From your lips to God's ears. I'm sure they knew the difference on some level; however, all muslims whatever their tongue or ethnicity were known as tatars, that includes the people who would later call themselves Azerbaijani. Yerevan in those years had a significant Kurdish population. See: Kurdistan, In the Shadow of History by Laura Hubber and Meryl Levin. --Eupator 14:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I ask you: Why do you fight so hard for it? I have allegiances with neither side, being a decadent American, so I figure I'm pretty neutral in this conflict. (I would say I'm slightly more familiar with Azerbaijan, solely because of all the research I did making the maps, which is why this got on my watchlist to begin with) You're asking the Armenians why they don't want it - I'm sure they're asking why you do want it. Mediation tends to require compromise, from both sides. You say "How can this small piece of info hurt the article?" Exactly as I explained in the edit comment, it seems to be (again, being unfamiliar, I can only look with an objective eye) an attempt to shoehorn a POV about the racial makeup of the area. If it's just a benign piece of info that's not about Nakhichevan, then how can it help the article?

If you're going to expand it, then you're welcome to - but try not to put it back in until you've managed to expand it. Keep a personal sandbox or something. Putting back in a disputed line with the reason of "I want to expand it" doesn't cut - expand it first, then try it out and see how it's received. --Golbez 16:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I’m working on expansion of this paragraph, so I’ll get back to that later. Thanks for your opinion, Golbez. Grandmaster 19:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. What do you think of the picture of the grave-stones? It contains watermarks with advertisement of another resource, which clearly violates the rules of Misplaced Pages. Grandmaster 20:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It does? Which rules? We've seen far worse watermarks. Also, Sdedeo asked him about it, and he responded that he would attempt. --Golbez 21:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Image use policy: user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. If you think it’s OK, then fine. Grandmaster 06:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I had just uploaded a version with a much more subtle watermark when I saw this policy you linked to - so now I uploaded it again, completely clean, even though the policy says no credits "that would hamper their free use", and I don't see how this would. I had originally released it for unlimited use "with attribution", but have had way too many instances of my photos being stolen without any attribution at all - that is why I waste my time adding watermarks. Anyway, issue resolved either way in this case. --RaffiKojian 07:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Golbez, you wondered which POV is that sentence shoehorning. The POV is one that has been advanced first by Soviet Azeri historians for the past several decades, and then adopted by Turkish sources, and is contained in pretty much every Turkish and Azeri website out there. Namely, the idea is that "the Armenian state is not legitimate, since even before its establishment Armenians were a settled minority on a native Azeri land, the whole concept of Armenian statehood was fabricated by Russia to subjugate native Azeris."--quite similar to the conspiracy theories in anti-semite websites regarding the creation of Israel. Now, unlike Grandmaster, I am not saying that this is his own purpose, but this is the background behind such statements. Now, if Grandmaster can provide reputable sources connecting 1918 Armenia's claims and 1897 population, he is welcome to include the statement. He is not welcome, however, to state that the Armenian editors are "ashamed" (!?) to include an accurate information on the website, or that they are trying to spread propaganda.--TigranTheGreat 06:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, not once I have used your Azeris background as a slander, and while I have ignored your repeated antagonism by using the term Armenian as a slander, from now on this won't go unnoticed anymore. Stop using there and here peoples background to reduce their participation as a matter of nationality. And here, I repeat so that it is clear for anyone. I was neither born in Armenia, neither ever visited that country. I lived most of my life in Canada and studied in French schools from the beginning. I did even not learn to read in Armenian in an Armenian school but at home. As far as I am concerned, I am at least as a Quebecer as an Armenian, and voted yes during the 1995 Quebecs referundum for independence, and I already made it clear that if Cyprus Turks want their countries that I can't do anything but accept their choice even thought Karabakh demographic was already advantaging the Armenians while it took to the Turkish army the evacuation of a people to justify such a choice. Why am I saying all this? It is simple, I have enought of having to justify positions that I have even not vehiculated in those talk pages, while you would always start making comments about peoples origine and nationalisty, but if ones ethnicity can be used to discard him, according to your standards you are more of an Azeris than I am an Armenian.

Also, I have noticied that you make up many things to support your positions, while I have remained silent for those to not embarace you, I won't hold to that position anymore. For example, you claim that the Russians could make the differences between Kurds and Tartars. This is not true, you make up this to support your argument. Kurds were included as Kurds when they had an established community in a village with a distinctive qualification, while Nomadic Kurds who were living with the Nomads with the same way of life, leaving and comming back seasons from seasons, were dumped as Tartars. In fact, when a Kurdistan was prepared during the Peace conference, it was clear that in the drawing of the borders the Kurds were considered to get their homelands in lands that were considered in typical census as Tartars or Turks and the subsequent Kurdish revolts point to the fact that out of a region where the population were recorded as Tartars, a considerable part of the population were in fact Kurds. I am even not talking about the Zaza or other groups who were discarded from any possible population records in those regions and even dumped as Muslim Turks or Tartars proper.

For all those reasons, and also for the fact that many Armenians were registered as foreigners or that the majority of the refugees from the Hamidian regime were even not still registered in 1896/1897, neither your claim of 1918 was true, neither the claime of the beginning of 20nt century, or what have you? Also, there was not major Armenian resettlement, the official total figure was under 50 thousand and mostly officially it was to compensate the 20 thousand Armenian immigrants to Geogia. 30 thousand people can hardly be considered as a major ressetlement while the Persian Tartars were also moving to the North. But I wonder why I am wasting my time, again you will simply ignore what I just wrote. -Fadix

Hi Fadix. When did I use anyone’s ethnic background as a slander? You’ll have to prove that. Yes, I referred to you as an Armenian editor, I did not think you would find it offensive to be called an Armenian, I personally don’t mind being called an Azeri editor and I’m even proud of this fact. How can anyone’s ethnic background reduce his participation? Your accusations are absolutely baseless and are nothing but an attempt to take it to the personal level. Also, you claim that I’m making up things, but that’s exactly what you do. At least I cite my sources and provide links to them, so that anyone can check reliability of the info. You’ll have to prove what you say about Kurds being registered by Russian authorities as Azeris, otherwise it’s nothing but your personal opinion. As for the claim of the population statistics being from 1918, in fact it was Raffi who put that line in, he said half of Nakhichevan’s population were Armenians, and I just changed that to 42%, as that was the only verifiable number. It was a result of uncoordinated edits. And regarding your claims that resettlement of Armenians was not massive, even Armenian sources claim otherwise.

Таким образом, в течение 1828—1830 гг в Восточную Армению и вообще в Закавказье переселилось более 130 тысяч армян.

Thus, during 1828 – 1830 (only 2 years) more than 130 thousand Armenians resettled to Eastern Armenia and Transcaucasia in general.

Note that resettlement continued until the collapse of the Russian empire and was sponsored on the state level. Some Russian sources claim that Russian government resettled up to 1 million Armenians. Grandmaster 19:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

YES IT IS offensive to repeat in ANY given occasion the ethnicity of those that opposes your position. Just search on this page the term 'Armenian editors' and see by yourself how many times you have used that. You are stygmatizing the editors with who you are working with, Misplaced Pages is a community and you still fail to understand what a community means. People who contribute here are before anything else WIKIPEDIANS and are with you part of this very same community, so your repeated uses of 'Armenian editors' is clearly against this spirit. As for Russians registering Kurds as Azeris, there was no such thing as being registered as Azeris, people were registered as Tartars. This is really amazing how you twist things. Not so long you ignored the census of 1897 and asked me to prove it and now you talk about how people were registered. Do you even know how people were counted? It was according to the Hollerith punched card system. The December 1896 and January 1897 households were visited and there was no question about if someone was a Tartar or a Kurd... they based this classification on the Faith of the person and the Households declared thong. Do you even know how many Kurdish dialects there are? Still in the last century it was controversial whatever or not Zaza was Kurdish, it is easy to report Yezidi Kurdish, but how do you report a Kurdish nomadic thong heavily influence by a Turkish dialect like Kurmanjî Kurdish or various other Kurdish dialects heavily being influenced by Tartar dialects? What you do then, when both are nomads, both have the same faith and both use very similair languages and that this Kurd want to be registered with a language that is EVEN NOT in the list???? Fad (ix) 21:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the 1 million figure, be glad to provide such a source, given that the Caucasus Armenian population according to 1897 Census was about 1.2 million, anything above 100 thousand is simply near to impossible. I have already provided official records, which make up of a difference of emigration immigration, of about 30 thousand. Fad (ix) 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First of, I don’t mention ethnicity of my opponents in any given occasion. I just need sometimes to refer somehow to the people, who represent Armenian position here. It’s much easier and quicker to type Armenian editors, than to type people, who represent Armenian position or something to that effect. So far no one complained when I said Russian editor, Iranian editor, Turkish editor, etc. Neither did I complain when someone referred to me as an Azeri editor. If you consider any mention of your ethnicity to be offensive, I won’t be referring to you personally as an Armenian editor any more. End of story. As for the Kurds, you have not presented a single proof of your statements. Russian census makes clear difference between Kurds and Aderbeijan Tatars, if you insist that some of Kurds were counted as Aderbeijan Tatars, you’ve got to prove that by reference to sources, you know the Misplaced Pages rules.

As for 1 million Armenian settlers, Russian ethnographer Shavrov said in his book Новая угроза русскому делу в Закавказье: предстоящая распродажа Мугани инородцам: Of 1 million 300 thousand Armenians living nowadays in Transcaucasia, more than 1 million don't belong to the indigenous population of the region and were settled by us (i.e. Russians). So by the time of collapse of the Russian empire Armenian population was resettled in the region in vast numbers. But even Armenian sources clearly contradict your statements about resettlers numbering 30 000. For example:

В течение трех месяцев сюда из Персии перебралось 8 тысяч семейств общей численностью около 40000 человек. Спустя короткое время, после заключения мира с Турцией Адрианопольского мира, сюда перебралось еще 13000 армянских семейств из Эрзерума, Баязета и других турецких территорий. Общее число армян, переселившихся из Персии и Турции за 1828-1829 годы, достигло 105000 человек. В ходе дальнейших русско-турецких войн в 1853-1856 г.г. и 1877-1878 г.г. кампания по переселению армян из Турции в Закавказье, преимущественно в Эриванскую губернию и на Черноморское побережье Кавказа, продолжалась и носила широкий размах. Заселением русскими и армянами завоеванных земель Россия намеревалась окончательно закрепить за собой эти края.

Within 3 months 8 thousand families with total number of 40 000 moved here (Transcaucasus) from Persia. In a short while, after signing of Adrianople peace treaty with Turkey, another 13000 Armenian families from Erzerum, Bayazet and other Turkish territories moved here. The total number of Armenians, resettled from Persia and Turkey during 1828-1829, reached 105000. In the course of further Russo-Turkish wars of 1853-1856 and 1877-1878 the campaign for resettlement of Armenians from Turkey to Transcaucasia, predominantly to Erivan governorate and Black Sea coast of Caucasus, continued and took a large scale. Russia intended to permanently secure this region as its possession by resettlement of Russians and Armenians in the conquered lands.

Russian government resettled more than 100 000 Armenians within just 1 year. And it was only the beginning. Grandmaster 06:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, when you refer to the ethnicity of editors in a negative context, then you violate the "assume good faith" and "civility" rules of Misplaced Pages. You are welcome to say that you admire Armenian editors, that you enjoy working with Armenian editors, that you value the progress made between you and Armenian editors. You shall not:

• claim that Armenian editors are "ashamed" (!!?) to include accurate info
• complain of being outnumbered by Armenian editors (as if they are out to get you)
• accuse them of "using the site for propaganda"

And by the way, the source that you use (brokhaus) states that 57% are "Aderbeijan Tatars." You write what your source says, you do not impose your interpretation--let the readers decide whether these are Azerbaijanis or not.

As for Shavrov, in the Talk page for Shusha you made it clear that you copied it from a web-article by an Azeri author (Mamedli) posted on an Azeri website (http://karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/azerpeople/ap020.htm). Again, when you have the source that you purport to use, then we can talk about it.--TigranTheGreat 06:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, you are not the one who can talk about civility. Look at you discussion with Sdedeo first. Second, why you removed the phrases about massive resettlement of Armenians, which are confirmed even by Armenian sources? That is nothing but POV push. Grandmaster 07:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)