Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic

Archives
Talk:Nakhichevan/archive Talk:Nakhichevan/archive2 Talk:Nakhichevan/archive3 Talk:Nakhichevan/archive4 Talk:Nakhichevan/archive5 Talk:Nakhichevan/archive6

From now on...

...we are to discuss major changes to the history section before making them. Sorry, GM, sorry Tigran, I'm reverting back to my earlier version. If you guys want to complain about it, bring it to the talk page instead of engaging in a revert war. Thank you. -- Clevelander 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Clevelander, but you don’t own the article. Check WP:OWN. I have a right to edit and make any legitimate additions I deem necessary, and neither you nor Tigran have any right to remove information, based on authoritative sources. I don’t mind discussing any problems, but you never consulted with me when you made edits to the article, so it is strange that you demand now that we should discuss any additions before making them. That’s against the rules, that say be bold in editing. Grandmaster 11:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't own the article, but as a rule of thumb and too keep some order, I think it would do us all good if we discuss our edits to the history section first before adding them. I don't see what's wrong with that. My edits yesterday were "tweaks." As you can see, I kept Cornell in there but I restored Walker's information per your suggestion of having them both included. I felt that from here we could discuss and evaluate our differences. -- Clevelander 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain why my changes were removed? What's wrong with information from Alstadt? What the Greeks have to do with Nakhichevan it never had any Greek population? Grandmaster 12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you didn't discuss them on the talk page first. -- Clevelander 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And when did you discuss quotes from Walker? You just added them and ignored my opinion. Grandmaster 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I re-added Walker in compliance with your suggestion that we include both him and Cornell. In any case, I will look over your edits now to see what you've added. We will evalaute them here on the talk page and then add them. -- Clevelander 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You added him long before, man. I suggest you restore my version and try to incorporate the additions I made. I don't make indiscriminate reverts like you guys do and always keep legitimate edits. You remove even such simple things as a link to the article about Khan Khoyski, and many others. I added it 5 times already. And restore the tag please, the article is disputed. Grandmaster 12:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

GM, chill. When you were writing this message, I already decided to revert your edits back in favor of you explaining them. Please calm down, we can work this out through discussion. -- Clevelander 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander, there is no reason for you to give cart blanche to GM's additions while keeping out other edits. He rejects your attempts to resolve disputes, he uses coercive tactics to make you keep his edits (which include removal of long-existing passages), he is trying to keep the article only the way he likes it to see--in essense, he actually attempts to own the article. And you don't need to cave in to him like that.

Aldstadt's additions are POV (as I will explain below) and they are quoted in whole, with all the POV expressions. Besides being a copyright violation, this also violates NPOV standards. The same is true for Cornell's quote--as always, here too he copies Cornell's POV statement (Dashnaks chased Muslims) verbatim. This is GM's pattern, and it's against both copyright rules and NPOV rules--we include facts, not POV phrasings.

He also removes long-standing quotes such as Croissant's, while putting in quotes that suit him. If you didn't notice, he removed entire sections of Nakhichevan's Armenian history which were added by you (while I actually kept your edits).

If you want to insist on the rule that we shouldn't add stuff without discussion, then we need to stick with it. Aldstadt's POV comments were added without discussion. Cornell's POV quote was added without discussion, while Walker's quotes have been here for a long time. Potier's "translation" again was added without discussion. If GM agrees to try to work things out instead of blindly sticking only to the version that he likes, then me and Eupator won't revert him. Otherwise, there is no reason to tolerate his uncompromising stance.--TigranTheGreat 20:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Walker is a pro-Armenian source, which is a verifiable info. Yet information from his book was included in the article without any attempt to discuss it on the talk page. It is funny that Tigran now talks about neutrality, when the version he reverts too talks about massacres of Armenians that cannot be verified from any authoritative source. Cornell and Alstadt are as good as Walker, and I’m going to add more info from yet another book. All that info should remain in the article, according to the rules the rules the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. And the info that I added is verifiable. Plus, the info was not copied verbatim, I shortened it a little bit due to space limitations, and it is referenced to Alstadt, so everyone can see where it’s taken from. As for Narimanov’s quote, you know perfectly well that Potier’s version is a more accurate translation of the original Russian text. I know that you will be denying it as usual, but I suggest we get an unbiased native Russian speaker to check both Potier and Croissant versions against the original Russian text and pass his judgment. Grandmaster 07:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be original research. Since Croissant's quote is published, we include that.

Cornell's opinion about Walker is an opinion, which is never verifiable. On the other hand, Cornell's connections with the Azeri government are well verifiable. Massacres of Armenians are verified by primary sources. Cornell's and Lady A's comments, on the other hand, are not verified. Plus, what they state is their POV about the intent of Dashnaks, which is clear propaganda. Under NPOV standards, they can't belong to the article. --TigranTheGreat 02:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster's latest additions

Alright, GM, here's your platform, please explain your recent additions to the Nakhichevan article. -- Clevelander 12:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I added two paragraphs:

The Azerbaijanis had a national committee in Nakhchivan as did the Armenians. Jafar Kuli Khan, the leader of the Azerbaijani Turks' National Committee, turned for protection to Ottoman forces and to his relative, the khan of Maku. Nakhchivan’s Muslim population was not interested in being part of an Armenian state whose forces cut off Nakhchivan from the ADR and carried out frequent attacks on border villages. The Armenian threat cemented Azerbaijani National Committee ties to the Ottoman army and the Maku khan and later led them to seek Allied aid against Armenian forces trying to incorporate Nakhjivan into Armenia.

When the British occupied Nakhchivan in January 1919, they regarded the Araz Republic, like the regime in Baku, as merely an Ottoman creation and accorded it no recognition. In the summer of 1919, according to Soviet accounts, an American colonel, James Ray, arrived in Nakhjivan. After discussion with various parties, he suggested to Jafar Kuli Khan that an American governor general oversee the territory. Colonel Haskell suggested the same in a letter of 1 September 1919 to the ADR government. He reportedly traveled through Nakhchivan and Sharur-Daralagez and, in his report to the Peace Conference, supported "neutral zone" status for these areas under an American governor general. In October, Azerbaijan published notices signed by Ray and Haskell that U.S. Army colonel Edmund D. Daily would be the U.S. governor general of Nakhjivan. Daily apparently never assumed the post.

Also from the same book I added the line about Turkish army taking control of the region in March 1920. The source of this information is Audrey L. Altstadt. The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity Under Russian Rule. ISBN: 0817991816. The second paragraph is somewhat repetitive, but I think Alstadt provided more precise and detailed information about the period of British occupation. You might wish to merge the second paragraph with the information previously included in the article. Grandmaster 13:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds credible enough to me and it seems to neutrally represent the Azeri perspective of events. I think it should stay. -- Clevelander 13:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but overall I'm in favor of placing less emphasis on the speculative info about massacres and attacks and focus more on political developments in the region. I gotta go now, talk to you later. Grandmaster 13:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, we'll pick up this discussion later. So long! -- Clevelander 13:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleve, buddy, how does one "neutrally represent the Azeri perspective of events"? If we push the Azeri perspective, then by definition it is not neutral.

How is this even remotely neutral? "Nakhchivan’s Muslim population was not interested in being part of an Armenian state whose forces cut off Nakhchivan from the ADR and carried out frequent attacks on border villages. The Armenian threat cemented Azerbaijani National Committee ties to the Ottoman army" The whole passage is pushing the idea that poor Azeris wanted independence to protect themselves from those "evil" Armenians (when in reality, as Walker makes it clear, it was Azeris and Turks who were carrying out the massacres of Armenians, who only afterwards responded with attacks on Muslims positions). This totally pushes one POV, while ignoring the fact that Azeris wanted Nakhichevan independent in accordance with the Pan-Turcic plan of uniting Azerbaijan with Turkey and smothering Armenia.

In addition to being a POV edit, the addition also copies Ms. A's book verbatim, which as I said violates copyright and includes all the POV phrases unchanged. That's not how Walker's book was used, mind you. And this is a general pattern used by GM--dump entire passages from various books (and the one he likes) into articles. This undoubtedly lowers the quality of articles.

And by the way, besides being highly biased. Lady A's book is also unreliable due to mistakes revealed on the NK page--together with Potier (who actually relied on A), lady A invented the idea (without source) that somehow the Paris Peace Conference recognized Azeri jurisdiction over the disputed areas--which is contrary to all historical facts (they didn't even recognize Azeribaijan de-jure).--TigranTheGreat 20:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, talk about neutrality, Tigran. How is this passage from Walker neutral:

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

This info cannot be verified from any other source, and yet it is included in the article. Also, no mistakes have been revealed in either Potier or Alstadt book. Fadix’s opinion is not a proof of any mistakes being revealed. Actually, I’m going to include that passage from those 2 books in the article about NK, it is verifiable info that appeared in more than one source. Grandmaster 07:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No you won't. If you do, I will include the info from NESL stating that League of nations recognized the disputed nature of territories and didn't recognize Azerbaijan. Potier's statement is clearly disputed, and definitely a mistake, so we can't include it. As for Walker's quote--he is making a factual statement--Armenians were massacred. Lady A is giving her POV interpretation as to why "poor" Azeris were trying to be independent from Armenia--hence it's POV and can't be included.--TigranTheGreat 07:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will. You are free to include anything you want, but don’t forget to mention that Azerbaijan was denied acceptance to League of Nations in late November, and by that time it was long occupied by the Bolsheviks. The reason for denial was that the Azerbaijani government in exile did not control the entire territory of Azerbaijan, and not just Karabakh. It did not also control Baku, Ganja and other regions. Armenian and pro-Armenian sources try to present this as if Azerbaijan was denied membership in LN because it did not control Karabakh, but the fact is that Karabakh was not specifically mentioned. Information of Walker cannot be verified from any other source, so it’s pure propaganda. Alstadt and Cornell provide factual information about Armenian attacks on the Azeri population, so that information should remain in the article. Grandmaster 20:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try to write up an overall more neutral version of the history section myself tomorrow. Then when I complete it, I'll post it here before adding it to the article and we can evalaute it (and bring in an admin to look it over as well). -- Clevelander 23:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but if you want to bring the mediator, according to the rules he should be a person, accepted by both sides. Otherwise its not gonna work. I suggest we even apply for the official mediation, this article passed the stages of RFC and informal mediation, so we can do that. Grandmaster 07:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such rule. If we choose a mediator, he should be someone familiar with the article and issues, and known for his good track record. As Clevelander said, Golbez is the right match.--TigranTheGreat 07:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See [1]. I suggest we apply for formal mediation. I know you prefer Golbez for his pro-separatist sympathies, but I will not accept his mediation on any articles, related to Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Grandmaster 08:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how I didn't even get a chance to write-up a more neutral version of Nakhichevan's history, I don't think we should jump into mediation yet. I promise that I'll have something either by the end of the day today or by the afternoon (in US Eastern time). -- Clevelander 11:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The rules say parties should agree to mediation, not necessarily to the mediator. Pro-separatist sympathies have nothing to do with Nakhichevan. I know you avoid Golbez since he checked your attempts to put your POV in the NK article, but that is not a reason to exclude him. He is well qualified and should mediate, if we indeed mediate. But I agree with Clevelander, there is no need at this point.

And by the way, all that talk about "what Armenians try to do or not to do" with League of Nations' stance on Azerbaijan is your speculation and is irrelevant. Regardless of their reason, the point is that League of Nations didn't recognize Azeri jurisdiction over disputed areas, so you can't include Potier's erronous comments about Peace Conference. Walker's statements about massacres are verified by primary sources, so it should stay in the article. Lady A's comments are her POV interpretation, which means they can't be included in the article as fact (according to NPOV rules).--TigranTheGreat 02:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

--TigranTheGreat 02:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lenin's referendum

I haven't been able to find anything about Potier's claim regarding Lenin's referendum in any other book that I've checked today on the Caucasus. I even checked out a book by Cornell (Small Nations And Great Powers) and I haven't been able to find anything on it.

But I did find out some really fascinating information, including Persian claims to both Armenia and Azerbaijan at the Paris Peace Conference as well as demographic information regarding Nakhichevan from 1914 and (get this) attempts by the government of Nakhichevan to secede from Azerbaijan in the 1990s. More to come soon. -- Clevelander 19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Referendum is mentioned in the library of congress file, I provided the link in my earlier posting. And Nakhichevan never tried to secede from Azerbaijan, I've been following all political developments in my country since 1988, and such thing never happened. Nakhichevan was trying to secede from the USSR. If your source indeed claims that NAR tried to secede from Azerbaijan, you can discard it right away. Grandmaster 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It came from Wars in the Caucasus (p. 54-5) by Edgar O'Ballance, who seems to be a credible historian. His work even claims that Nakhichevan sought to join the CIS on December 17, 1991, but Azerbaijan objected. -- Clevelander 20:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so credible, if he indeed says so. I can't believe anyone well familiar with the history of the region can make such claims. In my opnion, information should appear in more than 1 source to get included in the article. Grandmaster 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll look more into it tomorrow. For now, I will not include it my history, as I only have one source for this piece of information. -- Clevelander 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander, there is no rule that says we should include something only if it's mentioned in two sources. Since that info comes from a reputable source, go ahead include it. GM's "opnion" is not a Wikipedia policy.--TigranTheGreat 02:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed revision for the "History" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, I say that both men are biased in their own way. Cornell is as you once said "soaked in oil" and one only needs to look up Haskell's name in Walker's book to find his bias ("Haskell, Col. W.H. 278, 307; a crook 287" - is calling somebody a crook credible? No true historian should be judgemental when writing a book like this.)

There is nothing questionable about Menteshasvhili--he is a reputable source, and he states a fact. It would be Original Research to try to verify the sources used by him. GM knows this, he in fact has tried to argue on the Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic talk page in favor of including questionable data by an author named Karimzadeh, just because "the information comes from reputable source, and it's the end of the story" (check his arguments here: [2]). Obviously, he has no right to change the rules on this page just because they don't suit him here.

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

My problems with your text:

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

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

Then we'll remove the word "breakaway."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've got Azerbaijani official source: [3] According to it, it was occupied on January 13, 1990, in Soviet times. Could you please answer my question? Grandmaster 13:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Here's what it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He sounds more like a Persian to me: http://bahai.haifa.ac.il/kazemzadeh/CV.pdf as Persian (and Russian) history seem to be his main field of interest. I would also need to see proof that he is an Azeri. -- Clevelander 15:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Greek name?

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

Naxuana seems to be simply a corruption (i.e. Greek version) of the ancient Armenian name which comes from nakh (first) and chevan (encampment).

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