Talk:Demographics of the Republic of Artsakh

Ref Label
I wanted to add a footnote to the text, but something went wrong. In Russian Wikipedia we have ref+ template, much easier to handle. Anyway, I would like to ask for help. John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Concerns of

 * 1) Yes, cadastral land surveys would be more appropriate term. I used census as more understandable word as in fact the former one is about demographics as well. The second and the third sources are basically the original text of 1727 survey and Azeri translation of 1593 survey. Do we really need to add the pages to the summaries of them?
 * 2) The intention of author of the article is not to consider a particular survey, but rather to illustrate the general tendency of censuses to exclude the nomadic population of Mountainous Karabakh. I will attach a fuller citation for a better understanding. I want to emphasize its part with bold font. "However, for centuries the entire highmountain zone of this region belonged to the nomadic Turkic herdsmen, from whom the Khans of Karabakh were descended. Traditionally, these direct ancestors of the Azeris of the Agdamskii raion (and of the other raions between the mountains of Karabakh and the Kura and Araks Rivers) lived in Karabakh for the four or five warm months of the year, and spent the winter in the Mil'sko-Karabakh plains. The descendants of this nomadic herding population therefore claim a historic right to Karabakh and consider it as much their native land as that of the settled agricultural population that lived there year-round. The following statistics permit us to make a rough estimate of the number of nomadic Azeris who summered in the mountains of what is now Nagorno-Karabakh and the neighboring raions of Azerbaijan (Kel'badzharskiy,. Lachinskiy) and Armenia (Kafanskiy, Gorisskiy, Sisianskiy, Azizbekovskiy). In 1845 in historic Karabakh the population included 30,000 Armenians and 62,000 Moslems (Azeris), of whom approximately 50,000 were nomads.'2 In the late 1890s, only about 1/30 of the plains population remained in the lowlands in the summer, whereas the overwhelming majority spent the period in the mountain pastures of the Karabakh ridge (the western boundary of Nagorno-Karabakh), the Murovdagskii ridge (a part of the northern boundary of Nagorno-Karabakh), and in the Zangezurskii ridge and the Karabakh uplands (outside the autonomous oblast).'3 In 1897 the rural population of the Shushinskii and Dzhevanshirskii districts, which comprised almost the entire territory of historic Karabakh, was 43.3 percent Armenian (93,600) and 54.8 percent Azeri (115,800).14 In the Agdamskii and neighboring raions of the Karabakh steppe, most of the Azeri population were semi-nomads, but some resided in settled Azerbaijani villages. In Nagorno-Karabakh most of the population was Armenian, but there were a few Azeri villages, whereas in the Kelbadzharskii raion there were only a few Azeri and Kurdish villages. ... The seasonal migration of Azeris from the Mil'sko-Karabakh steppe to the mountains of Nagorno-Karabakh ceased with the transition of the semi-nomads to a more settled way of life in the early 1930s. However, there are still people alive today that clearly remember these summer migrations and they, and their relatives, consider the Karabakh summer pasture lands to be Azeri. Unfortunately the census was always conducted when the nomads and semi-nomads were in winter pastures. As a result they were never officially counted as part of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh (e.g., the Azeri population was calculated as only 6 percent in the early 1920s). This information is important not only because it makes it possible to present certain data on land use and the ethnic composition of the summer population of NagornoKarabakh in the period prior to the 1920s, but because it helps us to understand the Azeri rejection (in Agdamskii and neighboring raions) of Armenian demands to join this region with the Armenian SSR."

I hope, I was clear. Waiting eagerly for your response! John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) This remains still unclear to me. Why it's redundant? Previous paragraph says about Azerbaijani nomads, but not about a sedentary minority.
 * Thanks John Francis Templeson
 * We can change census to land surveys. I assumed that there was a reference to support the statements you've added somewhere in the summary of those sources, in which case the specific page number of the support should be added. I am sure you have the page number if you are using this source, and if you don't perhaps you should review the source before using it.
 * "Unfortunately the census was always conducted when the nomads and semi-nomads were in winter pastures." This can apply to the first and only Russian Census which was conducted in January, but again this wikipedia section does not use any census, even if we had the assumption there existed other Russian censuses that all were conducted in similar months. To have this criticism here is misleading.
 * Thank you for clarifying Maidyouneed (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response,
 * That is not a problem. I can add pages, however I still regard it as something unnecessary.
 * Well, I got your point, but in Russian tradition the border of census and survey definitions is quite vague. 1897 one is called as General All-Russian census (Всеобщая Всероссийская перепись), meaning that it was conducted simultaneously in the whole empire, whereas censuses (перепись) limited to some guberniias (See definition of land censuses, земские переписи, in Imperial-time Russian Encyclopedia ЭСБЕ) were conducted both earlier and later, e.g. in 1718, late 18th century, 1845-1848, 1873, 1886, 1913, 1916 and so on. You can see the examples where 1823 survey is described as a census, also examples with some other surveys, e.g. 1886, 1873. Also, in the cited source of Yamskov it is said "always", which implies periodicity, besides, one of the given examples is for 1845 survey. At last, basic logic tells us that if censuses did not count the nomads, neither did the surveys. Indeed, Yamskov says that massive (1845 survey: out of 62,000 Karabakh Muslims, 50,000 are nomads) nomadic circulations were there for several centuries but 1823 survey count a 90% Armenian majority in the highlands. P.S. See the definition of 18th-19th century population revisions in the Grand Soviet Encyclopedia. While they are not censuses in modern Western understanding, as they didn't count part of tax-exempt population, the encyclopedia still describes them as census (Перепись населения).
 * So you won't mind if I return this information? John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please add the pages numbers, so that it is clear from where the statements are supported from within the source.
 * The criticism of the Russian Census was specific being that they "were conducted during the winter" and at that time there were nomads who migrate between regions. There is nothing in the source that says this criticism applies also to every and all Russian censuses or surveys. We shouldn't be making assumptions that is not explicit in the source ourselves. This is beside the point but remember too the source is in English not in Russian; In English census means census.
 * I've returned this information Maidyouneed (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay
 * , I checked later article of Anatoly Yamskov of 1998 in Russian. It says (p.182), Однако еще задолго до этого исторически переломного момента азербайджанцы исторического Карабаха в ходе всех переписей или камеральных оценок численности населения края учитывались только по состоянию на зимний период, т. е. как жители Мильско-Карабахской равнины — However, till this historical turning point Azerbaijanis of historical Karabakh in all censuses or cameral surveys of the population were considered only during the winter periods, i.e. as habitants of Mil'-Karabakh plain. I hope this should put an end to the ambiguosity. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , before publishing such controversial edits, head over to the talk page. Because here, you're just seen as an editor who removes huge sourced content. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  20:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Bold changes were made by John, I edited/reverted some of these changes with justification, and now we are discussing. Please refrain from mass reverting multiple changes. Maidyouneed (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My private correspondence with the author, Anatoly Yamskov, clarified that apparently the census is mistranslation, whereas it has to be understood as censuses and any population surveys. I attach Mr. Yamskov's words in original for not giving a space for misinformation, but it can be easily translated with Google.
 * "Уважаемый ****!

К сожалению, из текста той статьи действительно не ясно, что именно имеется в виду. Но это была публикация перевода статьи, сданной на русском языке, и я сейчас не помню, что именно было написано в оригинале (до перевода). Впрочем, там даже в названии была допущена досадная опечатка (the Transcausasus).

По смыслу, речь должна была бы идти о любых «переписях и учётах населения», хотя перед этим говорилось о Всеросийской переписи и о Сельскохозяйственной переписи.

По крайней мере, в более поздней работе на русском языке я написал именно так – см. статью и ниже копию соответствующей части текста из неё:

Ямсков А.Н. Традиционное землепользование кочевников исторического Карабаха и современный армяно-азербайджанский этнотерриториальный конфликт // Фактор этноконфессиональной самобытности в постсоветском обществе. М.: Московский Центр Карнеги,1998. С. 168–197 http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2671823

С. 182-183

……

Однако еще задолго до этого исторически переломного момента азербайджанцы исторического Карабаха в ходе всех переписей или камеральных оценок численности населения края учитывались только по состоянию на зимний период, т. е. как жители Мильско-Карабахской равнины. Причина в том, что именно зимой кочевники отличались минимальной подвижностью, а полукочев-

(С. 182)

ники были сосредоточены в относительно многолюдных сезонно обитаемых поселениях из землянок. Летом же те и другие разбивались на малые группы или отдельные семьи, которые часто перекочевывали в пределах своих высокогорных пастбищных участков, меняя места расположения своих «алачугов» (закавказского аналога тюркской войлочной юрты) много раз за сезон. Указанная методика учета азербайджанского населения исторического Карабаха в местах его зимнего проживания как раз и приводила к тому, что никто из кочевников и полукочевников не вошел, например, в состав тех 6% азербайджанских жителей Нагорного Карабаха, которые были зафиксированы сельскохозяйственной переписью 1921 г.

……

(С. 183)

Искренне Ваш,

А.Н. Ямсков"


 * P.S. Bold font is the highlights of Yamskov himself.
 * As colleague still haven't rejected my previous suggestion, and the above-mentioned letter basically does not let any space for further discussion, I return the questioned part. However, if dear colleague still has arguments against it, I will revert the edit for further discussion. John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

POV tag
I've put a POV tag on the article as the article gives almost no place for deportations of Azeris/Kurds, including the demographics of the surrounding regions, which the republic kept for 27 years. Discuss it here before removing the tag. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  12:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"If you believe that material or a particular viewpoint is missing, then you should try to give examples of published, independent, reliable sources that contain this missing material or point of view. In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time."

Merely putting a tag with no intention in rectifying perceived biases is not following Wiki policies. Please provide reliable sources for the above. Metta79 (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See Republic of Artsakh for an example. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  13:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still should've discussed with me before removing the POV tag I put, but thanks for adding the section, it's good enough now. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  14:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion
The Languages of Artsakh has been a stub article since its creation fifteen years ago and has very little information contained in its single paragraph and infobox. While undoubtedly a useful and informative topic, I think the information could easily slot into the paragraph devoted to languages already present in the Demographics of the Republic of Artsakh article. This follows the practice on Wikipedia of states having either separate languages articles (example) or a languages section in their demographics article (example) as I'm proposing here. A separate albeit unrelated note is that Karabakh dialect is also an article and while its scope is linguistics, it also notes similar demographic details as the languages article does. Yeoutie (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support; i definitely agree that it can just be a paragraph in the demographics page. it's good to condense for simplicity here. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support coincidentally, I started a similar merge discussion a little while ago for the article Languages of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which I ended up rewriting and merging with its parent article. Per the nom and per my own reasons in that earlier merge discussion, Languages of Artsakh should be merged into the parent article. Cheers, Dan the Animator 23:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Given the brevity of the article and the fact that the state has been dissolved, it makes sense to merge the stub into a larger article. - Creffel (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Robertjamal12   ~🔔  17:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)