Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 18

Protected on the right version
OK, kids, here's the deal.

I protected this page for a week to force discussion over a 24k change that was being batted back and forth. It was an edit literally from October 9, 2011; Oliveriki simply reverted all the way back to that, with the edit summary "rest references". That alone warrants reversion.

Pretty much no discussion took place.

So, the protection runs its course, and what happens? Two different editors immediately put back that exact same edit, saying "undoing banned user" (which is absolutely not true) or, even more outrageous, "see talk page". Really? Do you think I'm an idiot? WHAT DISCUSSION? This is by far the worst bad faith editing I have ever seen on the NK articles, and I've been watching these for SEVEN YEARS. I would summarily block you all if I weren't so damn lazy.

Usually protection is on the "wrong version", that is to say, whatever version it was when we saw it needed to be protected. But in this case, there is one version that has been worked on for six months, and there is the version that was an edit from six months ago that three different accounts (I dare not say "people" at this point, as puppetry is afoot) in FOUR HOURS used the worst reasoning I've ever seen to put back this edit. The right version is decidedly Brandmeister's, and it will remain there until you children either show you can work together, and a sockpuppet investigation is carried out, which I will start now. --Golbez (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And let me be clear: Maybe the better version is the one from October 9, 2011. But that doesn't mean you come in here and put it in with no edit summary, and then edit war to keep it because it needs to have a chance, and then have the gall to say "take it to the talk page". --Golbez (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Golbex, I just undid the edits of the banned user Tuscumbia. Technically, it has nothing to do with my earlier restoration and re-"owning" of the erased texts. The fact that the erased text appeared as default is just a technical detail. The better version is the one from October 9, 2011 but for the purpose of my actions this was immaterial. Hope u understand what I am saying. Zimmarod (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I protected the article to force discussion. None took place, and when protection expired, you immediately resumed the edit war. Frankly, I should have issued a block right then. I am not making a statement on the question of it a topic ban warrants a blanket reversion, as it does not matter, two wrongs don't cancel out. --Golbez (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Early history
The way the early history is written completely disregards a neutral point of view. It gives the reader a wrong view. I believe replacing the quote with this one is more neutral. Robert Hewsen wrote both sides are guilty of oversimplifying the ethnic history of the region, "the population of southeast Caucasus whether under Armenian or Albanian rule, was highly mixed, and to label it as being essentially one or the other or even to divide it simply into two groups is well in advance of the evidence. " Original reference: Robert H. Hewsen, "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence Upon the Caucasian Albanians" Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire section is very bad written. There are quotations out of context and/or superseded. Hewsen himself corrected some of his theories that he put forward in Ethno-History. -- va c  io  15:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with vacio. Hewsen changed his point of view. Consult his Atlas for reference and his appearance in Tom de Waal's Black Garden. By the way, I a week ago supported a restoration of a much better-written history section that was put together earlier in 2011 but was erased by User:Tuscumbia who was banned yesterday for a year. Since he is banned, his edits should be reverted. Zimmarod (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with changes to the early history section. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Hewsen clearly sticks to his original position in his interview to de Waal, refers to the same work of 1980s and accuses both sides of manipulating the historical facts. Also, primary sources should not be interpreted by wiki editors. We can only refer to interpretations by reliable secondary sources. Mainstream history does not support the idea that Armenians were aboriginal inhabitants of NK and South Caucasus. Since the ancestors of Armenians came into region at some point in history, clearly the region was inhabited by other people before that happened. Also, the sources used must be all neutral and third party, while Caucasian Knot by Chorbaijan and other similar sources are clearly partisan. Also, there are too many suspicions accounts here, restoring edits by other banned SPAs and agreeing with each other. For instance, Nocturnal781 looks pretty much like an SPA. Created on January 9, 2012, the very first edit is to deredlink his user age to look like an established user, and for the most part is engaged in edit warring on AA articles. Zimmarod is the same, created in November 2011, instantly deredlinked his user page and jumped into AA edit wars. I propose to ban all new accounts from editing articles like this, unless they prove themselves good faith editors by editing articles outside of AA conflict for at least 1 year. Grand  master
 * That would be grand. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you support such a proposal? Grand  master  11:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hewsen didn't completely change his position on the ethno-history of the region, but there are some differences and adjustments that I think we have to pay attention to. I have once pointed out some of these differences (please read from the line Coming to the main point). I agree with Grandmaster to use Hewsen and other third party sources, but in this article Hewsen is quoted out of context and incompletely, furthermore the contradiction made between his later statements is in large part artificial and the consequence of not good examining sources. To be more specific, in both his Ethno-History and Atlas of Armenia Hewsen demonstrates that the entire historical Armenia was inhabited by non-Indo-European tribes, who were not Armenians as we understand today, but pre-Armenians. Which means they were people who later intermarried with incoming proto-Armenians to form modern Armenian ethnicity. Grandmasters contention that Armenians were not aboriginal inhabitants of NK is not exactly what Hewsen says. According to Hewsen the ancestors of the people of NK were both the mostly aboriginal pre-Armenians and the supposedly immigrant proto-Armenians. The only difference between his earlier and later works is, that in Ethno-History he assumed that some of these pre-Armenians were certain Iranian people, while in Atlas he writes that this is uncertain. -- va  c  io  22:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I support Zimmarod's initiative to restore the deleted material, and endorse his discussion from the subject-matter perspective. I see imperfections in the restored paragraphs but that can be fixed later. What I also see yet another interesting fact, the re-appearance of Wikipedia's notorious account User:Grandmaster. I remember this account from my time in Russian wiki when Grandmaster was accused by Divot of managing a large sockfarm and off-Wiki coordination via distribution lists. See www.wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%98%D0%A1%D0%9A589. It is notable that Grandmaster, who was editing very infrequently last and this year, suddenly re-appeared on this very page (and not editing some article, but on talk pages) only a day after the sanctioning of his Ruswiki's comrade-in-arms User:Tuscumbia to a one-year ban from AA. It was proven in Russian wiki that Tuscumbia and Grandmaster coordinated their edits. And here is Grandmaster, making claims that are absolutely identical to Tuscumbia's. Tuscumbia was banned two times already for claiming that academics of suspected Armenian origin shall be excluded as reliable sources. Grandmaster claims that too right here, trying to exclude Chorbadjian. That will not work. The Caucasian Knot's history section was indeed praised by Thomas de Waal in his most recent monograph, but even if it was not, excluding academics solely because of their purported ethnicity is racist and will be reported and punished continuously. My proposal is simple: to ban User:Grandmaster because of his known off-wiki manipulations, and ban all those accounts from this article which were ever sanctioned under AA1 or AA2. I browsed Grandmaster editing history and it turns out that a precedent for such an action does exist - Grandmaster is banned from editing the Caucasian Albania article.
 * On the subject of who is and who is not indigenous in Armenia and Karabakh. Hewsen places Artsakh within Orontid's Armenia. Secondly, Mesrob Mashtots founded the first Armenian school to teach his Armenian Alphabet in Nagorno-Karabakh's Amaras Monastery and not in Yerevan or Constantinople. Got it? I recommend Grandmaster more carefully examine recent discussion on talk pages in Murovdag, when stubborn Tuscumbia tried to sabotage edits by making ridiculous insinuations. His fate may await anyone who borrows his methodology. Please note that filibustering, tendentious editing and repeating the same points over and over again - WP:Ad nauseam - will be subject to sanction as per in the recent case with Murovdag. Winterbliss (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is also information on meta-wiki confirming that Grandmaster was head of 26 Baku Commissars. But I ask Winterbliss and Grandmaster to discuss their proposals to ban certain users in a different section or on the AA2 page. Please let's keep the conversation here on the subject and on a friendly tone. And Winterbliss, let's refrain from ORs based on certain historical facts, there is enough OR in this article already. Thank you. -- va c  io  10:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I was not banned from editing any article here, Caucasian Albania included. The ban applies to everyone who was under any sanctions at any time, which pretty much leaves that article to various socks by excluding established users, most of whom were sanctioned. And I don't see how events in other language wikis have anything to do with what's going on here. Now coming to Hewsen, I see no mention of pre-Armenians, if you mean by that people who were later assimilated by Armenians. By the same token, we can mention pre-Azerbaijanis, i.e. Caucasian Albanians who were later assimilated by Turkic people. The fact is that the original population of the Caucasus was neither Armenian nor Turkic, it consisted of various people mostly of Caucasian origin, such as udis. These people were later assimilated by Armenians and Azerbaijanis, but as Hewsen mentioned, the original population represented "heterogenous mass" which "were originally much too diversified". As for reliability of sources, I must remind everyone that we should use third party sources, per WP:VERIFY: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's what the rules require. Also, the sources must be specialist. I remember that when the Muslim mosque in Yerevan was discussed, some Armenian users were rejecting de Waal because he was a journalist and not historian. Why should we refer to journalists in the matters of history in this article then? Chorbadjian is not third party, and he is not a historian either. Grand  master  11:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, Winterbliss is another curious account. It appeared in November 2011, and also deredlinked his user and talk page by first edits to look like an established user. So there are 3 of such accounts here now, all agreeing with each other. Let's see if there are more to join. Grand  master  11:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hewsen uses "pre-Armenian" in both Ethno-History and Historial Atlas many times. And he writes that the whole Armenian plateau was inhabited by various ethnic entities before they would intermarry the proto-Armenians (There, they intermarried with the non-Indo-European-speaking natives, already a highly mixed people to form the Armenian people that we know today, Atlas, p. 10). Also, according to Hewsen Udis did not live in Artsakh neither does he mention Cacuasian Albanians or pre-Azerbaijanis living in Artsakh. -- va c  io  16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster is repeating the same points over and over again (Chorbadjian, discussing Armenian identity of peoples living at the time when wooly mammoths roamed the earth :)))), etc.), a method of filibustering a consensus used most recently by User:Tuscumbia in the talks on Murovdag. Like Tuscumbia, Grandmaster is referring to other articles, like mosque in Yerevan above, and other topics, citing imperfections in them as a ground to hold changes in article under discussion. He pretends not to hear that de Waal is an official wiki source on Karabakh, etc. That is why Grandmaster's edit history in Russian wiki is a relevant subject regardless of the fact that Ruswiki and English wiki are different projects - there is lots and lots of evidence that in English wiki Grandmaster uses the same tricks as in Ruswiki, and the recently banned Tuscumbia, as well Mursel are either one editor or a team coordinating their actions off wiki. I never denied that I am a well-established user coming from Ruswiki. I deredlinked my account because I have a long editing history in Ruswiki, and there were many discussions and SPIs about that. Grandmaster is Tuscumbia's quacking meatpuppet who came to the rescue of his recently-banned comrade. He quacks so loudly it is almost deafening. Winterbliss (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Misquotation of Suny
Also Sunny is very badly misquoted in this section. The text added by User:Mursel:

Sunys text:

As one can see, Suny doesn't claim anywhere that Artsakh "historically" would belong to Azerbajanis. In fact his mention of Azerbaijanis is not about Artsakh/Karabakh at all. All Suny contends in the passage above is:
 * Transcuacasus was conquered by Seljuks in the 11th century.
 * People living to the east of Karabakh were islamicized and they spoke a Turkic language
 * Those people were ancestors of present-day Azerbaijanis. -- va c  io  16:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Misquotation is a serious violation of WP rules. How can such an account be trusted and allowed to continue editing this article? Winterbliss (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed it, I don't think leaving information that is referenced where the reference is misquoted should be allowed in a article for another second..Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Hewsen the people of Artsakh were not Caucasian Albanians. Suny bases his text on a superseded theory, according to which Arsakh had been part of Caucasian Albania in 2th century BC. -- va c  io  10:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hewsen said that people of Artsakh and Utik were of mixed origin, and non-Indo-European, except for people of Iranian origin. And despite some Armenicization, they still were distinct ethnicities when those lands passed to Albania. He clearly says that aboriginl population of Artakh was not Armenian. He cites the names of the tribes inhabiting the region and says that "these names are sufficient to tell us that, whatever their origin, they were certainly not Armenian. Moreover, although certain Iranian peoples must have settled here during the long period of Persian and Median rule, most of the natives were not even Indo-Europeans". And also:

So aboriginal population, later assimilated by Armenians and Turkic people, was mostly of Caucasian origin. The region was later conquered by Armenians, then passed to C.Albania, but the population remained mixed and tribal. That's what the mainstream history says. And Hewsen is not the only source. Grand master  13:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster, what exactly do you try to assert? Yes, Hewsen wrote that Artsakh was originally inhabited by various non-Armenian or pre-Armenian tribes. I don't see anyone contesting against this theory here on this TP. My point is that when this theory is mentioned then it should be in its context, complete, furthermore one should also take into account the adjustments that the author made in his recent works. The article, as it now is, needs serious corrections. I am going to rewrite the section and I think it's necessary that the following information is correctly represented in the article:
 * In ancient times the Armenian plateau, including Artsakh and Utik, was inhabited by various mostly non-Indo-European tribes. (Atlas, p. 10; Ethno-History, p. 31, 33)
 * These people entered the Armenian plateau from various directions (Atlas, p. 10)
 * It is uncertain whether Artsakh itself was inhabited by various tribes or just one tribe. (Atlas, p. 58)
 * After the fall of Urartu, these people started to intermarry with the incoming proto-Armenians. The Armenians thus represent a fusion of the non Indo-European aborigines and the Indo-European proto-Armenians. (Ethno-History, p. 31) Which means that the claim that the Armenians were not natives is a misrepresentation of the sources.
 * The fusion took earlier place in the central part of the Armenian plateau, than in eastern regions like Syunik, Artsakh and Utik. (Atlas, p. 10)
 * At the time when Artsakh and Utik passed to Caucasian Albanian, their population consisted of "Armenized" tribes and Armenians "per se". (Ethno-History, pp. 33-34)
 * In medieval times the population of Artsakh had a strong Armenian identity. (Atlas, p. 58)
 * I will be glad to see any further suggestions to improve the article is. Also, I agree that Hewsen is not the only author. Any other reputable sources are welcome to be discussed. -- va  c  io  16:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, if Armenians "represent a fusion of the non Indo-European aborigines and the Indo-European proto-Armenians", it does not make them natives to region. By the same token, Azerbaijanis are as much natives as Armenians are, because Azerbaijanis are the fusion of Turkic tribes with aboriginal diverse population of Albania. This logic is flawed, because it cannot apply to Armenians only. As for population of Artsah and Utik, they were Armenized to a certain degree, but not fully, because "most of them were still being cited as distinct ethnic entities when these regions passed to Albania in 387", according to Hewsen. Grand  master  11:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is your own interpretation of history. Hewsen does not say anywhere in his studies that since the proto-Armenians (according one theory!) were migrants, hence the Armenian people are not natives. Such a claim is essentially ahistorical, since it is based on the lack of making difference between pre Armenian and proto Armenian elements.
 * As for your comparison with Azeris — whether they are natives or not— I am not sure if that's relevant to this topic. If I am not wrong, the ancestors of Azerbaijanis came to the Caucasus as Turkic people already, with Turkic identity. Anyhow, I don't remember any scholar calling them proto Azerbaijanis. Also, these ancestors did not absorb Albanians, but people who were Islamized during Arab rule (see p. 35 Ethno-History). Caucasian Albanians were Christians, don't forget.
 * Yes, in 387 they were mostly Armenized, not completely. Thank you for correcting me. -- va c  io  12:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think he says anywhere anything about either Azerbaijanis or Armenians being natives. That is your own interpretation. As for Azerbaijanis, they indeed absorbed mostly Islamized population, but part of this population was previously Christian. And Albanians is a name for a tribal federation, which consisted of 26 tribes. Of course, Azerbaijanis absorbed Albanians, but not just them. People of Dagestani and Iranian stock also played a significant role in ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani people. But I think the talk about anyone being native or not is not relevant to this article. It is better stick to the fact, and not interpretations.  Grand  master  10:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is your own interpretation - Where did I make any interpretation or claim above? I only argued against your claim that the Armenians are not natives in the region. Yes, the best thing is to stick to the facts and don't make any interpretation. Also we should refrain from incomplete representation of facts or citations out of context. That's why I quoted Hewsen point by point above. Any other comments or suggestions? -- va c  io  13:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaving theoretical disputes aside, what exactly is proposed to be included in the section about ancient history? That section could be improved, but overall it looks more or less balanced, while the mention of Khorenatsi could be removed. And when the article says "other Western authors argued", who are those other authors? Grand  master  09:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, and I want to try to improve it. About Movses Khorenatsi I already commented below.-- va c  io  18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Movses Khorenatsi
Also I read in the section Early history:

The only reference in the first sentence is p. 32-33 of Armenia: a Historical Atlas. However I carefully read everything Hewsen wrote about the early history of Artsakh and the Orontids, and he does not say anywhere that he based his research on the issue when Armenia did acquire Artsakh, on the History of Movses Khorenatsi. In fact, the map on the pages pp 32-33 is based on the research of the Armenian scholar Eremyan (see the legend). Furthermore, even if Hewsen and other Western scholars would rely on Movses Khorenatsi, the following two sentences about his credibility – again added by user Mursel – is a WP:SYNTHESIS of sources and should be removed. -- va c  io  10:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite
After I explained above why that this passage Early History needs serious improvements, here is my proposed edited version (text that I didn't changes is italic):

I would be glad to hear any remarks and additional suggestions (also from NPOV users like Golbez). -- va c  io  18:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I'm pretty annoyed with this article, and from the start of this latest episode have had no interest in actually reading the proposed edits. Just the manner in which they've been implemented. --Golbez (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence about pre-Armenians or non-Armenians natives is unsourced and "according to the prevailing theory among western historians, the Armenian people represent a fusion" is more relevant to Demographics of Armenia or History of Armenia. As for the second paragraph, I don't think it's factually accurate as it stands. Brand meister  t   16:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think, the origin of Armenian people is also relevant to this article and actually very important to be mentioned. According to Hewsen, the theory about how the Armenian people evolved is essential to describe the ethnic picture of Artsakh in Antiquity and (early) mediaeval times.


 * As for pre-Armenian it is the common term used by scholars to designate the tribes who lived in the Armenian plateau before the proto-Armenians came. Probably you did not read the discussion above, because I already provided sources for it. Finally, I didn't change much in the second paragraph, as one can see. If you explain which statements you think are inaccurate, we can check the sources and if necessary correct or change them. Anyhow, the mention that Artsakh became part of Armenia in 2nd century BC, that it passed to Caucasian Albania in 4th century AD and that Caucasian Albania itself was then highly influenced by Armenia (as one can read in Ethno-History of Hewsen), seem correct to me. -- va c  io  18:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Vacio, thanx for your good archival and sourcing work. I find it to be quite helpful. I support the rewrite but donot understand "although many of the aboriginal tribes were still cited as distinct ethnic entities." See Anania Shirakatsi's remark about Artsakh and Utik which were considered to be part of Armenia in Armenia regardless of their weaker connection to Armenia due to attachment to Aghvank. I also would like to see distinction between "Cauasian Albania" of the older times and Kingdom of Aghvank - an Armenian state in all sense and purposes, where Armenians lived in the west and non-Armenians dominated the state's eastern part. We need to restore the entire earlier write-up back to Oct 2011. Zimmarod (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I didn't had time to screen all the changes between current version and that of Oct 2011. So I can't agree or disagree with the proposal to restore is. My rewrite proposal only refers to the passage Early History, in particular the ethnic composition of the region in Antiquity and early medieval times. Just want to make two remarks.
 * About the phrase although many of the aboriginals ...:
 * This statements is from Ethno-History of Hewsen. It means that most of the pre Armenian tribes which lived in the mountainous part of Armenia in prehistoric times (such as Syunik, Artsakh..) could maintain their tribal identity for a long time, even until the 4th century DC when the ethnic character of this regions was largely Armenian. That's the theory of Hewsen, not my personal opinion. As for Anania Shirakatsi, he is a primary source, and per WP rules we must rely on academic sources.
 * About making distinction between Caucasian Albania and the Kingdom of Aghvank:
 * First of all, whatever it's political and cultural situation was —and indeed the situation changed drastically after 387— Caucasian Albania remained Caucasian Albania and officially did not become an other state; Aghvank is just the Armenian name of Caucasian Albania. -- va c  io  15:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have problems with this statement: At this time, the population of these two provinces had a highly Armenian character although many of the aboriginal tribes were still cited as distinct ethnic entities. This does not sound like good English. What is "highly Armenian character"? My understanding of Hewsen is that the region was under the Armenian cultural influence, but population remained mixed, with most of the local tribes still being cited as distinct ethnic entities in the 4th century A.D. And I do not think restoring edits of the banned users is a good idea, those edits are highly POV and contain lots of original research. Banned users are not allowed to edit, so no blind reverts to their version should be allowed. Any substantial edits should be discussed here first. Grand  master  10:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will try a better wording of that sentence. Hewsen says: In 387 A. D., the various peoples of Arc'ax and Utik', whether Armenians, Armenicized aborigines, or both, passed under Albanian rule. -- va c  io  11:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see that the edits of banned users are now owned by Zimmarod who explained their relevancy and highlighted references. So the question is solved. We already heard about the "POV" nonsense, and I don't see any original research. Winterbliss (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed Mursel false quotation from obscure source that conflicted with a similar reference per RNajdek's and Winterbliss' comments . Dehr (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeapp, agree totally. Also wanna reply to Grandmaster concerning edits by accounts that were considered socks. Imagine someone put out edits that pigs cannot fly and then get's banned. Does this mean that everyone should after that maintain that pigs can fly only because one account was banned as a sock? That's why Grandmaster and the likes of Tuscumbia-Mursel sockpair want to get accounts banned under the false clams of sockpuppetry so that their nonsense could pass for a golden coin forever. They want to ban the truth. The edits should stay or be removed based on their merit not based on who says what. Is that understood? Winterbliss (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following addition to early medieval period:

I know that it makes little sense to comment here at this point, but still I will explain why the above large chunk of text cannot be used in the article.

This part consist only of personal interpretation of primary sources. This is not allowed per WP:PRIMARY: ''Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large portions of material on them.'' The last line precisely describes what you do. Also, the above rule means that it is possible to provide a direct quote from a primary source, but it is not allowed to make any assumptions on the basis of them. The above passage is just a collection of personal interpretations of the primary sources. Anania Shirakatsi not simply quoted, but interpreted, because anyone who read the source knows that this is not what he wrote. Also, the wording "Nagorno-Karabakh and other eastern Armenian-peopled territories" is very strange and is unlikely to be used in any primary or academic source.

Same, plus most of Western academia believes that Khorenatsi actually lived in the 10th-11th century, and even Hewsen considers inappropriate to make any conclusions on the basis of Khorenatsi's text, see his Ethno-History. The rest is pretty much the same, interpretation of the primary sources, which is not allowed, and no third party sources are used to support of any of such interpretations. References to some Armenian authors were later added, but except for Hewsen, none of those is third party. Note that WP:VERIFY holds: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So every interpretation of a primary source must be supported by an academic source (preferably Western) without any affiliation with the sides of the conflict. Such sources exist in abundance, and must be used. But what I see is that only the sources from one side are used, and those sources are not third party. For instance:

Armenian nationalist author Ulubabyan used as a reference for some reason, while he is clearly not third party, while there are reliable third party sources available on the topic. For instance, Iranica :

So Vachagan was of Parthian/Persian origin (Arcasid dynasty), and he was a king of Caucasian Albania, which is substituted here to strange "ruler of Aghvank". As for Chorbaijan, he was discussed in much detail 3 years ago with a previous sock of the banned user: It is quite interesting that he was trying to implement the same edit with the use of the same sources as is done now.

In general, this whole chunk of text is of poor quality, and represents an original research, as is based on primary and non-third party sources. In general, this kind of substantial rewrites should be discussed line by line at talk, and included only when there's a consensus. Reinserting such large chucks of text time after time with the use of new accounts is not acceptable. Grand master  11:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus was established please do not assert that it was not because it is a violation of WP:TE. Winterbliss (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it was not. Consensus does not mean a bunch of recent accounts appearing here and agreeing among themselves. Grand  master  10:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that user Dehr replied to your opinion about "Chorbajian" quoting Tom de Waal's endorsement of the historical section of the book, with Tom being WP's top source on NK. Why do you remain against "Caucas. Knot" as a book? It is notable that your proved RuWiki meats Brandmeister, Quantum666 and Tuscumbia have the same opinion and they were banned (!) due to that opinion. Wow! Your meat circus from ruwiki had been pretty much owning things in this article, hadn't it ha? Winterbliss (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm holding de Waal's book in my hands now, opened on page 102. No mention of Chorbajian there. Grand  master  10:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and Opinions
Here is a detailed reply to Grandmaster’s above insinuations about the article:


 * The assertion that “this part consist only of personal interpretation of primary sources” is a mis-characterization of immediately confirmable facts. First, a quick look at the edits shows it is not true. Contemporary academic interpretations (secondary and tertiary sources e.g. Hewsen, “Caucasian Knot” etc.) are used extensively to support the purported primary sources (M.Khorenatsi). Perhaps Grandmaster and other uses from his suspected meat team failed to notice later improvements made by Dehr.


 * Second, Grandmaster’s opinion is based on misinterpretation of WP:PRIMARY. The policy says: “Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.” This means primary sources can be used and interpretation is allowed with the support of secondary sources. The addition of secondary sources was done by Dehr I beleive.


 * Third, it is incorrect to believe that every ancient author is a primary source. Many ancient authors are retelling stories of their predecessors, and hence are secondary sources. See the language “Generally, primary sources are not accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight” in Primary source. WP:PSTS says: Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Movses Khorenatsi, Movses Kaghankatvatsi, Anania Shirakatsi, Kirakos Gandzaketsi and other old sources used in the text are both primary sources (when the authors act as chroniclers) and secondary sources when they base their research on earlier accounts. In contrast, some very modern sources are primary sources, e.g. the book “My brother's road” by Markar Melkonian, the brother of Armenian commander Monte Melkonian which is oft cited by Azerbaijani users.


 * Grandmaster: “ … plus most of Western academia believes that Khorenatsi actually lived in the 10th-11th century.” Bizarre. There is an opinion that Khorenatsi was a later-era author who lived in the 8th century (10th-11th centuries is Grandmaster’s manipulation). See article Moses of Choren. But whether 5th century or 8th century or even 11th century is immaterial for what Khorenatsi said about Nagorno Karabakh. Interestingly, were Khorenatsi an 8th century author, he would be better qualified as a secondary source.


 * Bagrat Ulubabyan is a good academic source. He was criticized by V. Shnirelman for his opinion on the ethnic origin of the population of Aghvank but that was the only criticism. And who was not criticized once or twice? Was not Albert Einstein criticized for his theories? Ulubabyan was used extensively in “Caucasian Knot” and “Caucasian Knot” in turn was endorsed by Tom de Waal (“The Caucasus” p. 102, footnote 2), the top source on the subject and Wiki’s officially endorsed source. Hence both the Western academic text “Caucasian Knot” and B.Ulubabyan’s writings are good and reliable sources per WP:NPOV. If anyone wants an example of POV sources dumped in an article, see Garadaghly Massacre which uses almost exclusively Azerbaijani state propaganda sources and government-sponsored hate publications, such as mns.gov.az, "Бакинский рабочий,” 1news.az, human.gov.az, etc. Grandmaster’s assertion is repeated over and over is a violation of WP:TE and WP:REHASH per and . Attempts to discredit sources on the account of putative ethno-racial background of authors will be reported as WP:BATTLE. Please note that users  Brandmeister and  Tuscumbia were banned based on such attempts.


 * Encyclopedia Iranica indeed speculates Vachagan the Pious was of Arsakid origin. This is a curious fringe/deviated opinion per WP:FRINGE unsupported by primary or other secondary sources. It can be mentioned perhaps in a footnote of an article dedicated to Vachagan the Pious. The work of Movses Kaghankatvatsi which Iranica quotes says in the quoted ch. 16, book I ) that Aran was from the line of Japheth-Hayk, and that “Число царей от Арана до Вачагана Храброго, который был из великого рода Аршакуни, неизвестно. И о том, из какого рода они, достоверного я ничего не могу сказать. Вот по порядку имена тех, кто царствовал над страной Алуанк: Вачаган Храбрый, Вачэ, Урнайр, Иавчаган, Мерhаван, Сато, Асай, Есвален, Вачэ, далее Вачаган Благочестивый – царь Алуанка.” In other words, while Vachagan the Brave is mentioned as an Arsakid king, those who followed him incl. Vachagan the Pious were of unknown origin to Movses Kaghankatvatsi. Iranica misquotes the primary source – there were several monarchs called Vachagan and Iranica messed up. You shall not make for yourself an idol: Isaac Newton was the father of modern mechanics but he also was an avid alchemist; his work on physics is superb but does it mean we should pay attention to any alchemist idiocies he preoccupied himself with?


 * Grandmaster: “Consensus does not mean a bunch of recent accounts appearing here and agreeing among themselves.” No, it does mean exactly that, especially since the “new accounts” are as old as 7 (!) to 4 months already (or like me, 2+ years of ruwiki experience). Consensus was established, and most subjects and topics on sources have been excessively discussed, verified and re-owned - do not assert that it was not so because it is a violation of WP:TE. The article needs further development and previously posted and removed material may be used for improving the text if it is found to be of good enough quality. Winterbliss (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article has many references to Azerbaijani primary sources, such as Abbas-gulu Aga Bakikhanov (Golestan-i-Iram); Mirza Adigezal bey, (Karabakh-name), Просительные пункты и клятвенное обещание Ибраим-хана and Jamal Qarabaghi's History of Qarabagh. Should we wipe them out because they are primary sources according to Grandmaster?? Dehr (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You are not in position to refute Iranica, which is a reputable third party source. You may personally agree or disagree with it, but it says what it says, and it does not correspond with what you included in the article. And it is not a fringe source, it represents the mainstream scholarly opinion. As for primary sources, you have not provided sufficient number of third party secondary sources to support your interpretation of primary sources. Movses Khorenatsi, Movses Kaghankatvatsi, Anania Shirakatsi, Kirakos Gandzaketsi are not secondary sources, they are considered primary by Wikipedia standards, and can only be interpreted by secondary sources. You use only the secondary Armenian sources, which are not third party, and do not have impeccable reputation for accuracy.


 * Also, Hewsen, to whom you refer, says that it is not appropriate to use Khorenatsi to promote claims that certain territories were inhabited by Armenians. He wrote in Ethno-History:


 * He clearly says that Khorenatsi is not a relaible source in this matter. The same is actually true for all primary sources of that time. And parallels with Azerbaijani primary sources are not appropriate, they only state the facts that are a general knowledge and could be found in any secondary source about the region. In particular a treaty between the khan of Karabakh and the Russian tsar, which is an official document, and not a collection of local legends. And not a single established user supported your proposed rewrite. On the contrary, you can see from the history of discussions here that a number of editors objected to your proposal, so there's no consensus for your edit. As for concerns with other articles, they should be addressed in those articles. Grand  master  15:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The recent edits pretty much reflects the revisionist version of history, criticized by a number of scholars, including Hewsen. For instance, the whole part about Hayk is nothing but baseless speculation that has no place in a serious article. Thus, the recent edit states:


 * Hewsen writes:


 * The whole Haykid argument is unscholarly. Haykid only means immemorial origin. Reference to legendary persons who never existed to claim origin of the territory is not a good argument and is rejected by serious scholars. Grand  master  16:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster's insinuations above are the result of a fundamental misinterpretation of the article's arguments or simply lack of understanding. No one makes direct claims about the Haykid origin of the Arranshanhiks. The text shows lightly commented (by secondary sources) indirect textual references about the origin of kingly dynasties in Artsakh/Aghvank according to medieval authors. By WP:PRIMARY this is impeccable even if we consider these authors only as primary sources. Hewsen and Mnacakanyan and Ulubabyan are all good scholars; they may occasionally agree or disagree but the article does not intend to bog down in their arguments too deeply - the text just points to what the ancient sources agree upon.
 * Iranica was commented above. Nothing to add, and no one refutes Iranica. Grandmaster should be aware that further filibustering, tendentious editing and repeating the same points over and over again may be subject to sanction per WP:TE.
 * "Armenian sources?" Grandmaster stubbornly insists on a ethno-racial/racist interpretation of WP:NPOV absolutely similarly to what his proven meat puppets in ruswiki Brandmeister, Tuscumbia and Quantum666 were banned/blocked for and according to AdilBaguirov's article about Wikipedia. See the latest discussion in Murovdag. Grandmaster should be aware that further filibustering, tendentious editing and repeating the same points over and over again may be subject to sanction per WP:TE . Also be aware of the folly of disputing the reliability of apparently good sources while at the same time supporting such article as Guba mass grave. This will be reported to WP:AE. Winterbliss (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Armenian sources?" Grandmaster stubbornly insists on a ethno-racial/racist interpretation of WP:NPOV absolutely similarly to what his proven meat puppets in ruswiki Brandmeister, Tuscumbia and Quantum666 were banned/blocked for and according to AdilBaguirov's article about Wikipedia. See the latest discussion in Murovdag. Grandmaster should be aware that further filibustering, tendentious editing and repeating the same points over and over again may be subject to sanction per WP:TE . Also be aware of the folly of disputing the reliability of apparently good sources while at the same time supporting such article as Guba mass grave. This will be reported to WP:AE. Winterbliss (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, stop threatening me. If you think that I'm "filibustering" or something else, you are free to file a complaint. Otherwise, my concerns about inappropriate use of primary and partisan sources remain unresolved. As I mentioned above, scholars like Hewsen consider the use of sources like Khorenatsi to advance claims about Armenian settlement in the area to be inappropriate. You response to this is that I'm filibustering. Not a good argument. Comment on content, not the contributor. Grand  master  10:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

High Medieval, Late Medieval and Demographics sections

 * That's ok with me but most of this rewrite is already in the article. I also think a link to culture of NK article is imporotant to have here. Zimmarod (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We can delete redundant passages and implant suggested additions. Dehr (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I also found a good map that can be used for this article. Dehr (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's leave the map for the moment and get back to it when we discuss demographics. Now the High Middle Ages section is small and needs rewrite. Any thoughts about which material we can use from the previously available "post-owned" writeup ? My feel is we may need more info on HasanJalalyan family of Gandzasar. Winterbliss (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Original research of primary sources. Not acceptable. The proposed section is badly written, and represent personal ideas of the user. Note that we are not allowed to interpret primary sources ourselves. Grand  master  19:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that proven and convicted meatmasters like Grandmaster can participate in this forum. I noticed no original research and no personal opinions but only Garndmaster's mis-characterization of this collective effort. I am adding secondary sources to back up some statements. Dehr (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * About the high middle ages think most things are just fine in the Zimmarod's version and they can be restored right away as they are but I want to know more about the formation of melikates and the 14-15 century events before and after the invasion my Tamerlane. Another thing is a passage needed to explain the demise of the Agvank and emergence of Khachen and other kingdoms on its place. These are obscurely discussed topics in WP and editors in this write up can be motvated to explore good sources telling about these transformations. Kingdom of Bagratid Armenia and its relations with Khachen can be explored in more details but maybe not. I also think that the demographic part can be restored to Zimmarod's ownership above in its entirety. Some work here should be done on sources regarding the ancient period. Dehr (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Late middle ages are also good but need more granularity on David Bek - Avan Yuzbashi connection and Karabakh as a center of signakh struggle against the Turkish invasion in the 18th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehr (talk • contribs) 01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, you cannot make your own personal interpretations of primary sources, and Chorbaijan is neither a historian, nor a third party source. Reach consensus on talk before making controversial edits. Grand  master  22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The book "Caucasian Knot" that you weirdly call "Chorbajian" is a first-class neutral source complied by French and American academics. If you can see from these talk pages that the book's section on early history was endorsed by Thomas de Waal, WP's primary source on this topic. "Caucasian Knot" is just one of secondary sources as you can see that is used to back up primary sources. Secondly, no attempts are made to interpret primary sources. Primary sources are used moderately and in combination with secondary and tertiary sources per WP's rules. All your accusations are not supported by anything. You were warned by administrators that you were behaving disruptively, please take this warning seriously. Dehr (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am “za” as Russians say :))))) to re-build the version of the text that User:zimmarod wrote about, I think we should do some work on adding more references. Not too many. Understand me correctly I want to do this when after the deleted passages are rebuilt. We should rebuild them first. There are disruptive editors around tryig to torpedo this work. Grandmaster is one of them. The director of Wikipedia should get rid of Grandmaster. Also I want to see Karabakh in a wider regional context. Uzer:zimmarod’s rebuilding is good enough and as I saying we should use it first but placing Karabakh in the context of regional and global politics and geoeconomics is a good idea?Sprutt (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Let's then sum up those points or elements of the proposed rewrite that need improvement, addition, deletion in other words - modification. "Wider regional context was one suggestion," Gandzasar and Arranshahiks was the other, am I missing something? Winterbliss (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, the map that Dehr found, almost forgot. Winterbliss (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I like that map. Dehr (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC) In the previous chapter I like the mention of alternative names for Karabakh "Other names used to denote Nagorno Karabakh in history include: Lesser Armenia,[16][17][18] Lesser Syunik,[19] and Armenia Interior.[20]." I think we can use that as well. And there was a chapter in the text about culture of Artsakh or something - I can't find it. It seemed to be a reference to a standalone article but we may drop a few general sentences about culture and architecture and place the text on churches and monasteries built in high middle ages in that subchapter. Dehr (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think culture is better to leave alone just as a link but I am open to other suggections. What I am getting from the discussion is that the High Middle Ages, Late Middle Ages and Demographics is proposed to be taken from the old text with some revisions. I - as the new "owner" of previously posted-and-deleted changes or someone else can sum up these revisions and suggestion the final version of updates. Zimmarod (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will support the high middle ages, late middle ages and demographics chapters from this version of the earlier version of this article. I have a few propositions though. Medieval Khachen was part of the Bagratidt Armenia and Zakarid Armenia. Was it a province or a semi-independent or autonomous land? I would add some of such research. Mongols were there too beginning from 1226, then they vanished, and Tamerlan came from Central Asia. These times after Tamerlan are very obscure for Armenia. These geopolitics it would be a good addition. Sources that we have now are good, including the Caucasian Know, Hewsen, etc, but we can include some Armenian-based authors. Ther is a good book called Արցախի մելիքությունները և մելիքակական տները. A lot of good material there about meliks of Artsakh and their relations with khans and shahs and Russian tsars, etc. Hablabar (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The alternative names for Karabakh are referenced well as mentioned by Dehr but I would add Pavel Shafirov's letter of 14 sept 1733 from George Burnutian's book to back up the Soviet-era compilation about Armenian-Russian relations. Zimmarod (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Shafirov's letter is in the first Burnutian volume not in the second. Zimmarod (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For clarity I made it a special section in these talk pages where the three sub-sections in the article are discussed.Winterbliss (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Zimmarod's version of the article shall be restored especially the medieval section and demographics. I leave it at the discretion of other participants to determine how it should be modified. Oliveriki (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie, good deal. Zimmarod (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

---
 * CONSENSUS. I am summing it up now. Consensus is for development of the article using new texts and some previously deleted paragraphs, which were re-owned, verified, and checked for accuracy and validity of references. The consensus involved User:Nocturnal781, User:Winterbliss, User:Dehr, User:Oliveriki, User:Sprutt, User:Hablabar, User:Zimmarod and tentatively User:Vacio. The consensus building exercise took many months and most issues were extensively discussed on talk pages, including opponents such as Grandmaster. Winterbliss (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

---
 * See above for the consensus. I do not see a single long established editor supporting such a large rewrite. And any substantial changes to this article should be discussed at talk first. Grand  master  15:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ... further filibustering, tendentious editing and repeating the same points over and over again will be subject to sanction per WP:TE . See the first part of the discussion in the most recent archived thread. Winterbliss (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely happy with recent rewriting as there is a serious imbalance and most likely factual accuracy issues. Particularly, the wording "pre-Armenian autochthonous local and migrant tribes" is shaky, simply "autochthonous local and migrant tribes" would serve better. Also, "proto-Armenians" does not appear to be a widely used term. I also suggest moving Artsakh-related info into corresponding article so as to not mix up the two locations. The second concern is broad usage of partisan sources: Chorbajian, Donabedian, Ulubabian etc. The claims they support should be excluded until verifications in reliable third-party sources are given. Brand meister talk   15:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So basically you propose to white wash the article from the fact, that Armenians were the local population, and Turkic tribes were migrants. 18:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase "pre-Armenian autochthonous local and migrant tribes" is a phrase used by Robert Hewsen, see discussion by User:Vacio. Regarding the "concern ... of partisan sources: Chorbajian, Donabedian, Ulubabian etc" - I discussed this with Grandmster above. I note that User:Brandmeister was banned in ruwiki as Grandmaster's meatpuppet. All Grandmaster's suspected meats use the same language and accentuate the same racist ideas in enwiki over, and over and over and over and over again. A lot of food for thought. Winterbliss (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice
There is a pending AE request related to this article. T. Canens (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hewsen
Vacio, I see no reason for replacing the actual wording of the source with personal interpretation. If you have other sources saying otherwise, quote them too. This one says what it says. Grand master  19:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Full quote from Hewsen:

As one can see, Hewsen uses the terms proto-Armenians and pre-Armenian in relation to Urartians, and not the population of Artsakh/Karabakh. So the term should not be used in the article, as the source uses it in a different context. And I do not see any reason for replacing the actual words of Hewsen that population was non-Armenian and non-Indo-European with strange wording like: The ancient population of the region consisted of various pre-Armenian autochthonous local and migrant tribes who were mostly non-Indo-Europeans (as the rest of the Armenian Plateau). The source never used the words "Pre-Armenian" to describe the population of the region, and clearly says that the original population was non-Armenian, which for some strange reason is removed from the article. I can ask the wiki community to have a look at this issue, and provide third opinion, if needed. However I think it is quite obvious that the source is misquoted. Grand master  20:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, this line:

According to the prevailing western theory, these natives intermarried with the so called proto-Armenians who came to the region after its inclusion into Armenia in the 2nd or, possibly earlier, in 4th century BC

refers to Atlas of Hewsen, but I do not see in any text there anything like this. Could you please provide an accurate quote? Grand master  19:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have spent a lot of time explaining above, why that this section needs to be rewritten and why a quotation out of its context is not plausible. I expect that other users will do the same before changing it.


 * As I said earlier, for a number of reasons I don't agree with a quotation that is out of its context, that's why I suggested to rewrite the passage in a way that would reflect the theory of Hewsen without cherry-picking just one or two word from his study. Why are these words out of their context, first because Hewsen speaks of a historical time when the formation of the Armenian people wasn't complete yet, so the words "were not of Armenian origins" does not make any sense when it is represented out of the context were Hewsen used them (as Meowy already write below). And this context is that Hewsen rebuted the claims of Mnacakanyan who argued that Artsakh and Utik were originally Armenian when they became part of Armenian Kingdom:


 * As for the terms proto Armenian and pre Armenian, these are absolutely different terms! Hewsen does not call the Urartians proto Armenians anywhere (and in fact there are few historians believing in such thing). And then, Hewsen and all historians use the term pre Armenian to describe all (non Armenian) ethnic entities that lived in various regions of historical Armenia before they intermarried with (proto) Armenians and were "Armenized". "Pre Armenian" literary means "before Armenian" and logically there is no reason to discuss whether the non Armenian peoples of Artsakh and Utik can be described with this term or not. Here a quote from Hewsen to confirm that:


 * Second reason why the quote that from Ethnohistory that Grandmaster/Brandmeister added to the article is not plausible, is because Hewsen adjusted some of his statements in Ethnohistory, in particular the passage that is being quoted, he came to a conclusion that some things a not certain. For instance, in Ethno-History Hewsen suggested that Gargarians were one of the native tribes of Artsakh and Utik, but in Atlas he makes clear that they were possibly migrants:

But most importantly, while Hewsen wrote in Ethnohistory that Artsakh was inhabited by various tribes, in A historial Atlas he clearly says that this not certain.

So, once again, I don't see any good reason to add this quote. And it is not acceptable to quote just one or two words from a extended history and neglect the adjustments that the author made in his recent study. -- va c  io  15:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Vacio, I fail to understand how your arguments can undermine the above quote from Hewsen and refer to it as 'cherry-picking', the term so many users often misuse. The term in inapplicable in the case where Grandmaster posted the whole page from Hewsen for everyone here to see how the quote works in the context - precisely to avoid what you call cherry-picking. Whether those ancient tribes of Karabakh were Gargarians or not is not important. And just because Hewsen somehwere says "various tribes", it does not necessarily mean Armenians were among them. The matter of the fact is that at the time of the Armenian conquest the population there, however multicultural, was not of Armenian origin. Parishan (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Parishan, with much respect, you're missing the point of the discussion above, it seems that you only read the last half of it. Also it is not certain whether the original population of Artsakh was multicultural multiethnic or monoethnic (Hewsen first believed it was multiethnic, but later wrote it wasn't certain). -- va c  io  07:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I also see no reason for replacement of non-Armenian with pre-Armenian, even if Hewsen used that term in his other work (btw, in that other work he says "pre-Armenian or non-Armenian", i.e. uses both terms at the same time). In this particular one he says pretty clear that the aboriginal population was non-Armenian and mostly non-Indo-European. Why should we substitute that with other words, without making it clear that the original population was unrelated to the ethnic groups that live there now? Also, he says further in his work that this original population was absorbed by both Armenian and Turkic people (i.e. Christians were assimilated by Armenians, Muslims by Azerbaijanis), so calling it pre-Armenian is not exactly correct. We should use simple wording, the same as the author used in his cited work. And also, while he changed his opinion about the origin of Gargarians, I do not see that he changed his opinion about non-Armenian origin of the original population. And where exactly he says that Armenians came into Karabakh in the 4th century B.C.? Grand  master  20:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not suggest to replace the term non-Armenian with pre-Armenian, as I asserted above both are essentially synonymous. So I don't object in using the term non-Armenian, but I object against chary-picking some words of the author which is a significant misuse of the source.
 * Also you overlook the following facts by saying that original population was absorbed by both Armenian and Turkic people. First, that phrase does not refer to the population of Artsakh (which is covered by this article) but the whole region of Caucasian Albania as well and the people of Artsakh were never absorbed by the Turkic tribesmen.


 * Second, the absorption of some Caucasian ethnic elements by Turkic tribesmen took place in an completely different historical era, than the one we deal with here.


 * Third, Hewsen himself uses the term pre-Armenians for Udians of Utik (as quoted above), so your opinion that the supposed various tribes of Artsakh and Utik can not be described as pre-Armenian, is wrong. -- va c  io  07:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Dbachman is right, and Vacio's consensus version is just fine. Perfectionism demonstrated with phrases like "most certainly of non-Armenian origin" which are cherry-picked to discount the region's association with Armenians should be abandoned. Don't forget that hewsen disagrees with Mnacakanyan and Ulubabyan. While we should give preference to Western scholars like Hewsen, Mnacakanyan and Ulubabyan cannot be discounted as was argued earlier in the discussion at least because their works were endorsed in Western scholarship (e.g. Walker and "Caucasian Knot"). So, Vacio's version should stay. Dehr (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It cannot stay unless you clearly indicate where exactly what you call 'cherry-picking' occurs. Is there any other way the phrase "were certainly not of Armenian origin" can be interpreted in the given context? Just because it looks like it can be twisted any way you want does not mean that is the case. Hewsen made it very clear that the tribes living in Karabakh prior to the Armenian conquest were not Armenian. Parishan (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And another thing, Dehr. You have been taking liberties with the word 'meatpuppetry' quite a lot, which I would not do, if I were you. I have been known to contribute to articles of this scope and in fact bother to explain my edits at talkpage, unlike users like Sardur who appear out of the blue and revert to versions which you favour, which seems more like meatpuppetry than anything else to me; and suspiciously so after the article has been placed on the recent editor restriction. Parishan (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Parishan, please read the elaboration above where it is explained why it is 'cherry-picking' and then please comment on the arguments there. Also, if or when you have acquainted yourself with all Hewsen wrote about the ancient population of Artsakh in both "Ethno-History" and "Atlas", it would be much better to suggest a consensus version of the passage on this subject, rather than repeating that something is not cherry-picking. That would be much more constructive and I am open to discuss any suggestion. -- va  c  io  07:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Vacio, believe you me, prior to posting yesterday's comment I had read your arguments three times. I cannot wrap my head around how the original settlement of Gargarians or the phrase "various tribes" contradict the fact that Armenians were not inhabiting Karabakh at the time of its conquest. That was precisely why I addressed my concerns to you personally. Parishan (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I will only believe if you comment to my arguments and if you make constructive suggestions for a consensus version. -- va c  io  07:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I cannot comment on arguments that seem irrelevant to the topic. I am not going to comment on your speculation with regard to 'various tribes' possibly including Armenians, because there is simply no basis for that. The juice of your argument revolves around references to the use of the terms 'proto-Armenian' and 'pre-Armenian' which are in fact unapplicable to the second century BC context when Karabakh was conquered. Thus the terms 'pre-Armenian' and 'non-Armenian' cannot act as synonyms in this case. Parishan (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Parishan, once again you make the impression that you significantly unaware of the context and the subject of the discussion above. Also you've completely misunderstood my argumentation above, so please don't ascribe to me claims that I haven't made . -- va c  io  06:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see this as an attempt to cover up the non-Armenian character of the original population of the region by using the words like pre-Armenian, proto-Armenian, etc, instead of stating like the source did that the population was non-Armenian. Grand  master  08:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a baseless accusation. First, I never objected using the word non-Armenian as well (but the terms pre-Armenian, proto-Armenian are not my invention). Secondly, the context of the passage makes it completely clear that they were not Armenian in the modern sense of the term. -- va c  io  06:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you do not object to the use of the word non-Armenian, why then you removed it? Also, if population was not Armenian in the modern sense of term, are you saying that it was Armenian is some other sense? I think the text should use plain statements, and say that the original population was not Armenian. Later it became Armenized, but the process was slow, and most of the tribes populating the area were still distinct ethnic groups when those regions passed to Albania. That's pretty much what the source says. Grand  master  07:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Btw, the following part:

According to the prevailing western theory, these natives intermarried with the so called proto-Armenians who came to the region after its inclusion into Armenia in the 2nd or, possibly earlier, in 4th century BC.

Is also a misinterpretation of the source. Hewsen says nothing about any intermarriage in the region in question, he only mentions the conquest. Intermarriage could be between the ancestors of Armenians and Urartians, but that is a different region. I suggest we remove the above line, and rewrite it according to the source. Also, I still did not find in the quotes provided by Vacio any mention of the 4th century B.C. Grand  master  08:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I sugest to rewrite the above line as follows:

According to the prevailing academic view, the region was conquered by Armenians from Medes in the second century B. C.

This is based on the following text:

''From Strabo we learn that under King Artashes (188-ca. 161 B. C.), the Armenians expanded in all directions at the expense of their neighbors. Specifically we are told that at this time they acquired Caspiane and 'Phaunitis', the second of which can only be a copyist's error for Saunitis, i. e. the principality of Siwnik '.Thus, it was only under Artashes, in the second century B. C., that the Armenians conquered Siwnik' and Caspiane and, obviously, the lands of Arc'ax and Utik', which lay between them. These lands, we are told, were taken from the Medes.''

Also, I propose to change the line:

The ancient population of the region consisted of various autochthonous local and migrant tribes who were mostly non-Indo-Europeans (as the rest of the Armenian Plateau)

and rewrite it as:

The ancient autochthonous population is believed to consist of various tribes of non-Armenian and mostly non-Indo-European origin.

This reflects the concern of Vacio that in his recent work Hewsen seems to make no definite statement. Grand master  08:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would not agree that there is a misinterpretation of the source in the first passage you quoted (these natives intermarried...). While I agree that in "Ethno-History" the word intermarried is not directly used for the population of Artsakh, in A Historical Atlas he clearly refers to all tribes of the Armenian Plateau (where Hewsen also includes Artsakh) which were ultimately absorbed by the proto-Armenians. (p. 10 in Atlas, see a partial quote above). Although I would agree to leave the discussion of this sentence for a moment or maybe leave it for other articles like Artsakh or History of Nagorno-Karabakh (where there is more place for the background of the ethnic history of the region) and for a moment try to agree on the other parts of the passage in question.


 * My second remark is that it's not certain when exactly Artsakh became Armenian land (although most western historians assume it was 2nd c. BC) and whether it was conquered from Medes. And secondly, yes, Hewsen wrote that Artsakh was possibly acquired two centuries earlier than that. Here the quote:


 * So I think, it would be better to rewrite this passage like this:


 * Artsakh and the neighboring region Utik were acquired by Armenia probably in the 2nd century BC or possibly in the 4th century BC under the Orontid dynasty.


 * As for the 2nd proposal of Grandmaster. I generally agree, but have again a few remarks. First, I think we should use both terms non-Armenian and pre-Armenian as Hewsen does (Atlas, p. 10, quoted above). And then, it's not certain whether the population of Artsakh consisted of one or more than one of these tribes (see Atlas, p. 58, quoted above): which should be reflected in the passage as well. So I suggest to rewrite it as:


 * In ancient times the autochthonous population of these lands consisted of various non-Armenian or pre-Armenian tribes, which were mostly non-Indo-European. Whether Artsakh itself was inhabited by only one of this tribes or more of them, is not certain. -- va c  io  14:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree in general, with the exception of the word pre-Armenian. I don't understand what useful information it conveys, and what the actual difference is in the meaning between non-Armenian and pre-Armenian. According to the mainstream theory, Armenians moved to the region at some point in history, and therefore the ancient population of the region could not be Armenian, so it must have been non-Armenian. That's what the source actually says. Pre-Armenian is a very ambiguous word, and adds no useful info to the text. The subsequent Armenian presence is explained further in the article. Calling those people pre-Armenian is the same as calling Albanians a pre-Azerbaijani people, because most of the Albanian tribes were later Turkicised. As for the Medes, they should also be mentioned as a possible version. Hewsen said that according to Strabo Armenians conquered those lands from the Medes, so this version also deserves a mention. Grand  master  10:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)