Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 19

Iranica
Another dubious statement:

Other scholars suggest that the proto-Armenians settled in the region as early as in the 7th century BC.

Reference is to Iranica:

But in the same source a different author says a different thing:

''Armina under Darius and Xerxes had much narrower boundaries than the future Armenia of the Artaxiads and the Arsacids. The “Armenians” with the inhabitants of Paktyikē (?) and other peoples of the northwest formed the 13th satrapy, whose tribute was fixed at 400 talents (Herodotus 3.93). The Armenians in the strict sense must then have lived in areas between Cappadocia, the Tigris, the Euphrates, and the lake of Van. They are clearly distinguished from the Alarodians ( = Urartians) who occupied the future province of Ayrarat ( = Urartu) on the Araxes and with the Saspires (further northeast) and the Matienians (further southeast) formed the 18th satrapy (ibid., 3.94, cf. 7.79). 

If in the 5th century B.C. they lived around the lake Van, they could not have reached the river Kura 2 centuries earlier. Contradictory info in the same source. We can ask for a third party opinion about the use of this source. Grand master  20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The passage which is apparently referenced here goes
 * Bordering on Media, Cappadocia, and Assyria, the Armenians settled, according to classical sources (beginning with Herodotus and Xenophon), in the east Anatolian mountains along the Araxes (Aras) river and around Mt. Ararat, Lake Van, Lake Rezaiyeh, and the upper courses of the Euphrates and Tigris; they extended as far north as the Cyrus (Kur) river. To that region they seem to have immigrated only about the 7th century B.C.

so, technically, what is suggested here is that the Armenians did not settle along the Kura "as early as" but rather "as late as" about the 7th century BC. The question is not whether this is the historical truth. It is just about substantiating that this date has indeed been thrown around in the relevant literature. Anyone who is not a natioanlist knows that is is completely futile to decide whether the pre-proto-Armenians first settled on the Kura in the 7th or in the 5th century BC. For all practical purposes, this is deep prehistory for the region, and giving a rough estimate with a margin of error of a century or two under these circumstances is being rather precise. If we had an ethnic conflict in Switzerland, people would troll Wikipedia over the question whether the Helvetii first settled on Lake Geneva in the 7th, the 5th or just the 3rd or 2nd century BC. Because there is no ethnic conflict today, people do not feel compelled to spend time debating unanswerable about ancient history. Whenever you touch a paragraph which is about ancient history or prehistory, you need to detach yourself from whatever modern ethnic or political ideas you may have, otherwise you are not discussing ancient history, you are cherry-picking ancient history to write an essay about your private views on contemporary issues. --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your opinion about nationalistic interpretation of the ancient history. But the problem here is how to use Iranica in the context of this article, when 2 different authors state conflicting views in the same source. We have an article by R. Schmitt, who says 7th century, and another article on the same topic by M. L. Chaumont (who is more specialist on the topic of South Caucasus, because she wrote in Iranica the article about Caucasian Albania), and she says that around the 5th century B.C. Armenians lived around the lake of Van, and this is more in line with the mainstream scholarly opinion, for instance, with what Hewsen wrote. She says that Armenians "clearly distinguished from the Alarodians ( = Urartians) who occupied the future province of Ayrarat ( = Urartu) on the Araxes". Probably we need to state both views, as we cannot say that Iranica supports only the 7th century. The opinion of authors of Iranica in this regard is inconclusive. Grand  master  10:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also appreciate your opinion with regard to interpretation of Hewsen. In particular, I mean the removal of this statement from Hewsen: I believe the source must be quoted as close to the original text as possible, to avoid adding your own views instead of the views of the author. Please see the relevant quote from this author in the above section. Hewsen clearly states that the original population of the present Nagorno-Karabakh was of non-Armenian origin, and that the aboriginal tribes were mostly of Caucasian stock (further in his article). Vacio removes that statement and replaces it with more vague "various pre-Armenian autochthonous local and migrant tribes". If the source states that they were non-Armenian and mostly Caucasian, why cannot we say the same? After all, this is what the author says. I think replacing non-Armenian with pre-Armenian is wrong, because that is not what the author writes about the population of this region. Hewsen uses the term "pre-Armenian" to refer to Alarodians (Urartians), who did not live in the present day Karabakh, they populated a different area. Plus, this original population was assimilated not only by Armenians, which is another reason why it is wrong to call it pre-Armenian.  Grand  master  11:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If we want Hewsen to appear as an idiot, returning the removed statement would be a pretty good way to do it. Does Hewsen actually think that Herodotus and Strabo and Xenophon should be read like they were modern guidebooks! All these names he seems to think are separate ethnic groups are just place names, for example, "Sasperians" are inhabitants of Sper (modern Ispir), Alarodians are inhabitants of the Alarod (Ayrarat / Ararat) region, Taokhians are inhabitants of Taok (present-day north-east Turkey, medieval Taik). Each region would quite naturally have had its own petty ruler - but that doesn't mean each place was inhabited by unrelated peoples. Nothing at all can be construed from these names regarding the ethnic identity of their inhabitants, and it is laughable to try to associate in this close way anyone living in BC dates with modern nations or ethnic groups. How can he still talk about non-existant Armenian migrations from somewhere nobody has ever been able to identify. If Hewsen is that certain that he can identify those who, 2500 years ago, are "certainly not Armenian" lets see him having a go at the impossible task of defining those who, 2500 years ago, are "certainly Armenian"! Populations, especially ancient populations, generally stay put - it is culture influences and identities that move. Meowy 13:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You may agree or disagree with Hewsen, but our personal ideas have no place here. Chaumont says pretty much the same as Hewsen. The mainstream science identifies Alarodians with Urartians, and Urartians are considered to be people of non-Armenian origin. They are believed to be related to the people of Caucasus. Hewsen presents the mainstream views, and explain why the original population is considered to be non-Armenian. Whether we like it or not, we should stick to what the general consensus among the scholars is. Grand  master  19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying "scholars said it" doesn't excuse silly concepts! The Uratian civilisation was long gone when Herodotus wrote about "Alarodians", nor was the heartland of Urartu based in the Ararat region. What did it mean, 2500 years ago in this region, to be "Armenian" or "non-Armenian"? Meowy 19:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion that it is stupid. We must only report the prevailing scholarly opinion, regardless whether we think it is stupid or not. Grand  master  00:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

@GM, I don't see a contradiction between the quote above and the one cited in the article, the two passages say two different things. Passage 1 defines the geographical region where the proto-Armenians were concentrated (lived in the strict sense...) i.e. they were dominant between the various ethnic entities, Passage 2 says where the first proto-Armenians settled to the north of that region (they extended as far north as the...), i.e. where they were not majority. -- va c  io  14:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the source 2 says that in the 5th century B.C. "The Armenians in the strict sense must then have lived in areas between Cappadocia, the Tigris, the Euphrates, and the lake of Van". That does not mean they were concentrated, it means that they inhabited that particular region, which did not extend to the banks of Kura. So the opinions of 2 scholars clearly contradict. Grand  master  00:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argumentation is still not convincing. In fact you are asserting that in the strict sense would mean exclusively, when you say that according to passage 2 no Armenians could have lived/settled other than areas between Cappadocia, the Tigris, the Euphrates, and the lake of Van. -- va c  io  06:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yes, strict sense means exclusively, i.e. no significant compact settlements existed outside of the described area. I'm not proposing to exclude contradictory statements, just describe that the views in this publication about this particular issue differ. Grand  master  08:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * They don't differ, they perfectly fit with each other. You are artificially trying to find a contradiction between them. Passage 2 does not say there were everywhere "significant compact settlements" till the Kura, it just says how far the Armenians extended. -- va c  io  07:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not say that they fit. I don't see that Chaumont mentions Kura as the boundary of Armenian expansion in the 5th century. But this is not such an important issue at the moment. Let's leave it for later and ask for more third opinions, maybe. Grand  master  08:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

New start
I rolled back the large rewrite by the recently created accounts, since it had no clear consensus at talk. Other than a bunch of suspicious accounts with limited history of contributions, no one supported it. I think any substantial changes to the article need to be discussed at talk and achive a consensus, before being included. Grand master  08:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I see this as an obvious vandalism - you undid the edits of Oliveriki, Winterbliss, Dehr, Sardur, VartanM, Vacio, the edits which also enjoy the support of Zimmarod, Nocturnal781 and Meawy. This is vandalism and nothing but, and it will be treated like that. Oliveriki (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just returned from a vacation WOW ... well ... Grandmaster vandalized the edits of Oliveriki, Winterbliss, Dehr, Sardur, VartanM, Vacio and Sprutt, Hablabar and VahagnAvagian too!!!!! This is an atomic bomb of a disruption! Perhaps Grandmaster bestowed upon himself the crown of an administrator already that is how arrogant this move is. All the removed parts of text were underwritten by TWELVE accounts (count whom I mentioned) and post-owned by me as Golbez asked, and extensively discussed with a consensus. Basically you are saying editors like me can say whatever we want and establish whatever consensus, all this would not matter to you from the start. Nice. This is unprecedented I guess for any protected article. Zimmarod (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You "returned from vacation" the same day as Winterbliss was banned. What a coincidence. Grand  master  12:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a FULL WARNING to Grandmster. Zimmarod (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Those edits were made originally by socks, and later reinstalled by 7 new accounts (2 of which are now banned). Sardur and VartanM made no contributions either to the article or the talk page, other than reverting. We have a discussion with Vacio above, and his edits remain. I'm trying to reach a consensus with him, and anyone welcome to join the discussion. As for the large rewrite by the new accounts, it had no clear consensus at talk. I cannot consider it a consensus when 7 new accounts pop up here, reinsert the edits of the banned user and claim that they have a consensus among themselves. That's not how it works. I will ask the community to look into the quality of those edits, but in the meantime no unilateral large rewrites should be made without a consensus at talk, and by that I mean the consensus with long established editors, and not the newly created accounts with very few contribs. Grand master  10:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also, the arguments based on the article itself, particularly sources, are far better than those based on the amount of users involved or those like "neither do you". Brand meister talk   12:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Protected
The article has been fully protected for one month due to the resumption of the dispute after the AE discussion of April 7 on the Nagorno-Karabakh article. Use editrequest to ask for changes that are uncontroversial or are supported by consensus. Please participate in the RfC just below this message. See if you want to revise the question posed in the RfC or add new topics. If you object to the protection open a thread at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Schiltberger
Are we still suppose to justify our edits? because I think the edit summary was sufficiently explanatory. VartanM (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are. So far you contribution to the discussion was zero. Please explain why exactly you removed the quotes from Schiltberger? He had no idea about geography, for him Babylon and Tiflis were also located in Armenia, and he believed every fairy tale his Armenian friends were telling him (that's what the notes for his book say). This is why the primary sources must be used with care. Plus he never said that Karabakh was inhabited by Armenians, he said that Armenians also lived there, but the land was ruled by "infidels", i.e. Muslims. Grand  master  19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with blind reverts by users who contributed nothing to the discussion. Already twice the accurate quote from Schiltberger was removed and replaced with an inaccurate statement. Schiltberger wrote: ''The Infidels call the plain, in the Infidel tongue, Karawag. The Infidels posses it all, and yet in stands in Ermenia. There are also Armenians in the villages, but they must pay tribute to the Infidels''. This is reverted to the version which states: Johann Schiltberger (1380–c. 1440), a German traveler and writer, observed in the beginning of the 15th century that Karabakh's lowlands divided by the Kura River are populated by Armenians and mentioned Karabakh as part of Armenia. However if you compare that edit with the actual quote from the source, you'll see that Schiltberger never said that Karabakh's lowlands are populated by Armenians, quite the contrary, he said that Armenians also live there, i.e. among other people, and that the region was possessed by Infidels, i.e. Muslims. This kind of reverts restoring inaccurate info are absolutely unacceptable, especially by users who never bothered to explain at talk the reasons for their reverts. Grand master  00:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Schiltberger's experience with Karabakh is a personal account of a witness, p. 86 ("been there", "lived among them")). He said he traveled there and he describes what he saw. This cannot be compared with his opinion about Tiflis, Babylon etc. which are opinions that were criticized in secondary sources. 2. "Infidels possess it all" means infidels (Muslims) control it politically. Controlling tells us nothing about whether there were actually any Muslims in lowlands of "Karawag." What was the proportion of Armenian vs. infidels/Muslims "in the villages" is unclear. This tells us that there were Armenians in Karabakh's lowlands as late as the mid-15th century and this land was considered to be part of Armenia, at least geographically and at most politically. The takeaway from Schiltberger's writing is that there were Armenians living in the Karabakh plain (Mugan Steppe) in the the mid-15th century. Were there infidels living there too? He does not report that but says that Muslims control Armenians economically and politically. 3. The opinion of Telfer does not belong in the body of text anyway according to WP standards. Dehr (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal or not, his knowledge of geography is highly defective, which could be demonstrated by him including Tiflis and Babylon as parts of Armenia. And he said that infidels possessed, i.e. owned the region, and Armenians also lived there. The fact that Armenians also lived there shows that they were not the majority, otherwise the author would not use the word "also". Now please explain why you removed the accurate quotes from Schiltberger and replaced them with your own interpretation again? Why you removed the parts that said infidels possessed the region? This is exactly what is wrong with your editing, you make your own interpretation of primary sources instead of quoting them accurately. Grand  master  08:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, this whole Schiltberger quote does not belong to this article. It is more suitable for the article about Karabakh, since he wrote about the lowland part of the region. Grand  master  08:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One-third of Nagorno Karabakh within NKAO boundaries was a lowland in Mardakert, Martuni, and Askeran districts. So, Schiltberger belongs to this article I think. Zimmarod (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree - the Schiltberger text, if it is about Karabakh at all, seems to talk just about the inhabitants of the Kura valley. Meowy 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mardakert's lowlands are the Kura valley as a matter of fact. Take a look at Google Maps. Zimmarod (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Recent edits
The use of the primary sources in the article Nagorno-Karabakh, and in general the quality of the recent edits to that article. Grand master  12:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

My concern with this large rewrite is that it mostly contains POV, original research based on interpretation of the primary sources, and secondary sources used are mostly partisan. First off, this large rewrite was originally made by the socks of the banned user, and was reinstalled by 7 new accounts that were registered after those socks were banned. The situation that followed was described by Golbez here: Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon/Archive, and later admins at WP:AE placed this article on additional restrictions. 2 of those accounts were indef blocked since then, but the edit war continues. I'm leaving aside all the behavioral issues now, and I want to ask the community about the actual merits of the edits that the sock accounts and new accounts appearing since then have been trying to reinstall. The problem with those edits is that they are based on interpretation of the primary sources, and secondary sources used are almost exclusively partisan, i.e. represent the Armenian POV. For instance, this chunk of text:

Whatever little is known about Nagorno-Karabakh and other eastern Armenian-peopled territories in the early Middle Ages comes from the text History of the Land of Aghvank (Պատմություն Աղվանից Աշխարհի) attributed to two Armenian authors: Movses Kaghankatvatsi and Movses Daskhurantsi. This text, written in Old Armenian, in essence represents the history of Armenia’s provinces of Artsakh and Utik. Kaghankatvatsi, repeating Movses Khorenatsi, mentions that the very name “Aghvank”/“Albania” is of Armenian origin, and relates it to the Armenian word “aghu” (աղու, meaning “kind,” “benevolent”. Khorenatsi states that aghu was a nickname given to Prince Arran, whom the Armenian king Vagharshak I appointed as governor of northeastern provinces bordering on Armenia. According to a legendary tradition reported by Khorenatsi, Arran was a descendant of Sisak, the ancestor of the Siunid dynasty that ruled Armenia's province of Syunik, and thus a great-grandson of the ancestral eponym of the Armenians, the Forefather Hayk. Kaghankatvatsi and another Armenian author, Kirakos Gandzaketsi, confirm Arran’s belonging to Hayk’s blood line by calling Arranshahiks “a Haykazian dynasty.”

The POV is obvious from the first line "Nagorno-Karabakh and other eastern Armenian-peopled territories". First off, as is obvious from the previous sections in this article, the territory had a mixed population in antiquity, and "eastern Armenian-peopled territories" is quite a strange combination of words, which was never used by Dowsett, so the source is used inappropriately. Further, the article has a line: This text, written in Old Armenian, in essence represents the history of Armenia’s provinces of Artsakh and Utik, with reference to Robert Hewsen, however this author says no such thing. And then go speculations about Armenian origin of the land on the basis of the legend about Hayk and Arran, with claims like: ''According to a legendary tradition reported by Khorenatsi, Arran was a descendant of Sisak, the ancestor of the Siunid dynasty that ruled Armenia's province of Syunik, and thus a great-grandson of the ancestral eponym of the Armenians, the Forefather Hayk. Kaghankatvatsi and another Armenian author, Kirakos Gandzaketsi, confirm Arran’s belonging to Hayk’s blood line by calling Arranshahiks “a Haykazian dynasty.”'' But the same Hewsen to whom the reference is made considers such use of the primary sources inappropriate:

The whole Haykid argument is unscholarly, as 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. If this legend needs to be mentioned at all, it should be explained what Haykid means. Further:

In the 5th century’s Nagorno Karabakh, King Vachagan II the Pious, ruler of the Kingdom of Aghvank, adopted the so-called Constitution of Aghven (Սահմանք Կանոնական) — a code of civil regulations consisting of 21 articles and composed after a series of talks with leading clerical and civil figures of Armenia and Aghvank (e.g. Bishop of Syunik). In the 8th century, the Constitution of Aghven was included in the Armenian Book of Laws (Կանոնագիրք Հայոց) by the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church Hovhan III Odznetsi (Catholicos from 717-728), thus laying out a blueprint for later-era Armenian legal texts, such as the Lawcode written in the 12th century by Mkhitar Gosh. The Constitution of Aghven usually features as an inclusion in Movses Kaghankatvatsi’s History of the Land of Aghvank.

It is attempted to claim that Vachagan was somehow Armenian, a bunch of primary sources and Armenian nationalist author Ulubabyan used as a reference for some reason, while he is clearly not third party, and there are reliable third party sources available on the topic. For instance, Iranica :

So Vachagan was of Parthian/Persian origin (Arsacid Dynasty of Caucasian Albania), and he was a king of Caucasian Albania, which is substituted here for strange "ruler of Aghvank". The rewrite by the banned user is full of such misinterpretations, and misuse of the primary sources. Another example is discussed in the thread just above this one. Johann Schiltberger is used as a reference to claim Armenian domination in the area. Origianlly new accounts made the following revision: Johann Schiltberger (1380–c. 1440), a German traveler and writer, observed in the beginning of the 15th century that Karabakh's lowlands divided by the Kura River are populated by Armenians and mentioned Karabakh as part of Armenia. However the source actually said something quite different. Schiltberger wrote:

''The Infidels call the plain, in the Infidel tongue, Karawag. The Infidels posses it all, and yet in stands in Ermenia. There are also Armenians in the villages, but they must pay tribute to the Infidels''.

So Schiltberger never said that Karabakh's lowlands are populated by Armenians, quite the contrary, he said that Armenians also live there, i.e. among other people, and that the region was possessed by Infidels, i.e. Muslims. Plus Schiltberger's knowledge of geography was highly defective, he also included Tbilisi and Babylon as part of Armenia, and it is clear even from the article in Wikipedia that he must used very carefully as a source. I inserted an accurate quote:, which was reverted for original claim with slight modification: This is again not accurate, as it says nothing about the lands being ruled by "infidels", plus it is not clear what was the point in removing the accurate quote and replacing it with personal inaccurate interpretation. I can continue citing such POV interpretations and misuse of the primary sources, but it makes little sense. Any attempts to fix POV and include accurate quotes meet fierce resistance. I would like to get some peer review of the recent edits, and also the opinions of uninvolved editors on how appropriate are the recent edits to this article, i.e. if they conform with WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS, etc. I believe what we have here is a violation of this section of WP:RS. In general, I consider that such large rewrites to such a contentious article should be first proposed at talk, and only after reaching a wide consensus included in the article. Obviously, consensus does not mean 7 accounts with few edits appearing here and claiming that they all agree to the rewrite, consensus means agreement that involves users with proven history of contributions. Grand master  12:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Topics for the RfC
The RfC may need to be better focussed on specific issues if it's going to be effective. Editors are requested to propose topics. I see some criticism of primary sources above, but I don't know how many primary sources remain in the article. It does not require great acumen to believe that socks may have been affecting this article, but simply to criticize edits because of who made them may not be a useful activity. I urge Grandmaster and any others who participate here to write more briefly. If you want to add explanatory material consider putting it in your own user space somewhere and linking to it from here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to second everything Ed has said, and I especially want to reemphasize that brevity is the soul of wit. Enormous reams of text aren't going to win any favors from other people; if anything, they make you look desperate and give the appearance of attempting to bludgeon people to death.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it also makes sense to ask for a peer review of the general quality of the article. There was so much text added, that singling out one or two points of dispute is very difficult. As for specific primary sources, we probably should start with something. Therefore I will propose a section below on the first source that was a subject to dispute. Grand  master  14:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Ed's action 100%. This needs to go to RfC and the participants in this article need to be working towards consensus or find themselves subject to sanction. Also agree with Blade, walls of text are not helpful to reaching consensus. The battlegrounding on this article needs to cease. --WGFinley (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ed and WGFinley that battlegrounding needs to cease. But there should be a level playing field for that. The main problem that many editors have for this article is that topics are actually discussed in deapth but the opposite side has no incentives to acknowledge that fact. Grandmaster wrecked a very good article and I donot see even a reprimand from administrators; Winterblsst and Dehr did something with the edit count and were blocked so quickly they even did not have a chance to explain themselves, and blocking is a measure too harsh for their alleged misdeeds. As Winterblist and others argued all this time, for the time being this article is mishandled by Grandmaster's group accused in ruwiki in meatpuppetry and in manipulating administrators. Here in the discussion on "Sources and Opinions" there were very good arguments made but the reply was inadequate. I will replicate it here and but will modify the parts I find problematic and add my own talk.


 * Grandmaster's position on sources is bad faith - take a look at the argument made by Winterblist . Basically, Grandmaster supports ugly articles like Guba mass grave which are based on some 10 hate sites and nationalist bullshit from state propaganda. If he was true to his values, Grandmaster would question such outrage first. In NK Grand's discussion on sources, primary or not, seems to be solely for the purpose to have an endless discussion in order to postpone the expansion of the article further. If primary sources are used directly this can be rewritten.


 * Grandmaster's assertion that the added parts of the article "consist only of personal interpretation of primary sources” is a mis-characterization - there is no intention to use primary sources directly. Primary sources are mostly there to back the secondary sources and serve as references if someone needs to take a look directly into an ancient text. Contemporary academic interpretations (secondary and tertiary sources e.g. Hewsen, Ulubabian, “Caucasian Knot” etc.) are used only to support the purported'' primary sources (M.Khorenatsi).


 * 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.


 * Third, it is incorrect to believe that every ancient author is a primary source and every modern one is not. 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.


 * Bagrat Ulubabian 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.


 * Grandmaster: “Consensus does not mean a bunch of recent accounts appearing here and agreeing among themselves.” When recent account stop being recent accounts????????????????????????????? According to Grandmaster - never. Most subjects and topics on sources have been excessively discussed, verified and re-owned. 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.


 * 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? Another instance of Grandmaster's bad faith attitude toward sources. Zimmarod (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, whatever happens in other articles cannot be a justification for what's going on here, as described in WP:OSE. And for the record, I never supported Guba mass grave (but even if I did, why would it be a problem?) or made any significant contributions to it. I only removed poorly sourced material once, and that was it. I don't understand why Zimmarod/Winterbliss et al keep bringing that up all the time. As for primary sources, the above mentioned Markar Melkonian is supported by a secondary source, Thomas de Waal: But it is all irrelevant to this article. The problem here is with the interpretation of very old primary sources, such as Movses Khorenatsi, Movses Kaghankatvatsi, Anania Shirakatsi, Kirakos Gandzaketsi etc. Those authors lived about 1000 years ago, and could be interpreted only by professional historians with no bias towards any sides of the conflict. For instance, it is well known that accounts of Khorenatsi contained a lot of inaccuracies and false statements, so they cannot be taken for the face value. It is pretty well known that history is used for political purposes in this conflict, and historians in both countries have been criticized for politicized interpretation of historical facts. Therefore academics from outside the region and with no direct connection to any of the sides are more preferable. Now coming to Azerbaijani primary sources, they are all from the 19th century, i.e. are more recent. They are not used to support any significant claim, just the fact that Karabakh was ruled by khans of Ganja, which you can find in a secondary source like Iranica : The Safavids left Arrān to local Turkish khans, so that we find Ganja in 961-62/1554 governed by Šāhverdī Solṭān Zīād-oḡlū Qājār (whose family came to govern Qarabāḡ in southern Arrān). So their removal is not a problem, but I don't think anyone can dispute what they assert. As for the treaty between the Russian tsar and the Khan of Karabakh, it is a legal document from the 19th century, it requires no special knowledge to read and quote what it says. The problem here is with the primary sources that deal with very ancient history, that deal with events that took place 1000 - 2000 years ago, or even earlier. Those sources could only be interpreted by the best experts, and not by us, or partisan sources from either of the sides.  Grand  master  08:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in on this issue by EdJohnston. I hope I am posting this in the appropriate section but if it isn't I kindly ask that another move it to the correct one.

I am going to speak very generally here. I have been following the edit warring on this article and the discussion on its talk page and it's very disappointing to see how both sides are trying to game the article to their respective agendas. One side is doing its best to mitigate the historical presence of the Armenians in this region by including/excluding certain sources/notes and being very selective on what information to retain. The other side is going, I believe, to unreasonable lengths to prove a point that doesn't warrant that level of exertion and effort. Both sides are failing to provide to the reader a concise, or at least relevant, summary of the history, demographics, current status of the region. I think it would do everyone some good if they stayed away from editing it for perhaps a month. The most recent edit war on the article is enough to suggest that at least that step be taken. Thanks. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Responding solely to "Winterblsst and Dehr did something with the edit count and were blocked so quickly they even did not have a chance to explain themselves, and blocking is a measure too harsh for their alleged misdeeds." - Their misdeeds were writing an article one word at a time in order to game the "500 edit" restriction. Such blatant bad faith cannot be tolerated. Whether or not Grandmaster is acting in as bad faith is irrelevant to their block, which was absolutely justified (and proves beyond my doubt that they were the same person). You would do well to stop defending people who have been proven to be acting in bad faith, lest it leak upon you. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For thy Gods of Administration are perfect beings, but wrathful, and will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger if thou continueth to doubt that perfection. Meowy 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you're finally catching on. --Golbez (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why I do not edit here anymore. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which part, Meowy's sarcasm or mine? --Golbez (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Golbez that whether "Grandmaster is acting in as bad faith is irrelevant to their block." But Grandmaster's acting in in bad faith is relevant to the discussion and Rfc. Zimmarod (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Schiltberger, part 2
The question for RFC: is it Ok to replace this quote with this? The statement of the dispute could be found here:

My personal opinion is that his writing cannot be reduced to statement that "in the beginning of the 15th century Karabakh's lowlands (eastern extension of Nagorno-Karabakh), divided by the Kura River, included Armenian rural population and mentioned Karabakh as part of Armenia". If this source is to be used, it must be quoted as close to the original text as possible, in particular the following info:

''The Infidels call the plain, in the Infidel tongue, Karawag. The Infidels posses it all, and yet in stands in Ermenia. There are also Armenians in the villages, but they must pay tribute to the Infidels.''

This contains important info, i.e. the region was ruled by Muslims (i.e. infidels for Schiltberger), it was called Karabag, and statement that the region is located in Armenia must be taken with caution, because Schiltberger tended to name as part of Armenia various regions, such as Babylon and Tbilisi, which in fact never were a part of it. Therefore the opinion is needed on how to best use this source in this article, if at all. Grand master  14:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't it up to historians to decide the importance and to interpret primary sources? I don't think RfC is of any use here, since any interpretation of the quote will most likely be an OR. -- va c  io  14:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't anyone find a secondary source which discusses Schiltberger's testimony and evaluates its veracity? We don't usually take 15th century writers as conforming to today's standards for the best historical work. I could imagine a decision to remove all primary sources from the article, but that is up to the consensus of editors. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what my problem is with the use of this and other primary sources. They should not be interpreted by us, they should be interpreted by unbiased international scholars. Western academics with no direct affiliation with the region are more preferable than Armenian or Azerbaijani authors, since they have no bias on the issue of NK. Grand  master  15:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is any of this discussion taking place, given that the source has nothing directly to do with the subject of this article? "A great river runs through the plain; it is called the Chur and it is also called the Tygris". A translator 150 years ago claims "Chur" is the Kura river and "Karawag" is Karabakh. However "chur" in Armenian just means "river valley" and the Kura is nowhere near the Tigris. Is there a more recent source that confirms this claim? But even if the translator of Schiltberger was right in assuming Karawag is Karabakh, the Kura valley is a looooong way from Nagorno-Karabakh and so any material taken from Schiltberger for this article will be off-topic. Meowy 23:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Meowy, that's what I was saying in the section right above. Indeed, Chur is Kura, Karawag is Karabakh, Tygris is the result of faulty knowledge of geography by Schiltberger, but the info in this source mostly concerns the plains of Karabakh, and would be more appropriate in the article about Karabakh. Now you came to the same conclusion. Grand  master  07:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was the translator of the 19th-century English-language editon of Schiltberger's accounts who, in a footnote, claimed Chur is Kura and Karawag is Karabakh. The translator also claimed that Tygris was used as a name for the Kura by a number of early writers. I don't think the opinion of a translator 150 years ago, when knowledge of the geography of this region was very sketchy, should be automatically believed. That's why I was wondering if there are more recent sources that confirm the "Chur is Kura, Karawag is Karabakh" opinion, as well as the Tygris thing. Meowy 20:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Found a sort of confirmation! The Azeri propagandist Buniatov must have thought that Karawag is Karabakh because he ommitted the text "The Infidels call the plain, in the Infidel tongue, Karawag. The Infidels possess it all, and yet it stands in Ermenia. There are also Armenians in the villages, but they must pay tribute to the Infidels" from his 1984 Russian translation of Schiltberger's account. See http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/sas/bour.html Meowy 22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The original excerpt in German, at least as cited by Bournoutian (I haven't found the text directly), reads "Die Landschaft heißt in heidnischer Sprache Karabag, und die Heiden hatten sie ganz in Besitz", that is "The area is called Karabag in pagan language and the pagans have it in possession". The "infidels" seems to be a later mistranslation, but those "pagans" obviously were not Armenians because Schiltberger juxtaposes them in the same text. Brand meister talk   02:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there could be any reasonable doubt that Karawag is Karabag. What else could be called so in "infidel language"? Infidel or pagan is not essential here, he was clearly referring to Muslims. The problem here is appropriateness of this source for this article. And then, if it is to be used, it should be quoted not selectively, but accurately. Grand  master  09:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and that excerpt is another example why Schiltberger needs an assessment from third-party source as his report is misleading and cannot be cited by itself. Brand meister talk   10:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The most common English translation and the footnote with the identification of Karawag as Karabakh and Chur / Tygris as Kura are from the 1879 Hakluyt edition of Schiltberger. Meowy 16:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. But I think in general we agree that this source is not appropriate for this article, right? Grand  master  07:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is appropriate. There are secondary sources pointing to Schiltberger and his discussion of Karabakh in the context of Armenia and Armenians. Tom de Waal in his Black Garden mentioned Schiltberger. pages 148-149. Zimmarod (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * De Waal does not confirm your interpretation of the source. What you did with the source is pretty much covered by WP:Cherry. You picked the part that you liked, and made no mention about other things that were there. You reduced the source to a statement that Karabakh "included Armenian rural population and mentioned Karabakh as part of Armenia", without making any mention of the fact that the region was ruled by Muslims, etc. If you look at de Waal, he provided the same quotes as I did, and he says nothing about Karabakh in context of Armenians. In fact, he says that the population of the region included both Christians and Muslims, plus he also says that Schiltberger was describing the lowland part of Karabakh. (The earliest known European visitor to the region, the German Johann Schiltberger, who served with the Mongol armies, spent the winter of 1420 in the lower plain of Karabakh and found both Christians and Muslims there.) If this source is to be used, it must be quoted accurately, without any cherry picking. But I still think that it is more appropriate for the article about the lowland part of the region.  Grand  master  20:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting, when it is convenient de Waal all of a sudden turns into a good source and when inconvenient he is rejected by you as "journalist." Ok, O will make a note of that. There were Armenians and Muslims in the Karabakh plain. Shiltberger is important because he mentioned Armenians in the Karabakh plain. It is common knowledge that Armenians dominated the upland region but it is not always clear when they could still be found in the steppes of Artsakh and Utik. Shiltberger's personal account provides that answer: Armenians who later were probably forced to leave the plains still lived on the plains in the 16th century. This is an important demographic references. Shiltberger is widely quoted in the context of his mention of Armenia and Armenians. Here is George Bournoutian's mentions of Schilt . Zimmarod (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem here is with the way you used the source. It cannot be used selectively. It should be quoted accurately, like I did, and which you reverted. That is not acceptable. The quote should include all the substantial info, including the fact that the region was ruled by Muslims, which you removed from the article for the reasons you failed to explain. Even Bournoutian to whom you refer mentioned the fact that the Armenians paid tribute to Muslims, which you removed from the article. Grand  master  21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We can say what he said, 1). there were Armenians in lowland Karabakh near Kura 2). they paid ransoms to Muslims 3). Lowland Karabakh in Shilt.'s opnion is Armenia 4). all this comes from his personal experience in lowland Karabakh. He did not say there were Muslims in lowland Karabakh, although I personally think there were but it is my and Tom de Waal's opinion. Zimmarod (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not just accurately quote Schiltberger, like I did? Btw, de Waal did the same, he accurately quoted Schiltberger, which we should also do. That is of course if there's a consensus for his inclusion, which does not seem to exist at the moment.  Grand  master  09:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sebeos
Do we have a third party secondary source for this line:

Tigran the Great, King of Armenia, (ruled from 95–55 BC), founded in Artsakh one of four cities named “Tigranakert” after himself.? Grand master  07:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Tigranakert of Artsakh, it is uncertain which Tigran founded the city, so I propose paraphrasing. Brand meister talk   13:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I propose to delete this sentence until a proper secondary source is found. Grand  master  22:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a perfect secondary reference for Tigranakert, confirming it was built by Tigran II: Caucasian Knot, p. 53. This reference is available from Google Books . These authors are first class peer reviewed Western academics who were praised by the top WP-confirmed expert on Karabakh Thomas De Waal (there has been a discussion about that already); Caucasus' foremost US expert Cyril Toumanoff; and Robert Hewsen among others. Bagrat Ulubabian (he was discussed above too) also has plenty of references to Tigranakert. Ulubabian is not a Western scholar but he was peer-reviewed and endorsed by Cyril Toumanoff, Robert Hewsen and the authors of "Caucasian Knot." Zimmarod (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is Cyril Toumanoff-endorsed list of academics working in the field of Caucasian studies can be used a guide for WP:NPOV sources on the subject:

Among the many scholars currently working in the field of Caucasiology, and whose work has contributed to its emergence as a respected discipline in the modern academic world, we may mention Jahukyan, Diakonoff, Yuzbashian, Harut'yunyan, Melik'-Bakhshyan, Ulubabyan, Mouraviev, and Perikhanian in Russia and Caucasia; Bryer. Winfield, Dowsett, Thomson. Walker, and Sinclair in Great Britain; Mahé, Mouradian. Donabedian, Mutafian, Charachidze, and the Thierrys in France; Anan-ian, Bolognesi, and Alpago-Novella in Italy; Leloir and Van Esbroeck in Belgium; Assfalg in Germany; Weitenberg in the Netherlands; Schütz in Hungary; Petrowicz in Poland; Stone in Israel; and, in the United States, Garsoïan, Hovannisian, Bardakjian, Kouymjian. Matthews, Aronson. Bournoutian, Maksoudian, Russell, Cowe, Edwards, Suny, Papazian, Terian, Tölölyan, and, among the younger generation, Avdoyan, Marashlian, Der Mugrdechian, Dudwick, Evans, Merian, Taylor, Rapp, and many others too numerous to name here. To the preliminary studies of the pioneering specialists of the early part of this century, which, however dated, remain rich in value and are always worthy of consultation, the present generation of Caucasiologists has added a formidable library of scholarly achievement that includes dictionaries, grammars, bibliographies, histories, geographies, political analyses, literary criticism, anthropological research, demographic and epigraphic studies, collections of colophons, surveys of art and architecture, and, above all, editions and translations of fundamental texts.'' Cyril Toumanoff, Rome 11 November 1995. quoted in: Robert H. Hewsen, Armenia: a Historical Atlas. University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. xi. ISBN 0-2263-3228-4

This article uses secondary references from the following authors that Toumanoff's mentioned: Bagrat Ulubabyan, Patrick Donabedian, Claude Mutafian, George Bournoutian, Christopher J. Walker. George Bournoutian was used extensively by Thomas de Waal too. Zimmarod (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The works of the authors like Chorbaijan and Ulubabian received a lot of criticism. I quoted some here, when discussing the same source with the previous sock of the banned user: So it is better to refer to third party sources, which do not get any substantial criticism, but are generally accepted as best sources on the topic. If what Chorbaijan says is something generally accepted by the international scholarly community, you should have no problems finding a third party source saying the same. If it is just a minority view, then it cannot be presented as a fact.  Grand  master  20:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I see that other works by Chorbaijian received similar criticisms for partisan interpretation of history and modern politics. Here is for instance a review of his another work:

If Chorbajian is such a top scholar, why does he get such poor reviews? Grand master  21:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)is


 * "Chorbaijan and Ulubabian received a lot of criticism" is a statement designed to mislead. Levon Chorbajian is not on Cyril Toumanoff list and his input from the "Caucasian Knot" volume is not used in this article. Your comment on Chorbajian is irrelevant. Only Patrick Donabedian's and Claude Mutafian's input is used. They are on Toumanoff's list. Their chapters are clearly marked with their names, and were originally written in French, before Chorbajian put them in "Caucasian Knot." I found no evidence that Bagrat Ulubabyan "received a lot of criticism." This was discussed before in the talk. Victor Schnirelmann criticized him, but only for his view on Caucasian Albanians while Cyril Toumanoff praised him as did Patrick Donabedian's, Claude Mutafian and Robert Hewsen (whom even you use for reference). So, on balance he is ok. You mentioned the link but I found there only one reference to a journalist named Grigorian who said that someone is a diasporan Armenian. Supposed racial background is not a reason for the disqualification of sources. I know at least two pro-Azeri editors, your ruwiki meat Brandmeister and Tuscumbia, who were banished from AA for one year each for making such comments. And you used diasporan Azeri sources, such as Firuz Kazemzadeh in Shamkhor Massacre. Any sources are ok if they are cross-endorsed by top academics. Zimmarod (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There were two negative reviews, one from Peace News magazine, and another one from Cigdem Balim-Harding. I don't know how you missed them. Reposting it here:

And Shnirelman criticized Ulubabyan for a number of reasons, it particular, he considers Ulubabyan to be one of the creators of the Armenian myth of Albania. Kazemzadeh is Persian, btw, and the top authority on the period between 1918-1920s. The reason for disqualification is not the racial background, we refer to Hewsen, for instance, who also has an Armenian ancestry, but the partisan nature of those sources. Grand master  09:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Btw, de Waal, to whom you refer, cautioned about partisan scholarship on both sides :

This is why it is better to use neutral, third party sources, but so far you have only used secondary sources from one of the sides. Grand master  09:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Link to the Peace News does not work, and I have no evidence that what you claim is true. There is also no evidence that the woman named Cigdem Balim-Harding ever said anything like that. I looked at the earlier discussion and older users expressed similar concerns, which remained unadressed. Peace News is a little radical leftwing website, not a reputable academic publication that says : "Peace News draws on the traditions of pacifism, feminism, anarchism, socialism, human rights, animal rights and green politics." Socialism ... ??? Anarchism ... ??? What next "source" are you going to refer to - a Nazi website and presidential website of Ilham Aliyev? Well ... Cigdem Balim-Harding is a mediocre Turkish-born academic who feels for her Azerbaijani "brothers" and "sisters." She is not peer reviewed, and she never authored any monograph. Google Books and Amazon.com are exploding with books and articles that refer to "Cacausian Knot, " to Patrick Donabedian and Claude Mutafian. I browsed Amazon.com to find what Cigdem Balim-Harding wrote but search came up with zero results. On Tom de Waal - in the quote that you brought up he argues against academics from Armenia and Azerbaijan. Again, an irrelevant argument. Donabedian and Mutafian are French-born and French citizens. And I agree with Tom in that we should avoid academics from Armenia and Azerbaijan. Unless, they are peer-reviewed by the world's top scholars. I would not use Bagrat Ulubabyan but since he was endorsed by Toumanoff and Hewsen we can use him. Shnirelmann's criticism can be noted but it is a fringe opinion. Grandmaster, you do not meet expectations for consensus building so far. Zimmarod (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Google returned 1,360 (!) references to the book "Caucasian Knot" in other books and magazines. You are trying to discredit an excellent source of knowledge that everyone is using, and you are doing this awkwardly. . Zimmarod (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cigdem Balim-Harding is a western academic. She is as good as Donabedian et al are. You are trying to dismiss her on the basis on her ethnicity, which you yourself consider inappropriate when it comes to the Armenian scholars. Peace News is a pacifist magazine, which promotes peaceful resolution of conflicts. It is quite a neutral and well-known source. The link is dead now, but it was available at the time. And the fact that someone is French born does not make him free from bias. And Shnirelman is a leading expert on the nationalist scholarship in the former USSR, he is definitely not fringe. And the number of google hits is not an indication of the quality of the source. Grand  master  05:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You should be able to find third party sources, not related to the sides of the conflict, if what you claim is generally accepted in the international scholarly community. Due to widespread partisan scholarship on both sides, the sources from the region and diasporas must be treated with caution. But there are third party sources, which the rules require us to use. Therefore we should stick to non-partisan sources, to maintain neutrality. Grand  master  05:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are into good faith you should not insist on Cigdem Balim-Harding because there is no proof that she ever said what you allege. The same concerns the leftwing online source. No proof. Cigdem Balim-Harding and Donabedian are Western scholars, as you hinted, but not of the same caliber. Cigdem Balim-Harding is virtually unknown and she is not peer-reviewed. Donabedian is endorsed by the giants of academia and top regional experts, and is neutral, non-partisan and third-party as per WP:NPOV. Dont invent your own NPOV rules. The same is true about other high-caliber Western academics such as Claude Mutafian, Robert Hewsen and George Bournoutian. All four are very widely used in Western academia. Bagrat Ulubabyan was an Armenian-based scholar but he is also ok since he was cross-endorsed by top academics in the West. Schnirellmann's criticism does not undermine Ulubabyan since Schnirellmann is a fellow Soviet academic as well just like Ulubabyan, and his criticism does not triangulate (confirmed) with/by other sources. Zimmarod (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If what those sources say is generally accepted in the western academia, why are you unable to find a single third party source saying the same? You have only a couple of sources of clearly partisan nature, which received criticism from other scholars, but none that were unrelated to the sides of the conflict. As for Balim-Harding, what kind of proof do you need? I provided a reference, which you can check in JSTOR. I do not mind Hewsen, he is a respected scholar, and I haven't seen any substantial criticism of his work so far. But Donabedian and Ulubabyan are clearly partisan, and are not very prominent in the scholarly world. I see nothing outstanding in Donabedian's career. He was a diplomat, and an art historian, but not an expert on the ancient history. Mutafian is a mathematician, and not a professional historian. All three authors (Chorbaijian, Donabedian and Mutafian) are not professional historians, trained and specialized in the ancient history. Yet you claim that they are top international authorities in the ancient history of the region. See their biographies from the same book you refer to:


 * Patrick Donabedian is cultural attache at the French Embassy in Yerevan. Trained as an art historian, he is a graduate of the University of Paris X-Nanterre and holds a PhD from the Academy of Fine Arts in Leningrad. His work on the medieval art of Transcaucasia, in particular Karabagh, has taken him to the USSR, where he lived for several years. He is the author of numerous studies published in specialized journals, and the co-author of Les Arts Armeniens (Paris: Mazenod, 1987), published in English as Armenian Art (New York: Abrams, 1989).


 * Claude Mutafian is a former student at the Ecole Normale Supeneure and a graduate of the University. He is a Senior Lecturer in mathematics at the University of Paris XIII— Villetaneuse. He is particularly interested in regions of the Near East whose history is linked with that of Armenia. He has published a series of algebra texts with Editions Vuibert and, more recently, La Cilicieau carrefour des empires (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1988).


 * So a journalist/sociologist, art historian/diplomat, and a mathematician turned historian, who published algebra texts. How come they are "high-caliber" western historians, as you claim? We should refer to specialist sources with good reputation, and I see that these people are not trained specialists in the ancient history, and their work attracted criticism for partisanship. And I don't see how you can discount Schnirellmann's criticism because he was a Soviet academic. I see no logic, especially considering that he published his criticism after the collapse of the USSR. Grand  master  21:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the talk you were having with Zimmarode and this does not make sense, Grandmaster. Donabedian and Mutafian are the most frequently cited authors on Karabagh who won recognition from Tom de Waal, Tumanoff, Hewsen and other experts whom you use yourself. Both of them have PhDs in history and art (you wrote this yourself). They were born in the West and educated in the West. They are the most "specialist sources with good reputation." I find you on very thin ice with these weird denials. Sprutt (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Repeating the same arguments by different accounts with very few contributions is not going to make anyone's position stronger. If something is generally accepted in the international scholarly community, there should be no problems finding a third party source supporting this position. Grand  master  18:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ulubabyan, an activist of the Nagorno-Karabakh separatist movement in the 1980s heavily criticised for unacademic claims such as that of Armenian ancestry of the Udi people, is also out of discussion. Tom de Waal is a journalist, and the nature of his work requires him to cite many controversial authors, many of whom have not even been relevantly trained, so their names appearing in de Waal's work is not a sign of anything. Toumanoff may have cited them in issues related to their area of expertise, such as history of art. But controversial statements from art historians and former mathematicians should definitely be backed up by more appropriate sources, especially where there is opposition view, such as Balim-Harding's. Parishan (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you just call de Waal a journalist? If I had nothing better to do, I'd probably find a link where you and your grandpa argued that he was the most quilified source in the whole world. VartanM (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Seryozno? It seems were Ulubabyan, Mutafian and Donabedian supported not by a dozen but by a hundred of well known Western academics and regional specialists, the Grandmaster/Bloombaster/Parishan ruwiki meatpack would invent 100 tricks and excuses to question their reputation. Thomas de Waal is a "journalist" (that he is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace of course does not matter to the meatpackers), Toumanoff is an "old dude who lost his mind," Robert Hewsen is perhaps a drug addict (per Balim-Harding, no proof, but that does not matter for the meatpackers), Mendeleev is a German spy, Mozart is a pimp, Leonardo da Vinci is a nutcase, Bagrat Ulubabyan claims Armenian ancestry of the Udi people (he never did but who cares), 1,000 or so references to "Caucasian Knot" not matter ... Sprutt (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If they are supported by hundreds of well known academics, how come you cannot cite a single third party source supporting what they write in their work? What we have here is a bunch of questionable interpretations of primary sources, occasionally supported by a couple of partisan secondary sources. That is not acceptable. Such contentious articles must rely on third party sources with impeccable reputation for accuracy and objectivity. Therefore you must be able to provide non-partisan secondary sources for your interpretations of the primary ones. Grand  master  18:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All this is your personal opinion. Donabedian's and Mutafian's work used as references in hundred books and articles and are supported by Dowsett, Hewsen, Walker, de Waal, etc, who repeat their observations and arguments. de Waal is good case for illustration. Instead of retelling of what the "Caucasian Knot" says, he simply redirects the reader to the book openly supporting its academic value. Second reason is that Nagorno-Karabakh is rather uncommon area for Western academics. One good book "Caucasian Knot" is big enough and good enough to dominate the academic market for years. Again, de Waal is good case. He wrote his book "The Black Garden" and other folk in academia are reluctant to compete with him. That's why since 2002 there was no competing effort to write second "Black Garden." Donabedian's and Mutafian's work is "impeccable reputation for accuracy and objectivity." The weird babe Balim-Harding called them "Armenian state propaganda" (no proof that she did) but this epithet in itself is highly alarming. If they were smacking of "Armenian state propaganda" people like de Waal, who is very cautious writer, and dozens of other names, would disregard "Caucasian Knot." Hundreds of references to the "Caucasian Knot" are testament that their work is not something which can brushed by the strong epithet "propaganda." Balim-Harding, obscure language teacher educated in racist schools in Turkey, and if she ever said anything like that, probably lost her nerve for moment, for which she regretted later since her "criticism" is bizarre and unfortunate outbreak of bad emotion. Sprutt (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember when we had a discussion with regard to Blue Mosque, Yerevan, and you can read it at talk of that article. Then certain people supporting pro-Armenian position objected to the use of de Waal as a source on history because he was a journalist. He wrote that the mosque in Yerevan was called "Persian" to obscure its Azerbaijani origin, but that info was deleted from the article. I think de Waal is a reliable source on history, and especially modern history, but in this case we have a substantial criticism of Caucasian Knot from other sources. Plus, the mention of that book in a positive context by de Waal does not mean that he endorses everything written there. You know that contentious articles require multiple sources of best quality. I really don't see why you keep insisting on the use of those 2 partisan sources, representing the Armenian POV. If what they say is generally accepted in the international academia, then you should be able to find other sources of non-partisan nature saying the same. If you are unable to find such sources, then it is a fringe view. Grand  master  06:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Too late, we already have a consensus with Parishan that he is just a journalist. I have his comment printed and framed on my wall. VartanM (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And is a journalist who should not write about architecture. That mosque is, architecturally, a late-medieval Persian-style mosque (i.e., it is not a centrally-planned Ottoman Turkish-style mosque, or a multi-aisled Syrian-style mosque). Meowy 16:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a typical Azerbaijani mosque, similar to those that could be found in Ganja, Karabakh and Nakhichevan. It was built by the Turkic ruler of the region. But it is offtopic here. I think de Waal is a good source on the recent history, but not on the ancient one, as he is not a trained historian. Grand  master  18:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Setting aside any comments about the validity of using "Azerbaijani" in a 18th-century context, there is no such thing as an "Azerbaijani mosque" in this period because there were no architectural features that are unique to mosques used by "Azerbaijanis" and there was nothing distictively different about the Islam practiced by "Azerbaijani" Muslims. But, yes, this is off-topic for here. Meowy 01:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Все это ложь и манипуляции. Lies, lies and more lies. There is no "substantial criticism of Caucasian Knot from other sources." This is lie. I insist on "Caucasian Knot" because it is the most cited books on the history of Karabakh, and because its authors are key academics with impeccable reputation. Sprutt (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How come it is the only secondary source that you can provide? Why there are no other sources supporting what this one says? Grand  master  07:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are asking the same question the third time. Go back, scroll up to my reply of 25 May, and read it again. Sprutt (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But you failed to provide a clear answer. It is not such an obscure topic, there are many works written on it by independent researchers. How come that no one shares the opinion of these authors? And calling Turkish schools "racist" is a racism on itself, and not a good argument to reject a source. Grand  master  18:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there those who criticize the "Caucasian Knot"? Are there quality sources (peer-reviewed and not based on Azerbaijani "scholarship" ) that refute "Caucasian Knot"? No. I agree this is the most well cited book on NK because it is widely accepted as standard for academic work on the region. Zimmarod (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should stop switching accounts and agreeing with yourself. I cited criticism above, and it has nothing to do with Azerbaijan. But the problem here is that if something is generally accepted in the international scholarly community, there must more than just one source supporting this position. All you have to support your large rewrite is one partisan source. That is not enough. Grand  master  21:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

area
It is not 4.400 sq/km but sq/miles!!! the area is 11,458.38 km2 but 4,424.10 sq mi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.55.206.101 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Map of ethnic distribution is perhaps a good idea, but its rendering by A.Tsutsiev and attempted reproduction of Parishan are imperfect. Relative sizes of settlement are hugely distorted: the bigger towns of Stepanakert, Shusha and Mardakert are only a bit bigger than some small village. Some villages are not shown at all: where is Chapar in the Mardakert district? The Shahumyan region is shown on the original map but not on this one. Why? Engage in discussion and improve the map. Sprutt (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You can only question Tsutsiev's rendition if you have information proving him inaccurate. I did not invent anything; I used the same scale of circles and choice of significant settlements, as he did. If you could render a better map, be my guest, otherwise leave it be. Parishan (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)