Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic/Archive 8

{

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Karki revisited

I don't mind making concessions, but now that I think about it, the information regarding Karki and the Karabakh War in this article just doesn't sounds right. With the HRW reference, it reads now as if the whole ordeal began with Armenia thus making Armenia look like an aggressor. However, M. Wesley Shoemaker, an independent, nonpartisan author states in his book World Today Series - Russia And The Commonwealth Of Independent States that the incident started when Azerbaijan fired at Armenian targets. -- Clevelander 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, you finally are seeing the issues with this article. Fad (ix) 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we have already discussed this in much detail. I don't see any new sources that require a rewrite of this section. Grandmaster 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would usually be inclined to believe the Human Rights Watch report, but apparently, it seems to be lacking details (for instance, they don't even say that the Armenians claimed that Azerbaijan began the attack). I believe that the Shoemaker source should not be neglected. On page 169 of his book World Today Series - Russia And The Commonwealth Of Independent States, he clearly states that Azerbaijan shot first. The way I see it we can either use Shoemaker as a definite source as to who started the attack or we can simply remove the ambiguous HRW statement which has been worded in this article in such a way as to directly blame Armenia for the attack. The latter would probably be the more ideal solution as most authors simply do this because it's unclear who exactly started it. This would leave the reader guessing as to who began the conflict. We also need a reference for this line:

Azerbaijan denied these charges.

It appears to be "tagged" with the HRW statement and thus the HRW source, while nothing is confirmed of this by the HRW document in question. -- Clevelander 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It took us so much time to negotiate this wording with mediation of Francis, and now you want to start it all over again. I think that we should honor our previous agreements, otherwise it is not worth all the efforts put into achieving them.

The major issue with our negotiations over Karki with Francis was that Francis' suggestions were made "without any understanding of the situation" prior to his involvement. I was eager to resolve the dispute and so I accepted the inclusion of the HRW line without question. Now that I look back, my decision was too hasty and not well thought out.

I suggest you reread the discussion before bringing it up again.

I was one of the parties involved in the discussion. I am fully aware of what occured and therefore, I have no need to reread the archives.

HRW was not the only source. I cited a number of other sources stating that it was Armenia who attacked Nakhichevan. Among them were Croissant, Weisbrode, etc.

The only thing that both Croissant and Weisbrode stated was that there were Armenian attacks on Nakhichevan, without citing if the attack was provoked or not and without elaborating on the conflict itself. Specfically, Croissant never explicitly stated that the Armenians (or the Azeris for that matter) started hostilities or why they even attacked in the first place. He just said that the Armenians attacked and that it prompted concern from Turkey. Saying that someone attacked could be also be interpreted as a response to an earlier assault. Neither author openly confirmed that the conflict did or did not begin with the Armenians. They do not back-up your position.

Contrary to Shoemaker, HRW is an organization known for investigating the issues before reporting them.

Stryker-Post Publications which publishes the World Today Series annually is also an organization. Shoemaker just happens to be an author of one of its volumes and that is Russia And The Commonwealth Of Independent States.

Shoemaker does not have an idea of what Nakhichevan is, she calls Sadarak an enclave, etc.

Shoemaker...a she? If you look at his photograph (which is included in Russia And The Commonwealth Of Independent States) you will clearly see that this is certainly not the case. Furthermore, he seems to be very knowledgeable on the subject of the former Soviet states. His credentials are included in the book as follows:

M. Wesley Shoemaker. . .

Professor emeritus, Lynchburg College, Lynchburg, Virginia. B.A. Magna Cum Lade, Waynesburg College (History); M.A. and Ph.D., Syracuse University (Russian History). Before he entered the teaching profession, he served for a number of years as a Foreign Service Officer with the Department of State. He had assignments in the European Bureau of the Department and abroad at the American Embassy in Kingston, Jamaica, the American Embassy in Bonn, Germany, and the American Consulate General in Stuttgart, Germany. He travels extensively in Eastern Europe.

And there was a source for the statement you question, it was US state department, I don’t know how and when it was removed. Grandmaster 13:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If the source was removed, then I agree that it must be restored. If you could provide a link or a book title of the source then that would be great.

Again, my proposal is that we just remove the HRW line. Allow the reader to determine who started the conflict. That's a fair solution, isn't it? All I ask is that you accept this peacefully. All the best, Clevelander 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

HRW's allegations have been known to be dubious quite often (Criticism of Human Rights Watch). They need to be backed up by third party sources.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

HRW is a reliable source and it's been discussed in much detail. It should remain, as it is the only one that actually investigated the situation. And Francis explained to you what was wrong with criticism of HRW. Grandmaster 09:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the bigger issue here is not the reliability or credibility of HRW but that HRW never confirmed if the attacks were unprovoked or not. As of right now, we have included their statement, but it's been worded in such a way that it makes Armenia look like an aggressor. It wasn't HRW's fault. -- Clevelander 13:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another source for you:

The next peace attempt was made in mid-1992, when Turkey offered to mediate following Armenian attacks on Nakhichevan, a strategic area of Azerbaijan along the Turkish and Iranian borders. This initiative was quickly stalled by Russia's disinterest, which also contributed to the failure of a similar Iranian effort.

During the Karabakh conflict, Turkey sealed its frontier with Armenia, provided substantial assistance to the Azerbaijani side, and came close to intervening directly in 1992 following an Armenian attack on Nakhichevan.

K. Weisbrode. Central Eurasia - Prize or Quicksand? Contending Views of Instability in Karabakh, Ferghana, and Afghanistan. Grandmaster 09:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, this doesn't state if the attack was unprovoked or not. If you can show me a source that clearly states the Armenians started the conflict, then we shall retain the HRW line. Otherwise, I say we remove it and let the reader determine who started the conflict.

Also, did you find the link or book title of your reference to the fact that Azerbaijan denied the allegations? You said that it came from the US State Department, but where was this information published exactly? Kindest regards, Clevelander 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...maybe this would work better. Perhaps instead of completely removing the HRW line, we should reword the paragraph like so:

During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Nakhichevan became a scene of conflict during between Armenian and Azeri forces. On May 4, Armenian forces attacked the Sadarak rayon by shelling. The Armenians claimed that villages in Armenia were being shelled by Azeri forces from the region. Azerbaijan denied these charges. David Zadoyan, a 42-year-old Armenian physicist and mayor of the region said that the Armenians lost patience after months of firing by the Azeris. "If they were sitting on our hilltops and harassing us with gunfire, what do you think our response should be?" he asked.

The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians had captured the Nakhichevan's exclave of Karki, a tiny territory through which Armenia's main North-South highway passes. The exclave presently remains under Armenian control. After the fall of Shusha, the Mütallibov government of Azerbaijan accused Armenia of moving to take the whole of Nakhichevan (a claim that was denied by Armenian government officials). However, Heydar Aliyev declared a unilateral ceasefire on May 23 and sought to conclude a separate peace with Armenia. Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian expressed his willingness to sign a cooperation treaty with Nakhichevan to end the fighting and subsequently a cease-fire was agreed upon.

This sounds better and I think we should also use the Zadoyan quote. -- Clevelander 14:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

But Zadoyan is not a reliable source. His bias is obvious. We should rely on reputable sources only. Grandmaster 14:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We're not using him as a definite source though, he's just representing the Armenian claim. Plus, it's referenced by a very credible, The Baltimore Sun.

Also, you never answered my earlier questions: did you find the link or book title of your reference to the fact that Azerbaijan denied the allegations? You said that it came from the US State Department, but where was this information published exactly? -- Clevelander 14:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The source that I provided states that the Armenian side attacked Nakhichevan, and it does not say that Nakhichevan did anything to provoke such an attack. Neither does Croissant. He also says that it was the Armenian side that attacked Nakhichevan.

Neither do your sources state that the Armenian attack was unprovoked.

In my opinion, the pretext of the Armenian side that Nakhichevan shelled Armenia is a very lame excuse. Why would Nakhichevan shell Armenia, knowing that forces were not equal and it could not expect any help from the mainland? Why would it give Armenia a pretext for invasion?

Why? Because it was out of anger and hatred for the Armenians. Why did Hezbollah shell targets in Israel last summer? Their forces were not equal. Why would they give Israel a pretext for shelling southern Lebanon?

Most of the sources don’t support the claims of the Armenian side, however we should reflect the opinions of both sides and opinions of most notable observers. Which is what the current version does.

Nor do most sources support the fact that the attack was completely unprovoked.

If you going to restart the discussion, I suggest you bring Francis back to mediate.

Francis is no longer an admin, what good would that do? I suggest we get Khoikhoi to mediate, if anybody.

And the reference to the opinion of Azerbaijani side is available in the archives, unfortunately right now I have no time to search for it. I will do that next week. Grandmaster 14:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to. I have searched the archives, and I could only dig up the references that we brought up just now (that is HRW, Shoemaker, Weisbrode, Croissant, The Baltimore Sun, and The Toronto Star).

Why do we need allocate more space to the Armenian claim than to Azeri response? It does not matter where it was published, nobody doubts that Zadoyan indeed says so, but it is the opinion of the Armenian side, which should be presented along with Azerbaijani position and receive equal coverage. Ok, I gotta go now, talk to you later. Grandmaster 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I welcome you to find an Azeri quote from an independent source. -- Clevelander 14:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The source clearly states that Armenia attacked Nakhichevan, and not the other way around. If Nakhichevan shelled Armenia, then the source would say that Nakhichevan attacked Armenia. And here’s the source on Azerbaijan denying the Armenian charges, and also on US state department position: [1]

More sources, they all say that Armenia attacked Nakhichevan, and nothing about Nakhichevan shelling Armenia:

Following internal political pressures, the Iranian government apparently did take a firmer stand against Armenia, denouncing its attack on Nakhichevan.

In September 1993, the Armenians launched a new attack on Nakhichevan. At this point, Iranian troops crossed the border with the aim of securing the "jointly managed" dams over the Aras river and establishing several camps for Azeri refugees. [2]

Turkey shares a border with the Azerbaijani region of Nakhichevan, the site of an Armenian offensive earlier this week.

The Washington Post, May 23, 1992 Russia Plans Leaner, More Open Military

In a little known episode, in September 1993, when Armenians launched an attack on Nakhichevan, Iranian troops crossed the border, with the official purpose to guarantee the security of the jointly managed dams on the Araz river and to establish camps for Azerbaijani refugees (Iran says it hosts over 4 million refugees from Azerbaijan and Iraq). Russia and Turkey bristled, but Armenia agreed there would be no more military action in Nakhichevan. [3] Grandmaster 12:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As for mediation, a person does not have to be an admin to mediate, but I don't mind Khoikhoi either. Grandmaster 13:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the US state department source. In response to the others sources you provided, again, they only state that there was an Armenian attack on Nakhichevan, but neglect to say if it was provoked or not. -- Clevelander 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Its impossible to ascertain who exactly started the fighting so long as non-Armenian/Azeri journalists were not there to have properly corroborate one side's story. Either Armenia felt that its successes in Shushi and Lachin were so simple and felt ready to capitalize on those victories by attacking Nakhichevan and potentially open up a second front, knowing full well it would enrage Turkey and bring its presence closer to the conflict OR the more logical possibility that the shelling was a diversion by the Azeris to temporarily cease the Armenian offensives in Karabakh by bombarding villages in Armenia's backyard. Doesn't make much sense that Armenia would selectively choose to attack a certain area and not only incur so many potential risks but also think that they can be ignored.--MarshallBagramyan 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That makes much more sense. The Armenians wouldn't just attack Nakhichevan without a reason. It was probably more likely that Azerbaijan started the attack, but still, like Marshall said, it's impossible to ascertain who exactly started the fighting so long as non-Armenian/Azeri journalists were not there to have properly corroborate one side's story. And as I've pointed out before, all independent sources that reported on the conflict only noted that there was an Armenian attack without saying if it was provoked or not.

In any case, I've deciced to tweak the paragraph on this subject a bit. This is more even-handed than the version we have now (which I feel is too pro-Azerbaijani) and the one I posted above. As you can see, I spruced it up and, Grandmaster, added your references. It clearly states both the Armenian and Azerbaijani positions in a more orderly manner as well. Tell me what you think:

Nakhichevan became a scene of conflict during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. On May 4, Armenian forces attacked the area's Sadarak rayon by shelling. The Armenians claimed that the attack was in response to cross-border shellings of Armenian villages by Azeri forces from Nakhichevan. David Zadoyan, a 42-year-old Armenian physicist and mayor of the region said that the Armenians lost patience after months of firing by the Azeris. "If they were sitting on our hilltops and harassing us with gunfire, what do you think our response should be?" he asked. The government of Nakhichevan denied these charges and instead asserted that the Armenian assault was unprovoked and specfically targeted the city of Sadarak, the site of a bridge between Turkey and Nakhichevan.

The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians had captured the Nakhichevan's exclave of Karki, a tiny territory through which Armenia's main North-South highway passes. The exclave presently remains under Armenian control. After the fall of Shusha, the Mütallibov government of Azerbaijan accused Armenia of moving to take the whole of Nakhichevan (a claim that was denied by Armenian government officials). However, Heydar Aliyev declared a unilateral ceasefire on May 23 and sought to conclude a separate peace with Armenia. Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian expressed his willingness to sign a cooperation treaty with Nakhichevan to end the fighting and subsequently a cease-fire was agreed upon. -- Clevelander 19:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Since HRW was the only source who actually investigated the situation, it should be quoted.

If HRW had thoroughly invesigated the situation, then how come their report lacks details, notably any mention of the Armenian claims.

It is a more authoritative source than Zadoyan. And of course, we should provide the opinions of both sides. Grandmaster 06:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Zadoyan is not being used as definitive source. He's merely stating the Armenian position from, I guess you could say, a representative standpoint. I said that if you could find a quote from an Azerbaijani stating Azerbaijan's position, then we can include that to "balance the equation." -- Clevelander 11:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found an Azeri quote. This should make the piece sound more balanced. It now reads like so:

Nakhichevan became a scene of conflict during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. On May 4, Armenian forces shelled the area's Sadarak rayon. The Armenians claimed that the attack was in response to cross-border shellings of Armenian villages by Azeri forces from Nakhichevan. David Zadoyan, a 42-year-old Armenian physicist and mayor of the region said that the Armenians lost patience after months of firing by the Azeris. "If they were sitting on our hilltops and harassing us with gunfire, what do you think our response should be?" he asked. The government of Nakhichevan denied these charges and instead asserted that the Armenian assault was unprovoked and specfically targeted the site of a bridge between Turkey and Nakhichevan. "The Armenians do not react to diplomatic pressure," Nakhichevan foreign minister Rza Ibadov told the ITAR-Tass news agency, "It's vital to speak to them in a language they understand." Speaking to the agency from the Turkish capital Ankara, Ibadov said that Armenia's aim in the region was to seize control of Nakhichevan.

The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians had captured the Nakhichevan's exclave of Karki, a tiny territory through which Armenia's main North-South highway passes. The exclave presently remains under Armenian control. After the fall of Shusha, the Mütallibov government of Azerbaijan accused Armenia of moving to take the whole of Nakhichevan (a claim that was denied by Armenian government officials). However, Heydar Aliyev declared a unilateral ceasefire on May 23 and sought to conclude a separate peace with Armenia. Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian expressed his willingness to sign a cooperation treaty with Nakhichevan to end the fighting and subsequently a cease-fire was agreed upon. -- Clevelander 01:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The HRW line should be removed as it is dubious. It's basically referring to the Armenian attacks without saying if they were provoked or not. I think we should just use my version above as it is neutral and clearly states both the Armenian and Azeri positions. Let's just compromise. -- Clevelander 11:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not dubiuos. It provides accurate description of what happened. I don't mind providing versions of both sides, but I do not agree to removal of verifiable info from the article. Grandmaster 11:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's accurate then how come the Armenian claims are not represented? There's more to the conflict than what is just stated in that report. -- Clevelander 11:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Azeri view is not presented either. They present only their own view. Grandmaster 11:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it different from that of the Azeri view? (just curious) If so, how? BTW, I have to get some sleep, hopefully this page doesn't get protected by the time I wake up... Khoikhoi 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that much. But it is a neutral source, which confirms who started the fighting. If we are to exclude third party opinions, why don’t we then provide only Azeri and Armenian views on khachkar demolition issue? IWPR view is not so much different from the Armenian view. Grandmaster 12:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me how exactly IWPR lacks in neutrality? Their articles are always balanced by someone from the other side so its not one Armenian author but an Azeri journalist also which thus makes them a perfect 3rd party corrborator. See here also [4].--MarshallBagramyan 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What they say corresponds with Armenian position. Why don't we remove it and provide only the positions of both sides? Grandmaster 05:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how IWPR was not part of the compromise agreed upon for the khachkar section back in February, I see no issue in removing it in exchange for having the HRW line removed, if that's what Grandmaster is proposing. -- Clevelander 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But why are you so insistent on removing the sources? We are here to report the info, not suppress it. I suggest keeping both. And removing just IWPR will not do, we should either present only both sides of the story, or quote in addition neutral sources as well. Grandmaster 12:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought that that's what you were trying to do (removing HRW and IWPR) when you stated "Why don't we remove it and provide only the positions of both sides?" Also, I don't see an issue with simply removing IWPR and HRW as they appear to be the only neutral sources that we actually quote (we use other neutral sources as references). Overall, I say that we need to get Khoikhoi in here to help us straighten this out. -- Clevelander 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think we need third-party editors to have a look at this. But this issue was mediated long time ago, why do we need to revisit it now? By the same token, I can retract our old agreement on khachkar issue. Grandmaster 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't remove both IWPR and HRW. It's an even trade. -- Clevelander 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Are both people happy with just including both? I guess a good compromise leaves everybody mad... Khoikhoi 05:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm Ok with including both. Grandmaster 07:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. I still believe that the HRW line as it reads not reflects a very pro-Azerbaijani standpoint. I believe that removing both IWPR and HRW would be a good compromise. -- Aivazovsky (formerly known as Clevelander) 11:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Population of Nakhichevan

I found another source on population of Nakhichevan after submission to the Russian empire. American missionaries traveled to Nakhichevan in 1833, and their information generally corresponds with what Griboyedov wrote in 1828:

Page 62

Nakhechevan contains, besides perhaps 2000 moslem families, between eight and nine hundred families of Armenians, of which 100 or 120 are original inhabitants, and the remainder emigrants from Persia. It is the capital of a province of the same name whose governor is a moslem khan. We had a letter to him from the governor of the whole province of Armenia, on our return from Erivan, but he was not in town, and we failed of seeing him. The Russian major commandant, however, who formed one of the body of responsible advisers, with which government has carefully surrounded him, treated us with attention at both visits. Respecting the province we obtained very little statistical information, except that before the war it contained not more than 300 families of Armenians. The number of that nation which subsequently emigrated from Persia, was stated to us by their bishop, from documents lying before him, at 9000 families. But how many of them settled in this vicinity we were not informed. We afterward found several villages of them in the province of Erivan.

Researches of the Rev. E. Smith and Rev. H.G.O. Dwight in Armenia, Volume II. ISBN 1402160755

Grandmaster 08:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

...and? Nobody ever disputed this information to begin with. Armenians were resettled in Nakhichevan. -- Clevelander 11:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Clevelander, read the archive 4 and the other previous discussions. For a reason you now seem to have some critical sense, so maybe you will view the article in a more critical light. Regards. Fad (ix) 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already quoted those sources

Check in archive 3 and 4. Fad (ix) 22:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Map of Naxcivan - Kerki exclave

The small map has the Kerki exclave (in the northern part of Naxcivan), but the larger, oversized map does not. It should be added. --AdilBaguirov 08:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's a problem with the source - it's a CIA or UN map, and while it's possible to add it, it would probably look sloppy and unprofessional. --Golbez 09:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Understand. But what if just put a black dot and the usual double-edged arrow between it and Naxcivan? Would that too look pretty bad? There are maps that show it, like here: http://www.un-az.org/karta.jpg , http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/azerbjan.htm --AdilBaguirov 09:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should modify the UN map. The one directly above it as well as both the Nakhichevan ASSR map and the Nakhichevan subdivisions map both show Karki. -- Aivazovsky 11:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tired with POV pushers

Only on the web, can this sort of thing happen, thanks(an ironic thanks) to google. Francis, I will blame you here to not come and step. Francis, where have you seen Grandmaster ever providing ANYTHING which shows that Muslims from Nakhichevan were resettled? The only thing he provided was in relation to moving of population while Persia and Ottoman were fighting which does NOT EQUAL to resettlment as in changes of residency. He is shouting on his feet and doesn't even know it yet, Kengerli being placed as governor under Abbas actually shows that he is wrong, since the region after its Armenian population was resettled in Iran was placed under Turkic juridiction once again. And the claimed delimitation of Nakhichevan is simply a fabrication, it was only under Shah Nader in the 18th century that there was any real delimitation which still was different than those of today, Kengerli's Nakhichevan is not todays Nakhichevan.

Also, that Grandmaster include this quote reach simply sarcasm: the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. EXACTLY MY POINT!!! That Armenians were resettled, not just moved, I have documented that, that Armenians were specifically targetted, this too I have documented. Armenians were not simply moved during wars when population movement are important in the area affected, the Armenians were then transported in Iran and transplanted there, this too I have documented while Grandmaster will always requote his same soyrce again and over again, which only shows population movement and NOT resettlement, NO 'transplantation.' So Grandmaster: the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. Fad (ix) 17:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am very tired of Armenian POV pushers too, who seem to stop at nothing. But facts are stubborn -- and they have been provided in abundance. I see that now Fadix is no more claiming that Georgians too were resettled. Good. Then let's see if in addition to all other facts presented, including by Grandmaster, we can have some more in regards to Muslims. Well, heres from Tarih-i Nadiri (History of Nadir shah), by Mirza Mehdi-khan of Astrabad, published in Moscow, 1938, Vol II, edited by Ivanov P.P.:

11 По словам Мухаммед Садыка Мервези Шах Аббас I, завоевав Мерв, поселил в нем один из каджарских родов —иззэддинлю. См. рукопись Публ. библ., V. 3; 23, л. 84а; ср. В. А. Жуковский. Развалины Старого Мерва, стр. 78, 79. Автор “Насих-ут-таварих” относит переселение племени каджаров к 995 г. х. (1586/87 г.). По приказу шаха Аббаса, каджары были переселены из Гянджи и Еривана и водворены на землях Астрабада. Те из каджар, которые поселились вверху крепости Мубарек-абад, были названы, говорит он, “юхари-баш”, а поселившиеся внизу крепости — “ашак-баш”. Другую половину каджаров шах Аббас поселил в Мерве. Этим мероприятием имелось в виду “охранить округ Астрабада и Мазандерана от набегов туркмен и оберегать земли Хорасана от беспокойств, причиняемых племенами узбеков” (“Насих-ут-таварих”, стр. 8).

The relevant sentence excerpt is: "By the order of shah Abbas, Qajars [Azerbaijani Turkic tribal confederation] were resettled from Ganja and Erivan, and put into the lands of Astrabad." Note - Astrabad is Gorgan city since 1930 name change.

http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus9/Mechdi/primtext.phtml

As promised, there are many more interesting references and scholarly accounts available. --AdilBaguirov 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In the name of the Armenian editors here in Wikipedia, I REQUEST you to appologize for your prejudicial remark. If you have a problem with me and accuse me of POV pushing do so against me and don't use prejudicial remarks such as this, it is unacceptable. Neither Ganja nor Erivan are Nakhichevan, and Qajars were not moved from Nakhochevan and there was a purpouses in Abbas decision which could not have been applied to others. There were unrest of Lezgians, Ouzbeks and Turkmen applicable to the other regions, from which Abbas reorganized tribinal groups in respectif regions, this is how some Turkic majority were carved in some regions of present day Azerbaijan. But again, those are tribs and throwing words like 'Azerbaijani Turkic tribal confederation' won't give those tribs with limited population any grounds for your claim. You are simply searching for few words to support your position and it is evident that you lack the knowledge to process the data you accumulate, it isen't by searching like this that you will get this knowledge. Now, if you could please find relevant materials for Nakhichevan. Also, I am waiting you to appologize for your prejudicial remark. Fad (ix) 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have never denied anything in regard to the Georgians, I concentrated on Armenians, because I was referring to the Armenian plateau. Fad (ix) 18:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You yourself have not provided a single reliable source on the population of Nakhichevan and the numbers of people resettled from Nakhichevan, and since you’ve been talking about “plateau”, info provided by Adil is quite relevant and shows that not only Armenians were deported from that “plateau”, but Muslims as well. And I think it’s you who should apologize first for calling other editors POV pushers. Grandmaster 19:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By taking his defense, you are simply digging a hole. I have provided various sources which mention Nakhichevan, Adil source has nothing to do with Nakhichevan, Qajars resettlement into three spot is much well documented to silence unrests of other groups(which further confirms that even small groups resettlements are documented while your claimed resettlement of the Muslim population of Nakhichevan is not), it has no connection with Nakhichevan, neither do few small tribunal groups in Erivan qualify as any evidence for Nakhichevan. And no, I don't have to provide any figures unlike what you claim, since my proposed version does not contain any figures at all, and my documentation clearly mention that a large part of the entire Armenian population from the entire region. This is really implicit, it is not about few Armenian cities or towns, but rather a resettlement of large scale. Your claimed resettlement does not exist. Also, indeed you are a POV pusher, assuming good faith, there is no way anymore. But I won't go on to say 'Azeri POV pushers.' Fad (ix) 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So far the sources only show that the entire population of Nakhichevan was moved to the other side of Araks. There’s no reason to think that the Armenians were the majority of population or were specifically targeted. If they were targeted, why moving the entire population, which was not Armenian? You provided sources claiming that Armenians were resettled from Armenia, Adil provided a source, showing that Muslim were resettled from the same area as well. While both your and his sources have nothing to do with Nakhichevan, it was you who started discussing resettlement of people from Erivan, instead of providing sources on Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not reading me. First, Nakhichevan is NOT the Autonomious republic, second Arakel specificaly discribes Abbas tragectory and third, now pay a careful look at this. Resettlement does not amount to population movement. War was fought there, the Ottoman and Persia were fighting, the population movement was important, both side moved population where they were fighting, the differences being that the Armenians who were moved were transplanted in Persia, onces the war was over, slowly the Muslims who moved returned, THEY WERE NOT RESETTLED, THEY WERE NOT TRANSPLANTED. After Abbas, Arakel only report Muslims left there and even on Ararat plain which was controled by the Ottoman Empire and Kars, the Armenian population dropped significantly while the Muslim population did not, and further the Muslims returned. Adil referrence is totally unrelated with Nakhichevan, Qajars were not removed the same years and their removal is totally unrelated, they were removed to shut Lezgian, Turkmen and Ouzbeks revolts and they weren't the only tribs in that regard, Abbas moved significant numbers of tribs and formed 'sedentarism' out of nomads to screw the geoethnographical situation and further secure his power. But on the Armenian plateau, the Armenians were those whom mostly were affected, and this is what I have documented and which you refuse to accept. Fad (ix) 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Fadix, since you don't like my quote about Qajars resettled from Ganja and Yerevan -- since "Neither Ganja nor Erivan are Nakhichevan" (as if that's not obvious) -- then 1) the 250,000 estimate of Armenians is also unrelated to Naxcivan, as so many Armenians did not live there, and thus I wonder why do you constantly mention it, and 2) I will *quote* you the person you refer to and allow yourself a lot of speculative allegations - Arakel Dawrijeci ("Book of Histories", trans. L.A.Khanlaryan, Moscow: Nauka State Publishing House, 1978, http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus2/Davrizeci/text1.phtml). He was the Armenian contemporary historian, and is the main source of information for all the accounts and researchers. Here's what he writes, all quotes in chronological order and have to do with Naxcivan or sometimes with "Ararat" (which is close, right next to Naxcivan) and Armenia (unclear what he meant by that, plus Ottomans were close, so Shah Abbas had only some territories, mostly in present day Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, from which he could resettle anyone):

From Chapter 3:

1) "В эти дни шах приказал персидским войскам направиться в область Араратскую и ее окрестные гавары, поднять отовсюду мужчин, называемых райятами, будь то христиане, магометане или какого-либо иного племени, собрать и привести их в стан персов..."

"These days the shah has ordered to the Persian armies to be directed to Ararat region/area and its surrounding gavars [regions], to lift from everywhere the men named rayats, whether it be Christians, Muslims or any other tribe [nation, people] to collect [assemble] and bring [summon] them to the base of Persians..." (p. 54)

2) "А когда он, покинув Тавриз, приехал через Нахичеван в Ереван, чужбинники в Нахичеване, узнав, что шах тавризских чужбинников изгнал и переселил в Персию, сочли это для себя благом, и кое-кто из них поехал в Ереван, предстал перед шахом, дескать, мы тоже шахисеваны, и желаем поехать в страну персов. И шах, дабы ублажить их и обмануть этаких простаков, велел преподнести им хлхат, и им дано было пять хлхатов. [Шах] поставил над ними проводников, которые переселили их в Персию."

"And when he, having left [abandoned] Tabriz, has arrived through Naxcivan to Yerevan, the non-believers [i.e., Muslims, non-Christians, in text: чужбинники] in Naxcivan, having learned [having found out], that the shah has expelled the Tabriz non-believers [in text: чужбинников] and has moved them to Persia, have thought about it as a blessing, and someone from them has gone to Yerevan, has appeared before the shah, said, we too are Shahsevans [either the Azerbaijani Turkic tribe of Shahsevan's is meant or play of words -- "those who like the Shah"], and wish to go to the country of Persians. And the shah, to appease them and to deceive such gawks, ordered to present them khlkhat, and to them it has been given five khlkhats. [Shah] has put conductors above them which have moved them to Persia." (p. 61)

From Chapter 4:

3) "Поэтому и приказал выселить всех жителей Армении – и христиан и евреев, и магометан..."

"Therefore also has ordered to move all inhabitants of Armenia - Christians and Jews and Muslims..." (p. 62)

4) "[Население] собственно города Еревана, Араратской области и отдельных близлежащих гаваров [было поручено] Амиргуна-хану. Шах приказал под страхом меча, смерти и плена выселить [жителей] отовсюду, куда только они могли добраться, изгнать их и не оставить ни единой живой души, будь то христианин или магометанин, согласный [на переселение] или несогласный или нарушитель приказа царя."

"[Population] of actual city of Yerevan, Ararat region and separate nearby gavars [regions], [was entrusted] to Amirguna-khan. The shah has ordered under fear of a sword, death and a captivity, to move [inhabitants] from everywhere where only they could reach, expel them and not leave uniform alive soul, whether it be the Christian or Muslim, [either] concordant [on resettlement] or not consent or the infringer of the order of tsar." (p. 63)

5) "Из [числа] армян, переселенных в Исфахан, отделили пятьсот домов и поселили в Исфахане, пятьсот же домов отделили, повели в Ширазскую область и поселили там."

"From the Armenians that were resettled to Isfahan, five hundred houses [households] were separated and have been lodged in Isfahan, whilst [another] five hundred houses [households] have separated, have led to Shiraz area and have lodged/settled there." (p. 68)

So there we go: 1) Arakel, an Armenian and Christian writer with deep biases and resentment of Turks and Persians (Iranians), acknowledges that not only ethnic Armenians were resettled from "Armenia" (by which he most likely refers to Naxcivan as well), but all Christians, as well as Jews and of course Muslims. In fact, he mentions that many more times in his book, I just reproduced what was relevant to Naxcivan and nearby region of Ararat.

2) Since all Julfa residents of Armenian origin, whom Arakel notes were the richest among Armenians and indeed good traders, were resettled to Isfahan, and Arakel specifically mentions only 1,000 families, that makes anywhere from 5,000 Armenians (if we assume 5 people family) or even 6,000-7,000 (if we assume that Armenian families were much larger in the past).

Thus, the estimated 250,000 Armenians that were resettled have nothing to do to Naxcivan - only about 5,000-7,000 ethnic Armenians from Julfa and surroundings were resettled by Shah Abbas to Isfahan.

Once again, this is from a unrealiable and biased source, yet that's the primary source used by all Armenian researchers. And it is unfortunate that we have to concentrate so much only on Armenians, whilst the equal or greater suffering of Muslims and other Christians and others, is ignored and not mentioned in the article at all. --AdilBaguirov 05:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Shah Abbas again

OK, I want Fadix to explain his latest edits. He used the same irrelevant references as he did the last time, and as everybody remembers he failed to cite any statistics on Nakhichevan and to provide any quote proving that Armenians were a majority in Nakhichevan before shah Abbas resettlement. Moreover, it was established that shah Abbas resettled both Christians and Muslims and Muslim population constituted a majority in the biggest settlement of the area, while Armenians prevailed in number only in the town of Julfa. I think I will have to apply for dispute resolution and get third party editors to review the situation, because it appears that Fadix is trying to force his vision into the article without having any references that support his claims. I’m restoring from the archive our older discussion and inviting Fadix to demonstrate how his references are relevant to the article about Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 13:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Fadix's latest additions as he never explicitly mentions there to be an Armenian majority prior to Shah Abbas' population transfer initiative. Rather, he cites very credible and non-biased Russian and French sources which state that both Armenian and Muslim populations were moved, but also that some Muslims were later permitted to move back. Could you explain how these sources are "irrelevant"?

On another note, I'm getting tired of Adil Baguirov constantly pushing his agenda on this article. I'm especially tired of his adding the HETQ article to make it look as though that we, the Armenians destoyed our own cultural monuments in Nakhichevan. This whole concept makes no sense as the article never mentions this and even HETQ's editors have stated that this was not their intention when writing this article. The stone pieces found in Yerevan weren't even khachkars! Furthermore, I have spoken with Azeris who live in the region and they have told me outright that the government has been conducting a policy of cultural cleansing. And please don't waste your time creating a rebuttal by bringing up the destruction of Azeri monuments in Karabakh, because quite frankly, I'm tired of it. This is the Nakhichevan talk page, not the Karabakh talk page. -- Aivazovsky 14:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Fadix distorts the sources and unilaterally changes the compromise version that was agreed after the long discussion.

The paragraph below is not what we agreed on:

Second Persian rule

In the 16th century, control of Nakhichevan passed to the Safavid dynasty of Persia. Because of its geographic position, it frequently suffered during the wars between Persia and the Ottoman Empire in 14th – 18th centuries. In 1604, Shah Abbas I Safavi, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy. He forced the Armenian population to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia,[16] there are sources which support the contention that the Muslim population were deported too, but in some extent allowed back under Shah Abbas II to repopulate the frontier region of his realm.[17] Many of the deportees were settled in a neighborhood of Isfahan that was named New Julfa since most of the residents were from the original Julfa (a predominantly Armenian town which was looted and burned). The Nakhichevan khanate emerged in the region in 1747 after the death of Nadir Shah Afshar, the ruler of Persia. "All the young people gradually became Muhammadan," historian Arakel de Tauriz wrote of the end result of the depopulation. "And today it would be difficult to find two Armenian Christians in all these beautiful plains where their fathers were sent to farm." [18] Some scholars believe that because of Shah Abbas the Armenians became a minority in parts of their homeland, the Armenian plateau which included Nakhichevan. [19] "Due to mass deportations of the Armenian population by Shah Abbas in the seventeenth century, most Armenian place names had already been replaced by Turkic toponyms when Armenia became a part of the USSR in 1921," wrote historian Arseny Saparov in his research on the alternation of Armenian names.

This line is clearly POV:

He forced the Armenian population to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia, there are sources which support the contention that the Muslim population were deported too, but in some extent allowed back under Shah Abbas II to repopulate the frontier region of his realm.

He present as a fact resettlement of the Armenian population, and then says that only according to some sources Muslims population was resettled too, while it is perfectly clear from Arakel that both Muslims and Christians were resettled. The following line is POV and original research:

Some scholars believe that because of Shah Abbas the Armenians became a minority in parts of their homeland, the Armenian plateau which included Nakhichevan.

I already explained to him that Armenian plateau and Nakhichevan is not the same, if Armenians were a majority in the Armenian plateau, it does not mean that they were majority in Nakhichevan, same as if Russians are majority in Russia, it does not mean that they are majority in Dagestan. Despite that, he includes his POV statement in the article without seeking a consensus on the talk. Another irrelevant quote:

Due to mass deportations of the Armenian population by Shah Abbas in the seventeenth century, most Armenian place names had already been replaced by Turkic toponyms when Armenia became a part of the USSR in 1921," wrote historian Arseny Saparov in his research on the alternation of Armenian names.

What does this have to do with Nakhichevan? Where does this Saparov mention Nakhichevan? Another irrelevant quote, this time from Arakel:

"And today it would be difficult to find two Armenian Christians in all these beautiful plains where their fathers were sent to farm."

This was not said with regard to Nakhichevan, but with regard to the territory of modern Armenia. I strongly object to Fadix’s POV edits and will seek dispute resolution in accordance with the rules.

As for HETQ quote, if irrelevant quotes on “Armenian plateau” are added to this article, I don’t see why HETQ should not be here as well. Grandmaster 14:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have provided about 10 sources, all of which only mention the Armenians being deported, there are papers published specifically about this depopulation, I have presented some there. They never talk about any Muslim depopulation. The Armenian depopulation is the majority position, while the Muslim one is included in some sources. As for Arakel, I have already quoted him, and we have been there, he differentiate both events, and also say that after the event, there was only Muslims left.

The Armenian plateau do include Nakhichevan, take a map and see what is on the Armenian plateau [5], the plateau is a geographic frontier, and Nakhichevan is clearly in it. Those wordings were also taken from a source, which again only covers the Armenian depopulation. Having said that, I expected adding the reasons behind the depopulation of Armenians which are documented and which I have already presented with various relevant quotes. Presenting them while keeping your wording would make it as if the Nakhichevani Muslims were sent in Eastern Asia for commerce, and that the structures imposed against the Armenians so that they remain outside the Armenian plateau (which I have also documented) were also applied to Muslims.

In short, my wording is NPOV, as the large majority of sources only include the depopulation of Armenians, and this requited to be singled from the rest. I have also not talked about pre Abbas population, even though I doubt any Western historian could deny that Armenians were a majority on that plateau before it. A plateau historically has always been taken by sedentary groups because of its geographical protection.

Now, about the word massive which I have removed, we have agreed to remove it. The Russian Empire records of Armenian population in Nakhichevan prior and after does not support that. The population of Nakhichevan before and after the Russians took it was insignificant, any massive population resettlement would make the Armenians as of over 90% of the population. See by yourself how many should be resettled so that the Armenian population jump from 17% to 40+%, not much, unless Muslims were resettled too, which as a result it would have taken more Armenians. But I don’t remember you have supported that.

Your last phrase is simply unacceptable, disruptive. What you are doing is called blackmailing. The Armenian Plateau thing has been sourced in the talk page with an over 10 sources, and you are blackmailing against an insignificant reference (HETQ) which is being distorted anyway. Fad (ix) 16:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I say we revise this passage:

He forced the Armenian population to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia, there are sources which support the contention that the Muslim population were deported too, but in some extent allowed back under Shah Abbas II to repopulate the frontier region of his realm.

Like so:

He forced the Armenian population to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia. The region's Muslim population was likewise deported, but were later permitted to move back under Shah Abbas II to repopulate the frontier region of his realm.

As for the Armenian Plateau, I think that it would be better if mentioned in the Geography section. Mention of it should remain intact. -- Aivazovsky 16:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

“Armenian plateau” is irrelevant to Nakhichevan. As I said above, if Armenians were a majority in the Armenian plateau, it does not mean that they were majority in Nakhichevan, same as if Russians are majority in Russia, it does not mean that they are majority in Dagestan. None of your sources concern Nakhichevan and are absolutely irrelevant to the topic of the article. Please cite sources on Nakhichevan only. We cannot include your personal interpretation of sources as per no original research rule. The sources make it clear that the entire population of Nakhichevan was resettled regardless of ethnicity. And you provided no statistics on population of Nakhichevan to support your claims. And it was never agreed to remove the word massive, settlement of Armenians in Nakhichevan was massive, because the population of the region doubled as result. Grandmaster 17:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Armenian plateau is very relevant to Nakhichevan. Like it or not it stands today on the Armenian plateau. The name refers to a geographic region, not a demographic region. If you like, we can use a map of the Armenian plateau as a reference.

I suggest we restore the original compromise statement that the entire population of the region was resettled regardless of ethnicity, as the sources say. Grandmaster 17:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The line we agreed upon compromises any mention of the Armenians, thus making the Armenian resettlement look as though it was totally uncalled for. My compromise version above mentions both Armenian and Muslim depopulation. I don't see why we can't use that. -- Aivazovsky 17:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop pulling my legs Grandmaster. I have never said they were a majority, even though this is obvious. Nakhichevan the modern agglomeration is a modern invention; in the past it was the district which surrounded the city and also Nakhichevan(city) IS in the Armenian plateau, it is a geographic border with the rest of the Caucasus, beside the north which has another elevation and from which the Georgian plateau starts. Ottoman records of population shows West of Nakhichevan Armenians constituting majority, there is no way in the word that its East, Armenians did not constitute a majority pre-abbas, as 250,000 were deported only from the plateau. Even after Gultestan, during the massive Muslim resettlement to repopulate the area had there been nothing near that much total population.

Coming to the relevant stuff, I am not including personal information, the sources I have quoted includes the Armenian plateau, and the regions in it, it does say Nakhichevan. I just reinclude what is said in the sources I have already quoted.

Coming to the word massive, you don’t know of what you are talking about. If Armenians constituted 17% of the population prior, and that they have jumped to 45% after, there is no way the population could double. Make the math yourself. Here, helping you.

Be ‘x’ pre resettlement total population, and be y, the number of Armenians resettled.

17% Armenians, 83% Muslims, right? And after, 45% Armenians, 55% Muslims, right?

((0,17x + y)/(y +x)) = 0,45

The population was of few thousands, right? Do the math, if there was no settlement of Muslims to, it would have taken (replace the variables) 3 thousand Armenians to make a huge differences. The term massive refers to a huge number of people, it is independent not dependent to population ratio, it relate to the absolute figure not relative as you suggest.

Also, given this above, after the Gulestan treaty, just as much Muslims were resettled, and the resettlement of Muslims too was documented. I plan to include those. Fad (ix) 18:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Overall, this is how I propose we reword the "Second Persian rule" paragraph:

In the 16th century, control of Nakhichevan passed to the Safavid dynasty of Persia. Because of its geographic position, it frequently suffered during the wars between Persia and the Ottoman Empire in 14th – 18th centuries. In 1604, Shah Abbas I Safavi, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy. He forced the Armenian population to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia. The region's Muslim population was likewise deported, but were later permitted to move back under Shah Abbas II to repopulate the frontier region of his realm. Many of the deportees were settled in a neighborhood of Isfahan that was named New Julfa since most of the residents were from the original Julfa (a predominantly Armenian town which was looted and burned). The Nakhichevan khanate emerged in the region in 1747 after the death of Nadir Shah Afshar, the ruler of Persia.

Comments? -- Aivazovsky 18:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that Grandmaster doesn't have any problem shouting numbers like Armenians constituted 17% of the population, which is the same thing as saying they were a slight minority, but would have a problem with sources saying that Armenians have lost their majority statue because of Shah Abbas. If one is included, the other too, should be included. We either remove the majority statue for both, or leave both. Fad (ix) 18:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There’s not a single reference to support the idea that Armenians lost their majority status because of Shah Abbas resettlement. If there’s, please show it to me, but without any references to plateau, Armenia, etc, the one that says: “Armenians lost the majority status in Nakhichevan because of shah Abbas resettlement”. And I oppose to separate mentioning of resettlement of Armenians, the sources make it perfectly clear that both Muslim and Armenian population was resettled, and the article should say so. I suggest restoring the compromise wording that was agreed after our previous discussion. Grandmaster 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already quoted; the wording I presented did not say anything else then what I have quoted. The quote includes Nakhichevan, it names it in the Armenian plateau, it also say that because of Shah Abbas decision Armenians have become a minority in parts of their own homeland. I also, unlike what you do, did not present it as absolute truth but used the some say…, ad source it. Something which you refuse to do when it is about supporting your POV, since you want to include them as absolute truth. This is what this article says: Some scholars believe that because of Shah Abbas the Armenians became a minority in parts of their homeland, the Armenian plateau which included Nakhichevan. Which is EXACTLY what the source say, I have added no POV wording, I simply related it as is, and kept the tone of ‘according to.’ As for the resettlement. I have shown that the very large majority of sources include only the resettlement of Armenians. Does this mean that Muslims were not resettled? No, as there are sources which say they have, and this too I have included. But there is no question that both will be merged when the ratio of documentation is above the 10 to 1. There are various published works which nowhere mentions the Muslims.

My version in short is not POV, show me any POV there, what you want is to remove sourced information, you can not delete to your liking without relating to any guideline or policies. As for your supposed compromised solution, there was no such thing as a compromise.

While you want to remove sourced information, you had no problem keeping the unsourced crap about the etymology of the word. Fad (ix) 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are those “some scholars”? Names with exact quotes, please. The quotes should be relevant to Nakhichevan, of course. And here’s once again the quote from Arakel, this time in English:

[Shah-Abbas] summoned his officers into his presence and chose the leaders and administrators of the population from among them, one commandant per district. Emir Guna-Khan was especially put in charge of the town of Erevan, of the land of Ararat and of the small districts in the vicinity. They had for instructions, wherever their power could reach, to hunt down and take away everything – down to the last living dog – either Christians or subjected Muslims; for those who resisted and rebelled against the royal order – the sword, death and captivity.

The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude: Seventh-Twentieth Century (Hardcover) by Bat Ye'or, Miriam Kochan (Translator), David Littman (Translator). ISBN-10: 0838636780

Grandmaster 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It thought that when a quote refers to Nakhichevan, indeed it is Nakhichevan. You are simply contradicting yourself. Arakel relate not as much to Nakhichevan than the quote I have used, he doesn’t even use Nakhichevan in this above quote.

Armenians were a majority in the Armenian plateau, Nakhichevan is not only in the Armenian plateau, but inside, frontiering the Ottoman Empire, on the other border, up until the Ottoman records of 1867 the Armenians were still the overwhelming majority. Arakel is actually talking about the depopulation of the Armenian plateau. Sources say 250,000 Armenians were deported, this alone justify it being included, as the materials of the period and following it only relate to that. While all sources say Armenians have been deported, not all talk about the Muslims. While sources say that the Armenians were not allowed back, sources say Muslims were allowed back. Does it seem that both faced the same fate? No, this is not what the sources say. I simply quoted and kept a neutral wording. Since there was no Nakhichevan with the current borders during those period, using your argument to remove sources, from the same token we should remove every sources relating to prior modern delimitation. Fad (ix) 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, Fadix, for the millionth time, you cited no sources specific to Nakhichevan. You cannot include your own interpenetrations as per no original research rule. Arakel says that both Christians and Muslims were deported from all the areas, but how many Muslims and Armenians were deported from Nakhichevan is unknown. You should either your provide statistics on Nakhichevan or remove your personal interpretations from the article. Grandmaster 05:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And stop citing irrelevant info, you say 250 000 Armenians were deported, how many of them were deported from Nakhichevan? Unless you provide that info your claims are nothing but original research. Grandmaster 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The reference specifically use the word Nakhichevan, does it seem that it does not cover it? I also cited another source, which says about Nakhichevan, that its Armenian population, and only Armenian population has been deported, I have also provided about 10 sources which only relate to the Armenians and Nakhichevan. In short, I have more than enough provided references to support my edits. All with NPOV wording, nothing there presented as absolute truth. You have left a non referenced wording for over a year, but then you didn't need the over a 10 footnote wording. So spare me this 'you cited no sources specific to Nakhichevan' when both of us know it is not true. Fad (ix) 06:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No Fadix, your source is not about Nakhichevan. This is your quote:

For the next four centuries, Armenians, who had begun their dispersion after the fall of Ani and the Seljuk Turkish invasions in the eleventh century, continued to emigrate. In the meantime, Persia ( Iran) experienced a revival under the Shi'i Safavids, who became the adversaries of the Sunni Ottomans. From 1501 until 1639, the two fought each other periodically in Armenia. Armenians were uprooted during these wars, and, in 1604, some 250,000 Armenians were forcibly transferred by Shah 'Abbas to Iran. By the seventeenth century, the Armenians had become a minority in parts of their historic lands. The merchants of Julfa in Nakhichevan were among those who were brought to Iran by Shah 'Abbas; he moved them to a suburb of Isfahan where they built the New Julfa community. The support of 'Abbas and subsequent shahs enabled the Armenians to expand Iran's trade with India, China, Russia, and Western Europe. These merchants helped to make the Persian Gulf an important trade center.

An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires by James S. Olson, Lee Brigance Pappas, Nicholas C. J. Pappas. p. 44

Now show me where does it say that he deported only Armenian population from Nakhichevan? It does not even say that Armenians were deported from Nakhichevan, only Julfa is mentioned, but Julfa is not the whole Nakhichevan. Once again, cite relevant sources that support your claims. Grandmaster 06:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nakhichevan was in Armenia, and you sure know that I have provided plenty of sources, here another one: Nakhichevan, an Azerbaijani-populated enclave within Armenia that is administratively part of Azerbaijan, from which the Armenian inhabitants had been expelled in 1604. (Democracy and Nationalism in Armenia, Peter Rutland, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 5 (1994) pp. 841-842) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 06:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Good, but so were Muslims. The sources say that the entire population of the region was expelled, and we have no sources to attest that Armenians were in majority. Grandmaster 06:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again I bring to your attention this source:

Yet another important Kangarlu leader during Safavid times was Maqsud Sultan Kangarlu, who is on Eskandar Monshi's list of the great amirs of the reign of Shah Abbas I (p. 1085). Shortly after the Persian capture of Erivan, in June 1604, he was appointed governor of Nakhjavan, north of the Aras river. But when, later that year, Ottoman forces threatened the area, Shah Abbas ordered Maqsud Sultan to evacuate the entire population of the Nakhjavan region (including the Armenians of Jolfa, who, in the following year, were transplanted to Isfahan) to Qaraja Dag (Arasbaran) and Dezmar (Eskandar Monshi, pp. 656, 668). [6]

And note that unlike your sources this comes from a professional historian, specialist in the region. Armenians are mentioned only with regard to Julfa. Grandmaster 06:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First, all sources relate to the Armenian deportation, not all relate to Muslim, the large majority do not. I did not even include the population ratio. Your own source say Muslims were allowed back, while sources say that mesures were taken for the Armenians to not return and that they were in fact not allowed back. The reasons for the deportation, provided from sources specifically limit to Armenians etc., there is just more than a significant reason to separate both. You still have to show me where in my edit there is anything POV, anything not sourced. You have absolutly no cases, so please don't drag us at square one. Fad (ix) 06:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My source says that Kengerli people were allowed to return by Shah Abbas II, but says nothing about other Muslim people. Plus, the existence of some Armenian population in the region by the time of the Russian conquest shows that Armenians moved to Nakhichevan as well. Grandmaster 08:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources confirm that resettlement concerned the entire population of the region. Here’s another one:

However, there are many references to the major deportation of the Armenian population to Iran which occurred in 1603-1604. Arakel of Tabriz narrated forcefully this tragic episode, but he adds that the Safavid monarch planned to deport Christians, Muslims and Jews alike.

Also Arakel says that Abbas ordered resettlement of “subjected” (i.e. Shia) Muslims, and what happened to Sunni population of Nakhichevan is clear from the same source:

The Shah did not wish to lose this wealthy region of Caucasus to the Ottomans. Encouraged further by the animosity of the Armenians towards the Ottomans, he led his army into Armenia. Taken by surprise, the Ottomans had only the opportunity to ravage Nakhchevan. The Shah, for his part, devastated the area and enforced his 'scorched-earth policy' in order to prevent the Ottomans from controlling the Araxes valley. Moreover, Shah Abbas ordered the massacre of the inhabitants of Nakhchevan, as they were Sunnites. Considering the fate of the Muslims in that region, who were being killed either by the Safavids or the Ottomans according to their denomination, the Armenians were more fortunate. Even though their lives were spared, common Armenians suffered greatly during this deportation and many of them perished on their way to Iran.

Aptin Khanbaghi. The Fire, the Star and the Cross: Minority Religions in Medieval and Early Modern Iran. ISBN-10: 1845110560

It is clear from this source that the population of Nakhichevan was Sunni people, i.e. not Armenians. Grandmaster 13:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We’ve been there, I have already made my point.

In 1603 Shah 'Abbas, the great Safavid ruler of Persia, sent an expedition into Armenia in answer to the appeals of the inhabitants for assistance against the Turks. The death of the Sultan Mahmud III in December 1603 and the succession of his son Ahmed, a boy of twelve, opened the way to an easy conquest in the course of which both retreating Turks and invading Persians plundered the Armenians. (A Seventeenth-Century typological cycle of paintings in the Armenian cathedal at Julfa, T. S. R. Boase, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 13, No. 3/4 pp.323-324)

In order to secure his peripheral western frontiers from possible Armenian-Ottoman collusions, Shah Abbas found it expedient in 1604-5 to depopulate those areas and distribute the Armenian population through Iran. ...Shah Abbas had still another reason for moving Armenians to his real: he hoped to benefit from their great artistic and commercial skills. (The Status of Religious Minorities in Safavid Iran 1617-61, Vera B. Moreen, Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 40, No. 2 (Apr., 1981), pp.128-129)

During the reign of Shah Abbas I, a large portion of the Armenian population was transferred into Persia. The Gulf in the Seventeenth Century, Abdul Aziz M. Awad, Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies) , Vol. 12, No. 2 (1985)p. 130.

Including only Armenians. Motives only apply to Armenians in the above.

This is what Arakel write:

When he banished the Christians and moved them in Isafan and its serounding settlements, many Muslims were evicted from their homes and their houses were given to the Christians. Shah Abbas words have been kept, and it has been carried out, presently, all the men who were borne in Armenia and who were moved to Persia are dead now; and although they have dreamed to return to their country, they were not able to return for the above reasons or them haven't allowed the Persians (note, the reasons enumerated all concerned the Christians) although some of them – pious and honest people- wanted to move for Armenia, the Persians haven't made that possible. Shah Abbas used very possible method to force to keep the Armenians in his country, had he not tried, the Armenians would never have remained there in the first place. Their sole concern was to convert Armenians under any pretext to Islam... ... the Persians did everything possible to prevent them[Armernians] to leave their[Persian] country, much like the Egypsians did with the people of Israel.

I also quoted in the mainspace what Arakel writes, he says that only Muslims remained.

You claim that Armenians also were allowed back, this is totally nonesense, you have yet to document that. On Ottoman records of 1844, there was 2,4 million Armenians in their realm(Ottoman), mostly in its east up until the border to Nakhichevan, pass that, all the section of the Armenian Plateau, it was just empty demographically. Even after the so-called massive resettlement you are talking about by the Russians, there was demographic emptiness. Does it seem that Armenians were allowed back when there was no geographic frontier? You want hundreds of sources for a single quote but have no problem throwing claims? That there was only 17% Armenians, from a total of an insignificant number of people, shows to the exact contrary. The Armenians were first there surviving on commerce, adapted to that, because the plateau has no much natural resources. They were brought South and their commerce was brought with them. There was no way for them to return, while for the nomadic dribs there was nothing preventing them, but still after over a hundred of years the place was still vacated, just like it was vacated by the Muslims after the fall of Ourdoubad, they mostly later concentrated around the city of Nakhichevan. At its pick, that region had a total of 40,000 people, later on, and just before Shah Abbas, Julfa was the single demographically relevant place in the entire region, the only worth mentioning in foreign works of the period.

True there was may Sunni in the city of Nakhichevan, they were probably a majority, we’ve been there already, pass that and the remaining of Ourdoubad, nada. The Sunni’s in that region were mostly divided in three groups, the Arabs, many Kurdish clans, and Ottoman Turks.

Lets requote again: His motives in removing the Armenians townsfolk to central Iran were twofold: he wished to discourage future invasions by a scorched earth policy in the frontier region around Ararat; and he desired to make use of industrial and commercial talents of the Armenians... Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 32, No. 3 (1969) p. 622

Another one: In order to secure his peripheral western frontiers from possible Armenian-Ottoman collusions, Shah Abbas found it expedient in 1604-5 to depopulate those areas and distribute the Armenian population through Iran. ...Shah Abbas had still another reason for moving Armenians to his real: he hoped to benefit from their great artistic and commercial skills. (The Status of Religious Minorities in Safavid Iran 1617-61, Vera B. Moreen, Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 40, No. 2 (Apr., 1981), pp.128-129)

All those theories regarding the resettlement require separating both, I have the intention to expend including the motives of the resettlement, the majority enumerated by scholarship are Armenian related.

And a last note, I did not say all the Muslims were allowed back, my version does not say all. I am still waiting you to tell me what specifically in my version in not sourced or POV. Go ahead. Fad (ix) 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Don’t forget: the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. Fad (ix) 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but none of your sources concerns Nakhichevan specifically. None of them says that only Armenians were resetled from Nakhichevan. We have already established that the entire population of Nakhichevan was resettled, inclkuding Armenians, Muslims and Jews. Arakel explicitly says so. What's the point in starting this discussion all over again? I don't want to get into another lengthy dispute resolution procedure with regard to this issue, but I'm affraid I will have to. Grandmaster 17:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your version is not factually accurate. I already explained that in my first post. Armenians were not specifically targeted in Nakhichevan. Arakel says that the entire population, regardless if they were Armenians, Jews or Muslims, was resettled. Iranica says the same. Plus we have info that Sunni population was massacred. Based on this, the article should say that the entire population of the region regardless of ethnicity was deported, as Arakel says, everyone down to the last living dog. Instead you included absolutely irrelevant quote, which was not concerning Nakhichevan. “Armenian plateau” stuff is pure POV and original research. You version is absolutely unacceptable and I once again suggest to return to compromise version or seek dispute resolution. Grandmaster 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You know very well that Armenians were specifically targetted and that they were the only ones deported en masse. Thgere is an entire book dedicated to it: E. Herzig, "The Deportation of the Armenians in 1604-1605," Pembroke Papers 1 (Cambridge 1990)). Pages 59 to 71 provide the details.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Shah Abbas depopulated the entire frontier area along the border with Turkey to prevent the advance of Turkish army. No one was specifically targeted, it was done for military purposes. And no one was left in the evacuated area, Arakel makes that clear. Shah Abbas ordered to “take away everything – down to the last living dog”. And we know that population of Nakhichevan consisted of both Muslims and Armenians, and Muslims prevailed in number, at least they prevailed in Nakhichevan and Ordubad, while Armenians prevailed in Julfa. All those areas were devastated. Grandmaster 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's pov original research. Fadix provided sources that say otherwise and explain in detail the Shah's motivation of the deportation of Armenians.

"The Ottoman-Safavid hostilities resulted in the growing importance of the participation of non-Moslems, in particular Armenians, in the trade between Iran and Turkey, and also in the growing wealth of the Armenians in Jula. The deportation of the Armenians, which already begun in the 1530s under Tahmasp I, should be viewed as part of a master plan by the Safavids to create a countervailing power against the feudal Qezelbash. Thus, the 1605 deportation of Armenians from Jolfa to New Jolfa was considered as a positive development by the Armenians concerned, according to the author. She dismisses Arakel's negative report, because he was biased against `Abbas I, and passes over the thousands of Armenians who died en route to New Jolfa, who may have disagreed with her. She is not aware that contemporary reports by, for example, Portuguese priests in 1605-06 confirm Arakel's account (See for example, Roberto Gulbenkian, L'Ambassade en Perse de Luis Pereira de Lacerda [Lisbon 1972], pp. 104, 119-120, 135; and E. Herzig, "The Deportation of the Armenians in 1604-1605," Pembroke Papers 1 (Cambridge 1990), pp. 59-71)."[7]. Grandmaster, there are countless book by Western authors dedicated to the deportation of Armenians by Abbas, why are there no works regarding the alleged en masse deportation of others if they were as significant as the deportation of Armenians?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Check another Armenian source, Bournoutian:

In the summer of 1604, at the news of an Ottoman counteroffensive, Abbas laid waste much of the territory between Kars and Ani and deported its Armenians and Muslims into Iranian Azerbaijan. Abbas was sure that the Ottomans would not launch an attack so close to winter and according to some sources, demobilized most of his army in the fall. The Ottomans, however, did advance, catching the shah unprepared. Orders went out from Abbas to forcibly remove the entire population residing in the regions of Bayazid, Van, and Nakhichevan and to carry out a scorched-earth policy. [8]

Once again, the entire population of Nakhichevan was removed. It is unknown how many of them were Muslim and how many Armenian. Grandmaster 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather large discrepancy. I have a copy of Bournoutian's book (Concise History Mazda, 2006) and that near similar passage omits any mention of the deportation of Muslims during Shah Abbas' rule: "In the summer of 1604, at the news of an Ottoman counteroffensive, 'Abbas laid waste to much of the territory between Kars and Ani and deported its entire Armenian population...Orders went out from Abbas to forcibly remove the entire population residing in the regions of Bayazid, Van, and Nakhichevan and to carry out a scorched-earth policy. According to primary sources, some 250,000 to 300,000 Armenians were removed from the region between 1604 and 1605."--MarshallBagramyan 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe Bournoutian realized that he did no good to the Armenian cause by mentioning Muslims as well. But it is a fact that his article on the Iranian website says what it says. Besides, the part on Nakhchevan still says that the entire population of Nakhichevan was forcibly removed. Grandmaster 05:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting you answer my question. Fad (ix) 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, check my second post on top of this section. The article should say that the entire population of the region was deported. Grandmaster 05:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you did not. Let me repeat the question. Which part of my version is POV, which part of my version is not sourced? Which part of my version is a misrepresentation? Mind you that I have proposed this version because your version was a misrepresentation since the very large majority of sources only covers the Armenian depopulation and that if wanting to extend it just the slightest bit, your version won't make any sense. And I already provided the reasons above. Such as the reasons why Armenians were depopulated. Also, the Armenian depopulation started in the 16th century, this too was documented and some authors believe that there was a continuity in that policy. The way I present it is, first, majority view, then, the other view. That is all, and your refusal is not based on a single guideline or policies in Wikipedia, what you claim as not being the truth isen't even covered in my version. Fad (ix) 17:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you keep on asking the same question, I will repost my response. Fadix distorts the sources and unilaterally changes the compromise version that was agreed after the long discussion.

The paragraph below is not what we agreed on:

Second Persian rule

In the 16th century, control of Nakhichevan passed to the Safavid dynasty of Persia. Because of its geographic position, it frequently suffered during the wars between Persia and the Ottoman Empire in 14th – 18th centuries. In 1604, Shah Abbas I Safavi, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy. He forced the Armenian population to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia,[16] there are sources which support the contention that the Muslim population were deported too, but in some extent allowed back under Shah Abbas II to repopulate the frontier region of his realm.[17] Many of the deportees were settled in a neighborhood of Isfahan that was named New Julfa since most of the residents were from the original Julfa (a predominantly Armenian town which was looted and burned). The Nakhichevan khanate emerged in the region in 1747 after the death of Nadir Shah Afshar, the ruler of Persia. "All the young people gradually became Muhammadan," historian Arakel de Tauriz wrote of the end result of the depopulation. "And today it would be difficult to find two Armenian Christians in all these beautiful plains where their fathers were sent to farm." [18] Some scholars believe that because of Shah Abbas the Armenians became a minority in parts of their homeland, the Armenian plateau which included Nakhichevan. [19] "Due to mass deportations of the Armenian population by Shah Abbas in the seventeenth century, most Armenian place names had already been replaced by Turkic toponyms when Armenia became a part of the USSR in 1921," wrote historian Arseny Saparov in his research on the alternation of Armenian names.

This line is clearly POV:

He forced the Armenian population to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia, there are sources which support the contention that the Muslim population were deported too, but in some extent allowed back under Shah Abbas II to repopulate the frontier region of his realm.

He present as a fact resettlement of the Armenian population, and then says that only according to some sources Muslims population was resettled too, while it is perfectly clear from Arakel, Bournatian and Iranica that both Muslims and Christians were resettled. The following line is POV and original research:

Some scholars believe that because of Shah Abbas the Armenians became a minority in parts of their homeland, the Armenian plateau which included Nakhichevan.

I already explained to him that Armenian plateau and Nakhichevan is not the same, if Armenians were a majority in the Armenian plateau, it does not mean that they were majority in Nakhichevan, same as if Russians are majority in Russia, it does not mean that they are majority in Dagestan. Despite that, he includes his POV statement in the article without seeking a consensus on the talk. Another irrelevant quote:

Due to mass deportations of the Armenian population by Shah Abbas in the seventeenth century, most Armenian place names had already been replaced by Turkic toponyms when Armenia became a part of the USSR in 1921," wrote historian Arseny Saparov in his research on the alternation of Armenian names.

What does this have to do with Nakhichevan? Where does this Saparov mention Nakhichevan? Nakhichevan was not part of Armenia when it joined the USSR, neither was it part of Soviet Armenia. Another irrelevant quote, this time from Arakel:

"And today it would be difficult to find two Armenian Christians in all these beautiful plains where their fathers were sent to farm."

This was not said with regard to Nakhichevan, but with regard to the territory of modern Armenia. All the quotes that are not relevant to Nakhichevan should be removed. Grandmaster 05:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Arakel Dawrijeci - Shah Abbas - early 1600's

This is really annoying - all verifiable evidence has been presented and everything is very clear. I will repeat once more the information STRICTLY related to Naxcivan, mostly in Shah Abbas times.

I)FROM: Arakel Dawrijeci ("Book of Histories", trans. L.A.Khanlaryan, Moscow: Nauka State Publishing House, 1978, http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus2/Davrizeci/text1.phtml From Chapter 3:

1) "В эти дни шах приказал персидским войскам направиться в область Араратскую и ее окрестные гавары, поднять отовсюду мужчин, называемых райятами, будь то христиане, магометане или какого-либо иного племени, собрать и привести их в стан персов..." "These days the shah has ordered to the Persian armies to be directed to Ararat region/area and its surrounding gavars [regions], to lift from everywhere the men named rayats, whether it be Christians, Muslims or any other tribe [nation, people] to collect [assemble] and bring [summon] them to the base of Persians..." (p. 54)

2) "А когда он, покинув Тавриз, приехал через Нахичеван в Ереван, чужбинники в Нахичеване, узнав, что шах тавризских чужбинников изгнал и переселил в Персию, сочли это для себя благом, и кое-кто из них поехал в Ереван, предстал перед шахом, дескать, мы тоже шахисеваны, и желаем поехать в страну персов. И шах, дабы ублажить их и обмануть этаких простаков, велел преподнести им хлхат, и им дано было пять хлхатов. [Шах] поставил над ними проводников, которые переселили их в Персию." "And when he, having left [abandoned] Tabriz, has arrived through Naxcivan to Yerevan, the non-believers [i.e., Muslims, non-Christians, in text: чужбинники] in Naxcivan, having learned [having found out], that the shah has expelled the Tabriz non-believers [in text: чужбинников] and has moved them to Persia, have thought about it as a blessing, and someone from them has gone to Yerevan, has appeared before the shah, said, we too are Shahsevans [either the Azerbaijani Turkic tribe of Shahsevan's is meant or play of words -- "those who like the Shah"], and wish to go to the country of Persians. And the shah, to appease them and to deceive such gawks, ordered to present them khlkhat, and to them it has been given five khlkhats. [Shah] has put conductors above them which have moved them to Persia." (p. 61)

From Chapter 4: 3) "Поэтому и приказал выселить всех жителей Армении – и христиан и евреев, и магометан..." "Therefore also has ordered to move all inhabitants of Armenia - Christians and Jews and Muslims..." (p. 62)

4) "[Население] собственно города Еревана, Араратской области и отдельных близлежащих гаваров [было поручено] Амиргуна-хану. Шах приказал под страхом меча, смерти и плена выселить [жителей] отовсюду, куда только они могли добраться, изгнать их и не оставить ни единой живой души, будь то христианин или магометанин, согласный [на переселение] или несогласный или нарушитель приказа царя." "[Population] of actual city of Yerevan, Ararat region and separate nearby gavars [regions], [was entrusted] to Amirguna-khan. The shah has ordered under fear of a sword, death and a captivity, to move [inhabitants] from everywhere where only they could reach, expel them and not leave uniform alive soul, whether it be the Christian or Muslim, [either] concordant [on resettlement] or not consent or the infringer of the order of tsar." (p. 63)

5) "Из [числа] армян, переселенных в Исфахан, отделили пятьсот домов и поселили в Исфахане, пятьсот же домов отделили, повели в Ширазскую область и поселили там." "From the Armenians that were resettled to Isfahan, five hundred houses [households] were separated and have been lodged in Isfahan, whilst [another] five hundred houses [households] have separated, have led to Shiraz area and have lodged/settled there." (p. 68)

6) He describes how shah Abbas’ general Zulfugar khan besieged Nakhichevan, which was under the Turkish control, and then persuaded the people of Nakhichevan to surrender and allowed the Turkish garrison to leave with their families and property. And then he says:

К Зилфигар-хану пришли многие из воинов города и сказали: «Те, что собираются уйти, не коренные жители города сего, что же касается нас, мы коренные жители города и не желаем уходить отсюда. До сей поры власть в городе принадлежала хондкару – ему мы служили, отныне, так как власть перешла к шаху Аббасу, желаем остаться здесь и служить ему». Хан весьма охотно согласился с их речами, благосклонно и милостиво принял их и приказал быть посему. И воины, пришедшие [к хану], быстро сняли с себя османскую одежду, постригли длинные бороды свои, облачились в кызылбашскую одежду и стали похожи на стародавних кызылбашей.

Many of the city’s warriors came to Zulfugar-khan and said: “Those who are going to leave are not natives of this city, as for us, we are natives and we don’t want to leave. Until now the city was ruled by hondkar (Turkish sultan), and we served him, but from now on since Shah Abbas took the power we want to stay and serve him”. Khan gladly agreed with them, graciously treated them and ordered to be so. And the warriors, who came to the khan, quickly took off Ottoman clothes, cut their long beards, put on Qizilbash clothes and became resembling the long-ago Qizilbash.

II) FROM: prof. Ronald Grigor Suny in his article in Encyclopedia Britannica: "During the war that broke out in 1602, Shah 'Abbas I strove to regain the lost territories, and in 1604-05, with the aim of stimulating trade in his dominions, he forcibly transferred thousands of Armenians from Julfa to Esfahan, where those who survived the march settled in the quarter named New Julfa." There we go, yet another Armenian source admit that only "thousands" were resettled from Julfa, not "tens of thousands" or "hundreds of thousands". From: "Armenia." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 14 June 2006 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-44272>.

III) FROM: Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, 1970, article JULFA: "By the beginning of 17th century, Julfa had a population of 20,000." ("К началу 17 в. в Джульфа - 20 тыс. жителей"). http://www.referatu.ru/1/23/504.htm

Therefore, we conclude:

1) Arakel, an Armenian and Christian writer with deep biases and resentment of Turks, Azerbaijanis and Persians, acknowledges that not only ethnic Armenians were resettled from Naxcivan, but all others, especially Turkic shahsevan tribe. 2) Since all Julfa residents of Armenian origin, whom Arakel notes were the richest among Armenians and indeed good traders, were resettled to Isfahan, and Arakel specifically mentions only 1,000 families, that makes anywhere from 5,000 Armenians (if we assume 5 people family) or even 6,000-7,000 (if we assume that Armenian families were much larger in the past). 3) Julfa and Naxcivan were the only significant cities of Naxcivan region. Julfa, the wealthiest, had a population of only 20,000 people. Even if we are generous, no more than half of them could have been Armenian. Thus the data of prof. Suny and Arakel about only "thousands" of Armenian and "thousand" families, amounting to about 5,000-7,000 Armenians from Julfa resettled to Iran, is correct. End of story.

IV) Tarih-i Nadiri (History of Nadir shah), by Mirza Mehdi-khan of Astrabad, published in Moscow, 1938, Vol II, edited by Ivanov P.P.: 11 По словам Мухаммед Садыка Мервези Шах Аббас I, завоевав Мерв, поселил в нем один из каджарских родов —иззэддинлю. См. рукопись Публ. библ., V. 3; 23, л. 84а; ср. В. А. Жуковский. Развалины Старого Мерва, стр. 78, 79. Автор “Насих-ут-таварих” относит переселение племени каджаров к 995 г. х. (1586/87 г.). По приказу шаха Аббаса, каджары были переселены из Гянджи и Еривана и водворены на землях Астрабада. Те из каджар, которые поселились вверху крепости Мубарек-абад, были названы, говорит он, “юхари-баш”, а поселившиеся внизу крепости — “ашак-баш”. Другую половину каджаров шах Аббас поселил в Мерве. Этим мероприятием имелось в виду “охранить округ Астрабада и Мазандерана от набегов туркмен и оберегать земли Хорасана от беспокойств, причиняемых племенами узбеков” (“Насих-ут-таварих”, стр. 8).

The relevant sentence excerpt is: "By the order of shah Abbas, Qajars [Azerbaijani Turkic tribal confederation] were resettled from Ganja and Erivan, and put into the lands of Astrabad." Note - Astrabad is Gorgan city since 1930 name change. http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus9/Mechdi/primtext.phtml

V) Iranica, History of Azerbaijan, Islamic period to 1941, Bosworth, C., page 225: In the Mongol period, indeed, the Christian communities enjoyed at the outset a comparative florescence and toleration; in the time of the Great Khan Guyuk (r.1246 – 49), the influence with Mongol horde of the Syrian monk Simeon Rabban Ata secured the building of churches in strongly Muslim towns like Tabriz and Nakhchevan (Nakjavan), until the conversion to Islam of Gazan (r.694 – 703/1295 - 1304) brought about a reversal of this favor (see Spuler, Mongolen, pp. 203 ff). Thereafter, Christianity in Azerbaijan declined to the point of extinction, with the exception of the vestigial Nestorian or Assyrian Christian Neo-Syriac-speaking communities of the lake Urmiya region, which have survived till today. [1] This article refers to the period of Mongol invasion, that was about 200 years before shah Abbas, but it is unlikely that “strongly Muslim town” Nakhichevan became a town with predominantly Christian population, since according to the source "thereafter, Christianity in Azerbaijan declined to the point of extinction". Plus, Arakel also describes Nakhichevan as a Muslim town, see my above references. We may completely avoid the controversy by using the wording like “He forced most of the local population, regardless of ethnicity or religion, to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia”. --AdilBaguirov 07:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Another article from Iranica:

Shah Abbas' most renowned deportation was on the pattern B:A, involving both scorched-earth tactics and the capture of a useful population. This transfer had been anticipated by Shah Tahmasb (930-84/1524-76), who in 941/1534-35 retreated before the invading Ottomans, destroying crops and settlements and driving refugees, including Armenians, before him. During his campaign in northern Azerbaijan in 1013-14/1603-05 Abbas destroyed all crops and immovable property and herded the population, sometimes of complete towns like Aqchaqala and Jolfa, "out of harm's way," onto the plain of Ararat (Eskandar Beg, II, p. 667 ff.). The prisoners, who included Turks, Georgians, and perhaps as many as 75,000 Armenians, were then marched southeast. Of the Armenians who survived about 6,000 families (according to some accounts, only 3,000) were settled in New Jolfa, across the river from Isfahan. Others were established on lands around the capital and in the Baktiari foothills; 500 families were sent to Shiraz at the governor's request, chiefly to engage in viticulture (Eskandar Beg, II, pp. 667 ff.; Tournebize; Gregorian, p. 661 ff.). From the shah's point of view the operation was a success: The Ottoman army was obliged by famine and consequent disaffection to retreat from the Aras and winter at Van, and the transplanted communities (particularly that at Isfahan) eventually flourished and contributed greatly to the commercial and economic efflorescence of the later Safavid period. [9]

It shows that not only Armenians were targeted. Grandmaster 12:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am only answering Grandmaster, Adil you are ignored, we’ve passed the copypasting and spamming stage, which you had already done more than enough. I agree with the removal Saparov wrote.

The rest, will remain, Nakhichevan is within the Armenian plateau, you don’t make geography, I showed you the map, Nakhichevan is clearly in that plateau. Do you know what a plateau is? If yes! Check the plateau in the map I showed. Isn’t Nakhichevan in the Armenian plateau? You claim Arakel refers to the territory of modern day Armenia. I wonder how he could have known what would become of Armenia, when at his time, ‘’Armenia’’ was everything within the Armenian plateau. This too, there is no way you could deny it.

The rest, I repeat, there is nothing such as showing when there are contradictions with sources. I have provided various works, which only include Armenians, and the reasons why they were evacuated, which only concerns the Armenians. I did not exclude Muslims, I separated Armenians, because this is what is the best documented and make it possible to expend. Fad (ix) 17:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Plateau is irrelevant to the topic. You cannot make generalisations like that, it is OR. If you have sources on Nakhichevan, cite them, sources on larger regions have nothing to do with this article. If something is true for a large region, it is not necessarily true for every part of it. Nakhichevan had predominantly Muslim population since the times of Atabeks. So let's keep factually accurate statements only. The entire population of Nakhichevan was deported, and we don't know how many of them were Armenian and how many Muslim. Grandmaster 18:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, you accuse me of OR, and then bring it on one. Where is my original research, what was called Armenia was what was withing the Armenia plateau, you have no evidence supporting your claim that pre Abbas Muslims were a majority. It is ridiculous, but I will not even talk about that. Urdoubad had lost any importance it had, and at that period wasn't even anymore worth mentioning on a map of the region. Julfa was clearly the single only place given any importance on that period. We've been there, so please stop that and show me where I provide anything which doesn't concord with a policy or guideline. Fad (ix) 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, you are being unreasonable and very aggressive in the past few days. The chief contemporary Armenian source, Arakel, contradicts you, as do multiple other Armenian and other scholarly sources. To declare that only Armenians were moved from Caucasus or even just Naxcivan by Shah Abbas is simply unreasonable, that's why all historians call his policy in Caucasus as scorched earth policy. Meanwhile, world scholarship accepts the term "Iranian Plateau", meanwhile, the so-called "Armenian Plateau", which overlaps with the former at least in half, is a creation of Armenian POV. This reminds me the timeless maps of Great Armenia which overlap with everything around them (for many centuries, as opposed to 15-30 years), or various "kingdoms" which existed only on paper and were completely vassal to various empires that existed. Or the "Armenian" kings who were all really Parthian and Persian, as well as sometimes Georgian, Jewish and Atropatenean. --AdilBaguirov 04:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Before you start questioning the validity of the term Armenian Plateau, you should take a look at the name of your own country of origin, which is a subject of dispute. What is it you want to prove to us Mr. Baguirov? That Armenians do not exist? That there were never any sort of people known as Armenians; they were all just Parthians, Jews and Atropateneans? Hakob 05:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot of insecurity. Actually, no, that's not what I am trying to prove. All I and others have PROVEN beyond any reasonable doubt, is that Muslims were in majority in the Caucasus, and they, along with all other religions, such as Christians (which includes not just Armenians) and Jews, were forcibly transferred by Shah Abbas to Iranian proper. Meanwhile, we should create the history of the name Armenia, and question its validity in application to the modern Armenians, since as Britannica notes, it was a result of confusion. --AdilBaguirov 05:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the point is that there's no need to bring up irrelevant stuff. This article is about Nakhichevan, and all the info should be related to the region of Nakhichevan, and not other regions. It is perfectly clear from sources, both Armenian and non-Armenian, that the entire population of the region was deported, and there’s no need to overemphasize the sufferings of Armenians and downplay the sufferings of Muslims, who shared the same fate and actually were treated even worse, because in addition to deportations many of them were massacred in religious wars. Grandmaster 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, your original research is that you make generalizations and apply information about wider geographic region to a particular section. It does not follow that if something is true for some region, it is true for every part of it. For example, Azerbaijanis are majority in Azerbaijan, but it does not mean that they are majority in every region of it (say NK). Russians are majority in Russia, but they are not majority in every region of it. So please don’t include information that covers a wider region and try to present it as info on Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 08:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky's proposal

Again, I suggest we reword the statement on Shah Abbas like so:

In the 16th century, control of Nakhichevan passed to the Safavid dynasty of Persia. Because of its geographic position, it frequently suffered during the wars between Persia and the Ottoman Empire in 14th – 18th centuries. In 1604, Shah Abbas I Safavi, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy. He forced the Armenian population to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia. The region's Muslim population was likewise deported, but were later permitted to move back under Shah Abbas II to repopulate the frontier region of his realm. Many of the deportees were settled in a neighborhood of Isfahan that was named New Julfa since most of the residents were from the original Julfa (a predominantly Armenian town which was looted and burned). The Nakhichevan khanate emerged in the region in 1747 after the death of Nadir Shah Afshar, the ruler of Persia.

Both the Armenian and Azeri sides would be making compromises with this version. As you can see, the paragraph does not quote any historians nor does it mention the Armenian Highland. It also mentions both Armenians and Muslims specfically. The major compromise by the Azeri side here would be the allowance of mention of the Armenians specifically and the fact that some Muslims were later permitted to move back.

I'm tired to seeing 50+ page arguments by Adil, Fadix, and Grandmaster. The sonner we resolve this, the better. -- Aivazovsky 12:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don’t see what’s wrong with mentioning the fact that the entire population of the region was forced to leave. Even Bournoutian says so, and he’s not an anti-Armenian source. Same with Arakel, primary source. As Adil correctly noted, scorched earth policy implies that nobody remains on the land. I thought that this issue was resolved long ago, but for some reason we have to discuss it over and over again. Grandmaster 12:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that some Muslims were allowed to move back and I think that mentioning the Armenians specfically is important because it gives the reader an understanding of why the Russians allowed the Armenians to return to these areas after they captured them from Persia. -- Aivazovsky 12:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We can mention that some of Kengerli people were allowed to return by Shah Abbas II, the successor of Shah Abbas I, as it is verifiable info. As to why Russians settled Armenians in Transcaucasia, it had nothing to do with Shah Abbas or anything of the kind. Russians did not trust Muslims and tried to populate the area by Armenian, Russian and even German colonists, forcing out the local Muslim population. It was purely political issue. Grandmaster 12:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the Russians were sympathetic towards the Armenians and that's why they allowed them to move back. In truth, they mistrusted both Muslims and Armenians (they even persecuted the Armenian church under Imperial Russian rule). In any case, I don't see why you can't just agree to this compromise. If accepted, both Armenian and Azeri editors will be making concessions. -- Aivazovsky 12:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don’t mind concessions to include accurate info, but I don’t see why we should make concessions just to please someone. The original version we had in the article was a compromise, which we achieved after the long discussion. I did not claim including that the population was predominantly Muslim, and you dropped your claims on Armenian prevalence. If you look at it, the region had 3 large settlements: Nakhichevan, Julfa and Ordubad. Of them 2 (Nakhichevan and Ordubad) were predominantly Azeri. Judging by that I could insist that the article should say that Nakhichevan was a predominately Muslim region. But I take a reasonable approach and do not claim to include my own conclusions, as we have no statistics on population of the region in 1604. I expect the same from your side. As for Russians, they changed their position towards Armenians much later, when Armenians become engaged in revolutionary activity. So towards the end the Russian empire even started favoring Muslims to a certain degree, but never fully trusted them. For example, Muslims were not conscripted to military service, could not have majority of votes in municipality, etc. But this is deviation from our discussion. Grandmaster 12:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What compromise? You don’t want to understand, just before Abbas, Ourdoubad had become a none entity, Julfa was the only place in the entire region worth mentioning, the only included in the literature of that time.

Over the centuries, the highly unstable political situation in the region, the large-scale displacements of the Armenian population and the penetration of Turkic nomadic tribes resulted in a dramatic transformation of the ethnic composition of the region and its cultural landscape. This quote is from Saparov.

Nakhichevan was in the Armenian plateau, there is no doubt that before the massive resettlements Armenians were a majority in the Armenian plateau. If you were all for accurate info, you would tell your friend Adil to stop throwing inaccurate information on the NK. I haven’t see you doing anything about his distortions on the population. I’m sure that you would have reverted for less than that. While my propositions are sources and respect every guidelines and policies you oppose them, but if any distortions are pro-Azeris, I don’t see you ever saying anything about. Fad (ix) 17:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't care about plateau, this article is not about plateau, it is about Nakhichevan. We know that the entire population of Nakhichevan was displaced. The entire population consisted of various people, i.e. Muslims, Jews and Christians. The article should reflect the fact, and not advance position of the Armenian side and try to present the Armenians as the only ones who suffered. And Saparov does not mention Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 05:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you even bother pretending to discuss when after thousands of words it doesn’t change anything. Wikipedia is not what you think, articles are the product of a community work.

• The very large majority of works relating to Shah Abbas depopulation relate to Armenians. Besides like I have already said on various other occasions, the Armenian depopulation did not start neither stop with Shah Abbas. And don’t speak for the community, only you don’t care about the plateau, Nakhichevan is in that plateau, that you care or not about it. Fad (ix) 21:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nakhichevan is Nakhichevan. It is not "plateau", it is a region with known location. Cite a source saying that Shah Abbas deported only Armenians from Nakhichevan. So far you havent' done that. Grandmaster 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Only according to you I haven't done that. Nuntil you provide any sources which supports that was any such delimitations called Nakhichevan beside the district serounding the city and some insignificant agglomerations, you have no cases. If you bother so much on accuracy, you'd ask Adil to stop on NK when you know he is distorting. Fad (ix) 17:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that Nakhichevan had no delimitation? Original research again? The article from Iranica says: Yet another important Kangarlu leader during Safavid times was Maqsud Sultan Kangarlu, who is on Eskandar Monshi's list of the great amirs of the reign of Shah Abbas I (p. 1085). Shortly after the Persian capture of Erivan, in June 1604, he was appointed governor of Nakchevan, north of the Aras river. The area had its governor, and the governor ruled an area with certain borders. And it is irrelevant anyway, this article is about the territory of NAR, and covers only the history of that region. Grandmaster 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is becoming pathologic of you to distort my words, I don't like that, so stop it. It is not by putting words in my mouth and answering them that you will justify your requests. The current Nakhichevan modern borders did not exit back then, there is no Geographic border between Nakhichevan and Armenia, both are on the same damn plateau. Nakhichevan always refered to the city and the districs serounding it, they tried imposing frontiers by attempting to link Ourdoubad with Nakhichevan district. This is not original resreach, what you are doing is actually one. Fad (ix) 20:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Armenians living in the Russian Empire, I don't recall any "revolutionary activity" ocurring. The 1836 regulation enacted to reduce the powers of the Armenian church was not provoked by anything "revolutionary." In fact, the major Armenian revolutionary wings, the Dashnaks and the Hunchaks did not begin until the late 19th century. I also forgot to mention earlier that as the Russians moved into Turkish Armenia they planned to move Cossacks and Volga Germans to the area in order to minimize its Armenian influence. Their slogan was "no more Bulgarias".

In any case, we're getting off topic. My proposed version does not claim that either side was a clear majority, rather it mentions both sides (Armenians and Muslims). It's just like the earlier version except the groups are specfically mentioned. -- Aivazovsky 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check this HRW document: [10] And please explain what was wrong with the original compromise version that we have to change it now? Grandmaster 13:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What does this HRW link have to do with Shah Abbas? My issue with the original compromise version was that the Armenians were not specfically mentioned. I don't understand why you're so opposed to this. -- Aivazovsky 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see, you're saying that this article cites that the Armenians were reduced in numbers because of the Persian-Ottoman wars. -- Aivazovsky 13:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a general statement about "Eastern Armenia". The source provides some background info on the treatment of Armenians and Muslims by the Russian administration. But this is a different issue, not part of this discussion. I just don't see why Armenians should be specifically mentioned, if the entire population of Nakhichevan was deported? Give me a valid reason, please. Grandmaster 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, I know about the presence of Armenians and Russians in Baku and how they treated the Azerbaijanis. Still, the situation was different in areas where Armenians historically lived. Anyway, I want to mention the Armenians specfically because it gives the reader some possible insight as to why they would have moved back to their historic areas of residence. As I said before the Muslims will be mentioned too. -- Aivazovsky 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Grandmaster, what do you say? Do you accept my proposed compromise? -- Aivazovsky 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is misrepresentation of facts. I suggest we restore our original compromise version, it was a result of long discussions and was factually accurate. Grandmaster 15:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it a misrepresentation of the facts? Both groups are mentioned. -- Aivazovsky 12:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But why? I still have not received any reasonable explanation for that. The sources say that the entire population was deported, and we are not here to please ethnic egos, but to report the facts. Grandmaster 16:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But Grandmaster is it not a fact that both Armenians and Muslims were deported? And you still didn't answer my earlier question: How is it a misrepresentation of the facts? I also gave you explanation as to why they need to be mentioned above. But I'll repeat it again. Like I said before, I want to mention the Armenians specfically because it gives the reader some possible insight as to why they would have moved back to their historic areas of residence. As I said before the Muslims will be mentioned too. -- Aivazovsky 17:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But that “insight” is POV. Russian empire brought Armenians to Nakhichevan for different reasons. They simply wanted to populate the region by Christians and reduce Muslim population as much as possible. I don’t think we should overemphasize the Armenians, while the entire population regardless of ethnicity was deported. The intent of your proposed version is to demonstrate that the Armenians became a minority in the region as result of Shah Abbas deportation, and were a prime target of population relocations, however that is not true. Therefore, I think we should stick to the original compromise version, to which you agreed earlier. Grandmaster 17:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about this?:

He forced most of the local population, both Armenian and Muslim alike, to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia.

As you can see, it's a partial return to the earlier compromise version except now both Armenians and Muslims and explicitly mentioned. -- Aivazovsky 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That’s good, the only minor suggestion is that we should say "the entire population", as the sources say, and also add Jews as per Arakel, i.e.: He forced the entire local population, Armenians, Jews and Muslims alike, to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia. And maybe replace “deeper into Persia” with “Persian provinces to the South of Araks” for more precision? I’m not insisting on the latter change, but you may wish to think about it. Grandmaster 06:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll accept that (the mention of the Jews as well). I also think that we should include the note that Shah Abbas II allowed some Muslims to return in order to repopulate the area (per the Iranica reference we currently have on the article). Overall, the new compromise version would read like this:

In the 16th century control of the region passed to the Safavid dynasty of Persia. Because of its geographic position, it frequently suffered during the wars between Persia and the Ottoman Empire in 14th – 18th centuries. In 1604, Shah Abbas I Safavi, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy. He forced most of the local population, Armenians, Jews and Muslims alike, to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia. Many settled in a neighborhood of Isfahan that was named New Julfa since most of the residents were from the original Julfa (a predominantly Armenian town which was looted and burned). In 1604, some Muslims, such as the Turkic Kangarlu tribe were permitted to move back under Shah Abbas II in order to repopulate the frontier region of his realm. The Nakhichevan khanate emerged in the region in 1747 after the death of Nadir Shah Afshar, the ruler of Persia.

How's that? -- Aivazovsky 11:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My only objection would be the word “most”. It implies that someone was left, while the sources claim that the entire population was deported. My version (my changes highlighted):

In the 16th century control of the region passed to the Safavid dynasty of Persia. Because of its geographic position, Nakhichevan frequently suffered during the wars between Persia and the Ottoman Empire in 14th – 18th centuries. In 1604, Shah Abbas I Safavi, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy. He forced the entire local population, Armenians, Jews and Muslims alike, to leave their homes and move to the Persian provinces south of Araks. Many settled in a neighborhood of Isfahan that was named New Julfa since most of the residents were from the original Julfa (a predominantly Armenian town which was looted and burned). The Turkic Kangerli tribe was permitted to move back under Shah Abbas II (1642-1666) in order to repopulate the frontier region of his realm. The Nakhichevan khanate emerged in the region in 1747 after the death of Nadir Shah Afshar, the ruler of Persia.

And also we don’t know about any Muslims other than Kengerli. Indeed, Kengerli were the majority of Muslim people in Nakhichevan, and khans of Nakhichevan were leaders of that tribe. So we can mention Kengerli as per source (Iranica). Grandmaster 11:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll agree to that. -- Aivazovsky 13:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then the issue is resolved. I made a minor correction to the above text: it is not known when exactly Kengerli were allowed to return, it is only known that it was during the reign of Shah Abbas II. Grandmaster 14:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Who sweet it is for the eyes, when you use the word 'misrepresentation.' There never was any compromise. Fad (ix) 21:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ayvazovsky, Russians did not persecute Armenians -- the "persecution" of Armenian Church by the tsar was done in 20th century, not 17th century, and Armenian Church damned (!) the tsar. Few years later, the tsar re-instated the Armenian church. For a Christian that's pretty much the end of world, when you get damned, so I would imagine the tsar would get a little unhappy. Meanwhile, if we mention Ottoman Empire -- the correct generally accepted name -- then we should be as consistent and say Iranian Empire, as Persia is the name of the region south of Iran and would create an impression all people were moved deep into Iranian south (which was indeed true for some). Then -- where's the evidence that Julfa was a predominantly Armenian town? GSE wrote the population was maximum 20,000 people, whilst calculations based on Arakels info yield at best 5,000-7,000 Armenians from Julfa. Then, we don't mention the Jews for some reason, even though Arakel mentioned them too -- they must have been fairly significant, at least a thousand people, to be mentioned like this. Finally, of course the suffering of Armenians is no different from the suffering of Muslims and others, and hence, all should be mentioned in one sentence. Then subsequent sentences could give additional info on the resettlement back -- including by Armenians en masse in 1828. But writing that first Armenians were resettled, and then Muslims too, is not appropriate. --AdilBaguirov 17:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That Shah Abbas must have been one evil man if he made his own people (according to you guys) suffer so much.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he was an evil man and a great ruler. He depopulated large areas along the border with Ottoman Empire to prevent the latter from invading Persia. It was successful tactics, but resulted in death of many people. And it is not according to us, but according even to Armenian sources such as Arakel and Bournoutian. Grandmaster 05:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Arakel say only Muslims remained. Fad (ix) 21:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where? Grandmaster 08:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote is still there locked with the article. Arakel also goes on telling how the targets were Christians and Abbas was jealous of Armenian success. All those things were already quoted and there in the archives, and you are well aware of that. Fad (ix) 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does Arakel say that only Muslims remained in Nakhichevan? I have full text available in Russian online, it does not say that anywhere. Moreover, he says that the entire population of the region was deported, including Christians, Muslims and Jews. Grandmaster 17:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop distorting my words or pulling my legs, you won't achieve anything by doing that. 'Remained' relate to the fact that after the depopulation, on the entire region, only Muslims could be found and you know that was what I meant. Fad (ix) 20:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But the article is not about the entire region, is it? Situation could have been different in any given part of such a region. Grandmaster 06:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, first, it's not according to us -- all sources are fully cited. Secondly, yes, he was an evil man from the humanitarian perspective -- everyone admits that. Third, "his own people" were all his subjects that had any economic value to him -- either as taxpayers or soldiers. This is normal for any monarch of the era -- Peter the Great (note, that all those terrible people are called "Great") built St.Petersburg on tens of thousands of bones of poor farmers who were forced to build it. Today though, when people from all over the world come to admire the city, they hardly know that. Marshall Zhukov is the most highly regarded military commander, yet his total disregard of casualties is famous. Examples like this are a rule, not an exception. --AdilBaguirov 03:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia is much of a game for Grandmaster as it is to Adil

Now, lets see what argument will Grandmaster provide for the deletions of the quotes and sources. What happened there, why were the discussions archived? If you really want to push this further Grandmaster fine, I will be adding all the relevent Armenian deportations from Nakhichevan. I am also waiting you to explain your silence over what Adil has done on the NK article, I requested two times any answers, you have not given any. Fad (ix) 07:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We reached a compromise on this. If you want to push for your own version and add irrelevant quotes, I suggest you apply for dispute resolution. The page only recently has been unprotected, so no need to start another edit war. If you feel that you are absolutely right with your claims and have enough sources to back them up, try to follow the relevant procedure, and I will be glad to cooperate with any dispute resolution. Also, remain civil. Grandmaster 08:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Grandmaster and I already reached an agreement on Shah Abbas incident and I don't see a point in pursuing the issue any further. I still disagree with with inclusion of the HRW line regarding the Karki dispute, but I'm too busy right now to discuss it as I'm caught up in a dispute over the Qazakh article (it's a 1:3 ratio - it's Adil, Dacy, and Atabek against me). So, I suppose it can stay for now, but we may revisit it later. -- Aivazovsky 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Aiv, if you follow the discussion a little further, you will see that there is actually a reason of pursuing the issue further. Grandmaster was well aware that I was going to expend the section, regarding Julfa Armenia’s being send to China etc. Don’t you see anything wrong in the article? Check from the first to last. Grandmaster with others have successfully able to guard and posses the article, and this article sanitised from anything Armenian, when this article at least worth to have an entire section about the Armenians in a history section.

Have you read the article lately? I have searched the entire thing and the term "Armenia" is mentioned 137 times (counting references, external links, and image captions). If truth be known, since this summer, I have been the one paying the most attention to this article. I have worked hard at compromises, etc. Obviously, this article is not "sanitised from anything Armenian".

No one in the academia besides ultra nationalist Azeri scholars denies that the term Nakhichevan is an Armenian word, I have even quoted from an Islamic work on that regard. The first mention of the term Nakhichevan, or to its any flavour was used by Khorenatsi, hundreds, hundreds of years before the supposed Persian word Grandmaster injected in the lead. Maybe you can answer me there, how could a word used hundreds of years after could have any etymologic relevancy?

Fadix, It is quite possible that Nakhichevan derives from Naxuana as article correctly hints. The oldest mentioning of Nakhichevan goes as Naxuana, mentioned in Ptolomy's Geography in the 2nd century AD and other classical sources [11]. The article on Armenian language shows the formation of Classical Armenian language in the 5th century AD [12]. Anything before that is shady and is referred as Proto-Armenian or Graeco-Armenian hypothesis [13] Now explain to me how can Naxuana at least from II AD be in Armenian of V AD? May be it would be more correct by you if you claimed that it might be from Proto-Armenian? --Ulvi I. 18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...we may need to look this over again. I was beginning to rethink that as well.

Coming to what you claim doesn’t worth pursuing on. The very large majority of sources only relate to the Armenian depopulation, and I have documented already that it was not the first; there are scholars who think that Abbas depopulation was just a continuity of hundreds of years policy to depopulate Armenians from their homeland. The reason why the Armenian part was separated was because I had the intention to expend. Yet! Being ‘fidele’ to himself (from the French expression), Grandmaster successfully mixed the batch, when it is policy and guideline here to give special coverage to the position most documented in the academic circle.

If you have sources that indeed state that the Shah administered a continued policy of Armenian depopulation in the region, then please cite them.

I will leave this as that, because from experience I know that Grandmaster is allergic to the word Armenian. But here is what I am going to do, I will add a section on Armenians. Fad (ix) 18:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a point in adding a seperate section on the Armenians when the Armenian history is already well-integrated into the article. If you feel that there is something you want to add to the history regarding the region's status within Armenia or its relation to the Armenians, then you're more than welcome to do so, provided that it is well-cited and referenced. -- Aivazovsky 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Over the centuries, the highly unstable political situation in the region, the large-scale displacements of the Armenian population and the penetration of Turkic nomadic tribes resulted in a dramatic transformation of the ethnic composition of the region and its cultural landscape. This quote is from Saparov. The work already provided.

The deportation of the Armenians, which already begun in the 1530s under Tahmasp I, should be viewed as part of a master plan by the Safavids to create a countervailing power against the feudal Qezelbash. [14]

Herzig work on the deportation of the Armenians from 1604-1605 entire thesis is centered on the Armenians being the target, the countless numbers of sources I have provided center it on the Armenians. In fact, check Jstor, all the hits on that database regarding Shah Abbas depopulation centers around the Armenians, the only other relevant paper includes Georgians.

One of the positions, like those above is that the depopulation of the Armenians under Abbas was just part of a policies extending for centuries. A. N. Yamskov, (Oct., 1991), also in his paper relate to the demographic change after the replacement of the entire region with Turkic tribes.

Grandmaster would jump on the supposed mass settlement of Armenians by the Russians after 1820s, when for centuries the Armenians have been evacuated and replaced, yet the one single reference about one of the cases, resulted with Grandmaster long fight over it, while I told him that the reason why they were separated was because according to guidelines and policies, the majority position pass before anything else, also that I already told that the Armenian depopulation would be expended.

You say there is enough reference to Armenians? Aiv, why do you think that they are guarding this article so hard? It is because there is no argument on Abanians there, no any supposed Albania having ever been build on there. This place has a very long history of being one of the heartlands of historic Armenia. All of its historic nearly exclusively before the Turkic tribes came was Armenian, and this before the centuries forced removal of population. Now that there is no such supposed Albania argument, the best thing for Grandmaster to do is claim Armenians were not a majority, dismissing the relevancy of it being right on the Armenian plateau. Throwing other peoples in every given mention of Armenians.

Check the etymology thing, the myth about Noah, I don’t believe on Noah or other such religious stuff, but all those stories on mythological bases for the name, or the name itself, is admitted by everyone beside some ultra-nationalistic Azeris scholars, to be Armenian history. The etymology is recognized as Armenian. Khorenatsi and all manuscripts were pre-Arabic Islamic era, and the Grabar form of the exact word Nakhichevan was there, existing plainly written on Armenian manuscripts, how a word just appearing few centuries after, with a different etymology be of any etymological relevancy.

Check what is happening on Paytakaran article, Grandmaster is at war on every Armenian historic places articles. He didn’t wanted any mention of Armenian being a majority in NK, pre Russian rules, Adil came and placed his distortions and someone stole Grandmaster thong, I told him to comment a couple of times no. But he will be the first to revert non distortions on NK population claiming them to not be relevant. Fad (ix) 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Tax Registrars as source to study demography of Nakhichevan in early 18th c.

I suggest to use Ottoman Tax Registrars covering 1724-1727 to study the ethnic composition of not only Nakhichevan, but also Gandja-Karabakh, Lori, Irevan and etc. when these territories became under control of Turks. As far as I know Armenian and Georgian scholars have started to study this source even earlier than Azerbaijani ones did it in 1996 and onwards. There is said to be also Safavi Tax Registrars dating back to earlier centuries, however, I have not seen any editions or translations of them. Starting from these days, I will cite info on ethnic composition of Nakhichevan, and especially Julfa, which is very interesting. I think those that claim that Moslems returned after 1604 deportations, but Armenians did not, are jumping ahead and to wrong conclusions. If someone from Armenia who is aware of this source's Armenian edition and want to cross-check their version with mine, that would be very nice. These tax registrars registered all adult men (above age 14), be it Muslim or non-Muslim who were supposed to pay tax. It goes to village by village, mentions each name of such an adult. It also shows which non-Muslim villages were already converted to Catholisism by the Ottoman's ally in those days - the French and their religeous missionaries.--Ulvi I. 18:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They are pre-Ceride-i Nüfus Nezareti(1831), with no centralisation. And above all, they're over a century after Abbas. Pre-Ceride-i Nüfus Nezareti aren't even used for central Anatolia. For NK, we already have the official census of 1820s. Fad (ix) 02:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What we know though, is that the Ottoman recorded 2,4 million Armenians in Anatolia in the 1840s, mostly Eastern Anatolia, but past where Safavits were one time on another in power, the Armenian population was insignificant, there was a huge 'whole.' Without Abbas, clearly Nakhichevan would have been populated by its majority of Armenians, it is on the innerside of the plateau bordering the Ottoman, on the other side of the frontier Armenians were constituting a majority. So definitly the depopulation of Armenia by the Safavits is what made the demographic change. Fad (ix) 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rail service

This is the reference Eupator deleted:

The disruption of rail service to Armenia was actually facilitated by the Armenians themselves: Armenian forces launched attacks on trains headed through Armenia en route to Azerbaijan's Nakhichevan enclave; consequently, railroad personnel refused to enter Armenia at all.

Thomas Ambrosio. Irredentism: Ethnic Conflict and International Politics. ISBN-10: 0275972607

I'm restoring the reference back. Grandmaster 05:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have more than one reference to reaffirm this? -- Aivazovsky 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure:

In June, Armenian activists began a rail blockade of Nakhjivan, the Azerbaijani region cut off from the rest of Azerbaijan by Armenian territory.

August and September saw huge APF-led rallies in Baku, and in a reflection of its increasing radicalization, the APF also helped organize a retaliatory rail blockade of Armenia, severely hampering Armenia's ability to recover from the earthquake, not to mention engage in normal economic activity.

Azerbaijan's Communist Party First Secretary Vezirov tried at first to ignore the APF, but events quickly spun out of his control. In response to the pressure, Vezirov's leadership began accommodating the APF's nationalist ambitions with a package of laws to increase the Azerbaijani Republic's sovereignty, including an assertion of the right to disband Mountainous Karabagh's autonomous status. In return, the APF was to have lifted the rail blockade of Armenia, but it found itself unable to deliver on that promise, in part because Armenians resumed attacks on Azerbaijani train crews entering Armenia, who then began refusing to do so.

The newly formed Armenian National Movement tried to slow the escalation by ending the attacks on Azerbaijani trains, hoping the rail blockade of Armenia would also be lifted, but its supporters did not comply: the logic of conflict was now stronger than the logic of self-interest.

Stuart J. Kaufman. Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. ISBN 0801487366 Grandmaster 08:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So according to Kaufman Azerbaijanis actually retaliated by blockading Armenia for blockading Nakhichevan. I will try to find more sources on who started the blockade, but it is clear that my recent edit should remain in the article. Armenians did attack the trains. Grandmaster 12:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, shall we ask for unprotection of this page now, so that I could restore my edit? What do you think? Grandmaster 12:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You have two references, I don't see an issue. You can request unprotection as long as you promise to readd this and not anything of Adil's. -- Aivazovsky 12:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I will readd my edit only, but I think that Adil's edits also have a place in the article. Grandmaster 12:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"In June, Armenian activists began a rail blockade of Nakhjivan, the Azerbaijani region cut off from the rest of Azerbaijan by Armenian territory." Um, the citation writes "Audrey Alstadt The Azerbaijani Turks, p. 206 ", can we have someone else corroborating what Ambrosio says considering the issues raised about Alstadt by some editors and Bournountian?--MarshallBagramyan 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not add that part to the article, I added the one that states that Armenians attacked Azerbaijani train crews, which is not referenced to Alstadt. Grandmaster 05:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ethnic origin of dynasties; Euro Parliament resolution

The Orontids and Artaxiads were Persian in origin, while Arsacids were Parthian -- these facts should of course be reflected in this otherwise very detailed article. for proof see for example: [15], [16], [17]. Also related: [18], [19] and [20]. "The Orontid kings of Armenia were descended from the Achaemenid line" [21]. Then there is here: [22] "The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History", by Thomas T. Allsen, Univ of Pennsylvania Press, 2006, p. 37: "The Orontid dynasty of Armenia (ca. 401-200), whose ruling house was of Achaemenid origin...". Also, "This Orontes was married about 401 B.C. to the Princess Rhodogune, daughter of the Persian Great King Artaxerxes II." The Cambridge History of Iran By Ehsan Yarshater, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 506. Also, here [23] "Artasyras, the King’s Eye, brought the news of Prince Cyrus' death to Artaxerxes II, and Artasyras's son Orontes who had been present (and perhaps distinguished himself) at the Battle of Kounaxa and was given Rhodogunde the daughter of Artaxerxes II and made Satrap of Armenia. In the late 380s after Persia had suffered serious reverses in Egypt, Orontes was recalled from Armenia to head the Persian army while Tiribazes commanded at sea. They quarreled and their case went before a court of four Persian nobles who found for Tiribazes with Orontes being disgraced and dismissed from his position as Satrap of Armenia. In the 360s BCE several of the Persian Satraps revolted and chose Orontes as their leader. However he betrayed them to the King and made peace with General Ochus. Orontes was then reappointed as Satrap of Armenia and became the founder of the autonomous Armenian Orontid dynasty."

"The expression "kings of Armenia" is in many instances vague, and leads to erroneous conclusions, especially with regard to the Arsacidae. The trans­actions of the Romans with Armenia will present much less difficulties if the student will remember that he has to do with kings in Armenia, and kings of Armenian origin reigning in countries beyond the limits of Armenia. The history of the Arsa­cidae cannot be well understood without a previous knowledge of the other dynasties before and after that of the Arsacidae; for Armenian kings were known to the Greeks long before the accession of the Arsacidae ; and the annals of the Eastern em­pire mention many important transactions with kings of Armenia, belonging to those dynasties, which reigned in this country during a period of almost a thousand years after the fall of the Arsa­cidae. But as any detailed account would be out of place here, we can give only a short sketch." (Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0370.html)

Then on: http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0371.html :

"On the other hand the Romans, with all the pride and haughtiness of conquerors, consider their instruments or allies alone as the legitimate kings, and they generally speak of the Arsacidae as a family imposed upon Armenia by the Parthians. As to the origin. of the Armenian Arsacidae, both the Romans and Armenians agree, that they were descended from the dynasty of the Parthian Arsacidae, an opinion which was so generally established, that Procopius (De Aedificiis Justi?iiam9 iii. 1) says, that nobody had the slightest doubt on the fact." Source: Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, page 362

Meanwhile, Azerbaijan never denied the European Parliament the visit to Naxcivan -- instead, it denied it to those few MPs, whom it called biased and hysterical. Indeed, here's a news piece from Arminfo and Turan, about FM Oskanian saying that UNESCO would visit Naxcivan:

UNESCO DELEGATION TO VISIT NAKHCHIVAN

YEREVAN/09.03.07/TURAN-Arminfo: In the near future a UNESCO delegation will visit Nakhchivan to investigate the alleged elimination of Armenian monuments, Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian said at a press conference. The delegation will visit Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. Concrete terms of the visit have not been determined yet.

--AdilBaguirov 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the ethymology sentence: "According to the Azerbaijani ethymology, Naxcivan derives its name from "Nuhchihan", literally -- "where Noah came out from"." Noah's link to the name of Naxcivan is further strengthened by the nineteenth-century Azerbaijani chronicler, Mirza Jemal Jevanshir Karabaghi. is sourced, verifiable (I have a page scan, if needed) and agreed to previously by none other than user Aivazovsky. Obviously, Azerbaijani ethymology is no less important than the not-removed Armenian one, although both appear to be based on Pahlavi or prior Iranian language. --AdilBaguirov 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not going to happen.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Never going to happen. -- Aivazovsky 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This line was not part of original compromise and should be deleted: In 2006, Azerbaijan barred the European Parliament from inspecting and examining the ancient burial site. Plus, as Adil correctly indicated, that info is not accurate. We should decide if we stick to original compromise or update it with new info. Grandmaster 10:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil also believes that Armenian kings were Persians. The truth is that MPs were barred from investigating the site by Azerbaijan. -- Aivazovsky 10:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They were not. Azerbaijan claimed that they should check the state of Azerbaijani cultural monuments in Armenia. There's a new agreement now that they will check the state of historical monuments in both countries. Anyway, we need to decide if we stick to original compromise or we don't. Grandmaster 10:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

According to The Independent, a credible British newspaper, they were barred. [24] -- Aivazovsky 10:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we stick to compromise or not? Grandmaster 11:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I say we stick with the compromise but add that line because it is an important development in the dispute. -- Aivazovsky 11:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If we gonna expand that section, the compromise is no longer valid. Grandmaster 11:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But no other parts of the compromise have been changed or expanded. Only one line has been added to reflect a recent development. -- Aivazovsky 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I want in on this. What's the line in question? What was the original compromise? Aivazovsky, maybe you can use this interview for the Armenian position: [25] if there is too much of the Azeri one. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The version now included in this article is basically the compromise version agreed on in February 2006. The only difference is the following line in question:

In 2006, Azerbaijan barred the European Parliament from inspecting and examining the ancient burial site.

I added this line later, originally referenced by PanArmenian.Net. After awhile, however, I replaced it with a more neutral reference: The Independent, a credible British publication: [26] -- Aivazovsky 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Is Grandmaster disputing the factual accuracy of the line?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster believes that we have two choices: to either use the compromise version without this line or to completely rehash the section. My position is that we use the compromise version and add the line regarding the barring of European MPs by Azerbaijan as it reflects a development in the story since our original compromise was concluded in February 2006. -- Aivazovsky 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to add new info, I will be adding it too. If that section is to be updated, then the compromise is no longer valid and everyone can add info. Grandmaster 11:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your logic in this. Just one minor update to the section doesn't mean that we need to rehash the whole thing. I reverted your edit on the article. -- Aivazovsky 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I will be expanding this section. Compromise is no longer valid. Grandmaster 05:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The European Parliment line is false, Azerbaijan never prohibited EP from visiting Naxcivan, and EP resolution deals with Azerbaijani monuments in Armenia too. In fact, FM Oskanyan just annouced that UNESCO experts will be visiting Naxcivan, other parts of Azerbaijan, and Armenia.

Meanwhile, it's not me who believes that all "Armenian" kings from Orontids to Arsacids were non-Armenian -- it's world's academia. --AdilBaguirov 07:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how now Aivazovsky says no to the inclusion of Azerbaijani etymology of Naxcivan. Perhaps, he forgot how he not only agreed, but ADDED it BACK [27] Not the first time that Aivazovsky "changes his mind", making himself known as a very "reliable" and "trustworthy" editor. The etymology will be part of the page, since Naxcivan is part of Azerbaijan, and is properly cited and verifiable (I have the page scan).

Meanwhile, returning to the Iranian (Parthian and Persian; with some occurences of Atropatenian, Iberian and Jewish kings too) origin of Orontid, Artaxiad and Arsacid kings of Armenia: it were you guys who included the reference to the Jewish Encyclopedia.[28] Well, the very same source, same article says the same: "According to Moses of Chorene (fifth century), King Hratchai (Fiery-Eye) obtained from Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, a distinguished Jewish captive, named Shambat (which name, according to A. Harkavy, is identical with "Sabbat"), whom he loaded with honors. From Shambat descended the family of Bagratuni (or Bagration), which heads the list of the Russian nobility (see Bobrinski, "Dvoryanskie Rody," i. 1, St. Petersburg, 1890). When Vagharshak, brother of the Parthian king Mithridates I., and the founder of the Arshak dynasty, ascended the throne of Armenia 150 B.C., he introduced a new rule in the government of the country, nominating the Jew Bagarat, a descendant of Shambat, hereditary viceroy (naharar, satrap), and coronator (aspet); that is, the official charged with the duty of placing the crown on the head of the ruler." As I already told you TWICE, [29], if you yourselves put in the Jewish Enc. reference, you can't object to adhering to it when it says the same thing that even most modern research by Armenian scholars also admit -- that all of the above 3 ruling dynasties of Armenia were of Persian and Parthian origin. So we need to uphold these edits too. --AdilBaguirov 08:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If we are to update it, we should also include the accurate quote from Europarliament resolution, which condemns destruction both in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the info about Azerbaijani government allowing UNESCO to inspect the site along with other areas in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

user Eupator doesn't conceal his POV, as to the obvious revelations that "the line about EP was not part of compromise and is false -- Azerbaijan NEVER prohibited the EP from visiting Naxcivan! It only denied that to "biased and hysterical" few MPs", he finds nothing better to respond with than: "that's the same thing", to justify his revert[30] Perhaps it might be an eye-opening, but no, a few MPs do not represent the whole EP -- just like a few US Senators do not represent the entire US Senate. Each elected official only represents his/her local constituency. Also, the EP resolution is not even about khachkars -- it is a lengthy resolution about a wide number of countries and regions and issues, with Caucasus being only a small part of it, so the resolution should not be misrepresented. And since UNESCO is mentioned, it should be also mentioned that according to FM Oskanian, a UNESCO delegation is going to both Azerbaijan (incl. Naxcivan) and Armenia to inspect all the sites and allegations. Also, the EP resolution contains the following language:

"66. Takes the view that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is impeding the development of Armenia and Azerbaijan and regional cooperation as well as the effective implementation of the ENP as such; calls on both parties to refrain from unilateral actions and aggressive statements and to work for settlement of the conflict in a constructive dialogue with all the forces concerned, on the basis of respect for minority rights and on the basis of the principles of international law; emphasises the importance of continuing democratic reforms for the development of the region and its relations with the EU; urges all parties concerned to find ways to permit the gradual return of refugees on the basis of minority rights, in particular with regard to the return of Azerbaijanis to the occupied territories; calls on the member countries of the OSCE Minsk Group to coordinate more effectively their action with Heikki Talvitie, the EU Special Representative for South Caucasus, in order to move forward with negotiations;" --AdilBaguirov 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Eupator, you were a party to that compromise, you know very well that the line you keep on adding was not part of it. If you do not adhere to the compromise, it is no longer effective and people are free to add other info as well. Grandmaster 08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the Name

I don't know why to include 19th century German scholar as a reference, but origin of the name is clearly Persian. I am sure some people editing this entry knows Armenian and/or Persian. I have deleted the section it said it is originally an Armenian word. And, please leave it like that. It is nonsense to state an obvious Persian word as Armenian.

In Wikipedia we must be neutral and show all views. That means you're not allowed to delete the section about Armenian name. In Armenian language Nakhichevan means the place of descent. Vartanm 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Be neutral and accept that it is not originally an Armenian name. Cevan means young person in Persian, Nahiye means place. Just because it is also used in Armenian doesn't mean it's originally Armenian. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for propoganda. This is not a POV, it is a basic language fact!!!

Doesn't matter even if what you're saying is true. Besides, original research is prohibited.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually Armenian is an Indo-European language, and hence, its foundation is based on ancient Persian. As such, our unsigned poster is right -- the "Armenian" etymology is in reality Persian, which is hardly surprizing, considering the language family of Armenian being Iranic. Plus, depending on the pronunciation of Naxcivan, in Persian جهان means "world". What is disturbing though, is that here Vartan and Eupator passionately argue for leaving in the Armenian etymology because of "doesn't matter even if what you'are saying is true" (nice!) and "In Wikipedia we must be neutral and show all views" (if only the writers of these beautiful words were to abide by this advice!), yet above contradict all this (plus his own acceptance, in case of Aivazovsky) by trying to argue against the inclusion of the Azerbaijani etymology. --AdilBaguirov 08:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a single word in the above paragraph is based on facts.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? How do you know? --AdilBaguirov 19:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research; continue. I have already documented that all notable sources on its etymology claims it to be Armenian. I have also provided a work written by a Muslim author. Oh yeh, OK since Armenian is Iranic, every Armenian word is indeed Iranian. Much like every Armenian kings are not Armenian, or all Armenian historic monuments are Albanian..., good going Adil. Continue even during the Arbcom case. Fad (ix) 03:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that section again. Please leave your propaganda out of Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.143.22 (talk • contribs)

UNESCO

Since there are several historic structures of interest to UNESCO, we should include this into the article: http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1173/ It can be inlcuded either in the Culture section, or in the line: "In 12th century, the city of Nakhichevan became the capital of the state of Atabegs of Azerbaijan, also known as Ildegizid state, which included most of Iranian Azerbaijan and significant part of South Caucasus. [21] The magnificent 12th century mausoleum of Momine khatun, the wife of Ildegizid ruler, Great Atabeg Jahan Pehlevan, is the main attraction of modern Nakhichevan." --AdilBaguirov 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be added. Grandmaster 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New section on the khachkar dispute

I proposed this version as a compromise to User:Grandmaster. He liked it:

Armenia has accused the government of Azerbaijan of destroying historic Armenian headstones (khachkars) at a medieval cemetery in Julfa, presenting photos and video in support of these charges. Azerbaijan denies there has been destruction despite a confirmation by the IWPR. According to the Azerbaijani Ambassador to the US Khafiz Pashayev, the videos and photographs that have surfaced show some unknown people destroying some mid-size stones and is not clear of what ethnicity those people are. Instead, the ambassador asserts that the Armenian side started a propaganda campaign against Azerbaijan to divert attention from the destruction of Azerbaijani monuments in Armenia.

The European Parliament has formally called on Azerbaijan to stop the demolition as a breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. According to its resolution regarding cultural monuments in the South Caucasus, the European Parliament "condemns strongly the destruction of the Julfa cemetery as well as the destruction of all sites of historical importance that has taken place on Armenian or Azerbaijani territory, and condemns any such action that seeks to destroy cultural heritage." In 2006, Azerbaijan barred the European Parliament from inspecting and examining the ancient burial site.

References:

I think that this should work. Any thoughts or comments? All the best, Aivazovsky 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

the last line is factually incorrect. Only a few MPs were not given permission -- meanwhile as Armenian FM Oskanian declared, an official delegation from UNESCO is going to visit Naxcivan, so as we see, there is no problem with official delegations, only with biased one's who may be acting per Armenian diaspora's instructions. --adil 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote from Aivazovsky's source:

The Azerbaijan government, which denies the claims, is now at the centre of a row with MEPs, some of whom it accused of a "biased and hysterical approach". Its ambassador to the EU also says the European Parliament has ignored damage to Muslim sites in Armenia. Azerbaijan has refused to allow a delegation of Euro MPs permission to visit the 1,500-year-old Djulfa cemetery during their trip to the region last month.

So Azerbaijan denied entry not to Europarliament, but to a delegation of MPs, whom it accused of "biased and hysterical approach". I suggest the following wording: "denied permission to visit to a few MPs of Europarliament, whom it accused of a "biased and hysterical approach". This is basically what Adil proposed below, so let's discuss it. Grandmaster 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that saying that "Azerbaijan accused European MPs of a 'biased and hysterical approach'" is essentially the same thing as saying that "Azerbaijan barred the European Parliament from inspecting and examining the ancient burial site". We've already elaborated on Azerbaijan's position on this issue extensively and I see no point in pushing this any further. -- Aivazovsky 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. There was a reason why Azerbaijani side did not allow Europarliament to visit the area. We should include it too. From IWPR report that you cited:

However, Azerbaijan said it would only accept a European parliamentary delegation if it visited Armenian-controlled territory as well. Around one seventh of what is internationally recognised as Azerbaijani territory has been under Armenian control since the end of the Karabakh conflict.

“We think that if a comprehensive approach is taken to the problems that have been raised, it will be possible to study Christian monuments on the territory of Azerbaijan, including in the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic,” said Azerbaijani foreign ministry spokesman Tahir Tagizade. Grandmaster 12:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then maybe we can compromise on this:

In 2006, Azerbaijan barred the European Parliament from inspecting and examining the ancient burial site, stating that it would only accept a delegation if it visited the territory controlled by Karabakh Armenian forces as well. "We think that if a comprehensive approach is taken to the problems that have been raised," said Azerbaijani foreign ministry spokesman Tahir Tagizade, "it will be possible to study Christian monuments on the territory of Azerbaijan, including in the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic."

What do you think? -- Aivazovsky 12:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That’s ok, but it should be “Armenian forces”, like the source has it. Also, why do we need to mention Europarliament resolutions twice? I think we need to refer to the most recent one. And also, IWPR should be in a separate line, not linked with position of Azerbaijani government. Otherwise, it is alright. Grandmaster 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "Karabakh Armenian forces" should be changed to "Armenian forces" as that implies that the Armenian military is in control of the Karabakh region, which isn't true. The source is clearly referring to the Karabakh Armenians. I'm not sure how we can change the statement regarding the IWPR, do you have any suggestions for this? -- Aivazovsky 12:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Armenian forces" does not necessarily mean that they belong to the republic of Armenia, it is a reference to ethnic Armenian forces. However US State department and many other sources clearly say that NK is under the military control of Armenia. Plus, the source we are referring to does not use the wording “Karabakh Armenians”. As for the rest, I suggest we make it like this: Azerbaijan denies there has been destruction, and then words of Azerbaijani ambassador. And further something like: IWPR stated that … Grandmaster 13:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How about: "visited the territory controlled by Armenian forces in the Nagorno-Karabakh region as well"? I think that the reader needs to somehow see this as a clear reference to the NK conflict. As for the IWPR line, I have decided on the following based on what you suggested above:

Azerbaijan denies these accusations. Ambassador to the US Khafiz Pashayev, the videos and photographs that have surfaced show some unknown people destroying some mid-size stones and is not clear of what ethnicity those people are. Instead, the ambassador asserts that the Armenian side started a propaganda campaign against Azerbaijan to divert attention from the destruction of Azerbaijani monuments in Armenia. The Institute for War and Peace Reporting, meanwhile, reported on April 19, 2006 that "there is nothing left of the celebrated stone crosses of Jugha."

I think this should work. -- Aivazovsky 14:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. As for the "Armenian-controlled territories", in my understnding it is reference to both Armenia and territories of Azerbaijan that are under control of Armenian miltary forces. That's why I think that to avoid inclusion of our own interpretations we should use the words of the original. Or maybe you have a better idea? Grandmaster 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, rereading the article, I see where you're going with this. The section will just read "Armenian-controlled territory." Now then, did you also see my question below regarding people from Nakhichevan? -- Aivazovsky 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

changes

Once again, clarified the wording about EP to: In March 2006, Azerbaijan did not give permission to a few European Parliament members from inspecting and examining the burial site, accusing them of "biased and hysterical approach". . Added citations that both Orontids and Artaxiads were Persian and otherwise of Iranian origin. Added back the Azerbaijani ethymology of the word with two citations that were removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AdilBaguirov (talk • contribs) 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

All of the above is your pov interpretation. I suggest you open an RFC, because this is becoming tiresome.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

your words are not enough for a revert -- what is the substance of your accusation? Can you read the text? Then read please -- even The Independent article clealy says barred the delegation of MPs, not the EP itself. Or are you disputing that Orontids were Persian, and Artaxiads were of Iranian origin as well? I have presented extensive references, which are all scholarly and verifiable. You presented nothing, only your own personal point of view. --adil 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous people from Nakhichevan

Who were Ekmouladdin Nakhichevani, Hindushah ibn Nakhichevani, and Abdurrakhman en Neshevi? I just assumed that they were military leaders, but I could be wrong. -- Aivazovsky 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

They were medeival literary figures. Grandmaster 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -- Aivazovsky 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ildegezids

The territory of Ildegezid state in the Caucasus was not limited to Arran, it included most of modern Armenia and some regions of modern Turkey, so I restored the original version. Grandmaster 04:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranica says "...parts of Arran and Azerbaijan". Grandmaster, here you go again, sometimes Iranica is your favourite source, other times you criticize it?Azerbaijani 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Put dispute tag since Grandmaster insists on ignoring Iranica.Azerbaijani 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed dispute tag, because you cannot put a duspute tag to whole section, because of one or two words! azerbaijani, if you do not like iranica, then you can go and put dispute tag to iranica webpage, otherwise do not mess up whole section, and it is obviously true that atabegs ruled some parts of modern armenia and modern turkey, so it cannot be bounded to "arran" which was not even used that time, arran died before seljuqs came to azerbaijan, and no matter your some pseudo-scholars try to resurrect it. Ateshi - Baghavan 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That is what the dispute tags are for, who are you to dictate when and where tags can be used? The historical accuracy of the article is disputed. I will give you time to revert yourself. I am the one trying to put Iranica INTO the article. You do not even know what the dispute is about and you come and make a comment? Iranica says:

ATAÚBAKAÚN-E AÚD¨ARBAÚYÔAÚN, an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arra@n and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Ata@baks” (ata@baka@n-e a¿záam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), they effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181; in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arra@n and Azerbaijan until the territories which had not already been lost to the Georgians, were seized by Ôala@l-al-d^n K¨úa@razmÞa@h in 622/1225.

I am the one trying to make the information be as Iranica says it is.Azerbaijani 19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The same article also says: Not long before his death in 571/1175 Èldegoz lost Ani to the Georgians, although it was apparently later restored to the family's control and to their vassals, the Shaddadids (Minorsky, Studies, pp. 100f.). So obviously the territory controlled by Atabeks was not limited to Arran and Azerbaijan. Why is this such a big issue anyway? Grandmaster 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Minorsky says nothing of the sort! He says that in 1175, after unsuccssfully campaigning against the Georgians, Eldegoz retreated towards Ani and when arriving there he forced out the Georgian governor and re-instated the recently deposed Shadadid dynasty, who then became vassals of him. I.e. Ani was NOT a possession of Eldegoz before 1175, and after 1175 it was only because the Shaddadids, in theory, were his vassals. If the iranica article is suggesting otherwise, then it suggests bad motives on the part of its writer. Meowy 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving page

A Google test shows the following:

• "Nakhchivan" (the official spelling) gets 400,000 hits, [31]
• "Naxçıvan" (the Azeri spelling) gets 362,000 hits, [32]
• "Nakhichevan" (the present Wikipedia spelling) gets 178,000 hits, [33]
• "Nakhijevan" (the Armenian spelling) gets 572 hits, [34]

Hence this page should be moved to "Nakhchivan" as it is the most common name in English language. -- Aivazovsky 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. 'Nakhichevan' is a direct transliteration of the Russian version of this name. Parishan 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. But not for Aivazovsky's reasons. Nakhichevan will be by far the most common version used in the English language. Google does not represent the whole internet, and the internet does not represent every English language publication ever published. That variant in the spelling is actually a transliteration of an Armenian version of the name, not a Russian one. I think Nakhchivan should be used because it more accurately represents the pronounciatiion of the place. Now, who is going to change Nakhichevan to Nakhchivan in all the other Wikipedia pages that mention it?!! Meowy 09:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the move for the reasons mentioned above. I think all articles linking here will be gradually fixed. It is hard to do it at once. Grandmaster 09:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't do this move until I can get home and review my research on naming (which I used to scry the official romanizations for the rayons), but as for changing, I think you can maybe task an existing bot to do that, or use AWB. --Golbez 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the Nakhichevan spelling of the name is actually mentioned in the entry, becasue by spelling it that way the name in Armenian means something like the place of descent. I think it is 19th century in origin, and is a bit of folk etymology, the spelling being an attempt at making clearer what was believed by some to be the meaning of the placename. Meowy 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I've already begun changing the name in various articles and templates on Wikipedia. -- Aivazovsky 11:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Would be good to explain your last edit - removal of one of the versions of the name.--Dacy69 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There were two main reasons I had for removing that text: it was added by an anon (with the IP of 85.132.16.7) and it was unreferenced. Another reason was that its inclusion was never discussed at length. This is important when considering that the etymology section, like the rest of this article was built on a series of compromises and discussions. A dubious, unreferenced claim can, if left unchecked, lead to problems in the future. -- Aivazovsky 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Map

I have questions about this map [35]. Who is the author, when was it produced? I think we have another conflict of interest here, if it is produced in Armenia after 1991 or so, when some amateurs and biased Academy of Sciences staff in Yerevan have started to make their own maps, as they desired, without any scholastic approach. We have same ones here and similar maps. Then let's post both.--Ulvi I. 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving this article back to "Nakhichevan"

I decided to rename this article back to "Nakhichevan", simply because it gets more hits on Google [36] than "Nakhchivan". [37] "Nakhchivan" is also an alternative Azeri (i.e. not neutral) spelling not widely used in English. I didn't know this at the time of the move, which I was foolish enough to initiate and go along with. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I have any statement on the move, but I find it strange that an Azeri name for an undisputed region belonging to Azerbaijan can possibly be non-neutral. --Golbez (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Armenians don't make such statements. You should retract it as soon as possible, before you're called pro-Azeri. VartanM (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...you're right. In any case, "Nakhchivan" not widely used in the English language. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, should not you discuss the page move before actually making it? Roll it back, please, and discuss. Grandmaster (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whats stopping you from discussing it now? Assume a little good faith and provide your argument. VartanM (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It should not be discussed post factum, but before any change is made. Grandmaster (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I see, that's not the only changed made without consensus. I restored consensus wording in one section. Grandmaster (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Aivazovsky deleted this line: According to Human Rights Watch, hostilities broke out after three people were killed when Armenian forces began shelling the region.<ref name="hrw01">[http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/general/general926.pdf Overview of Areas of Armed Conflict in the former Soviet Union], [[Human Rights Watch]], Helsinki Report</ref> Grandmaster (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This part "According to other versions, the name Nakhichevan derived from the Persian Nagsh-e-Jahan..." is also seems to be misinterpreted, as both sources (also the one translated and published by "reliable" Ziya Bunyadov) dont say Nakhichevan derived from Nagsh-e-Jahan, thay just mark this as another variant for the name (in the source of Kazvani it is a variant of the Nakhijevan town's name). It is well-known that Nakhijevan is the recognized and internationally used name, and any revisions of the name may have only propagandist character. Andranikpasha (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The previous title was a consensus, this one is not: [38] Grandmaster (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not an official consensus made by any admin, nor an only Armenian user who discusses there is enough to represent another side's view and make agreement even if he is the so much respected Aivazovsky. Aivazovsky discussed it in May 2007, now it is February 2008. Many Armenian users included Aivazovsky represented new reasons why the moving is justified. Wiki is a free encyclopedia that needs to be developed, we cant keep all the dubious "consensuses" of May 2007 between some Azerbaijani and one Armenian user and close the Wikipedia. Grandmaster, you surely know about this as right after the consensus on Shusha you started the changes. So a "consensus" is a weak justification. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying but I'm failing to make any sense of what you said, what does any of that have to do with the name of this article? --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Before any move is made it should be discussed and agreed on talk. This is very simple. Grandmaster (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it why you moved Shushi Massacres to "Ethnic Clashes in Shusha" without any discussions?:) Nakhijevan is the commonly used name, its too much obviuos you even dont discuss it (am I right?), so what's the problem. How many reliable sources prefer Nakhchivan? Pls represent and surely we will discuss and make corrections. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW the article needs to be checked as some of the sources on the naming are misinterpreted as I represented earlier. Some things that must be NPOVed: the khachkars' case must be updated, as official Azerbaijan didnt allowed specialists to enter (according to neutral sources, not to Azeri officials); and Dashnaktsutiun is not the only significant party in Armenia that claims Nakhijevan and disputtes the treaty between Bolshieviks and Turkey. So an info updating is needed. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I said I'd review this six months ago and here we are, I don't have my original notes but it looks to me that the proper transliteration would be "Nakhchivan". I'm moving this back. If you want to request a move, that's fine, but til then it's going back to the 'original' name. And Aivazovsky, you should have known better than to make a controversial move. The Google search is not necessarily a valid indictator. --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Then again, you moved about 10 other articles too. Good job, making it that much annoying to reverse, and therefore I'd be much likely to just let it lie, and therefore you gain traction for your choice. Well played, sir. So the question is, do I actually undo all your changes, or do we open a discussion, which would just turn into another petty fight between the two groups? No, I'm taking this one on, the proper transliteration is Nakhchivan and thus it will go. That a certain number of google hits disagree cannot change that fundamental fact. One great piece of evidence - when you did your search-and-replace renaming in the article, you changed the name of the region's official website from http://www.nakhchivan.az/ to http://www.nakhichevan.az/ - didn't you think for a minute that, hey, maybe this was an indicator that this move was wrong? --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to everyone for all this mess. Let's just leave it as "Nakhchivan" and keep it like that. Thanks for reverting everything back, Golbez. Again, I'm sorry. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being graceful, I will try to be as well and apologize for my tone above. --Golbez (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving the problem, Golbez. Aivazovsky, I hope next time you will discuss with others before making any dramatic changes. You and I always managed to resolve our disputes so far. Grandmaster (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Im not agree with you, Aivazovsky, Golbez and Grandmaster, and Ill return to this problem when I have more time for this really annoying topic. Anyways my notes above are valid and (special for Grandmaster) mind that this undiscussed temporary revert is not a consensus. Do not have any illusions that I agreed. Andranikpasha (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have concrete evidence that this is the proper name; what do you have? --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Golbez, at first Id like to mark that Im sure on your neutrality, I see your real and serious interest to Arm.-Az. related topics, and whats more important for me, you're always open for any other opinions, another views and sources. Thank you for it! And to make a serious discussion on this moving I prefer to made some more research, despite some things are obvious right now (at least, the creation of Goghtan Gavar, "Nakhichevan Autonomuos Republic of Azerbaijani SSR" and "Nakhichevan (region)" articles is needed and justified). After that I even dont need to discuss this one with Grandmaster, as any reader will be able to see how historically Armenian Nakhichevan cleansed from whole Armenian population and Armenian cultural heritage by the descendents of 13th century invaders and became "Nakhchivan" first time a few years ago. Is this name changing a political denialism and propagand by Azerbaijan, or no, any reader can understand without Grandmaster's or mine help. But at first I prefer to finish source checking here. Thanks again! Andranikpasha (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Andranik, it's not worth fighting over changing the name again. User:Meowy suggested changing it from "Nakhichevan" to "Nakhchivan" awhile back while editing and I went along with it by bringing it up on the talk page. It's the official name and we can't change that. Also think that there can be no "political denialism" in this article unless the Armenian history of the area as well as the present demolition of khachkars is completely ignored. I worked hard to make sure that plenty of both were included in this piece. The name is not a big deal. Let's just leave it. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nakhchivan is as near as we can render into English spelling the way the name is spelt using the current Azeri alphabet. Also, it renders almost exactly how it is currently pronounced. It is NOT pronounced Nakhichevan by those that live there (and, personally, I don't think that it ever has been). Meowy 21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No Meowy, in Armenian it sounds very beautyful as it has a meaning. We have an Ijevan too. I really dont know what the Wiki rules say: Shusha is not pronounced as Shusha by 100% of those who live there, so what? Andranikpasha (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because population of Shusha was ethnically cleansed. The population of Shusha before the conflict was 99% Azerbaijani, and it is part of Azerbaijan de-jure. There's an internationally accepted practice to use pre-conflict names for NK locations, even though many authoritative sources, such as US State Department use official Azerbaijani names, such as Khankendi for Stepanakert. But this region is different from NK, the official name of this region in Azerbaijani is Nakhchivan, and the region is not disputed. Armenia does not officially claim it, and population does not want to break away from Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

99 % Azeri acoording to an Azeri source you're using at the Shusha. And surely Shusha wasnt ethnically clensed from Armenians... Azeri soldiers just "suppressed" a revolt with the whole Armenian population. Etc. It looks you're using the info you have to describe a Wiki rule, but what Im asking if such a rule really exists. Just cite pls. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PS- I dont sure if Nakhijevan is not officially claimed at least by the ruling Republ. party of Armenia Ill look after. I just know that there are high-level Armenian diplomats who didnt recognize the Moscow Treaty of 1921 as de jure correct and mark that Nakhijevan wasnt a part of Dem. Rep. of Azerbaijan, the de jure predecessor of the modern Azerbaijan. I need to look for sources. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me an official document from modern Republic of Armenia, which claims Nakhchivan. Grandmaster (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Who says modern Armenia officially claims Nakhijevan? I dont know if a decision on naming for Wiki is related to the official claims by different states. Maybe such a Wiki rule exists but I dont know. If yes just show me. FYI as I know official Armenia also never officially claims Karabakh (Armenia just supports NKR independence). By my opinion, at Wiki we prefer the commonly used (in English) name. Transcriptions (we cant use the Armenian or Persian original form for Armenia), other language versions (then maybe Hayastan not Armenia) or claims are not significiant. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)