Talk:Karabakh

Map

How is this map "Clearly POV" just because its from an Armenian source doesn't mean its POV. Artaxiad 08:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It does. Get a map from a thrid-party source. I can create a map myself, place it at some Azerbaijanica.com and then upload here, would you agree to its inclusion? The maps should come from a reliable third party publication. Grandmaster 08:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An absolutely bogus claim, with a wave of hand at your own side's unreliability to appear neutral. Given your record, no one should expect more. Աշոտ (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Wording

Kindly requesting input from an outside editor who may weigh in on the discussion above about the propriety of using the word "remain" in the main article's body when referring to the region's formal assignation or inclusion within the borders of a newly-created republic over what I contend is a far more neutral formulation ("included").

In its bare essence, I argue that there is no doubt that Karabakh did not belong to either Armenia or Azerbaijan in the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the Russian Empire (1918). Armenia (and the local Karabakh Armenians) fought over the territory with Azerbaijan (just like they fought over nearby regions Zangezur and Nakhichevan) and its status was hardly settled when the Soviets established control over both republics in 1920. Neither had firm, legally recognized borders until the imposition of the Soviet settlement (these were supposed to be fixed at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, but the Allied Powers never got around to it). In fact, local Armenians chafed at the imposition of an Azerbaijani regime that never established firm roots in the region (even launching an unsuccessful rebellion to topple it) and which is why I argue the word "remain" is highly misleading and inappropriate in this context. I contend my suggestion is far more neutral and faithful to the facts, i.e., saying "inclusion" since from 1918-1921 the region did not have any international legal recognition as belonging to one country or another and that its status was only formalized by the central Soviet administration. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

When formalising the status of Karabakh, the central Soviet administration specifically mentioned that the region should remain within Azerbaijan (here is a scan of the 1921 decision, see the selected paragraph and the word оставить). Hovannisian (1971) and Saparov (2012), who give a detailed chronological overview of the political situation in Karabakh in 1918-1921, following the break-up of the Russian Empire, also confirm that Azerbaijan maintained control over Karabakh since June 1918, as manifested by the continuous presence of its military force as well as a governor based in the province capital of Shusha. Relying on "international recognition" when there are sources clearly using the word "remain" constitutes OR, as not every conflict is reacted to by the international community and one certainly cannot invent such reactions. In any event, international recognition has never been a factor in AA2 articles in determining whether a party exercised control over a territory or not; why should it be one now? Parishan (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I would highly advise anyone interested in these topics to obtain access to Tsutsiev's (2014) excellent Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus. Published by Yale University Press and obtainable at De Gruyter,[1] it includes a very detailed outlook on the Caucasus from the 18th century onwards, including dozens of maps related to the conquests in the area and the demographics of the region. This includes a map on the situation in Karabakh/Transcaucasia in 1918-1920. I can post some excerpts, but not the maps unfortunately:

Chapter: "1920: The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and Soviet Russia" page 71

• "In western Transcaucasia the granting of territories to the Ottoman Empire under the provisions of the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Batum was annulled and the Southwestern Caucasus Republic was abolished, its territory divided between Armenia and Georgia. The majority of districts densely populated by Armenians in Mountain (Nagorny) Karabakh formally remained under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan but were actually controlled by the local Armenian National Council. (Nagorny means “mountainous” or “highland” in Russian. Lowland Karabakh, on the other hand, was settled mostly by Turkic-speaking [Azeri] groups. The designations of “Mountain” and “Lowland” Karabakh here reflect the political fragmentation of the territory along ethnic lines during 1918–1921.) In 1919 Azerbaijan lost control of Sharur and Daralagez and, temporarily, of Nakhichevan. Zangezur had been occupied by Armenian troops in 1918."

page 73:

• "Nakhichevan District and the mountain portions of Shusha and Jevanshir Districts (part of Mountain Karabakh)—also claimed by Armenia, but mostly under the military control of Azerbaijan until March 1920. There was a preliminary agreement in effect between August 1919 and March 1920 in Mountain Karabakh reached through British mediation between the government of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and the local Armenian National Council granting Azerbaijan provisional jurisdiction until a final decision (which never came) on the status of the territory at the Paris Peace Conference."

• "During March and April 1920 an Armenian rebellion in Karabakh was accompanied by the introduction of Armenian Republic troops and the short-term incorporation of the area into Armenia. But on 28 April Azerbaijan came under Soviet control, and a new period began in the region’s history, one in which the Transcaucasian elite’s “national interests” were forced to harmonize with the geopolitical strategy of Soviet Russia, “the bridgehead of world revolution.” The fate of the Azerbaijan Republic was sealed by the RSFSR’s critical dependence on supplies of oil from Baku, which gained new importance during the war between Soviet Russia and Poland. Although it was losing its independence, Azerbaijan was gaining an important ally in its territorial confl icts with Armenia, whose troops were now confronting the Red Army. By August 1920 the army had occupied Mountain Karabakh, Zangezur, and Nakhichevan. The Soviets’ occupation of these areas did not predetermine any particular resolution of territorial disputes, but the boundaries of zones under military control were clearly considered probable “final” borders. Moscow again became the main force shaping the region’s political map. The Bolsheviks’ interest in partnership with Kemalist Turkey brought with it a growing role for Ankara in determining the borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In March 1921, under the Treaty of Moscow between Turkey and Soviet Russia, not only were new external borders established for Transcaucasia but a portion of its internal borders as well. This is when the autonomous Nakhichevan Territory (made up of the Sharur and Nakhichevan Districts) was proclaimed to be “under the protection” of the Azerbaijan Soviet Republic."

Chapter: "1920: Partition of the Republic of Armenia". page 76

• "The territory of Mountain (Nagorny) Karabakh was still under dispute in 1921: the Russian Communist Party’s Caucasus Bureau, the Soviet party-state office in charge of deciding territorial questions in the Caucasus, could not decide how to apportion it. In the end the Bolshevik leaders made their decision guided by their strategy of “gaining allies of the October Revolution among the peoples of the East”: the Kemalist regime was seen as a potential conduit for the export of anti-imperial revolution to the Muslim world. Armenia lacked any comparable geopolitical weight to equal Muslim solidarity with Soviet Russia. As a result, Mountain Karabakh remained inside Azerbaijan. But the decision featured a compromise (a result of the influence of yet another Bolshevik guiding principle—the right of peoples to self-determination): within the territory of the upland portion of Karabakh there was to be an autonomous province (oblast)—a place of Armenian self-determination within the boundaries of Soviet Azerbaijan."

- LouisAragon (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It would appear, per Tsutsiev (including the maps in the book), that the area was not under continuous Azerbaijani military control. However, when it all ended, the area apparently "remained" within Azerbaijan rather than being "included". - LouisAragon (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Tsutsiev is much less reliable than Hovannisian and Saparov, who worked with archival materials. If the military control of Azerbaijan lasted "until March 1920", this could not have taken place. Parishan (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Tsutsiev is much less reliable than Hovannisian and Saparov (...)"

Do you have sources (such as reviews) for this claim? If not, its WP:OR. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have sources showing that Tsutsiev is a specialist of ancient history who has not published a single paper on the South Caucasus and barely on anything other than ancient Ossetia. What exactly makes him a specialist on the contemporary Karabakh conflict that would make him match Hovannisian and Saparov? Even we insist that is a reliable source, he still uses the word "remain", which is what has triggered this RfC. Parishan (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You may bring it to WP:RSN if you think a source published by Yale University Press[2] and lauded/hailed by the likes of George Bournoutian (review) and Francis King (review) is "unreliable" or "less reliable" than XYZ. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Use "remained". The original document, which is by a third-party, uses "remained", they wouldn't have used that for no reason. And the term "included" can easily be interpreted as part of a wide-spread propaganda campaign that claims the region was "given"/"gifted" to Azerbaijan. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 05:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Use "remained" but add more context Reliable sources generally use the word "remained", but I get MarshallBagramyan's point. IMO, additional context clarification should be added in addition to a map illustrating the situation at the time. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggested a more nuanced wording in the above section yet even that proposal was spurned and ridiculed as dubious. The very propaganda CuriousGolden frets about holds its equal if not greater analogue among those individuals and groups that believe that Armenians have never had any genuine claims to Karabakh (hence the implication in saying "remain"). Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment per LouisAragon's explanation and sources, the section should probably be expanded. If this isn't enough to solve the issue, the wording can be further discussed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Artsakh status wording

My apologies @Armeniangigachad, I accidentally hit the "enter" button before I could finish typing the edit summary. What I was trying to explain was that because Artsakh is a state unrecognised by any UN member-state currently, the wording "limited recognition" without distinction isn't accurate and may misinform readers regarding its international recognition. There was actually a discussion regarding this wording on the talk page of Artsakh, I'd advise you to have a look at that. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 06:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Olympian, thank you for the constructive explanation! Best, – Աշոտ (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Antique part of History isnt explained well

Anthropological studies show that the current Artsakh (Karabakh) Armenians are the direct physical descendants of the indigenous population of the region.Following the modern consensus among western scholars concerning the origin of the Armenian people, they represent a fusion of the mostly Indo-European natives of the Armenian Plateau(including Artsakh), and the Hurrians of the southernmost Armenian Plateau. According to this theory, from earliest times the Armenian Plateau was inhabited by many ethnic groups. The ethnic character of Artsakh may thus have been originally more diverse than it is now. It is worth noting that Strabo described Armenia (which then included also Artsakh and Utik) in the 1st century BC as "monolingual",though this does not necessarily mean that its population consisted exclusively of ethnic Armenians.

According to the Encyclopædia Iranica, the proto-Armenians had settled as far north as the Kura River by the 7th century BC. In Robert Hewsen's view, until the 6th–5th centuries BC the proto-Armenians lived only in the western half of the Armenian Plateau (in areas between Cappadocia, the Tigris, the Euphrates, and Lake Van) and came to Artsakh and adjacent regions such as Syunik and Utiksomewhat later than the central parts of the Armenian Plateau (as late as the 2nd century BC, as a result of Artaxias I's conquests).While genetical studies claimed and proved that Artsakh also was part of the original proto-Armenian homeland, and that Armenians are the direct descendants of the peoples living in the region 7800 years ago. The conclusion from the studies is that also before the bronze age the population was at the very least mostly Armenian. Although little is known of the other people (except the Armenians) that lived in Artsakh and Utik prior to the putative 2nd-century BC where the region was part of Artaxiad Armenia, Hewsen argues that some names of those tribes (mentioned by Greek, Roman and Armenianauthors) demonstrate that a few of them were not Armenian, nor Indo-European, and that they assimilated into the local Armenians over time.

By medieval times, from at least the 9th century, the population of Artsakh had a strong Armenian national identity. Its people spoke a local Eastern Armenian dialect, the Artsakhian dialect (today known as the Karabakh dialect), which was mentioned by 7th-century grammarian Stepanos Syunetsi in his earliest record of the Armenian dialects․ 2A02:3035:E07:4869:9176:34D5:1478:2186 (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Olympian ^loquereI saw you replying to many others on this page, coulld you give your take on this and the other issue i raised?(Also the one withz "Calling the Seljuqs who settled there the ancestors of azerbaijanis" one" 93.200.103.101 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Calling the Seljuqs who settled there the ancestors of azerbaijanis

Azerbaijanis, as the article Origin of the Azerbaijanis shows arent just descendent from turks who once immigrated there, they also got a huge part of iranian and caucasian admixture, calling azerbaijanis direct decsendants of seljuqs, while disregarding the diverse mixing that brang forth the Azerbaijanis is a blantant oversimplification and could mislead the reader, I propose to have it say „one of the ancestors of the Azerbaijanis“ or something similar 2A02:3035:E07:4869:9176:34D5:1478:2186 (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)