Talk:Karabakh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Questions about population figures and sources

User Rs4815 keeps vandalizing this article.

In the article it states that the Armenian population in 1823 was 8.4%. 9 years later in 1832 the population rises to 34.8% which is mentioned in the same paragraph (the article states 35% to be precise). This user keeps claiming that the figure of 1823 is unreliable based on thin air, and changes the figure of 1823 from 8.4% to 34.8%. But he fails to provide any proof for that neither does he provide an alternative source to back his claims. User has a history of disruptive editing. He has been warned for his behavior. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I changed the section name to be more appropriate. MrUnoDosTres, I don't see any evidence of vandalism, so I'd suggest striking that comment, if you would be so kind, thanks.

The figure of 8.4% prior to 1828 is sourced to Yazdani. It's not clear to me where he gets that number from, as I don't have access to the book, does anyone else? The figure was changed here: [1], and the citation was in fact changed to an alternative source, Bournoutian. Bournoutian states that there was an 1823 survey, completed by the Russians on 17 April, and "its more than 300 pages recorded both the Armenian and Muslim population, not by numbers, but by villages and tax assessments." If actual numbers were not recorded, I'm not sure how Yazdani comes up with such a precise figure of 8.4%, but surely he must be referring to the same survey? It would be helpful to have more sources that specifically discuss this survey. The other source, that had been removed, was Cornell, who stated a similar proportion: "According to Russian census reports, the Armenian population in Karabakh represented 9 per cent of the total in 1823 (the remaining 91 per cent being registered as ‘Muslims’), 35 per cent in 1832, and a majority of 53 per cent in 1880."

Bournoutian doesn't give a proportion from this 1823 survey for the overall population, only for the mountainous regions, stating only "Thus the five mountainous districts (generally known as Nagorno-Karabakh today) [...] had an overwhelming Armenian population before 1828"). He goes on to mention the figure of 34.8% attributed by Altstadt to a 1832 survey, but denies any knowledge of this survey. So I would say that specific figure for 1823 (or even 1832) does fail verification in this source. He speculates that Altstadt might be referring to a survey published in 1836, showing overall 35.2% (but about 90% in the mountainous regions).

He then discusses the question of Armenian immigration and/or repatriation prior to 1828, but to be honest I don't quite follow it, and I'm not sure what his position is on the overall population ratio in that period. Rs4815, could you explain why you think that the Bournoutian source supports an overall figure of about 35% in 1823, or how it contradicts the figures of about 9% given by Yazdani and Cornell for that year? Thanks.

I notice that Khirurg has again removed the Cornell citation - could you please explain why you believe it is an "unreliable source"? Svante Cornell is a notable Swedish scholar, and the book was published by Routledge, one of the most respected academic publishers. --IamNotU (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Article previously said: "On the other hand, the population of the Karabakh khanate, taken as a whole, was largely made up of Muslims (91% Muslim versus 9% Armenian)" with link to Cornell's "Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus".

If you check this book, you can see a lot of references to the Suzanne Goldenberg's "Pride of Small Nations: The Caucasus and Post-Soviet Disorder". He used it as a reliable source for his own work. And since there is no other sources noted by Cornell in his work that gives any information about Karabakh's population (for the first half of 19th century), exept Goldenberg's, we can surely say that Cornell uses Goldenbergs's falsified data. Compare, this is a quote of Cornell:

According to Russian census reports, the Armenian population in Karabakh represented 9 per cent of the total in 1823 (the remaining 91 per cent being registered as ‘Muslims’), 35 per cent in 1832, and a majority of 53 per cent in 1880. This information is only of limited use, as the census included the entire Karabakh khanate, that is including lower Karabakh. Hence the figures for Mountainous Karabakh remain unknown; it is nevertheless certain that the overall increase in Armenian population was due to an increasing migration of Armenians to Mountainous Karabakh or an exodus of Muslims from the region

and this is the Goldenberg's quote:

Some scholars, quoting reports prepared by Russian military officials in 1823, have put the Armenian share of Karabakh’s population as low as 8.4 per cent, with Muslims making up 91 per cent.1 Even in 1832, after considerable migration had taken place, it is generally accepted that Muslims were a majority in Karabakh. An official Russian survey of that year recorded that Muslims made up 64.8 per cent of the region and Armenians 34.8 per cent.2

as you can see, same data. Now G. Bournoutian's commentary:

An uncited Russian survey of 1832 and my article are used as the main sources for this statement. The survey lists the Armenian population of the whole of Karabakh at 34.8 percent (slightly over one-third) and that of the Azeris at 64.8 percent. This time Altstadt confuses the reader by identifying the whole of Karabakh with Mountainous Karabakh. The Armenian population of Karabakh (as will be demonstrated below) was concentrated in 8 out of the 21 districts or mahals of Karabakh. These 8 districts are located in Mountainous Karabakh and present-day Zangezur (then part of Karabakh). Thus 34.8 percent of the population of Karabakh populated 38 percent of the land. In other words the Armenians, according to the survey cited by Altstadt, formed 91.58 percent of the population of Mountainous Karabakh.
...
Unfortunately, those who have the habit of copying sources without verification have used Alstadt's misleading footnotes and have further damaged my credibility as a scholar. The worst offender is Suzanne Goldenberg's Pride of Small Nations: The Caucasus and Post-Soviet Disorder (London: Zed Books, 1994), which states, "Even in 1832, after considerable migration had taken place, it is generally accepted [my emphasis] that Muslims were a majority in Karabakh. An official Russian survey of that year recorded that Muslims made up 64.8 percent of the region and Armenians 34.8 percent (p. 158)." The note cites my article as the sole source.

by the way, Svante Cornell has been criticised for being not neutral and having "pro-Azerbaijan" views. --Rs4815 (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, actually Cornell had another source in his book for this issue - Audrey Altstadt (read about her above, Bournoutian's commentary, I havely recomend you to read full text of his commentary, not only the part that i quoted). --Rs4815 (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Also Bournoutian actually wrote a whole book where he did research about 1823 survey, it's called "The 1823 Russian Survey of the Karabagh Province: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of Karabagh in the Early 19th Century.", while I could not find that book in open sources, I could find his interview about that book (where he gives an important data from it) in YouTube (you can watch only first 2 minutes, if don't have time to watch full of it). --Rs4815 (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Rs4815, thanks for your answer. I don't think we can simply dismiss everything written by Cornell and Suzanne Goldenberg as "unreliable sources", just because Bournoutian criticized one thing Goldenberg wrote, and because Cornell cites her book several times - though not for the fact in question. You're welcome to try to make a case for that at WP:RSN, but I doubt you'll have much success in getting a consensus.

Bournoutian's criticism of Goldenberg and Altstadt is that they use the figure of 34.8 percent in 1832 for the whole of Karabakh in a misleading way, that is, to imply that it related to the population of Nagorno Karabakh, where the proportion was actually far higher - and incorrectly citing him as a source.

He doesn't say anything about what the population of the whole of Karabakh in 1823 was, only about Nagorno Karabakh. Nor does he mention the quote of Goldenberg about it above, let alone make any accusation that Goldenberg falsified data about 1823.

We have three sources - Yazdani (1993), Goldenberg (1994), and Cornell (2001), all giving the figure of 8.4 percent in 1823 for the whole of Karabakh, purportedly taken from the Russian survey. We have no statement from Bournoutian disputing that, nor any claim by anyone that the percentage was 34.8 percent in 1823.

Unless someone can get a citation of Bournoutian's The 1823 Russian Survey of the Karabagh Province that says otherwise, I'm afraid we'll have to return to the 8.4% figure - making sure it's clear what it does and doesn't apply to. It would be helpful to have such a citation, as well as the original source for the 8.4% figure used by Yazdani (the oldest of the citations) and Goldenberg for comparison. --IamNotU (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• "because Bournoutian criticized one thing Goldenberg wrote, and because Cornell cites her book several times", Cornell is a scholar specializing on politics and security issues in Eurasia, he is not a professional historian and definitely not an expert on 19th century demography. He is not a reliable source for this issue, and doesn't even give us his exact source of information for that numbers. Since he mentioned works of Goldenberg and Altstad as his sources in many other parts of his book, there can be no doubts that he took that data from those two authors.
• "He doesn't say anything about what the population of the whole of Karabakh in 1823 was, only about Nagorno Karabakh", Karabakh traditionally divided into three parts, Zangezur in the west, Mountainous ("Nagorno") Karabakh in the center and Lowland Karabakh in the East. Bournoutian says that acourding to 1823 survey, both Zangezur and Nagorno-Karbakh (where's the capital of Karabakh located) were overwhelmingly populated by Armenians, and Armenians were also represented, in lesser numbers, in all the other non-nomadic districts of Karabakh. And with that information you still offer me to trust Goldenberg’s data that Armenians composed less than 9 percent of the entire Karabakh population? In the same time when we have already seen that Goldenberg failed to give as correct data for 1830s.
• AND BY THE WAY, attention please (check the notes of Goldenberg's book), this numbers (about 9%) Goldenberg took from Azerbaijani historian Sulejman Alyjarly (Suleyman Aliyarov) who is known as one of leaders of Azerbaijani "school of historical revisionists" (Victor Schnirelmann. "Войны памяти: мифы, идентичность и политика в Закавказье", page 166). Suleyman Aliyarli (specialist in the history of oil fields in the Baku region at the end of the 19th century) known by such nonsense statements like Turks live in Armenia, Goergia and even Sumer (!!!) since Antiquity (long before Seljuk invasion in 11th century) (page 170). He called the term "Alban" (you know, Caucasian Albania) the turkic word and that Caucasian Albanians were part of oghuz-turkic people, and of course he claimed that there were never (!) been any Armenian state in South Caucasus (page 187), while writing about Principality of Khachen (in Nagorno-Karabakh) he never mentioned in his works that the population of that principality was Armenian (page 236). Schnirelmann criticized Aliyarli in many other matters, if you can understand Russian I could give whole quotes from "Войны памяти: мифы, идентичность и политика в Закавказье" about him (I don't know if there is any English edition of it, maybe "The Value of the Past. Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia" mantioned in Schnirelmann's bibliography?). Anyways this Goldenberg/Aliyarli union is not neutral and not reliable source at all.
• IamNotU, you several times already mentioned Yazdani, but still did not bring any quotes from him, nor of his sources of information. Since than, I'm afraid we'll have to not mention this misinformation (8.4% figure). Unless you can find any REAL reliable sources on this topic. PS. My English is horrible, I know. --Rs4815 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Rs4815, I don't have access to Yazdani's book that's cited, except through Google books search, from that I found: "Als Folge der Umsiedlungen stieg in den Jahren 1828 bis 1830 der Anteil der Armenier in der Provinz Karabach von 8,4 Prozent auf 34,8 Prozent" ("As a result of the resettlements, the proportion of Armenians in the province of Karabakh rose from 8.4 percent to 34.8 percent between 1828 and 1830."). I don't know what his source is. I don't have access to Goldenberg's book (which isn't cited) either. I can see in the quote you provided that there's a footnote, but I don't know what it is - can you provide a copy of the footnote?

Please understand that I'm not interested in arguing for the "truth" of this 8.4% figure that is supposedly found in the 1823 survey. What I'm saying is that we need to base the article on published, reliable sources. So far we have three sources, two by notable authors, saying 8.4%, and no sources that say otherwise. The figure is also repeated in numerous other sources.

If you wish to dispute the 8.4% figure, you simply need to cite a reliable source that does so! If what you say is true, it shouldn't be that hard. So far I only see ad hominem arguments about the unreliability of the authors of the currently-cited sources. If you're not able to provide reliable sources disputing the figure, but you still feel that all the authors are so unreliable that they must not be cited, I suggest opening a discussion at WP:RSN, but that's going to be much more difficult to get consensus on.

If a reliable source is provided that disputes the figure, it still doesn't mean that we just dismiss the other authors and erase their citations. The WP:NPOV policy does not mean that we only cite authors who are "neutral"! We must explain all significant viewpoints, especially in controversial issues, without editorial bias. Even if for example Suleyman Aliyarli is biased as you say, it may still be necessary to present his views, and contrast them with other views, if they are notable and widely discussed. "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." --IamNotU (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• "I don't have access to Yazdani's book that's cited ... I don't know what his source is", then we can not accept him as a reliable source for this article. We need to know on what source exactly he based that statement. Maybe it's again Aliyarli?
• "can you provide a copy of the footnote?"

  1. Аlijarly, Sulejman (1992), 'The republic of Azerbaydzhan: Notes on the State Borders in the Past and the Present', unpublished paper. London.

• "So far we have three sources, two by notable authors", notable does not mean reliable. One of these authors is a scholar specializing on politics and security issues, criticized for his pro-Azerbaijan views, second "notable" is Goldenberg (the source of Cornell) who used as her source of information an Azerbaijani revisionist Аlijarly and who accused of misinformation for 1830s data. And the third one is Yazdani whose book is not available for us.
• "and no sources that say otherwise", wait a minute, we have source that says that Armenians composed wast majority in both central and western Karabakh (more than 90%), and lived also in its eastern part, but with smaller numbers. With this information we can assume that Armenians at least made up a sizable part of Karabakh's population but not just 8.4%. How many Azeris lived in semi-desert Lowland Karabakh in the 1820s, a million?
• "If you wish to dispute the 8.4% figure, you simply need to cite a reliable source that does so! If what you say is true, it shouldn't be that hard.", that number, 8.4% is based only on oil specialist Alijarly estimate, who is revisionist and propagandist who rejects even the fact that Armenians had statehood in South Caucasus. I have reliable source that heavily criticized Alijarly. If you want to depict all views of Azerbaijani revisionists and falsificators on Wikipedia articles (in the same level with Bournoutian and other reliable authors), then we need to rename Wikipedia from "The Free Encyclopedia" to "The Free Fantasy Book". If 8.4% figure is true, then it will be very easy to you, to find real reliable sources that will give us that data.
• "Even if for example Suleyman Aliyarli is biased as you say, it may still be necessary to present his views", there is absolutely no reason for that, we cannot provide biased points of view and propaganda with the same level as neutral reliable sources (ESPECIALLY in controversial articles), in article you cannot find biased Armenian authors (Bournoutian is neutral and authoritative author) so why we must fill it with Azerbaijani revisionists? The only fact that we know about 1823 survey is that Armenians at that time composed more than 90% of the Mountainous Karabakh and Zangezur population. --Rs4815 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Rs4815, thanks for providing the footnote from Goldenberg's book. The cited paper by Aliyarli was published in 1996 in Transcaucasian Boundaries, by UCL Press, another highly-respected academic publisher. Here is the quote:

To return to the historical sources, the first special household description of the Karabakh province was carried out by the Russian authorities in 1823, immediately after the abolition of the khanate. The enquiry fixed the number of households at 18,963, of which 1559 families (or 8.4 per cent) fell to the share of the 5 Armenian melikates (Talysh, Chilaburt, Varanda, Dizak and Khachen). [49] Admittedly, this tells us almost nothing about the ethnic composition of Karabakh.

49. Central State Research Archive of Azerbaijan 1, 24, 141, 226 with the general title: Description of the Karabakh province, carried out in 1823 at the command of Ermolov, supreme commander in Georgia. Tbilisi, 1866.

I understand from what you've written above that you feel that Cornell, Yazdani, Goldenberg, Aliyarli, etc., are biased, revisionist propagandists, and not "real" sources, while Bournoutian is neutral and authoritative and thus only his views should be presented in the article. I'm not really convinced by those arguments. I can also find peer-reviewed sources accusing Bournoutian of pro-Armenian bias and incorrect interpretation of the survey. I think I've made it as clear as I can what my interpretation of WP:NPOV is. As I see it, there is at the moment no consensus to remove the 8.4% figure and the citations from the article - though we could modify the explanation based on the above quote - and you have three choices:

1. Provide at least one reliable source, preferably more, giving a figure other than 8.4%. Note that doesn't mean the other sources can necessarily be removed, unless it can be shown clearly that they are WP:FRINGE viewpoints.
2. Go to WP:RSN and get a consensus that all of the sources/authors are so biased and unreliable that they can't be cited.
3. Pursue one of the options in WP:DISPUTE resolution.

If you can provide reliable sources for different 1823 figures, I could try to help to incorporate them in the article, in accordance with WP:NPOV. If you're not able to provide reliable sources, I'm not really interested in hearing much more about it, sorry... --IamNotU (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"The cited paper by Aliyarli was published in 1996 in Transcaucasian Boundaries, by UCL Press", and let's look at the editorial board of Transcaucasian Boundaries - John F. R. Wright, Suzanne Goldenberg, Richard Schofield. What a surprise!

"I understand from what you've written above that you feel that Cornell, Yazdani, Goldenberg, Aliyarli, etc., are biased, revisionist propagandists ... I'm not really convinced by those arguments.", IamNotU, with all due respect, it's absolutely doesn't matter what convinces you and what doesn't, unlike you I don't bring my personal opinion here . There is exact reliable sources that criticizing Cornell (scholar specializing on politics) for being pro-Azerbaijan (check the article about him on Wiki), there is reliable source that calls Aliyarli - one of the leaders of Azerbaijani revisionism (Schnirelmann), there is reliable source that accuses Goldenberg for misinformation. It's not my problem that you prefer to ignore sources that you don't like. And yes, the Yazdani's book is not available for us. Right now the only reason why I do not contact with administration on this topic is because my English skills are poor as hell, and you kinda use it against me :) I'm more of a Russian Wikipedia author, and with this kind of "sources" in your hands, it will be very very hard to you to convince RuWiki admins that you're right (in RuWiki the rules on reliability of the sources are much stricter in controversial articles).

"I can also find peer-reviewed sources accusing Bournoutian of pro-Armenian bias and incorrect interpretation of the survey", oh really? Then bring them.

"As I see it, there is at the moment no consensus to remove the 8.4% figure and the citations from the article", on Wikipedia information mast be based on reliable sources and not just "consensus without discussion" (we never had real consensus on bringing this likely fake data to article).

"and you have three choices", are you a Wikipedia administrator to give me "three choices' (or four, or two, or one)? You're just a user, just like me, but with better English knowlage. You're better give me reliable sources, is it so hard? (I mean, you didn't have even Goldenberg's book (only Cornell), but just like in Yazdani case, wanted to use her work as a reliable source without even checking it. By the way I even have that original 1823 survey in PDF format (it's in Russian)) I even found in the work of another Azeri propagandist Tofik Kocharli (I do not consider him as a reliable source either, just like Aliyarly, but still) that according to 1823 survey Armenians made up from 21.7 to 25.4 per cent of Karabakh's population at that time.

Based on the same paper method, researchers calculated that in 1823 there were 20095 families in Garabagh, including 15729 Azerbaijani (78.3%) and 4366 Armenian families (21.7%).108
According to the calculations of Armenian authors, the number of the Armenian families was 5107.109 Which number concerning the Armenians is more correct - 5107 or 4336? One might say that difference between the two figures is not so high (741 families) and that it does not change overall view of the number of the Armenians in Garabagh.

Same survey, two Azeri authors, two different interpretations.

"I'm not really interested in hearing much more about it", but you seem very interested in editing the article without any consensus in talk page. --Rs4815 (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Minorsky

@Maidyouneed: Minorsky from Notes on Administrative Geography chapter (Tadkhirat Al-Muluk):

p. 164: A (North-West:Azarbayjan and Transcaucasia)

...

p. 166: III. QARA-BAGH is a term first appearing in Nuzhat al-qulub, and perhaps connected with some Turkish tribe extinct (footnote: see Qara-baghlar, north of Nakhichevan, Qara-bagh to the north of Urmiya, Qara-bagh west of Qhazni, Afghanistan, aradi-yi Qara-bagh near Karmina, see Iz arkhivov sheikhov Jubayri, Leningrad, 1938, p. 458). Qara-bagh with its capital Shusha, lies between Kur and Araxes (ancient Arran). On f.7b Qarabagh is coupled with Ganja which lies to the south of the Kur upstream from the Qarabagh proper. (bold and italics are mine, JFT)

— [2]

Frankly speaking, there is nothing even ambiguous, and as your argument is not valid (as it seen from the quote: Minorsky is definitely talking about Karabakh and definitely about the origins of the term), I would rather return the text. I would like to ask you to start a thread in a talk page prior to deleting the sourced information. John Francis Templeson (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Kara

@ItsObjectiveee: Kara is an ancient turkic word, not arabic. One online dictionary isn't an reliable source. See: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kara#Etymology_7 .— CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, it is not correct to give another wikipedia resource on the Wikipedia page, first check the WP: RULES page. First of all, I don't have any bad goals, and I am Turkish anyway. And see the Turkish language dictionary: [3]. Write "Kara" and search. Please don't change the subject. Old Azeri is an Ancient Iranian Language. You can see, I have to make this change because it is obvious and clearly. Old Azeri You can look at this page. ItsObjectiveee (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, that is not another Wikipedia article or an article in another language, but the Wiktionary, which isn't against the rules. And I didn't say you have bad goals. I think there's a misunderstanding on your side about the sentence about Old Azeri. It says "Old Azeri language (pre-Turkic language spoken in Iranian Azerbaijan)". It doesn't say it's turkic, it's saying that it's the language that was spoken in Iranian Azerbaijan, before the turkic one. But I'm not against you deleting that anyway, just wanted to let you know that I was not implying that it was not Iranic. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hola, generally it's not acceptable to cite anything to a wiki or other site where users can easily modify info (like IMDB). That includes Wiktionary. --Golbez (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, ItsObjectiveee. It seems like we can't agree on what to put near Old Azeri. We should just leave it without any explanation near it since literally when you hover over the name, the first thing it shows is the fact that it's an ancient Iranian language. The edit I made is essentially same thing as the edit you're trying to implement. Can we agree to not put anything explanatory nearby to avoid a dispute? Most people who have ever read Wikipedia already know that blue words are links. Good day :D — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

:D Yes I agree with you. But what I meant was: "Wikipedia has to be clear and simple" so we are not the only ones using Wikipedia, we have to be "simple". Respect and love. ItsObjectiveee (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you for being nice! — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsObjectiveee There might've been a misunderstanding, but I thought we agreed to not have any explanatory sentence near the Old Azeri word, since you said "Yes I agree with you". You seem to have reverted the change. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it wasn't actually what I meant, so the point I agreed with you as an opinion was different. ItsObjectiveee (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsObjectiveee: Ah, I see, there was a misunderstanding then. I think the explanation is not really needed as there's already an article linked. But if you insist, I think putting (Pre-Turkic Ancient Iranian language spoken in Iranian Azerbaijan) is more accurate and more explanatory. And, again I think you don't understand my intent, but "Pre-Turkic" means, "before the Turkic Azeri language". — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, what we said may be the same thing, but I will say for the last time, there is a rule that says "be simple" in Wikipedia, you have to follow this rule. Respects. ItsObjectiveee (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If we're being simple then that explanatory sentence isn't even supposed to be there. What policy is there on Wiki that says there's supposed to be an explanatory phrase near articles even when they're linked? Respectfully, — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't have to be a policy for every single detail. This issue is not an issue to be discussed and extended. There is no point in extending this subject, I did what should be. Have a nice day. Thanks for the nice discussion, no point in extension. ItsObjectiveee (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any "non-constructive" changes ItsObjectiveee (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whilst the principle of least astnonishment may apply, consensus should be reached when Wikipedia (Not Wiki!) articles have a dispute. There is a reason getting consensus exists because there is not a policy for everything. However, your current argument is that just because you like it, it should be kept. Instead consensus should be reached with multiple editors to decide the course of action. And this discussion should probably be closed by an uninvolved editor. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not the first to write "Wiki". When I replied, I thought of his word for replying. I don't understand why the discussion that doesn't matter much and arises out of just one parenthesis has gotten so big ItsObjectiveee (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who abbreviates Wikipedia as "Wiki" is incorrect, also, for your second point, I regret to inform you that most of the discussions on Wikipedia are arguing about small things. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Early Modern age

I dared to do some changes in the Early Modern age part as it basically was a dump of repeated statistical data, literally repeated. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Deportation in the early 17th century

Can we get some clarification for this line: It is probable that the Armenians formed the majority of the population of Eastern Armenia at the turn of the seventeenth century, quoting George Bournoutian's "Eastern Armenia from the Seventeenth Century to the Russian Annexation". Does he really link the demographic changes in Lowland Karabakh with Shah Abbas deportations? I would be grateful if someone puts the citation from this source, since sources that I have encountered until now mention only deportations from the modern-day Armenia as it lied on the Ottoman route to Tabriz. The above-mentioned line seems to me as some piece of original research. John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have the source laying in front of me, page 96 (you can access it btw through Internet Archive)[4]

"It is probable that until the seventeenth century, the Armenians still maintained a majority in Eastern Armenia, but the forced relocation of some 250,000 Armenians by Shah Abbas and the numerous exoduses described in this chapter had reduced the Armenian population considerably. The census conducted by the Russians in 1830-1831 indicates that by the nineteenth century Armenians of Erevan and Nakhichevan formed 20 percent of the population. The Armenians of Ganja had also been reduced to a minority. Only in the mountains of Karabagh and Zangezur did the Armenians manage to maintain a solid majority."

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

So, basically someone deduced the rest for Bournoutian. He clearly states that in Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians remained a majority, so the considered line in this Wikipedia article is wrong. John Francis Templeson (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Zangezur/Syunik

How accurate is it to count "Zangezur" as part of Karabakh? Because the current WP:COMMONNAME of "Karabakh" is mostly used to refer to the Karabakh in Azerbaijan. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Anachronism

Anachronisms or modern conventional names are widely used in historiography, e.g., see The Role of Azerbaijani Turkish in Safavid Iran by Floor and Javadi or describing of Fath-Ali-Khan of Quba's troops as Azeri by John Perry. For the subject see Nagorno-Karabakh: An Apple of Discord in The Contemporary Review: Consequently, in the middle of the eighteenth century, the local Azeri khans formed the Karabakh Khanate.... John Francis Templeson (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@John Francis Templeson: I am well ware of the usage of anachronisms in historiography, but that doesn't mean we should follow suit when the usage is considered to be contentious. On Wikipedia, we follow WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS and WP:VER, and the majority reliable sources simply do not use the word "Azerbaijani" as an ethnic label when dealing with a 18th century member of a Turkic tribe. The historiography of Azerbaijan was constructed in the 20th century on nothing but political lines, and is considered to be contentious/dubious in every sense of the word, per WP:RS. If there are modern WP:RS sources that consider Panah Ali Khan to be "Azerbaijani", then this should be covered in the Panah Ali Khan article, or the Javanshir clan article. Not here.

For the record: Bournoutian, George A. (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust., p. xvi

"As noted, in order to construct an Azerbaijani national history and identity based on the territorial definition of a nation, as well as to reduce the influence of Islam and Iran, the Azeri nationalists, prompted by Moscow devised an "Azeri" alphabet, which replaced the Arabo-Persian script. In the 1930s a number of Soviet historians, including the prominent Russian Orientalist, Ilya Petrushevskii, were instructed by the Kremlin to accept the totally unsubstantiated notion that the territory of the former Iranian khanates (except Yerevan, which had become Soviet Armenia) was part of an Azerbaijani nation. Petrushevskii's two important studies dealing with the South Caucasus, therefore, use the term Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani in his works on the history of the region from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Other Russian academics went even further and claimed that an Azeri nation had existed from ancient times and had continued to the present. Since all the Russian surveys and almost all nineteenth-century Russian primary sources referred to the Muslims who resided in the South Caucasus as "Tatars" and not "Azerbaijanis", Soviet historians simply substituted Azerbaijani for Tatars. Azeri historians and writers, starting in 1937, followed suit and began to view the three-thousand-year history of the region as that of Azerbaijan. The pre-Iranian, Iranian, and Arab eras were expunged. Anyone who lived in the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan was classified as Azeri; hence the great Iranian poet Nezami, who had written only in Persian, became the national poet of Azerbaijan."

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue is just a substitution of Turk identification by Azeri identification in early XX century and not about creation of ethnicity. It is the same as Ukrainians were called Malorussians in Russian Empire. It is generally accepted that Azerbaijanis formed in the Late Medieval Period and claims that Azeris didn't exist before 1930s {are quite strange} (added later). Well, Azerbaijanis didn't exist in ancient times, but at least existed from XV-XVI centuries with their language under the name "Turk". Wikipedia policies emphasize that the one should use modern, understandable naming. As deal of compromise I suggest to write Azeri in parantheses. Panahali khan, just to say, is great-grandfather of Azeri poetess Khurshidbanu Natavan and ancestor of Azeri official Behbud Khan Javanshir. John Francis Templeson (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that you have numerous high quality sources for all your above claims, don't you ? please post them here, would be a nice move.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

For what you want a source? For Azeri literature see Iranica; for exact timeline of the formation of Azeris see e.g. Russian 6-volume The History of East ([История Востока. В 6 т. Т. 2. Восток в средние века http://www.kulichki.com/~gumilev/HE2/he2510.htm]). For naming see Audrey Altsatdt's Azerbaijani Turks. Also see some information on the usage of Azerbaijani language in Safavid Iran and its Transcaucasia [5] and the history of language [6]. Please, refrain from trolling and scoffing. Your ethnic-based disrespect is of little interest for me, but I prefer healthy discussion. John Francis Templeson (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

He simply asked you to provide sources that support your statement, which is pretty normal in Wikipedia. How is that trolling, scoffing, and showing "ethnic-based disrespect"? (WP:ASPERSIONS). Ironically, you are contributing to the exact opposite of a healthy discussion with these allegations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

you have, don't you, it would be nice move seem not polite, informal and trolling-like to me. Anyway, what I ask is to stick to the formality, nothing else. I think this subthread is over. John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• See Micahel Croissant's [7] and John Perry's [8] use of Azeri in terms of people in Safavid era in 18th century. See an article about Mirza Fathali Akhundzadeh in Iranica [9]. Akhundzadeh died 60 years before the official introduction of the name Azerbaijani, but he is still called this way. So your statements that one cannot call someone in 18th century is totally senseless and contradict major scholars. I mean, my point is clear — of course Azerbaijani is quite a new name, but it is definitely used retrospectively and it's totally normal, since Azeris called themselves as Turk (they still do in Iran) and this term from scientific point of view is very vague. You oppose this by Bournoutian, who basically talks about falsifications of history in Soviet Azerbaijan and does not claim that Azeris didn't exist. I mean, you have to really try hard to claim that my great-grandfather wasn't an Azeri. John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You better read wiki rules, asking for sources fits with WP:VER. Baseless accusations of "trolling" and "scoffing" make you sound like a WP:NOTHERE editor making personal attacks. This is not the best way to engage in discussions with fellow Wikipedians. Anyway, i agree with you on one point : this thread is over and you failed to gain any consensus for your changes.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It can seem baseless for you, not for me. I expressed my dislike of the style you address to me. No accusation, just perception, I still do not see any change in this. If you don't want to listen and prefer to ignore sources that you asked for, we will just proceed to the following step of mediation. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

There is a lengthy discussion above but I have seen no reference to the inconsistency about the claim concerning the Turkic-Armenian nature of the "Greater bagh(k)" version. The "bagh" part is Persian. In Turkish Kara means "black" or "land". Never has had the connotation of "great" or "greater". IMO the said claim is baseless and meaningless. It should be removed.

There is enough information and the necessary academic references for the etymology of this word at the relevant Turkish Wikipedia article. --E4024 (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Another example is the country Monte-negro is Karadağ (Kara is black and Dağ is Maountain) in Turkish. Kara is obviously in the meaning of black here. Platonisreal (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Review

HistoryofIran, about here: These are the official statistics for the year 1926, and the corresponding source mentions the Soviet forced displacement that the Karabakh Kurds were subjected to, then I have other sources so if you have notes before I start editing. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 21:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE. Thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, Please don't ignore, I already read. Read these sources:

• http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_nac_26.php?reg=2275
• А. Букшпан, Азербайджанские курды, Баку, 1932. & Красный Курдистан: геополитические аспекты создания и упразднения
• Е. Г. Пчелина. По Курдистанскому уезду Азербайджана // журнал : Советская этнография. — РСФСР. Народный комиссариат просвещения: Издательство Академии наук СССР, 1932. — № 1. — С. 109—110. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 23:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but the first link is a good indicator that you didn't read. Arguably the same could said for the two other 'sources', which are from 1932, and which I can't even read, considering I can't speak Russian and you didn't even link them. Please don't expect me to go find a source in a unfamiliar script and language on my own. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, How to review it if you don't know the Russian language, There is no link between the source's issuance date and the event, although it's a close date and that's normal. The first source is based on official statistics, although I agree that the first source is somewhat doubtful at first glance. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 00:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Not even going to comment on the unreliablity of the sources you linked, but you do realize that all of these "sources" are about a certain, small part of Karabakh, so your sentences such as "Kurds made up most of Karabakh" is an absurd WP:OR. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, Well, we can write about the regions of Red Kurdistan in particular, Which included the regions of Karabakh. Being the sources talking about the red Kurdistan statistics and it's cities. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 11:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Then write them in Red Kurdistan. This article is about the Karabakh region as a whole, not about its specific parts. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden Know this, but it includes part of the region, so we can write about that part. Then I didn't understand where the problem is, as long as there are statistics for those areas and correspond the content of the section that created it. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 11:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Then I didn't prevent you from writing about the region as a whole although it is difficult for this to happen because it is a disputed region and it is assumed that if statistics happen that will be separate from the Azerbaijani or Armenian side, anything encyclopedic can be written that correspond the content. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 13:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Torivar: What is name of the author and publisher of the two Russian works? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Фонда Джона Д. и Кэтрин Т. Макартуров
• A. Букшпан & Е. Г. Пчелина Torivar ^{talk ✉} 14:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I meant in English :P. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
• Пчелина, Евгения Георгиевна Torivar ^{talk ✉} 15:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, the John D. 'source' is another indicator that you didn't read the guidelines above. I just have one question, how in the world is the source from the 1930s if the MacArthur Foundation was founded in 1970? Something doesn't add up. Either way, unreliable 'source'.

Evgeniya Georgievna doesn't seem to be cited by any source, that is if I got her name right through translation (since you didn't do it). Not reliable.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned before that there is no relationship between the date of issuance of the source and the date of the event, because in either case it will depend on other sources, while the second is the author of this source:

• Е. Г. Пчелина. По Курдистанскому уезду Азербайджана // журнал : Советская этнография. — РСФСР. Народный комиссариат просвещения: Издательство Академии наук

I also didn't understand how you Judged that it's not reliable. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 16:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that doesn't make much sense to me. That's because you haven't read the guidelines above, thus making it harder for both of us. Please read them, I am out of this thread until then. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I think we're moving away from it so I'm going to create a playground because there are so many other sources, We can apply the changes there. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 16:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by playground? Maybe you could just read the guidelines? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: "sandbox" I translated it literally from the Arabic term, anyway I can do this with another editor if you want to see me while I just read the guidelines. Torivar ^{talk ✉} 17:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

"Remain" vs. "Included"

I find it rather unconvincing the persistent efforts of some editors to insist on the Kavburo's wording that the Karabakh region "remain" within Azerbaijan. Whatever the thought-process of the Bureau, 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. Armenia (and the local Karabakh Armenians) fought over the territory with Azerbaijan (just like they fought over 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, which is why the word "remain" is highly misleading and inappropriate in this context. My suggestion is far more neutral (not least because, in response to CuriousGolden's own retort, many refer to this as clear evidence that Karabakh "belonged" to Azerbaijan). I fail to see the merit of privileging the Bureau's formulation over a more neutral and accurate term. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

My main problem is that the term "included" can easily be misunderstood and promote the already common propaganda that Karabakh was "given"/"gifted" to Azerbaijan. I'd propose putting the "remain" in the article within quotes to make it clear that it was the Soviets wording. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@John Francis Templeson: was one of the people who reverted the edits, so I'm informing them about the discussion. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support reproducing the Caucasian Bureau's report in part or in full in the article over the current formulation. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Karabakh was under de facto Azerbaijani control since 1919; although there was an Armenian rebellion just before Sovietization, it failed (see Salarov's Nagorno-Karabakh...) and Azerbaijan continued to control the whole region except several rural communities. In 1920-1921 whole Karabakh was again under the firm Azerbaijani de facto control. P. S. If documents say "to remain in Azerbaijan", that basically means that it was controlled by Azerbaijan before John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There had been steady Azerbaijani military presence in Mountainous Karabakh all throughout the period directly preceding Azerbaijan's Sovietisation. Hovannissian and Saparov provide an almost day-by-day chronicle of what was happening in Karabakh around that time, and it does not look as if Azerbaijan relinquished control of Shusha even for one day between October 1918 and the day when Kavburo made its decision. Suggesting that Karabakh was "included" when it had never in fact been "excluded" is misleading and contributes nothing to the article except feeding into the infamous "Stalin gave Karabakh to Azerbaijan, which is younger than Coca Cola" narrative. Parishan (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Maintaining an administrative or military presence is not the same as retaining or exercising control over a region. The fact of the matter is is that after the Russian Empire dissolved, all of the South Caucasus, including Karabakh, was up for grabs. The hold over the territories the three republics contended for was never firm to begin with and they only stabilized with the delineation of the internal borders by the Soviet state (hence why it is more accurate to speak of "including" and "excluding"). That is why I argue that that the current formulation is unsatisfactory and risks leaving a misleading impression on readers. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There were indeed territories where the hold kept shifting from one side over to the other, such as the present-day Ararat Province, where the word "included" would be suitable. In the case of Karabakh, however, the fact of Azerbaijan exercising the necessary amount of control over the territory was apparently clear enough to a third party, which is what prompted the Kavburo to use the wording it used. Otherwise, if we account for every pocket of land that was controlled by whatever military faction at that time, every slightly peripheral province of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan could be labelled as having been "included" in it by the Bolsheviks. Parishan (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

And that formulation wouldn't necessarily be wrong, either. In fact, it would be more preferable given how much more precise it is (and in some articles, that is how it is worded). Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be precise in the case of areas where there was no identifiable control throughout those years. May I remind you that Armenia never officially claimed Karabakh in 1918-1920 and, unlike in Nakhchivan, its regular army never set foot in either Karabakh or Zangezur, according to Hovannisian. Suggesting that Karabakh was "included" into Azerbaijan would mean that there there was another party that could claim legitimate power over it before the "inclusion", which is not the case. Karabakh, or at least its core, was effectively administered by Azerbaijan in 1918-1920, had an Azerbaijani governor based in its capital with local (Muslim and Armenian) aides and relied on its military to make sure that control lasts for as long as it lasted. I do not see any other definitions of "control". Parishan (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Erm, what? Consult Hovannisian (Republic of Armenia, vol. 2, map 5, p. 193) - there's literally a map submitted at the Paris Peace Conference showing the lands the Republic of Armenia delegation claimed, including Karabakh. It was a disputed and contested territory, just like Kars, Zangezur, etc. What I'm proposing is hardly controversial. Plenty of scholars and experts on the Caucasus have avoided repeating the misleading wording of the Bureau. Charles King, for example, uses "included" in his 2008 book on the Caucasus. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The map submitted by Armenia at the conference included lands as far away as Sivas, Kayseri and Mersin. It does not mean those lands were "disputed" and were later "included" into Turkey, it just means that Armenia laid far-fetched claims on lands that other countries had quite a firm grip on. I was talking specifically about the response to Azerbaijan's diplomatic note addressed to Armenia in June 1918, whereby the Armenian government officially declared its non-involvement in the war in Zangezur and Karabakh on account of it considering the Elisabethpol Governorate to be under Azerbaijan's jurisdiction (1971: 87-88). There are plenty of written sources and maps attesting to Azerbaijan's relatively solid control of Karabakh at the time. In fact, most sources studying the issue more closely than Charles King's one-paragraph trivia on the history of the present-day conflict in Karabakh suggest that it was Azerbaijan that was in control of the area and that represented the only legitimate power there. There were clashes but there were also times of peace within those two years, which further shows that the political situation in Shusha was not as anarchic as you are presenting it. Suggesting that Karabakh was "included" in Azerbaijan is POV that contradicts all primary and most secondary sources; it leads the reader to believe that the area had nothing to do with Azerbaijan prior to the 1921 decision, which is simply not true. Parishan (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

They weren't far-fetched. Those very claims in the eastern Ottoman provinces were supported to the hilt by the major Allied powers at Versailles. And we both know that Armenia was hardly in position to making claims in June 1918: the war was still ongoing and it was under partial Ottoman occupation. That was a statement made under duress. Would you accord it the same level of sincerity as Narimanov's declaration that Karabakh, Nakhichevan, and Zangezur in December 1920 were indisputable Armenian provinces? Once the war ended, Armenia reasserted its claims over Karabakh (as Hovannisian notes in volume 2 in the pages cited). All parties, regardless, awaited adjudication of the status of final borders from the Allies. So your assertion of legitimacy is false insofar as it was predicated on international approval (which it never got because of Allied indecision and the Bolshevik takeover). In the end, it was the Bolsheviks who drew up the new borders. I fail to see why there is so much opposition toward greater clarity and perhaps it's about time to ask for an RfC. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have already explained twice why I consider your suggestion unsuitable and why I think it does everything except adding clarity. I am sure you realise that this is not a trivial matter given the scope of the topic and that extra caution needs to be exercised when choosing words. We are not here to share personal impressions on what went down in Karabakh in 1918. We have documents and sources for that, and our sources support the idea that following the 1921 decision, Karabakh remained in Azerbaijan and was not given to it. The expression "drawing borders" may be applicable to the maps of the Ottoman provinces submitted at the Paris conference because those borders were literally drawn on paper and remained a drawing. In the case of Karabakh, the Bolsheviks, according to the final document, had no doubts that they were deliberating on the future of a province that was already part of Azerbaijan and not somewhere in limbo. To back this up, most sources agree that pre-Soviet Azerbaijan maintained continuous control of the Karabakh core well into 1921. Armenia did not, which makes its claims on Karabakh (if they were ever laid) no more material than its claims on Sivas (which certainly cannot be described as "included" in Turkey). I do not think I have anything to add to what I have already said. Parishan (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The above is roundabout and riddled with inconsistencies (and still no sources). I'll ask for an RfC. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not restricted by juridical formalities, otherwise we should ignore all three Transcaucasian republics, as they were recognized only de facto and even that in early 1920. Karabakh was firmly de facto controlled by Azerbaijan in 1919-1921 and it is illustrated in many sources. At last, I don't think that we have any reason to restate sources. If Bolsheviks have written "to remain", they apparently meant nothing but "to remain".

P.S. Armenia claimed the half of the Turkey till the Black Sea and Azerbaijan's claims left for Armenia just Erivan and its outskirts. Should we apply the same logic for Turkey and Armenia? John Francis Templeson (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Karabakh was firmly de facto controlled by Azerbaijan in 1919-1921" - firmly, no. Tenuous, yes. If possible, please introduce some sources to back that statement up. The Sovietization of Azerbaijan in April 1920 destabilized the country and saw the supplanting of administration in the region by Bolshevik forces. "Should we apply the same logic for Turkey and Armenia?" Not always, no. We should be consistent, but we should also judge it on a case by case basis. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy of map

The maps in the article seem really random. What are its borders based on? It seems to use modern district borders (but weirdly didn't include the Kalabajar panhandle as Karabakh). The "Mountainous Karabakh" part includes Jabrayil, Fuzuli and Agdam districts which are almost fully lowlands in real life. @Kentronhayastan: you seem to have made the map, so you'd probably know. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: The article says that it is a rough correspondence because there isn’t a definitively drawn border between the three regions (except maybe Zangezur), even though conceptually, the concepts of “mountainous Karabakh” and “lowlands/steppes of Karabakh" have had historical and modern significance. The map for Mountainous Karabakh was based on Azerbaijan’s official “Yuxari Qarabag” designation + Kelbajar because Kelbajar was never part of Zangezur but part of the mountainous half of Karabakh. If you want, we can update the maps to omit the adjacent “lowlands” regions to reflect a more geographic correspondence rather than the official borders defined by Azerbaijan. — [ kentronhayastan ] 21:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Kentronhayastan, thanks for clarifying. I think it would make more sense to base it on geography and historical definition than modern administrative borders. It'd also make more sense to give parts of the Lachin District to the Mountainous Karabakh part (especially the northern part where it borders Kalbajar) as, as far as I know, only a small part of the Lachin District, including the city was considered part of Zangezur (afaik this was same for Zangilan and Qubadli). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden But how would we define the geographic boundaries? We could use the territories of the Armenian melikdoms to represent Mountainous Karabakh, or simply use Nagorno-Karabakh + Kelbajar to represent the mountainous regions. That would fit the geographic description better. Alternatively, we can colour Kelbajar in a lighter colour (much like is done for Lowlands Karabakh) because it was part of the Khachen mahal of the five melikdoms but not part of modern-day definition of Nagorno-Karabakh, even though it is very much part of the “mountainous” regions of Karabakh. The Zangezur region’s boundaries here were based on the Zangezur Uyezd of the Elisabethpol Governorate, but unfortunately, the rest of Karabakh is made up of wider more arbitrary regions, so we don’t have a basis in that period for the distinction between Highland and Lowland. Also, I don’t want this to be a product of original research. We know that the distinction between Highland and Lowland Karabakh has historical and modern significance, but there is not a clear answer to the question “what are their boundaries?” If we are to make a change, I’d vote for modern-day NK + lighter-colour Kelbajar for the mountainous region, and the rest for lowlands. — [ kentronhayastan ] 23:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Kentronhayastan, I agree with your suggestion. Nagorno-Karabakh + Kalbajar would be good enough. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Completely forgot about this discussion. Kentronhayastan do you think you could update the maps based on the consensus here? Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)