This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Brief overview of the discussion and formal mediation request
In view of the fact that we failed to come into terms with regard to the article content, I requested formal mediation. After more than two-weeks and 100 page-long debates, I am convinced that Rovoam is not interested in a objective and honest discussion, as he deliberately rejects all the facts, undermines any initiatives aimed at finding a consensus, continuously attempts to derail the discussion on page content through various speculations on facts and other editors’ statements and simply pushes for his biased POV. By his aggressive, biased and non-compromising stance Rovoam alienated almost all other editors from this discussion, including neutral editors Davenbelle (whom I asked for third party opinion), Cantus (who decided to leave WP), even Armenian editor Aramgutang (who is much less biased than Rovoam).
Moreover, Rovoam makes unilateral changes to the page content thus provoking revert and edit wars. This whole dispute started from initial unilateral changes introduced by Rovoam. This provoked my intervention and a brief revert war until I called for Davenbelle’s third party opinion. Davenbelle introduced some guidelines explicitly supported by me and implicitly by Rovoam, under which we both agreed not to make unilateral changes to the article content. Later, Davenbelle retreated from the discussion, but for a while both Rovoam and me refrained from unilateral edits (though there were some minor changes by Aramgutang, anon user adding pro-Armenian external links and Cantus). However, Rovoam now again introduced unilateral change. He removed label totallydisputed and included a sentence mentioning that Artsakh was part of Armenian kingdom, whereas simultaneously omitting that historically it was part of Caucasus Albania (see diff here). Astonishingly, himself having edited unilaterally the article content, Rovoam placed a notice calling other editors not to edit the page. So, it seems that according to Rovoam, he is the only one who has the right to edit the page as he wishes. (?!) I do not want to engage in a new revert war, therefore, I ask for formal mediation.--Tabib 14:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A key points from outsiders perspective:
The Arab historian Ahmad Ibn Wazih al-yaqubi writes: "Armenia consists of three parts. The first part is composed of Kaali-kalaa, khalaat, Shamshaat and what is between them. The second part is consists of Jarzaan, Teflis, and the city of Bab-al-alaan and what is in between them. The third part consists of barda' which is situation in Araan, Baylaqaan and Darband".
The distinction between Karabakh and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Tabib, this is your statement. Please, clerify what do you mean exactly! Rovoam 06:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You obviously do not read (or intentionally ignore) what I write, and instead simply push your bias here. I explained this point for second time above right after your post and the excerpt of a map that you posted regarding the location of Azeri town of Barda, situated in Karabakh area. --Tabib 07:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tabib! Above you have stated the following: "2) Albania adopted Christianity during IV-V cc. and at this time both its political and religious centers were situated in Partaw (present Barda), situated in present-day Karabakh area;" This is not true. Barda is not situated in the present-day Karabakh area! See modern map above. Rovoam 07:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rovoam, you perfectly well know, and this has been already discussed, that *Karabakh* as opposed to *mountainous (Nagorno-)Karabakh* is a wider historical area consisting of both mountainous (upland) and lowland parts. I have nothing to add to what I've already said with regard to this issue. And I will not allow you to manipulate with facts and thus drag the discussion into disputing on petty and obvious things not related to the page content. File:Karabakh-lowland and upland.jpgMap of historical monuments in Karabakh (in Russian). Shows the historical Karabakh area consisting of both lowland and upland parts. Barda is also included!(upper right corner, Барда, Russian alphabet Below is a map showing historical Karabakh area consisting of mountainous and lowland parts. This is actually an old map (1970s-?) of historical monuments in the territory of Karabakh. As everyone can see, Barda is clearly shown as part of the historical Karabakh area. End of discussion on Barda!--Tabib 09:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tabib, YOU'VE MISSED THE POINT AGAIN.Barda is not situated in the present-day Karabakh area!, as you stated above. Please see present-day map!!! And please don't copy here false maps created by Turkish nationalists!! Rovoam 18:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's is senseless to argue with you. You just stubbornly resist all the arguments and deny the simple fact that Karabakh (as opposed to Nagorno-Karbakh) consists of two mountainous and lowland parts. I ask all other editors to view this discussion on whereabouts of Barda and decide themselves. The map I posted is a Soviet era map, so any claims that it's created by "Turkish nationalist" is absurd and ridiculous. This discussion is over. Whereabouts of Barda have nothing to do with the page content. --Tabib 07:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
NO revert and edit WAR
Rovoam, I want to warn you that what you do now by introducing unilateral edits and aggressively pushing your POV, serves only to escalate this dispute further. Your ignorance of the facts and arguments set forth during the discussion and your unilateral changes provoke new edit and revert wars. I will not tolerate this kind of aggressive behaviour. If mediation doesn't work I will resort to arbitration. All you unilateral changes will be reverted and if you continue to pursue your propaganda, I will use all the means available in Wikipedia to achieve the endorsement of the suggested article version with or without your concent. And the more you push you propaganda, the more credibility in Wikipedia you will lose. --Tabib 07:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tabib! I agree! Let's do ask for arbitration!Rovoam 07:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Questions: What Azeri have in common with Albanians?
Albanians have lived 1000 years ago. They were not Turkish/Azeri -speaking people, and they were not Muslims, but rather Christians. They have vanished in VII or IX c. AD. Azeri-Turks invaded this area in XI c., 200 years later, when no Albanians existed. What kind of logic make you think, that Karabahk should belong to Azeris based on the Albanian's history?Rovoam 08:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You once again try to divert the discussion from the page content. I have numerously told you (here, last post; here, last post) that whether contemporary Azeris’ claim that Caucasus Albanians are one of their ancestors is right or wrong, it doesn’t matter and it is a subject of another discussion in Caucasus Albania talkpage. What matters here is that Artsakh was in ancient times part of Caucasus Albania. Btw, you yourself answered your question in one of the earlier posts. Here’s what you yourself wrote:
“Part of Albanian people became Muslim and were later assimilated by the incoming Turks, but other part of them were assimilated by Armenians, which now live in Karabakh. As a matter of fact, some of the Arminians consider themselves as Albanians. Rovoam 08:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)” (source)--Tabib 09:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ah! If this is the reason, why don't you say that Karabahk was also a part of ancient Urartu, where proto-Armenians lived before any Albanians, Azeris and other Turks! Rovoam 18:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You deliberately try to distract the discussion! Stop this! Stop irrelevant and provocative comments! We can discuss Urartu and its borders, as well as how much they were affiliated with contemporary Armenians at another time another place.--Tabib 05:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
improper move
I've rolled back several edits by User:Rovoam that changed references to N-K to include the word "Republic". I don't see where this usage is widely accepted in English usage, so per the naming convention it has to go. I trust I don't have to explain why improper moves (changing redirect into a copy&paste) are wrong. --Joy [shallot] 23:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Could you, please, clarify what are you trying to say? Rovoam 00:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
User:Joy is trying to say that you Rovoam get increasingly aggressive in your actions aimed at pushing your propaganda. Seemingly this whole messy protracted discusion in Nagorno-Karabakh talkpage is not enough for you and now you switch to other pages and push your propaganda there. You changed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic which is a redirect to Nagorno-Karabakh and tried to create a parallel page which would reflect your propaganda. Moreover, you vandalized Caucasus Albania page by removing two important paragraphs written by earlier editors (not me!) which also mentioned Artsakh as part of Caucasus Albania. I warn you, these actions may result in serious reconsideration of your membership in Wikipedia.--Tabib 06:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that both Rovoam and Tabib feel that this discussion has gotten to a point where an arbitration request is necessary. I don't believe that is true. An arbitration request is a last resort in resolving a dispute, and I think this dispute could be resolved with another mediation request. The main problem, the way I see it, is that the discussion never seemss to follow a point through to the end. An issue is usually being discussed, and making progress towards resolution, when another issue (usually the whole "was Karabakh part of Albania" business) comes up, and the discussion switches to that issue, only to switch to a different one again. The resolution to this is, I believe, is to break the disputes down point-by-point, and address each one completely before moving on to the next one. A mediator would be most helpful in identifying those points and ensuring everyone sticks to the plan.
I also would like bring up my proposal of starting to archive this discussion again. If nobody objects in the next 3 days, I will archive the discussion up to the "Brief overview of discussion and formal mediation request" section, so that the page is easier to scroll and edit. --Aramգուտանգ 23:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Aramgutang, I regret that Rovoam dominates this discussion and I do not have you as my main opponent, because I believe, I could come into terms with you much more easily than with Rovoam. I do not mind archiving, but my only concern regarding this move is that Rovoam may use it to renew all his old claims that have been disproved earlier. In fact, as I see, he continuously goes back to the questions that have been already addressed and/or are irrelevant to this particular discusion (e.g. Caucasus Albanians and their link to contemporary Azeris) and thus tried to confuse other users, distract the discussion, provoke new conflicts. But, still, considering that this page is getting too long, I do not mind archiving of the discussion.
As to mediation, you probably don't know but I have already asked for formal mediation. You can see it here--Tabib 05:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Rovoam’s proposition to solve the conflict
There are two different new versions of the article, one has been written by Tabib and another one by myself.
These versions are slightly different. However, we can easily merge them together in one.
The only significant difference is the section about Caucasian Albania, i.e. about the ancient history of the disputed region. Tabib has presented Azeri’s point of view, while I was trying to avoid going into any historical discussions (as I believe, the ancient history of this region is not well known, and as such it is very problematic by itself).
Now if Tabib wants to keep his historical description, I would also like to include mine as additional point of view. Here is what I would like to include:
For the first time Artsakh appeared under the name "Urtehke" or "Urtehini" as it is mentioned in Urartianian cuneiform writings.
In the I century BC Artsakh is mentioned under the name of "Orhistene". Strabo (born 63 BC or 64 BC, died ca. 24 AD) mentions Orhistene among the Armenian provinces (as well as Phavneni and Kombiseni).
Clavdius Ptolemeus (Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαίος; c. 85 – c. 165) in his "Geography" informs, that "Great Armenia is located from the north to a part of Colchida, Iberia and Albania alone the line, which goes through the river Kir (Kura)" (see: Ptolemaios Klaudios, "Geography", V, XII).
Plinius Secundos (23–79 AD, better known as Pliny the Elder) writes, that "the tribe of Albanians settled on the Caucasian mountains, reaches … the river Kir making border of Armenia and Iberia" (see Plinius the Second, "The Natural history ", VI, 39).
Movses Khorensky (V century AD) names Artsakh "Small Sunik" (Armenian "Pokr Sunik"). According to Moses, here, in Artsakh, young Grigorius (grandson of Gregory the Illuminator) was buried after he was killed on the field of Vatnyan (see Moves Khorensky, "History of Armenia", III, chapter 3).
Other Armenian historian of V century - Egishe (Elishe) writes, that after defeat in battle (451 AD) many of the Armenians rising against Persians, ran "in the impassable countries Tmorika and in dense woods of Arstakh" (see Egishe, "The Word about Armenian War", sec 6-th).
Busand (V century BC) tells, that Musheh Mamikonian has restored border between Armenia and Albania on the river Kura (Kir).
In "The Armenian Geography" (VII cent. AD) Artzakh is mentioned as 9-th of 15 provinces of Great Armenia.
Since X century AD in historical works and sources Artzakh is mentioned under the name Khachen (the named of fortresses, the residence of the Armenian prince Sahla Smbatjan). The Byzantian emperor Konstantin Bagrjanorodny addressed his letters "to prince of Hachen - to Armenia".
The name Karabakh for the first time is mentioned on XIV century. At this time Artzakh has been broken up to tens Armenian princedoms, with the center in Gandzasar, under the Catholicos ruling. In 1672 Catholicos Pyotr in the letter to Russian tsar Alexey (Mihajlovich) names himself "the Catholicos of all Armenians".
Plus, I would like to incorporate into final version of the article the following section from my version.
The name of this small region, which was a little known outside of the Soviet Transcaucasia up to the end of 80th years of XX century century, now has concentrated in itself fierce ethno political and geopolitical disputes which in combination with other reasons have led to disintegration of Soviet Union.
The war for Nagorno Karabakh became the longest and one of the bloodiest conflicts in states-successors of Soviet Union. According to last estimations, it has killed 15000 people, and the number of refugees has exceeded one million.
From the point of view of international law this conflict is an example of contradictions between two fundamental principles: on the one hand, rights of people for self-determination, and on the other hand, a principle of territorial integrity according to which the state borders can only be changed under the peaceful agreement of parties involved.
Not going down deeply in ancient and medieval history, nevertheless, it is necessary to notice, that the Armenian party can present impressing number of neutral sources which testify, that Armenians prevailed in region during more than millennia. The Turkic population has appeared there not earlier the beginning of XVIII century century, having established eventually the board above the Armenian majority in the form Karabakh khanate, included in structure of Russian empire in 1813. During soviet time, as well as in imperial Russia, administrative borders of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region do not coincide with ethnic borders.
Nagorno-Karabakh became a subject of the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1918 when both countries declared independence from Russia. Azerbaijan claimed sovereignty over the province and sought to conquer it with help from the Young Turks. Territorial dispute has not been resolved until 1920, when both young states became part of the Soviet Union, and actually lost their independence due to the actions of Russian communists (Bolsheviks). In December, 1920 the Azerbaijan communistic government has dropped former complaints on Nagorno-Karabakh and some other territories populated by Armenians, recognizing these territories as part of the Soviet Armenia.
However, later the Azerbaijan new Soviet government has renewed the complaints and has addressed them to Moscow for support. On July, 4, 1921 so-called Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party has voted for inclusion Nagorno-Karabakh into structure of Armenia. But next day, on July, 5, the new session of Caucasian Bureau has reconsidered its first decision in favor of Azerbaijan and ordered to place this territory under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan. This part of resolution of the Caucasian Bureau has been implemented in 1923, when Autonomous Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh was formed.
Supporters for the Armenian position frequently emphasize, that resolution of the Caucasian Bureau from July, 5, 1921, was obviously accepted under the Bolsheviks pressure, and, in any case, this resolution contradicts with the principle of self-determination and cannot be considered as valid: the problem should be solved by the countries, which it directly involves, and not by the Committee created specially for this case and inside the ruling party of the third country.
If this is acceptable by Tabib, we can go ahead and do the merge.
Rovoam you do this again. You again bring the old arguments that have already been addressed. What you wrote above is basically reformulation of your earlier post Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Artsakh in the ancient history to which I responded sufficiently here Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Albanian province of Artsakh and Armenian claims. And in my reply I using the authoritative sources have shown you that the fact that Artsakh was part of ancient Caucasus Albania is not “my POV”, but a historical fact, whereas your refusal to accept this fact and continuous attempts to complicate the discussion even further constitutes a grave violation of Wikipedia rules and norms of conduct.
The whole historical description you give is full of Armenian propaganda, beginning from denial that Artsakh was part of Caucasus Albania and ending with your absurd claim that ostensibly Azeris came to this area in XVIII c. (?!) and one-sided portrayal of Stalin’s role (which has been addressed already as well, see here and numerously in other parts of discussion. No single sentence in what you wrote is neutral and correct.--Tabib 06:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, Tabib! This was my last attempt to solve the dispute with you peacefully. Since you are not willing to compromise, I will have no choice but to continuously revert your changes to restore correct version of the article.
As of your statements above, I do agree that Artsakh was for some time part of the Caucasian Albania. This is true historical fact. However, it is equally true that over the thousand of years this region was also a part of Urartu, Ancient Armenia, etc. etc. This is what you don’t want to accept. Your vision is partial. As a matter of fact, you are not interested in historical facts. Your goals are political. You think, you can fool other people by simply presenting the facts that you like, but hiding other facts, which you don't like.
Simply amazing! I can't stop marvelling at your ability to manipulate with facts and people's opinion. We dedicated almost 150 pages of discussion to prove that Artsakh was part of Caucasus Albania, the fact that you firmly DENIED so far, and now you suddently come out and tell me that you "do agree..[and] this is true historical fact"?! Then why you were denying this so far!? Why you were deleting from the page content paragraphs describing these facts and why you deleted these facts even from other pages, namely Caucasus Albania page where you removed paragraphs which showed that Artsakh was part of Caucasus Albania (and this page was written by other previous editors, not by me!)... As to Urartu, it is a separate discussion. So dont attempt to play a new game here.
As to you threat of reverts, I must warn you for the last time that you have already violated Three Revert Rule. Continuous attempts may cost you the membership in Wikipedia.--Tabib 11:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tabib is right. Artzakh was never part of Urartu. It was always part of the Soviet Socialistic Republic of Azerbaijan!64.136.27.228 - text attribution added by --Tabib 13:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And how "always" did your Azerbaijan Soviet Socielist Republic exist? Since Urartu times? ...What are these nonsensical things you are putting here?
Rovoam is increasingly getting more aggressive and also resorts to more grotesque and dishonest means of pushing his bias in Wikipedia. Having violated 3 revert rule Rovoam was blocked for 24 hours from editing and therefore, he resorted to the method that he already used before, using anon IP numbers. (in fact Rovoam acting under anon IP was continuously reverted by Davenbelle, I think Davenbelle can confirm this fact too).
Also, I want to drag the attention of the other editors to Rovoam's continuous attempts to derail the discussion and set forth new controversial arguments aimed at confusing other editors who are less aware with the subject. I say this specifically with regard to Urartu, which has nothing to do with this discussion and which in fact was never discussed between me and Rovoam. In order to cut this new attempt by Rovoam short aimed at "proving" that allegedly territory of present day Karabakh was part of Urartu kingdom, I below post two maps rom various neutral sites showing the borders of ancient Urartu kingdom (btw, which was not ancient "Armenian" kingdom, as claimed by Rovoam). They clearly demonstrates that ancient Urartu was situated in eastern Anatolia and territory of Karabakh was certainly not under Urartian rule "for thousand years" (ridiculous in its absurdity statement by Rovoam).
File:Urartu-map.jpgBorders of Urartu. Clearly shows that present Karabakh area is far away from its borders
<removing link to deleted image>
--Tabib 13:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How about making the maps at a resolution where you can read the words? Cyrillic, Latin... doesn't matter. Chinese even. I think it's bad form when the "large" version of a picture is still illegible.
Seems that user Tabib is at it again, foulmouthing people as a means of argumentation!
Like previously on the SAFAVIDS article, I discern a polemic pattern in user Tabib's argumentative behavior, entirely directed at furthering TURKISH causes, in opposition to "Persian" or "Armenian" ones. Is Wikipedia descending toward a dumping place for national POV posting?? It makes one sick to see this "editor" delivering one tantrum after another, in total disregard of reality, simply to make his "Turkish" ideology the general perception of the subject matters. Someone (Davenbelle, Admin staff?) put an end to this orgy of ethnically inspired arrogance and vanity!--LIGerasimova 14:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I will not tolerate such personal attacks on me and such malicious intervention to the discussion by notoriously known User:LIGerasimova! I ask everyone to look at LIGerasimova’s contribution log. The whole history of her “contributions” to Wikipedia consists of page vandalism and waging personal attacks, mostly on me.
She is the one who above all other insults wrote that I “suffers from pathogenic INFERIORITY COMPLEXES, obviously on account of [mine] Turkic background” (!?) [1]
I filed an official complaint against this user and another User:84.154.104.16 (aka User:Osmanoglou), who was later banned for vandalizing the pages and personal attacks on me (for details see, Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#84.154.104.16), but now I regret that I was not as much persistent in pursuing my complaint with regard to LIGerasimova. Now I will fix this problem once and for all. LIGerasimova will be held responsible for all her malicious attacks and interventions aimed at blackening my reputation in Wikipedia.
I want to warn LIGerasimova and the Co. left from earlier Safavids dispute, in which their methods were exposed and arguments proved wrong, not to intervene to this discussion and not to distract the discussion from the page content (in fact both LIGerasimova and banned anon 84.154.xx.xx. attempted to use this method earlier in this discussion. see here and here). If someone has to say something, he/she can always post a message in my personal talkpage. But this is very mean to resort to defamation of another person if you have no arguments left to prove your own allegations. I’ve already seen such kind of behaviour in Safavids discussion. This is a sign of weakness and dishonesty. And such actions should be punished. --Tabib 15:30, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia to become Turkipedia soon
Thanks to the wonderful Turkic people (who invented Internet for us in XVII c. BC), the Wikipedia will soon be a Turkipedia – another great invention of Turks.
So far we have learned the following:
Troy was build by Turks (as this city is now located in Turkey);
Assyrian and Urartian monuments are build by Turks (as they now located in Turkye);
Persian poet Nizami was also Turk (as it happened);
Greek and Armenian Christian churches are actually another form of Turkish Muslim tamples;
Turks invented the first alphabet;
Old Greek, Assyrian, Uratian, Armenian and Persian culture (and some territories too!) are now Turkish culture.
Sincere concern for objectivity should not escalate into artritious word fights and invariable persecution of other users
Having observed this and related subjects for quite awhile, I really do not see any merit in postings accompanied by constant hairsplitting and opinion jockeying. Why launch personal attacks on a person, presenting his/her understanding of the matters in question in a pertinent fashion? Why literally chase user ROVOAM, e. g., (I suppose you do not claim, I were a sock puppet of his!?) for every presented opinion and force him into a corner, finally. This goes also for intimidation of other users, who are voicing their opinions. Though out of place in any situation, proud patriotism should not be mistaken for blind Nationalism. It becomes increasingly embarrassing to see "Turkish" causes brought forth, with the intention of stifling any other, independent opinion. Due reflection of the cited data and sources should precede blind posting of bits and pieces, gathered on the net and introduced into the discussion, just because they SEEM plausible. The one making the most commotion, involving admins, sysops and mediators as a rule, need not necessarily be the one with the "right" info.
Quit attacking Tabib. That is unfair. He has his own opinion and there ought to be room on Wikipedia for it. We are proud of our TURKISH background. Some others seem to be only jeallous of our National Unity and Bondage. That's how we are and SHALL REMAIN!!! WE SIMPLY ARE --Baku Ibne 23:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= Tabib (and other Turki/Azeri people) are already taking all room in Wikipedia, making it Turkipedia. He is so proud of his Turkish background that all other users are prohibeted from this resource. Does this site exist only for Turkic people? If yes I will leave forever! Because I hate all Turkish vandals!!! 66.53.218.147 00:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dear friend 66.53.218.147, please contact me at: kiramtuyedahanet@mac.com. I have good news for you! with respect to your comment!--Tigranes 01:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
FARCE, DIRTY PROPAGANDA AND PERSONAL ATTACKS. What is behind the campaign against User:Tabib?
I call every NEUTRAL and HONEST person who views these outrageous posts with groundless personal accusations and dirty insults on my address and my ethnic background to RAISE their VOICE against such despicable and dirty actions and propaganda.
I want to expose each and every “user” who participates in this FARCE and mock campaign. The roots of the present mock campaign against me go back to the previous dispute over the content of the Safavids page, mostly involving several Persian (or “pro-Persian”) users and myself. This discussion in Safavidstalkpage “produced” several new “users” which were created namely with the aim of attacking me personally, and waging disruptive actions in Wikipedia. Their only intention was/is to take a “revenge” from me for their “loss” and undermining my position in Wikipedia.
All these “users” were created beginning from Feb 9 (first LIGerasimova, then StuffedTurkey and then the rest), which was the turning point in Safavids discussion, when I finally proved my arguments and these arguments were supported by third party editors (first one of them being User:John Kenney (see, here). Having
lost in that discussion in which all their arguments were proven wrong and their real intentions were exposed, some of these “users” resorted to vandalizing the page (deja vue in Nagorno-Karabakh page, which is being vandalized now?..) and some started to post irrelevant messages with groundless attacks and accusations on my address. Their vandalism was prevented by effectively putting a vandal protection on the Safavids page.
User:Baku_Ibne:Above you’ll see his post in which he allegedly “defends” me. This is actually a FARCE. This is the same person as above-mentioned banned users 84.154.xx.xx. and User:Osmanoglou. This user was “born” just yesterday (March 1) specifically for waging malicious actions against me (see his contributions). I don’t know what “Ibne” is (probably some curse word in Persian), but I saw the anon 84.154.xx.xx and “Osmanoglou” using the same word over and over again when attacking me. The info on this user is added to Wikipedia Vandalism in progress)
User:LIGerasimova: I have already given enough info about this user in my previous reply to her. Please, see here
User:StuffedTurkey: This user is much harder to detect in his intentions, as he was much more cautious in his disruptive actions and was not acting so blatantly as others. This user is also a “product” of Safavids discussion (contrib.). His first posts in Wikipedia were in Safavids talkpage when Safavids discussion was actually over as the parties presented their respective arguments and counterarguments. Instead of addressing the issue, bringing his own arguments and writing something on the topic, this user simply posted two consecutive messages accusing me in biased and patchwork editing and calling other users “to entirely rewrite” the article. I ignored this user then, but now having seen that he is intervening into this discussion and again pours his groundless accusations in “Turkish (or whatever) nationalism”, I am convinced that this user is not honest in his intentions either. Moreover, the very username of this person (“StuffedTurkey”) speaks for itself; it is abusive (just like, I assume, the username “Baku Ibne” is abusive, since for the reasons I explained above, I believe, “ibne” probably means something bad in Persian).
I ask every person in Wikipedia concerned with HONESTY and TRUTH to HELP ME to counter these dirty campaign and lies. I will try to get the “users” LIGerasimova and Baku Ibne punished for their personal attacks and malicious deeds, and I will keep a close eye on StuffedTurkey for any future provocations. I hope I will not be left alone to deal with this UNPRECEDENTED FARCE in Wikipedia.--Tabib 07:21, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
My intention was NOT aggravating EDITOR TABIB, in fact I share a lot of sentiments with him!
Why are you so cross with me, Tabib? You are mistaken about the term IBNE, it is NOT Persian at all, it is TURKISH!!! I thought you'd understand. I tried to explain to you that we are birds of a feather, namely "IBNE". When reading all those comprehensive postings of yours, it became clear to me: YOU ARE 100 percent "IBNE", Tabib! Please don't exert yourself and calm down.
Another public insult on my address. Request to Admins to stop it.
If someone, including this "user" whose name contains word "ibne", thinks that by waging such malicious personal attacks and insults, they can break me emotionally, provoke me to respond to them in the same manner and thus, gain some advantage for pushing their chauvinistic agendas, they are deeply MISTAKEN. I am perfectly calm and such stupid and immoral attacks make me even more resolute in my intention to pursue the truth and expose all the deeds of so-called "users", I mentioned above.
I checked the meaning for the word "ibne", it means "homosexual" in Turkish idiom. That's the word anon 84.154.xx.xx and User:Osmanoglou (both now banned) used when attacking me (you can still see this insult "ibneler ....[followed by bad curse in Turkish]" in User:Osmanoglou's userpage and his talkpage. The fact that now "user" Baku Ibne calls me "100 percent IBNE" (see his message above) is another proof that he is the same person as banned User:Osmanoglou aka anon 84.154.xx.xx. Now, I ask the admins who view this page, WILL YOU DO SOMETHING to stop this disgusting propaganda and personal attacks against me?!--Tabib 10:31, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
This page looks like a bomb crater! How about sorting out "Nagorno Karabakh" content?
1-Why does this page revolve solely around personal vendettas, by now?
2-User Tabib, just what is abusive about my user name (I love Thanksgiving!)
3-Would someone (in charge) put an end to this, by now rediculous, drama and delete all entries entirely irrelevant and unrelated to the subject??!!
Why do Turk editors get emotional on this subject? (And disruptive?)
One wonders why Turkish editors try to manifest themselves as a party having any involvement in QARABAQ matters??? Firstly they have no remaining vested interest in that geographic area, occupied by a majority of Armenians, with probably no Turkic inhabitants left at all. Furthermore, the Turks, originating from central Asia, have no real history in Qarabaq. Even during the few centuries of Turks prevalent in the area, they had hardly any say there, being ruled by PERSIANS and later RUSSIANS! Before that ancient Persian and Caucasian rulers and Mongols prevailed. The only Turk significance in this part of the world can be attributed to the Seljuk and Aq/Qaraquyounlou periods. So what's in it for Turks at all? Especially modern ones? Why not come to terms with the fact that their part is insignificant and at best nostalgic. It is therefore better to let pertinent editors present their understanding of the subject, without constant emotion laden disruptions by Turk zealots.
WikipediA is the free Turkish Encyclopedia, also known as Turkipedia. It is designed for Turkic people, so that they can express their TPOV (Turkish Point Of View) princeples. The main goal of Turkipedia is to express Turkic lifestyle and standards, and to impose these standards on all other users with different background.
Non-Turkic users are allowed read-only access to the Turkipedia article. In some cases, non-Turkic users are allowed to express their point of view, but only if it does not contradict with TPOV base principles.
I also call other users (whether (pro-)Persian or (pro-)Armenian) to stop pouring groundless and irrelevant accusations into this talkpage. I want to remind these users that Wikipedia talkpages are not an internet forum and are not for waging personal attacks and accusations. These talkpages should be used solely for purposes of page content discussion. If someone has some concrete argument regarding the CONTENT of any page (be it Nagorno-Karabakh or Safavids or anything else), let them post a proper message in relevant talkpage. Otherwise, such disruptive actions by anons, "mock users" and their sock-puppets will not solve problems, but will serve to further undermine their position in Wikipedia. --Tabib 20:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Is this the user Tabib Talk page??
That is the impression one can easily get, when noting recent postings, revolving around him.
FYI: Another "mock user"/sock puppet "born" today (March 2) (see, contrib.) and instantly posting an "outside view" in defence of User:LIGerasimova (see, his deceitful post in my complaint against LIGerasimova) and my reply here. It's really getting very mean and ugly...--Tabib 22:12, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to indeed be the user Tabib Talk page, allright!--Kiramtu Kunettabib 22:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To Tabib
I find rather hypocritic from your part to tell us all here how you have proved this or that and how you are attacked... when you yourself have participated in the Armenian genocide entry and tried to introduce revisionism of the second most studied genocide. I wonder how after trying to make of wikipedia a Turkish government propaganda webspace(in the Armenian genocide section at least) you could have the face to picture yourself as a victim.
Another note, there are many historical mistakes in your posts, and some are even basics such as locations etc. But for now, it's beside the point, since my reason of posting this was to ask you a question in regard to what I've said: Tabib, after your attempt of revisionism at the Armenian genocide section, why should anyone believe your sincerity?-Fadix
This groundless accusation has no relation whatsoever to this talkpage. And I'm not going to respond to this yet another attack and provocation by another Armenian editor. To make it clear to neutral and honest editors, here are my edits (or "my attempts at revisionism", as the user above termed it) at "Armenian genocide" page: first edit, putting label disputed; second edit, restoring label disputed. By the way this label is still there and should be there as long as the dispute remains. --Tabib 18:09, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Tabib, in my answer, I did not refer to your ethnicity, because I considered it totally irrelevant, what matter here is what is posted from someone, and not his ethnicity, yet your first answer dedicated to me you tell me: “yet another attack and provocation by another Armenian editor.” This is purely offending, I don't see why my ethnicity is of any relevancy. Do you see reason why you should bring my ethnicity into the picture and catalog me as another Armenian editor to ignore me? I was to defend you, because as I read, it is obvious you were attacked unfairly, I was waiting your answer before supporting you because of the cheap attacks you were receiving. But after your answer labeling me as if “Armenian” was an insult, and using that to ignore me, I retract from my initial personal decision to support you.
Secondly, and this is a question of honesty and trust. You claim having added the label disputed and editing it later. This is not only what you did, you changed the population numbers as well to introduce your biased figures. -Fadix
This is turning into a scandal!
Will we ever be spared dirty tricks and yet more exclamatory wisdom from user Tabib. After previously catching this user red handed, trying to rig opinions (Deli-Eshek Talk/Parviz), we learn that there seems to be much more under the tip of the Eiseberg!!! On top of that he whines into everybody's ear and files countless "complaints" apparently solely to devert attention from his own immoral conduct. I fear we may soon be dealing with looser Tabib. Some one do something to spare us this cabale!!!--LIGerasimova 19:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
According to the Congressional Research Service
Nagorni Karabakh, Historical Note, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington D.C.
-By the first half of the 6th Century B.C., Artsakh (called Nagorno-Karabagh today in Soviet literature), as well as Utik and Syunik, were part of the Armenian Kingdom of Ervandids.
-A town in Nagorno-Karabagh called Dikranakert bears witness that this area was part of the Armenian Kingdom of Dikran (circa 95 B.C.).
-Orkhistena or Artsakh was called a province of Armenia by Strabo, 1st Century B.C.
-After the division of Armenia between the Byzantines and Persians in 387, Artsakh was part of the Armenian kingdom until 428. After that it was put under Aghvan (Alvan) jurisdiction by the Persians.
-By the end of the 5th century Artsakh and Utik became part of the Armenian principality of Aranshakhik, two centuries later it became part of the Mikhranides dynasty.
-During the Middle Ages, this area was ruled by Armenians barons, and by the 17th and 18th Centuries this area gave raise to Armenian notables such as Davit Beg and Israel Ori, etc.
-A former Persian province, Karabagh became part of Russia in 1813.
-Only since the 18th century did non-Armenians began to settle near Artsakh from Central Asia, Anatolia and Kurdistan.
-In 1797, in the decree of Paul I, the number of Armenian families in Karabagh was 11,000 (upwards of 75,000 Armenians).
-In 1900, the Moslem population was no more than 5% of Karabagh's population.
-In 1914, there were 222 Armenian churches, 188 priests, 206,768 Armenians and 224 Armenian villages (note: approx. 1 church/village).
-August 1918, the Karabagh Armenians form a People's Assembly and reject the demand that Turkish troops be allowed to enter the regional capital, Shushi. After Turkish armies took Baku, with Nuri Pasha's "Islamic Army" comprised of Azeris, 5,000 Turkish troops occupied Shushi.
-In August 1919 Karabagh Armenians decided to temporarily be under Azeri protection until the outcome of the Paris Peace Conference, as urged by the British commanders in the Caucasus.
-December of 1920 Nakhitchevan, Zangezur, and Karabagh become part of the Soviet Armenian Republic.
-Mid 1923, Nagorno-Karabagh is given to Azerbaijan, later Nakhitchevan is detached from the other side of Armenia and put under Azeri jurisdiction.
-Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabagh as well over 90% circa 1923.
-Ever since 1923, Armenians have petitioned Moscow, to demanding self-determination in Nagorno-Karabagh.Fadix 01:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Another attempt at manipulation with the historical facts
Fadix, if you can give me any concrete references to this “historical note”, such as the exact report title, author’s name and most importantly, CRS code number, we can talk. Otherwise, I will not give way to this provocative post containing nothing more than blatantly false propaganda statements, and moreover passing these statements on behalf of the Congressional Research Service.
Also, the historical belonging of Artsakh to Caucasus Albania has been already discussed and proved. (see, 1; 2; 3; as well as above (last posts). The issue of “Greater Armenia”, which at times conquered Artsakh, as well as mentioning some antique chroniclers (Strabo etc.) describing borders of this empire were also addressed throughout the discussion: (see same as above, esp. for clarification on Strabo et. al.; also 1).
I do not want to turn this talkpage into a forum for historical disputes and in fact, throughout the whole discussion, I continuously resisted such attempts by User:Rovoam, but I think it is important to respond briefly to User:Fadix’s manipulations with historical facts on ethnic composition of Karabakh.
It is an indisputable historical fact that up until the end of XIX c. Azeris comprised the majority of population in Karabakh as opposed to Armenians. According to the taxation register of the Karabakh province, prepared by the Russian officials Yermolov and Mogilevsky, soon after the elimination of the Karabakh khanate in 1823, Azeris comprised 78.3 % of population in Karabakh whereas Armenians comprised only 21.7%. Actually, this taxation register can be considered the first population census conducted in Karabakh.
Armenian population began to grow in numbers only after Russian conquest of the Caucasus in early XIX c. followed by Russo-Iranian and Russo-Turkish wars. These wars resulted in massive resettlements of Armenians and other Armenian refugee inflows into the Caucasus, including to Azerbaijan and esp. to Karabakh. Each war between Russian Empire and Persia in 1826 and 1828, as well as Russia and Ottoman Turkey in 1828, 1853-1856, 1877-1879 and also during Armenian riots in 1894 brought a new wave of Armenian settlers and refugees to Caucasus. Russians were interested in resettling strongly pro-Russian Christian Armenians in Caucasus; Iranians and Ottomans were also interested in “getting rid” of mutinous Armenian minority within their borders. The peace treaties signed between Russian Empire and Iran, as well as Russian Empire and Ottoman Turkey provide special provisions on resettlement of Armenians to Caucasus.
Russian author Shavrov wrote in 1911 “Of 1 million 300 thousand Armenians living nowadays in South Caucasus, more than 1 million don't belong to the indigenous population of the region and were settled by us” Shavrov N.I. “New threat to the Russian affairs in the Transcaucasus: forthcoming sale of Mughan to strangers” (Novaya ugroza russkomu delu v Zakavkazye: predstoyashaya rasprodazha Mugani inorodcam) Saint Petersburg 1911. Shavrov, wrote this in the context of his criticism of the methods of the Russian colonial politics, which, as the author believed, “began its colonial activity not from settling the Russian people in Transcaucasus, but from settling there the strangers[i.e. Armenians]”
As a result of massive Armenian resettlement in Caucasus and Azerbaijan, including Karabakh, the percentage of the Azeris living in Karabakh radically dropped whereas percentage of the Armenians grew. According to All-Russian population census of 1897, of total population of Karabakh Azeris constituted 53%, Armenians- 45%. As you can see, throughout the XIX c. the percentage of Azeris in Karabakh dropped from 78% to 53%, whereas percentage of Armenians grew from 22% to 45%. In subsequent years following the first ethnic clashes between Azeri and Armenians and World War I, which brought a new wave of Armenian refugees in Karabakh, Azeris decreased in numbers even further.
In 1923 when Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast(Region) (NKAO) was formed, with its borders drawn artificially dividing lowland and upland parts of Karabakh, Armenians comprised 95 % of the population of this entity. However, since this census was conducted in winter, most of the Karabakh Azeris were in lowland Karabakh and therefore, they were not counted. (historically Karabakh Azeris had a semi-nomadic lifestyle and were mostly engaged in cattle breeding grazing their herds in mountains of upland Karabakh during summer and in lowland Karabakh plains in winter; pretty much like some Montenegrins and Vlachs at that time).
With sovetization, most of the Karabakh Azeris were forced to settle down in lowland Karabakh plains and since then, Armenians constituted a majority in mountainous (Nagorno-)Karabakh.
So far I did not insist in inclusion of these historical facts in the Nagorno-Karabakh page. As I said to Rovoam in one of my earlier posts, I did not insist in inclusion of lots of facts which I could rightfully include in the text (such as ethnic cleansing of Azeris from Karabakh, Khojaly massacre of 1992, massive Armenian resettlement in XIX c. etc.). namely because I wanted to avoid protracted conflicts between myself and some Armenian users, who would certainly resist to inclusion of these facts in the page. However, I see that this concession was in vain and was not appreciated at all. --Tabib 11:18, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
You lost me there Mr. Tabib, I thought you were here to discuss about history, what’s this intimidation all for? I am not posting propaganda, I just referred to a source I found relevant, if you wanted to know more about it, you could have gently asked, but this is not what you did. Beside that, those words are not mine, and the source is accurate, it has been later reproduced by a publication of the Zoryan institute as well.(1988) There is another one reconfirming it, published under the title: “Nagornyi Karabagh from the Earliest Times to 1917.”(again from the Library of Congress) if it is false information according to you, OK! I understand, but what is the point of accusing me of blatantly false propaganda statements when those are not my words?
Now you bring the Azeris into the picture, it is true that the Tartars were a majority in the Karabagh province, but I thought that Nagorno-Karabagh, as in Artsakh is the Mountainous Karabagh excluding most of the territories that the Tartars constituted a majority. Do you see now when I told you that there are many basic location mistakes in what I meant? You then bring the Armenian population “relocation,” true,(not entirly though) but many of those Armenians were as well relocated from regions that now are part of Azerbaijan. Beside that, it is kind of ironic that you ask me to give more information about my source, when you present none for yours, you just tell me this person wrote this or that.
Another point, you justify your position by claiming that Azeris were nomadic, but how can you then claim they constituted a majority in the mountainous region, when while Armenians stayed there, Azeris change location.
I won’t continue discussing about this, unless you accept my point of view and accept reading beside shouting that I am spreading propaganda, and besides, I haven’t forgotten your attack against my person in your other answer, and I request formal apology. Fadix 23:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Spreading this conflict to other pages Disruptive actions by Rovoam continue
I am not going to respond to post above by User:Fadix, containing baseless allegations which, as I said, have been already addressed earlier and moreover, contain ungrounded demand for “accepting [his] point of view” and apologizing for “intimidation” (?!) , a false accusation which is itself offending. The facts about Caucasus Albania and its historical province of Artsakh are already proved (even Rovoam could not hide away from accepting it. see last posts)
The reason why I write now is different. I want to inform the editors about recent provocative actions by User:Rovoam aimed at further escalating the conflict and spreading this conflict to other pages.
Rovoam, whose case is currently being investigated by ArbCom [2], continues his extremely disruptive actions and vandalism. He continues to vandalize the page Caucasus Albania deleting paragraphs about Artsakh being a part of this ancient state (see diff [3] and last vandalism – [4]. Btw, this paragraph was written previously by third party editors (i.e. neither Armenian nor Turkish or Azeri editors). Rovoam’s first vandalism was reverted by me and reported in this talkpage. (see above).
In his second attempt to delete the paragraph about Artsakh, Rovoam tries to “justify” his vandalism by alleging that Artsakh, before being part of Caucasus Albania was part of Urartu. However, this is nonsense. First, if Rovoam has some allegation, let him prove his allegations in talkpages and not delete already proven facts. Second, as I previously showed substantiating my arguments with maps, Urartu was situated in present-day eastern Turkey; present-day Karabakh was definitely not “a historical province” of Urartu, as Rovoam alleges. Rovoam himself knows that he simply cannot prove his allegations. That is why he resorts to such tricks aimed at escalating the conflict, confusing public opinion and subsequently, using this confusion for his propaganda pushing.
Simultaneously, Rovoam continues his attempts to create an alternative second page to already existing Nagorno-Karabakh. He tries to make Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which is itself a redirect page to Nagorno-Karabakh, a separate page, in which he could present his biased POV as opposed to Nagorno-Karabakh, where his attempts have failed and he have been reverted numerously by me and other third party editors. Rovoam made FOUR attempts to create an alternative second page for Nagorno-Karabakh. He was numerously reverted by me and User:Joy, his actions were reported above along with his vandalism in Caucasus Albania page. Here are the diff. from the history log of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic redirect page: (first attempt, second attempt, third attempt, fourth attempt
Moreover, Rovoam acting under anon IP 64.136.2.254 previously also tried to redirect present Nagorno-Karabakh page to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic but was always reverted by User:Davenbelle. He will probably continue his attempts, therefore I call every honest and impartial editor to counter such malicious and provocative actions by Rovoam and the like. I will add these recent actions by this person as evidence to his case.--Tabib 09:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Tabib, I don’t know all the story between you and Rovoam, and I have no idea of what Rovoam is doing, but given your answer to me, I can understand his behaviour. This place is the talk page, and there is nothing such as “proving” of history of the region thousands of years ago, it is about the word evidences. And again as I said, you are mixing Karabagh with the mountainous Nagarno-Karabagh, this entry is about the later. You have displayed your ignorance when you have presented the Tatar statistics of the entire Karabagh with Nagorno-Karabagh statistics. How can you do such a huge mistake and yet use strong words like “proven”? If you make such obvious mistakes, I can understand the desperation of Rovoam, considering that you seem to ignore what land covers Nagorno-Karabagh, that is not entirely the Abanian Artsakh. I will just show you here how you manipulated the statistics of the region. You claimed that the Azeris in Karabagh constituted 53% against 43% for the Armenians… then you bring a number that do not follow the first one. But here is the problem Mr. Tabib, let use the Russian survey of 1832. From the survey, 64.8% were Azeris Tartar, and 34.8% Armenians. Those are the type of numbers you are trying to manipulate. This is for the whole Karabagh, if we stick to mountainous Karabagh, we find out that Armenians were concentrated in 8 of the 21 districts or mahals. Which means that those 34.8% of Armenians populated 38% of the land, which also mean that Armenians represented 91.5% of the Mountainous Karabagh region. Those are the kind of mistakes you’ve made in your texts, you have as well mistaken Albanian Kingdom regions, but this is beside the point, because you seem to tell us that because there was a “Kingdom” war between two groups, that it means that once a region becomes part of a kingdom it does not contain another ethnic group. The point here is, have Armenians lived in what we know now as Artsakh? The answer is obviously yes, they have populated that region, at about 600 BC, and this regardless of if there were Albanians living there or not. Don’t forget that this place is meant to be apolitical, which means [no falsification], that it should speak about the history of the mountainous Karabagh region, and ONLY that region, and when taking only that region, we realise that the borders between the Armenian Kingdom and Albanian Kingdom are still not well established. In short, that’s what it means, no one with certitude could say anything about it, because even when naming a region, we have no idea if the Artsakh of the past was the same as the present one, and we have strong evidences they were not. There was no map thousands of years ago, were they any? So I wonder how you “proved;” that’s a strong word, evidences and “proves” are not the same. Something remain though, the Artsakh of the present time, is probably not the same, and that Armenians claim it was Armenian hundreds of years BC, and there are evidences that this is true, and there are that it wasn’t, and probably the reason of this contradiction is the delimitation of territories. Fadix 15:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
SERIOUS DISCLAIMER
Serious disclaimer, after reviewing the Nagorno-Karabagh entry, there are serious mistakes, not only this, but there are copies from materials coming from Azerbaijan ministry of foreign affairs publications. The word Gregorianization is even regurgitated. The entry has just plain and inaccurate informations, as well as obvious intentional deletion of informations such as the fact that during Soviet times, a Red Kurdistan was founded there, attempted by the Soviet authorities which failed. The Azeris government is the only side trying to hide that fact, because it differentiate an integral part and the notion of autonomous oblask. Fadix 16:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
User Tabib, why don't you leave history to the ones who know something about it? (And the rest of us allone?)
Here, as on SAFAVIDS page user Tabib tries to impress with a vast array of hearsay and unreflected patchwork of data, as has previously been repeatedly discerned by a number of editors. Again, he is proven to have copied internet sources, without actually comprehending the respective contexts!! Nevertheless User Tabib seems to be driven by spite to simultaneously insist on posting information, conspicuous with inaccuracies and "half truths", and at the same time foul mouthing me and a host of other editors. Funnily enough, his entire concern seems to be to cover up for his obviously inaccurate "editing", by downright silly personal attacks on other users, constantly whining into admins ears and filing complaints, seeking arbitration. WHAT, pray tell me, is in it for the READERS here??? Someone consulting an encyclopedia does not want to have to deal with mental problems of berserk "editors", posting anything but factual information!!?? I firmly believe, ethnic POV and silly agenda pushing have no place on Wikipedia.
answer
Dude, why don't you quit? Why are you spamming Wikipedia, that Mr. Tabib is in a propaganda war, it isn't of Wikipedia neither their users fault. Let him write that the Gregorian Christian Albanians were "Gregorized" as it is claimed in the Azeris foreign ministry web-site. One day, when he understand that Armenians and Albanians both were Gregorians, because of Gregory the Illuminotor as father of both Church, he'll understand what an absurd claim it was. Let him bring his website here, and use the place as a continuation of his website, let him mix Karabagh and mountanous Karabagh. I just hope he does not bring his Armenian genocide denialist materials at the genocide section,(Ironicaly he has an entry titled "Khojali genocide") because that I won't tolerate.Fadix 23:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Serious concern about User:Fadix’s latent (for now) POV pushing
Dear fellow Wikipedians,
Sometimes my real-life schedule do not allow me to respond on a timely basis to all the dirty propaganda and attacks waged against me by a certain group of users. Therefore, I call you to be more attentive and more active. I am not going to respond to User:LIGerasimova’s another attack on me, her case is under investigation by ArbCom ([5]) and sooner or later she will get punished for her deeds, and I believe, this recent attack will be used as another evidence against her.
This time I want to alert you on recent actions by User:Fadix. My primary concern about this person is that, he apparently tries to cast a shadow on all previous discussions and arguments. He manipulates with public opinion by presenting ungrounded statements, false references and one-sided sources. Simultaneously, to add even more confusion to the discussion, this person falsely accuses me in manipulation with the facts. Having watched Fadix’s recent actions, I have no doubts that this person gradually prepares a favorable ground for yet another Armenian POV pushing after Rovoam, which means another edit and revert war.
For most of you, given the fact that you are familiar with neither historical, nor political or even legal aspects of the Armenian-Azeri conflict over Mountainous (or Nagorno-) Karabakh, this whole discussion naturally seems confusing and you don’t know what and whom to believe. This is the biggest problem, because lack of knowledge provides excellent grounds for confusing and manipulating with the public opinion.
User:Fadix (contrib. log) distorted a number of facts and also falsely interpreted my arguments.
On historical demographics of Karabakh (again)User:Fadix accused me in “mixing Karabakh with mountainous Nagarno-Karabakh” and “display[ing] ignorance when [I] have presented the Tatar [meaning Azeri] statistics of the entire Karabagh with Nagorno-Karabagh statistics.”
This statement, although may seem reasonable at first sight, is a deeply misleading manipulation. I have already addressed this issue long ago yet in the early stages of my discussion with Rovoam. Here’s the excerpt from my post dated 16 Feb:
"…in strict academic terms there are differences between Karabakh and Mountainous (Nagorno-)Karabakh. "Karabakh" historically is referred to the territory consisting of mountainous and lowland parts (lower and upland Karabakh). Historically upper and lower parts were an integral part of one economic and political space. Since ancient times herdsmen used lowland and upland parts of Karabakh for summer and winter pastures respectively. There was no division of the region and there was no "Nagorno-Karabakh" then. Karabakh was a single political space as well when it was part of the Safavids state (1501-1734) and later part of the Karabakh khanate (1751-1822) The term "Nagorno-Karabakh" (or "Mountainous Karabakh") appeared only with creation of "Autonomous Region of Nagorno-Karabakh" in July 7, 1923."
Thus, Fadix intentionally ignores the fact that there was no “Nagorno-Karabakh [population] statistics” before 1923 as opposed to Karabakh population statistics, simply because there was no “Nagorno-Karabakh” or “Mountainous Karabakh” as a separate political and/or geographical unit. This also means that statements by Fadix about Armenians allegedly constituting a majority in mountainous parts of Karabakh are false, because, historically up until 1923 this percentage changed from season to season: in winter when most of the Karabakh Azeri cattle-breeders were in winter pastures in lowland Karabakh plains, Armenians were the majority in upland parts of Karabakh, in late spring-summer-early autumn when Karabakh Azeri cattle breeders returned to upland Karabakh with their herds, they constituted the majority in both upland and lowland parts of Karabakh. Even massive Armenian resettlements of XIX c., that I briefly talked above, could not change this demographic situation.
Only with Sovetization and Stalinist policy of divide and rule (1), did the demographic situation in Karabakh change: most of the Karabakh Azeris were forced to settle down in lowland parts and were not allowed to go to mountainous upland Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was created in 1923 with its borders drawn artificially in such a way as to ensure strong Armenian majority. The only district within this autonomy to have substantial Azeri majority was Shusha, a historical center of Karabakh region.
(1) For additional info and references on Stalin’s divide and rule policy and not only, see, Svante Cornell, Undeclared War: Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict reconsidered[6]; Nagorno-Karabakh: Searching for solution, Report by US Institute of Peace [7] and briefly, BBC Regions and Territories: Nagorno-Karabakh [8])
On external links introduced by Fadix to the page
I consider the link introduced by Fadix today as a provocation aimed at inciting a new revert war. Please see, diff ([9]) This is the link to http://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf “The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution published by Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy. At first sight it looks like a quite normal submission, and the publisher is also rather respected. HOWEVER, this “memorandum” is a product of blatant Armenian propaganda. This memorandum was written based on a conference held back in 2000 in Washington DC. One of its main authors was Armenian Bruce Janigian. I PERSONALLY ATTENDED THIS CONFERENCE back in 2000 and I can tell you as a WITNESS: this conference was officially boycotted by Azerbaijanian party at that time because of doubts about neutrality of the organizers, which included several Armenians, but no single Azeri. Also, during this conference the organizers invited representatives of Karabakh Armenian community, whereas no single representative of Karabakh Azeri community was invited. Most of the panelists were either Armenians from Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh or Armenian diaspora, or foreign nationals working in businesses closely related with Armenia. All these considerations made the Azeri party to boycott this conference back in 2000. As a result, the memorandum reflects the views of only one party to the conflict - the Armenian viewpoint. Therefore, this .pdf link is extremely misleading and cannot be kept in the page. If needed, we can find dozens of other links whether in pdf or normal html format which presents more objective portrayal of the events. But I believe, the external links section as it is now, is rather comprehensive, presenting web-sites of both parties as well as links to neutral resources. Therefore, no need in spamming this section with further propagandistic and controversial links.
And last brief, point. Fadix openly lies when he says in his post titled “serious disclaimer” that certain parts of the text were copied from “Azerbaijan ministry of foreign affairs publications”. Nothing of the kind. I can also blame openly User:Fadix in lying when he claims that there were “intentional deletions” of some facts on “Soviet Kurdistan” or whatever. I do not remember that earlier version of the page contained references to “Kurdistan” and I also looked at the history log and did not find any reference to this either.
In short, I can conclude that some people, including User:Fadix who newly joined this discussion to assist User:Rovoam, want to provoke a new edit war, confuse public opinion further, and benefit from this renewed mess in order to push their biased POV in Wikipedia and also take personal revenge from me for exposing them in previous discusions. I call you once again to be very attentive, to read through all the posts and most importantly, not to stay indifferent to the propaganda pushing, be it explicit or implicit.--Tabib 15:12, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I am done with this entry
Stop referring to my ethnicity, can you at least once stop to do that? How the ethnicity, or the writers ethnicity of papers are more important than what they write? And where did I ever claimed that there was statistics of region in question? I merely pointed out to the fact that the region known as mountainous Karabagh, was inhabited by it majority of Armenians, because from the 21 districts, the Armenian population was concentrated in 8. This being a fact, in those 8 districts Armenians would have constitute over 90% of the population. I don't see what the problem is with that, since I am merely saying what is known. That there was no statistics of mountainous Karabagh alone in 1923, is a non-issue here.
I will as well ask to stop telling that i have intentions and what I will do or not, I am respecting you, do the same with me. Did I accused you to bring Azeris POV here? Respect my Armenianess as I respect your Azerbaijaness.
Lastly, I ask you again to apologize for your attempt of character assassination, we are not in a fighting wring here. Am I lying? I ask anyone here to search the word “Gregorianization,” and see where it points to. Anyone researching the history of the Albanian Christian church will understand why this could not have happened. As for Red Kurdistan, I was referring to deletion of information, as in excluding it for obvious motives. Another point, it is surprising that you did even not ask me what I meant by inaccurate informations but rejected what I did even not say. If you live in the US, I shall remind you that it is a multi-ethnic country and and is build on tolerance, if you can't smell Armenians, maybe it is time for you to self-examinate yourself.
The link I provided did not worthed to be deleted, just because there was one Armenian among a bunch of writers.
I am done with this entry, as it is evident that you won't apologize, I hope Armenians won't answer this talk page, or participate in this entry, unless they are interested to get their character assassinated, before saying anything relevant, just because they are Armenians. It would be relevent to know, if Mr. Tabib present here is not the Tabib of this site: http://www.geocities.com/fanthom_2000/ witness his aim, and understand why no Armenians should participate in this entry.Fadix 17:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have very limited time, so I will cut it short. Unlike Fadix, who persistently and discourteously calls me “Mr. Tabib”, intentionally distorts my words, behaves as it was me who blatantly lied and harassed other editors including him, I never insulted any user so far and I never lied. I never lowered myself to the level of those like “Baku Ibne”, “LIGerasimova” and “Rovoam” who called me “homosexual”, “sick”, “suffering from pathogenic inferiority complexes on account of [my] Turkic background” etc. etc. I always exposed the real intentions behind some users’ actions, and if they were pushing their nationalistic agenda and tried to manipulate with public opinion, I said this straightforwardly. However, I repeat, contrary to the impression that Fadix tries to create, I, unlike certain “users”, never insulted any person based on his/her ethnic background. Therefore, accusing me in personally attacking certain editors is totally ungrounded.
As to my personal web-site created back in 2000 when I was a student, this source in no way can be interpreted as undermining my position in Wikipedia and accusing me in “Azeri POV pushing”. Anyone interested are welcome to visit that site which unfortunately I do not update any more and see if this is a propaganda web-site or what. I do not claim to be free of POV, nobody can claim that, but I unlike certain users do not wage a propaganda campaign here and do not engage i public harassment of other editors. Btw, I published my works not only in this personal web-site. If interested in my recent publication, please visit last issue of the Peace, Conflict and Development Journal. I can provide a full list of my publications and even my CV if Fadix is so interested in such details.--Tabib 06:20, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
I don’t see how Mr. Tabib is an insult, unless you are a woman, and if that is the cases, I apologise. I am braking my silence here, because you make false charges yet against my person, when I did nothing such with you. You were the one pointing to my “Armenian background” and shouting Armenians as if it was a word that would discredit a publication. I never did that with you. Your website is an example of how far one can see your agenda. I do not brag Armenia flag, I am a diaspora Armenian who never set a foot in Armenia, I am a Canadian. You can not be trusted when you shout words like “Khojali genocide” in your website and post Armenian genocide denialist materials. This was my point Tabib, your armenophobia has no ground in reality, and I don’t care what you have published or not, everyone can publish whatever passes in their minds. In such sites everyone are equal and can not hide under their credentials, I myself has never used my credential in science to undermine anyone.
Tabib dear(I hope you won’t take the word dear as an insult, if you do, I apologise, I have no problem apologising when I do something, wrong; the same can not be said with everyone), I repeat, you can not be credible when you mix Karabagh and mountainous Karabagh, this entry is about mountainous Karabagh. Second of all, the claim you fished from Azeris foreign ministry publications about Gregorization, is bogus, Albanians and Armenians had the same church, both were Gregorian, both kings when they converted it was by the same man, Gregory, this is why they are Gregorian Armenians AND Gregorian Albanians. The destruction of the Albanians has happened with the Arabs invasions, the Armenians were able to keep Christianism while they have signed a pact with the Arabs by providing them men etc. the Albanians were not as fortunate. To claim that Albanians were Gregorized is just plain debility, sorry for this harsh word, but it is true, I don’t see what else it could be called when Albanians were already Gregorian. Another fact remain, mountainous Karabagh was populated by Armenians during the first Albanian Kingdom, much like there are Kurds in Turkey right now. And that we take the Phrygian colony theory, the Urartian theory, the Haik theory, the tribue of Nairi theory etc. the region it covered makes that obvious.
Another fact remain, 8 of the 21 districts of Karabagh were inhabited by Armenians, and this for very long time that region was inhabited by Armenians, your theory of Nomads does not change this fact, given that even from the statistics you use, when extrapolating them in those 8 districts, it clearly show that Armenians were over 90% of the population. You can find dubious theories of Armenian immigrations,(when McCarthy himself doesn’t even advance over 40,000) but still those theories are as much supported than claiming that the Nomads would come and return in the mountainous region, when they had the entire fertile lands to consume. Call me liar, I don’t give a thing, vicitimize yourself, I don’t give a thing, nothing will change the fact that I came here and pointed out to few things and you jumped at me and telling me how I liar I am, this makes you as much “guilty” as those you accuse Another note, I find it quite offensing that you hardly address me but others. Why so? Is it because I am not human enough to be considered?
When reading last post by Fadix, I couldn’t get rid of a feeling of deja vue. I remember, Rovoam also started in the beginning with fake words like “my dear Turkish friend” etc. and eventually ended up waging personal attacks against me and calling me “sick” right in front of the eyes of the ArbCom where his case is being investigated now. Therefore, I call Fadix to refrain from unnecessary and fake references (e.g. “dear”) and even unwanted and explicitly ironic "apologies". Say what you want straightforwardly: I do not ask for additional bogus politeness, I just demand deferential treatment and civilized and honest discussion.
Another similarity I see between my earlier discussions with Rovoam and current discussion with Fadix is that my new opponent repeats once again his argument which has already been addressed. Just to make it clearer: I already responded to Fadix’s false allegations that Armenians historically constituted majority in mountainous parts of Karabakh (here). I already explained to him and to everyone else, that historically this ethnic demographics changed from season to season, and therefore, even if Armenians constituted a majority in 8 or whatever districts of mountainous Karabakh in winter, this situation changed in summer when Azeris came to upland parts of Karabakh to summer pastures. I also explained that Armenians constituted majority in Mountainous Karabakh only with establishing of Soviet rule and subsequent forced settlement of most of the Karabakh Azeris in lowland areas. Therefore, Fadix’s repetition of his previously addressed arguments is not pertinent.
Also, I would call Fadix to be more careful with his comments on Khojaly massacre. I did not comment so far on your genocide allegations. And I want to remind you that whereas "Armenian genmocide" has nothing to do here, Khojaly massacre is directly relevant issue, which can be and maybe should be addressed in the final page version. Therefore, it should be in your interest not to raise this issue.
I do not want to protract this discussion between us further. My impression is that despite Fadix’s declaration that he is “done with this entry”, I will have to endure his continuous posts, whether relevant or irrelevant to the subject matter, for quite a long time. So, we will have time for further elaborations if needed.
When posting last time I asked neutral editors to be attentive to new attempts at POV pushing and warned that I won’t be active for several days. Seemingly, Rovoam did his best to spend these days “effectively”: he once again vandalized the Caucasus Albania page removing a paragraph mentioning Artsakh written by previous third party editors and he also reattempted to create an alternative second entry for Nagorno-Karabakh under name Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. In short he did exactly the same things that I have reported earlier in my post entitled Spreading this conflict to other pages. Disruptive actions by Rovoam continue. Rovoam previously tried to vandalize and push his POV in Nagorno-Karabakh page but was reverted back several times by neutral editors. Therefore, he does not dare to interfere into Nagorno-Karabakh page for a time being and prefers to create an alternative second page which would be more suitable to him.
In this regard, I ask admins who probably watch this discussion to move redirect page Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to Nagorno-Karabakh. This will prevent future actions by Rovoam aimed at creating an alternative second entry for already existing Nagorno-Karabakh.--Tabib 19:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia want to become a ground for Azeri chauvinistic propaganda?
Does Wikipedia want to become a ground for Azeri chauvinistic propaganda? The question is directed to the Administration of Wikipedia.org.
Any impartial (non-Armenian and non-Azeri/Turkish) academician would confirm that most of the Azeri stuff that is placed here is pure nonsense. Azeris are descendants of Mongol and Turkic hordes, which appeared in the Caucasus only in the 10th century A.D. Azeris have nothing in common with the Caucasian Albanians and their culture, because the Albanians of the Caucasus belonged to the Iranian or Kartvelian language families. The results of Mongol and Tatar (that is how the Azeris were called until the 20th century) invasion in Albania were well documented: the local aboriginal Iranian- and Kartvelian-speaking peoples were partially assimilated and mostly massacred. Those who survived are represented today by the Tats, Talishes, Udins, Laks, Lezgins and other ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan, who most probably will not last much due to the state-sponsored policy of assimilation.
The Azeri chauvinistic propaganda is targeted at one of the worst weaknesses of human nature - ignorance. Indeed, it is a cunningly smart calculation to tell foreigners, who are not familiar with the Caucasus, that Azetis have some "historical rights" to Caucasian Albania, that Artsakh-Karabakh was the "historical part of Caucasian Albania", that the aboriginal Armenians and other local Caucasians are in fact "newcomers", whereas the Turkic-Azeri nomads are "local" "aboriginal" inhabitants. Who is going to confront these lies? Average Joe from Texas or Fritz from Hamburg? No one. Realizing the indifference and naivity of the rest of the world, Azeri chauvinists then push further and fill in the internet with their home-made and KGB-blessed lies. I forgot who was the author of the prophetic words: "The greater the lie, the sooner people believe in it." That's the fundamental approach of Azeri chauvinists to history and politics.
In the meantime, the facts speak for themselves. The Greek and Latin historians never mentioned "Azerbaijan" in their texts, whereas Armenia was mentioned many times and was well-known in the ancient world. The word "Azerbaijan" appeared much later and derives from Atropatena, a Hellenistic state in the northern part of modern Iran (south of river Araxes) that was inhabited by Iranians and ruled by the descendants of Alexander the Great. Atropatena had nothing in common with present-day Azeris or Turks. Most of the Greek and Roman historians, who wrote about Armenia and its borders, mentioned that the eastern border of Armenia goes along the Kura River, and that this river separates Armenia from Caucasian Albania (again, nothing in common with Azeris). What's the point of dispute? What can an honest and impartial person dispute here?
As to the growing appetite of the Azeri nationalist fanatics, it is a nice try now to target Wikipedia and its visitors with the KGB general Aliev-made propaganda lies. It is up to the Administration of Wikipedia to take action. I believe there is a fine but still quite visible line between freedom of opinion and smartly constructed chauvinistic lies mixed up with cheap state-sponsored propaganda. One think that I would suggest, is to close the discussion in this (and perhaps similar extremely sensitive topics), and thus preserve the academic level of Wikipedia. Otherwise the initially brilliant project that is targeted to fight against human ignorance and build bridges between the nations by spreading honest and impartial knowledge about civilizations may turn into a dirty tool of chauvinistic lies and fanatic propaganda.
Looks like I was not mistaken in my feelings of deja vue and repetition of previous farce. Please, see contribution log of "user" Wikirili "born" yesterday March 14, 2005.
Previously there have been similar attacks and malicious disruptive actions by a whole bunch of "mock users" (see this post and several subsequent posts). Most of these "mock users" turned out to be one person residing in Germany, as established by evidence in ArbCom. For details see, [10] and [11]. Now, seemingly, a similar attempt is being carried out, whether by the same person or not, is too early to say. Combined by a renewed disruptive actions by Rovoam this new attempt is very disturbing. These recent actions aim at further aggravating the situation, confuse public opinion and benefit from the chaos in order to push for their POV and/or take personal revenge from me for my activity in Wikipedia. I call neutral editors not to stay indifferent. --Tabib 06:57, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
User:Tabib! I currently live in California (L.A. Agoura Hills), not in Germany. So, please don't make stories! Rovoam 22:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Read more attentively. I meant not you but person hiding behind army of sockpuppets LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne/Twinkletoes etc etc. Details are available at ArbCom evidences. ([12]) and esp. ([13])--Tabib 13:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC) p.s. Relationship of "Wikirili" to either Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova/Twinkletoes OR to Rovoam is an open question.--Tabib 13:24, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Tabibi, I am a new user and never resided in Germany. Stop fulling around with users, IPs, ID etc. And stop this Azeri xenophobia, i.e. portraying the Armenians as cunning and cheating. Your own lies can hardly make your absurd suspicions convincing. These sorts of primitive tricks may work in your native Azerbaijan with its totalitarian regime and Armenophobic propaganda, but not in an open society.
Once again, I call upon the administrators of Wikipedia to consider the meaningness of providing a virtual ground for Azeri-Karabakh war, now in the virtual realm. This discussion is getting ugly and given the tention between the parties will never be a substitude to the truth. The only solution to the conflict can be found not through dirty propaganda wars, but through dialogue and mutual consessions. Best of my knowledge not many Armenians and especially Azeris are ready to any consession. Turning Wikipedia into a place for wordwar and mutual denial is not the best idea and can hardly promote the concept behind this project. I reiterate my suggestion to close this discussion and leave the matter to the diplomats and international mediators. Otherwise Wikipedia - perhaps unwillingly - is contributing to the antiarmenian propaganda and in any case promoting the idea of mutual hatred.
Protected this article
I have protected the article on request.
The current revert war has continued for about a week now. Currently Arbcom is contemplating sanctions against both parties to this as a result of your joint propensity for revert warring and personal attacks. It would be in both your interests to stop arguing and start hammering out a form of words that you can both agree correctly expresses all major viewpoints on this matter. Then maybe Arbcom will not penalise you both with a revert parole and personal attack paroles or worse. This is probably the last chance you will get. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As there's no ongoing discussion I've unprotected the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
