Talk:Artsakh (historical province)/Archive 1

Azeri and Turks, please provide your sources

According to Strabo, Albania was bounded on the east by the Caspian, and on the north by the Caucasus. On the west it joined Iberia, while on the south it was divided from the Greater Armenia by the river Cyrus (Kura). See: Strabo, Geography, 11.5 (English ed. H.C. Hamilton, Esq., W. Falconer, M.A.); also: Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, (eds. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S., H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A.).

Please, provide a historical evedence that Artsakh was ever part of Albania.

Nationalistic nonsense deleted abakharev 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Test56 18:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Test56, I don't have a problem with including such a quote that is relevant and verifiable, but I reverted because the snide comment about "nationalist historians" or whatever in the text is just too unprofessional looking for an Encyclopedia. If you re-add the Strabo quote as a reference without the emotional language, there will be no reason to delete it. Also your comments on this talk page re: "pretend to be a human being, not an animal" are borderline and clearly designed to provoke. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Test56 is another sockpuppet of Rovoam, who was permanently banned from Wikipedia. Grandmaster 19:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the latest edit by vandal Rovoam about the borders between Albania and Armenia please see the following:

In ancient times, the region of Karabagh and most of eastern Transcaucasia was inhabited by a people called Albanians, not to be confused with the people of the same name now living in the Balkans. [1]

This an Armenian source, Zorian institute. Also, this is work of one of the best Russian specialists on Caucasian Albanian K.Trever, which Rovoam preferred to delete from his website when people started referring to it.

Географические рамки Кавказской Албании, претерпевавшие изменения в ходе исторического процесса, по-разному определялись исследователями. Одни включали в пределы Албании не только весь Дагестан но и Северный Кавказ (Кпапрот, 1814), другие суживали ее пределы областями Шаке и Ширван (Яновский, 1846, Крымский, 1934), иные отодвигали северные границы до р. Сулак (Юшков, 1937), Археологические данные, приходящие в настоящее время на помощь историку, не позволяют относить северные пределы Албании (начиная с I в. н. э.) к району севернее Дербентской области, — точка зрения, которой придерживался Бартольд (1925 г.). Западными границами Албании являлась восточная Кахетия, южными — до III в. р. Кура, а затем с III—IV вв. — р. Аракc; на востоке — Каспийское море.

It says that there different opinions about the borders of Albania among the historians, because they were not historically stable. It further says that: Western border of Albania was Eastern Cahetia, the south border was the river of Kura until 3rd century and the river of Araks from 3 – 4 th centuries, and the Caspian sea on the east. Grandmaster 12:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Those borders are well defined by Classical sources and are not in dispute, it mentions nothing about Karabakh. But I have never seen a map or source that shows Albanian presence in Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) ? The biggest Aghvank (C. Albaniain Armenia has ever been) is displayed on this map: [2]--Eupator 13:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Both Strabo and Pliny lived in the 1st century. But what was after? Trever says that later it was part of Albania again. Grandmaster 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is Trever? Are you implying it was part of Albania even before? So far I haven't seen anything that shows the rgeion of Karabakh ever having anything to do with Caucasian Albanians. --Eupator 11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Trever is a well-known Russian historian. Armenian Zorian institute also says that the region was populated by Albanians. Grandmaster 11:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The region of Transcaucasus that is right? Karabakh wasn't.

Zorian institute is not a source. I want a Western source preferably from a historian or someone who at least wrote a book. Karabakh is extremely far West from their known traditional borders.--Eupator 12:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Columbia encyclopedia:

A part of Caucasian Albania called Artsakh, the area was taken by Armenia in the 1st cent. A.D. and by the Arabs in the 7th cent. [3] Grandmaster 12:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope they didn't take it from Wikipedia, that would be a pity but that's enough for an inclusion. I still want an elaboration from a detailed source, maybe it was a tip of an eastern part or something. And who is the primary source of that? So far everything provided is a secondary source.--Eupator 14:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Authoritative secondary sources are as good as primary ones, the Wiki rules allow to use both. And Columbia is an authoritative encyclopedia, they don’t copy info from Wikipedia. Grandmaster 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with that.--Eupator 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Great. Grandmaster 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Explaining changes-corrections

Codex,

I have made some changes-corrections to your edit. I’ll try to explain them below.

1) I restored original intro paragraph, which read as follows:

Artsakh (Armenian - Արցախ, Azeri - Ərsak Russian - Арцах) - a province of ancient Caucasian Albania that covered what is now mostly Nagorno-Karabakh. The name today is used mostly by Armenians to refer to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Your edit that you’ve introduced in order as you said (in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh) to "appease" Rovoam was:

Artsakh (Armenian - Արցախ, Azeri - Ərsak Russian - Арцах) - ancient name of a region in the Caucasus, between the Aras and Kura rivers. The name today is used mostly by Armenians to refer to Nagorno-Karabakh.

There are several errors with this entry.

a) By omitting reference to Caucasian Albania, it ignores the historical component of the name, which is the essence of this entry.

b) it gives not clear geographical explanation to Artsakh. Artsakh although was situated between Kura and Araks rivers, it was actually much smaller that this whole territory, covering mostly present-day mountainous Karabakh area (which includes Nagorno-Karabakh as well as present-day Lachin and Kalbajar). Other historical province of Caucasian Albania – Uti/Utie was also situated between Kura and Araks and comprised mostly what is now known as Lowland Karabakh (territories adjacent to N-K)

2) I have restored the sentence

Today the historical ownership of Artsakh, present-day Nagorno-Karabakh is hotly disputed between Azeris and Armenians, both of whom lay historical claims to this territory.

in the beginning of the page. I think this is important sentence which should be mentioned in the beginnings before diving into any sort of historical details.

3) I have removed your formulation introduced for appeasing Rovoam:

...but whether or not they ever lived south of the Cyrus river has been disputed by some Armenian nationalists

The fact that certain Albanian tribes originally lived in the right bank of Kura/south of the Kura river is a proven historical fact. This fact is confirmed by both Moses of Chorene, “father of Armenian history”, Moses Kalankaytuk, an Albanian historian, as well as Strabo and other authors of antiquity. In Nagorno-Karabakh there is still a river named Gargarchai (Gargar river), and also as I mentioned above, territories adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh were called in ancient times Uti, named after an Albanian tribe of Udis/Uties.

4) I have also removed the following sentence you erroneously attributed to a paragraph describing 6-4 cc BC:

Other parts were under Armenian control, but it is difficult and controversial to establish precise boundary lines at any given time during this period.

Probably, you don’t know, but this is an axiom that in 6-4 cc. BC there was no Armenians in the Caucasus. As mentioned in the text. Armenian appeared in the Caucasus in II-I cc. with creation of an “Greater Armenian” empire.

I also made some minor changes, but these are not essential.

I would like to let you and other interested editors know that in fact the issue of Caucasian Albania and Artsakh has been extensively discussed within the framework of my previous discussions (or rather disputes) with Rovoam in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. Here are some of the links to previous archived postings which give detailed explanation on controversial issues, regarding the history of Caucasian Albania and one of its historical provinces Artsakh (also available in Talk:Caucasian Albania): Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Artsakh_province_of_Caucasian_Albania, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Albanian_province_of_Artsakh_and_Armenian_claims, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Devil.92s_advocacy_and_the_irrefutable_facts, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Historical_fact:_subjugation_of_Albanian_church_to_the_Armenian_under_Arabs, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive2#Rovoam.92s_proposition_to_solve_the_conflict (esp. last posts where Rovoam himself accepted that Artsakh was part of Caucasian Albania but now denies it again).

Finally, I also want to warn you against Rovoam’s tricks once again. He is very good in misleading and deceiving people and one should treat his words and allegations very carefully. He also has very good knowledge of the topic and the issue, and if not his intentions, he would be a good asset to Wikipedia. However, combined with almost fanatic persistence (which stem either from his nationalistic views or/and personal hatred to me), immoral behavior, this knowledge makes him extremely dangerous and troublesome. This is a sort of tactique aimed at wearing his opponent by stubborn denial of facts, vandalism and trolling, as well as discrediting him before the eyes of fellow editors and eventually getting what he wants. I have experienced all these on myself for the past several months. And I must say that the reason why I didn’t give up and quit Wikipedia was namely such base and malicious tricks and cheatings that I have suffered from Rovoam. If you haven’t seen yet, previous ArbCom evidences give substantial picture of the nature of this person [4]. --Tabib 06:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the clarifications. Tabib, let's not give up hope of some ideal wording that is truly neutral enough to avoid getting reverted every 12 hours or so. I am gratified to note that both sides are now working off of my most recent attempt at reconciliation, and despite your complaint of 'spurious edits', it seems we are in fact getting just a little closer to finding that common neutral ground...

Most of the remaining contention with this page deals with the opening paragraph; specifically, the primary bone of contention is describing Artsakh as "a province of ancient Caucasian Albania"...

Everyone seems to agree that lots of near-constant reverting was going on here (on the ground, that is!) in BC times. So instead of saying "province of ancient Caucasian Albania" - this might seem a little impartial (choosing one side) when in reality, it can be described as coveted real estate as long as recorded history - how about something reflecting this in the opening para, like...

Artsakh (Armenian - Արցախ, Azeri - Ərsak Russian - Арцах) - a mountainous province of ancient Caucasus, at various times a province of Caucasian Albania, and at others, of Greater Armenia, covering what is now mostly Nagorno-Karabakh. The name today is used mostly by Armenians to refer to Nagorno-Karabakh.

A little more 'fair and balanced'? Codex Sinaiticus 13:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Codex, I understand your willingness to help and I am grateful to your for your good-willed efforts. However, I am against altering historical facts in order to appease someone, especially Rovoam, who completely discredited himself by his vandalism and trolling.

The formulation you offered at first glance looks very impartial. However, it is misleading. There is one small but substantial point I want to make. Artsakh, really was a *historical* province of Caucasian Albania. Armenians conquests of this territory which took place in II-I cc. BC and then in early IV c. AD (until 387) do not entitle them to be named on equal terms with Caucasian Albanians when referring to Artsakh. Historical belonging of Artsakh to Caucasian Albania and the fact that Artsakh was populated in ancient times by various Albanian tribes is an *indisputable historical fact* which cannot be denied even by Armenians themselves. Please, look at this URL, http://www.cilicia.com/armo19i.html. This article is an Armenian-written sample which contains many false and biased statements by the way, but even they cannot deny that "In ancient times, the region of Karabagh and most of eastern Transcaucasia was inhabited by a people called Albanians, not to be confused with the people of the same name now living in the Balkans.". Therefore, I believe the initial formulation is more accurate. However, I will see, if I casn make some slight changes in order to name "Greater Armenia" too.--Tabib 11:16, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have made the following change to the intro (changes shown in bold)

Artsakh (Armenian - Արցախ, Azeri - Ərsak Russian - Арцах) - a historical province of ancient Caucasian Albania, and at times, of Greater Armenia that covered what is now mostly Nagorno-Karabakh. The name today is used mostly by Armenians to refer to Nagorno-Karabakh.

I believe now the intro gives even more clear and NPOV formulation because 1) it clearly states that Artsakh was a historical province of Caucasian Albania and 2) shows that it was also part of the Greater Armenian empire at times.

However, frankly, I do not think Rovoam will appreciate this good-willed effort.--Tabib 11:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

And I also won't appreciate your Turkish nationalistic POV, because it simply contradicts with well-known historical facts, supported by all modern history scientists, except Turkish-speaking. Test56 19:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Albanians have nothing in common with Azeri/Turk people

• Albanians have never formed a nation. They were represented by 26 different tribes, each talking their own language. These tribes existed till XII century. They don't exist now. However, Armenians existed before and they exist today, they live in Artsakh today.
• Azeri people are muslims, while Albanians were christian.
• All known Albanian languages are not even close to Turkish languages: these languages belong to different groups.

Taking all these facts into consideration, it is not clear what Azeris have to do with Artsakh or with ancient Albanians. Turkic population came to this area 600 years ago, while Armenian lived there for more then 2000 years... 72.25.94.82-text attribution by --Tabib 11:00, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Editors:This text is written by a well-known vandal User:Rovoam who's been banned previously and placed under restriction by ArbCom (see Baku Ibne et. al.). This person systematically vandalizes this page, Caucasian Albania, Nagorno-Karabakh, Arran (Azerbaijan), Azerbaijan and other pages. He is constantly advancing spurious and misleading allegations in order to confuse and to deceive other editors, who are not familiar with the subject well enough. The message above is yet another example of his tricks when he repeats previously addressed issues in a new talkpage, therefore I will just ignore this person. The issue of Artsakh and Caucasian Albania was extensively addressed during my previous discussions with this person (before he descended to such blatant vandalism and was blocked and punished by ArbCom) in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. If interested in details, plese, read through the posts, which I mentioned above to my message to Codex.--Tabib 11:00, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

So, what is wrong with the above statements, given by Rovoam? He is absolutely correct in these statements! The historical evidences he provided are strong and no matter how un-educated ArbCom has voted, they cannot change or re-write the history. And you, Tabib, must provide direct arguments, not personal attacks. Say something against Rovoams statements, not against Rovoam as a person. Test56 19:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Albanians and contemporary Azeris

Here's an excerpt I've found in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh archived posts. I think it would be interesting just to read these messages posted on Feb 20 and 23 here once again (bolds are from the original text, only underline is added):

Rovoam:

Tabib, please clarify for me one question. If we assume that Artsakh was a part of Albania 1000 years ago, why do you think it should now belong to Azerbaijan? Azeri are Turkish-speaking muslim people, while Albanians Caucasion-speeking Christian people? Don't you see some fundamental problem here?Rovoam 08:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tabib:

See, you do this again. You again try to divert the discussion from the point and intentionally confuse current political issue (i.e. Armenian occupation of Azeri territory) with historical issue (Artsakh’s belonging to Caucasus Albania). These are two different issues that should be dealt separately. And also, I’ve numerously stated throughout the discussion that whether Azeris are right or wrong in their claim that they are descendants of the ancient Albanians as well as ancient Turks is an issue which should be discussed in a different talkpage. (i.e.Talk:Caucasus Albania). Btw, France, a Roman-speaking nation, claims ancestry to both Celtic-speaking Gauls and Germanic Franks; Slavic Bulgarians, got their name from Turkic-speaking tribe of Bulgars, which invaded this Slavic people in 7th c., Bosnians, once a Christian Slavic people, is now a Muslim nation. Do you see “some fundamental problem” here?..--Tabib 05:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no desire to have any discussions with Rovoam after his vandalism, malicious tricks and dishonest arguing behavior. So, I will ignore him as much as possible. The reason why I reposted this old excerpt was to show that historically, many nations have evolved from various backgrounds and Azeris with their Caucasian, Iranian and most evidently, Turkic roots are not an exception either. --Tabib 12:32, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't pretend to be an expert, but the article seems to suggest that after the 8th C., one portion of the Albanians continued to be Christians and were assimilated to Armenian language and culture; while the other portion converted to Islam and were eventually absorbed by the Azeris. Then a third portion, the Utis, apparently preserved their Albanic language. The article on Azeris indicates multiple origins for the Azeris, but the linguistic evidence with a strong Tati (Iranic) stratum suggests that Medes were in the area first, then a sort of 'melting-pot' with everyone else who ever passed through - including Scyths, Cimmerians, Albanians, Turks, etc. Without more records, we may never sort out which of these groups were hybrid tribes of which other groups - the Huns and Khazars were in the Azerbaijan area as early as 191 AD and were early Turkic speakers, first of many waves. There is good evidence from many historical sources given at the Azeris entry, that Turkic tribes were there far, far longer than 600 years ago. So Turks were already there, when the Albanian identity disintegrated following the arrival of Islam to the area. As for whether Albania ever formed a "nation", the ancient historians seem to refer to it as such, even if they were not led by one central ruler but were more sort of a loose confederacy. So all the evidence seems to contradict the statements made above by 72.25.94.82. Does anyone know where we can find more information about the Uti or Udi people? If they still speak Albanian, they probably have a better claim to be their cultural heirs, than either Azeris or Armenians. But all 3 groups can certainly claim to be the genetic heirs of the Albanians. --Codex Sinaiticus 14:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Turkic tribes apeared on the territory much earlier than medieval ages. In fact, early mediaeval Albanian historian Moses Kalankaytuk names Hunarakert, which means "the castle of Huns" when referring to the boundaries of the Caucasian Albania ("......someone from the family of Sisakan, one of the descendants of Yafet-Aran who inherited the plains and mountains of Albania beginning from the river Yeraskh (Araxes/Araz) up to the castle of Hunarakert." (II, 21)) But I also want to warn you Codex that the Azeris entry you mentioned contains also some factual errors, I'll try to fix them some time in near future. But this is a different topic. Meanwhile, as per your request, here's one article by a native Udin author about contemporary Udins in Azerbaijan Udins Today Ancestors of the Caucasian Albanians--Tabib 18:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

It is well-known historical fact, accepted by the modern and traditional history science, that first Turkish tribes have appeared in the area in approx X c. Turkish propaganda, however, does not accept this. Test56 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Rovoam has gone beyond the pale and is reverting simply to make some kind of point [5]. Because he is virtually unblockable and rather obsessive, I have protected this article and quite a few others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. Protected for long enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

How long is this going to stay protected?? It's been over a week now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It should definitely stay protected, because the person who doesn't like Tabib, is still reverting all of user Tabib's edits wherever he can. It has long since gone beyond any kind of political statement, to pure spite against a particular individual. This person, whose name is known, is only showing everyone that he is from an uncharitable and spiteful background. The pages he is messing with now, that I know about from my watchlist, and should probably also be protected, are: Kura-Araxes culture Mannaeans Azerbaijan If anyone wants to change a protected article, all they have to do s bring it up on the talk page. Codex Sinaiticus 03:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet disclaimer

Dear editors, please, be aware that previously banned vandal sockpuppets are actively posting abusive and spurious messages to various talkpages, where I have been active in the past (e.g. this talkpage, Talk:Azerbaijan, Talk:Caucasus, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, Talk:Artsakh etc.). Their sole aim is to attack me, create a confusion and an environment of animosity, and eventually, disrupt Wikipedia. I ask you to disregard all their spurious posts and if certain that certain post is by a vandal sockpuppet, simply delete them.

For additional information on recently created sockpuppets, including this "WikiAdm" (Rovoam) and their concerted 'campaign' against me, please, see, my requests for clarification to the ArbCom, which has already solved the issue by effectively blocking the known sockpuppets. See, request followed by second appeal. I ask editors to check the "birthdate" and contribution log" of any new "user" that suddently emerges and advances spurious allegations and attacks. Thus you can spot the vandal more easily . --Tabib June 30, 2005 07:50 (UTC)

What use to anybody is a DISPUTED and "protected" article?????????

Sensible people should get a chance to post here! Why protect disputed content and not allow editors, who are able to, add senseto the subject. Thats what WIKIPEDIA is actually about! Time forbetter nonitoring of sensless activism by certain "admins"! --我愛你 2 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a heaven for propaganda?

Dear readers,

All topics in Wikipedia encyclopedia regarding Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh are bombarded with Azeri propaganda. If you would like to learn anything about Armeian history or Armenians, please use other sources, not Wikipedia. The reason for this is simple, there is an anti-Armenian hysteria in present day Azerbaijan and Wikipedia is a heaven for them to try to change anything Armenian to reflect their hateful point of view.

Your comment has nothing to do with the article, so I think its you who is using propaganda.

Actually he/she is dead right. And it's not just Armenian pages that are under "attack" but also those of Serbs, Kurds, Greeks, etc. just to name a few. Since anyone can edit wikipedia, often the editors have an agenda, which is baised, and use the article of wikipedia to spread it. This seems like a lost cause, but it can be dealt with if only registered members could edit and if POV pushers were punished earlier rather then the long drawn out process that is currently in place. All of this makes one wonder, what is the point of even editing on wikipedia, when anyone can change everyhting one wrote. This isn't about vandelism, but of subtle POV pushing, which has taken a turn for the worse recently.

As the above post said, please don't use wikipedia as your main source, it's very informative, but realize that there are very few specialists and editors without an agenda.--Moosh88 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Columbia Enciclopaedia confuses, when writes, that Artsakh has been won by Armenia in 1 century AD as Strabo wrote in the end of 1 century BD, using earlier sources, and already then it there was a province of Armenia. City Tigranakert in Artsakh near present Agdam has been based in the beginning of 1 century BC. We simply do not know, when and as Artsakh became Armenian, but anyway till 1 century BC. Article "Nagorno-Karabakh" in "Colambia" speaks about modern Karabakh and is written not by the expert on an antiquity. Sfrandzi 17:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical accounts are never complete--they pick some dates and leave out others. Clearly the editor in Columbia decided to pick one point in the history--the acquisition of Artsakh by Albania in 1st c AD (the info is still dubious, and probably false, but for now I won't object to its inclusion). But I agree, the language can be confusing and misleading if we don't clarify that it was part of Armenia before. I rephrased to avoid the confusion. As a side note, the author of the article does seem unprofessional and extremely biased (just look at the language about blaming the "nationalist Armenians" etc.) and is not very reliable.--TigranTheGreat 11:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)