Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 1

message: I added a paragraph, that Aramgutang removed. In deference to his experience with the subject, I'll trust his judgment -- but let me just say that this question is what draws some to the NKR question, not as an abstract problem but as one of the relationship between ethnicity and territory.
Here is the excised paragraph:
The dispute is a problem of border geometry: Nagarno-Karabakh, mostly populated by Armenians, is essentially surrounded by Azerbaijan, while the Azeri-populated enclave Nakhichevan is surrounded to the North and East by Armenia. If Armenia and Nagarno-Karabakh are to be united as a contiguous territory, it would require keeping Azeri-populated land in between and permanently separating Azerbaijan proper and Nakhichevan; likewise, if Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan are to be united in contiguous borders (once true, but no longer realistic), it would require seizing much Armenian-populated land, particularly Nagarno-Karabakh. -anonymous.
:This is simply wrong. Look at the maps and you will see yourself. Only a thin slice of southern Armenia will help connect mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan. Separation of these two is completely unrelated to Karabakh, geographically. roozbeh 19:55, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
::I removed the paragraph because Nakhichevan has very little to do with Karabakh, and there's no dispute concerning its borders. Azerbaijan has never expressed intent to form a contigious border with Nakhichevan, and Armenia is not trying to form a contigious border with Karabakh either. However, since there are less than 10km separating the Karabakh border and Armenia next to the town of Lacin, Armenia is pushing for an open transport corridor through it, not a unification of the border. In fact, if you find a more detailed map, you will see that there are 2 other small regions enclaved by Armenian territory that are controlled by Azerbaijan, and 1 other such region enclaved by Azerbaijan, yet controlled by Armenia. Thus both countries are fine with having enclaves they control separate from them, as long as the ethnic majority of an area determines who it's controlled by (except for the case of Karabakh, obviously). The separation of Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan has not been an area of dispute and has existed thoroughout history, and thus has pretty much nothing to do with the Karabakh conflict. Also, I find that the sentence "If Armenia and Nagarno-Karabakh are to be united as a contiguous territory, it would require keeping Azeri-populated land in between and permanently separating Azerbaijan proper and Nakhichevan" simply doesn't make sense. Please explain or correct it if you can. --Aramգուտանգ 01:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed paragraph 

message: As far as I see all the information about Daglig Garabag is subjective. It is obvious that it was written by Armenians. So it is completely biased and cannot be taken as fact, since it is given in one format and one point of view: Armenian. To be fair the information should be given regarding only facts not assumptions. Or if you insert information it should not be describing only one position of Armenians but Azeri's as well. Let's say if you write massacres over Armenians in some Azeri towns were conducted, you should also mention massacres conducted by Armenian vandals over Azeri population in Azeri city of Hodjali in Daglig Garabag in 1992.
You should mention that over 300,000 Azeri people were forced to leave their homes in Armenia where they lived for centuries. You should mention that there also was Azeri population in Garabag which was against the independence of autonomous republic. You should mention that until 18 century the majority of the population of present Armenia (not even Garabag) consisted of Azeri people not Armenians. It is after Russian politics the Christians (Armenians) from Persia and Eastern Ottoman Empire started to move and dislocate to present Armenia and Garabag territories. It's not just words, it's fact, which you can discover in archives (of course if you wish).
So the point here is not deny everything presented by Armenians, but to put information that would reflect the true historical events. The matter is to deliver to the readers the very objective and rich information from different points of view, not just Armenian. And let the reader decide what to choose, let him search the truth.
05:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC) User:24.136.35.45 (Where is truth?) diff
: Well, of course, that's the whole point behind Wikipedia. That's why there's a notice on top of the article about its disputed neutrality. And like I've said before, you're welcome to add any valid counterpoints to the article, as long as they're backed up with sources. As an Armenian, I have little motivation to go out and find arguments against what I've believed in all my life, it is you who should collect the facts you wish to be known and incorporate them into the article. Also, I would disagree that the article has assumptions in it (besides maybe the phrase "Karabakh was subdued by Azerbaijan, with approval from the Allies interested in the oilfields nearby Azerbaijan's capital, Baku."), it mainly describes only facts. Like you said, some facts may be missing, so feel free to fill them in. Also, please try to provide neutral sources, since for every Azeri site claiming one thing, I can find you an Armenian site claiming the opposite, it is the hard to find independent press (non-Turkish, which are Azeri biased, and non-Russian, which are Armenian biased) articles and international body reports on the subject that count.
: P.S. A word of advice, in the future, try to sign your posts (by writing "--~~~~"), and also, your contributions and opinions will be held in higher regard if you have a registered username. --Aramգուտանգ 10:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is truth? 

message: The term "separatists" is not neutral and should not be used in the article.
"(3) The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility of the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self- determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations." See: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted UN General Assembly, Resolution 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December 1966.
States that have ratified or acceded to the Covenant (as at April 1999):
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan.
Also Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
20:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) User:64.136.2.254 diffs
:re: The term "separatists" is not neutral and should not be used in the article.
:Also it is not a correct statement that .."Nagorno-Karabakh, formally part of Azerbaijan, is now predominantly ethnic Armenian..".
:It is well known, that Nagorno-Karabakh was always predominantly ethnic Armenian (75%), and it was part of the Soviet Azerbaijan, which does not exist now.
:Rovoam 11:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separatists 

message: (I am inclined to simply delete this; comments? — Davenbelle)
:So far ALL contributions on Wikipedia brought by Tabib (Azeri Turk) revolve around Turkish people GOOD PEOPLE/Armenian and Persian People BAD PEOPLE. One really wonders who at Wikipedia should be interested in his personal problems. Instead of profiting from new learning, we are being pestered by banalities and trivial POV. This is SICKENING, man. --84.154.60.174 21:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  User 84.154.60.174 (aka 84.154.102.141, aka 84.154.63.43, aka 84.154.114.240, aka 84.154.109.26) is a known vandalizer of the page on Safavids. Please refer to the relevant talkpage and Safavids history log to see his vandalism in progress. --Tabib 21:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  an unhelpful posting 

message: Davenbelle, thanks for your brief note. I am also of the opinion that anon edits quite possibly carried out by Rovoam won't make him friends in Wikipedia and instead will incite further revert wars.
I ask Rovoam to stop reverts and leave the initial version, i.e. the version not edited either by me or him, and resort to formal mediation. If Rovoam agrees I will post formal notice on that in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.
I also ask third party users, in particular, Davenbelle and Cantus to be more active in the discussion.--Tabib 06:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request 

message: re Tabib: "I want to stress that I was not the author of the sentence “The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian”"
It appears that Tabib did add that now to this sentence; among the other changes were the removal of Republic from the infobox title, and a very significant change to the Meanwhile, negotiation continues. paragraph of the article (The mediating countries proposed a plan to formally incorporate Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia, in exchange for a transport corridor → details of the talks have remained largely secret and nearby bits...). This was the first edit of the article by Tabib.
I have corrected the spelling of 'Karabakh' (no 'hk') in this talk page. I have also added signatures to previously unsigned posts; please review to see if I have made any mistakes.
Mostly this posting of mine has been a clean-up pass on the page.
Sincerely,
 — Davenbelle 20:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
:Davenbelle, I already touched this issue to this in my reply below . Just wanted to add, that leaving one word "now" aside, I think in that edit I did some very good update work on the current state of negotiations based on neutral language. Comparison you mentioned  testifies that. Hope to hear from you on my request and suggestions in my last post below.--Tabib 22:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  some findings 

message: It’s interesting that whereas Rovoam brands the articles on history of creation of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region in the Karabakh.org web-site (, , as “primitive propaganda”, the dates and events brought in those articles actually match to those by Rovoam copied from Armenian web-sites. The only difference I see between what Rovoam writes and the information contained in those online sources are differences of interpretation. Therefore, the answer to the question on what interpretation is “primitive propaganda” is not so unequivocal…
The original text (btw, unlike many other paragraphs kept by Rovoam) gives following description, which is very biased in my view. My comments given in brackets []:
:In 1920, Transcaucasia was taken over by the Bolsheviks who made promises they would return [?!] Karabakh to Armenia. Needing to appease Turkey [was it only Turkey to be appeased? What about Armenians?], however, Moscow never kept this promise[misleading POV]. The young Turkish republic was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia and Moscow hoped Turkey would, with a little help from Russia, develop along Communist lines. As a result, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was established as a state within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923 on most of the territory and the rest [?!]was directly incorporated [?!]into Azerbaijan [?!-for detailed comments, see below]
My major concerns about this paragraph:
* Wording “return” (referring to Armenian claims to Karabakh) is wrong and represent an extremely biased POV. In previous post I brought the text of the Communist party Caucasus Bureau (Kavburo) decision, which used the term “leave” and not “give”, transfer” or whatever referring to Karabakh’s status within Azerbaijan.
:Moreover, Karabakh’s de-facto belonging to Azerbaijan was recognized yet in 1919 by the Allies and on April 3, 1919 the commander-in-chief of the Allied troops in the Caucasus general Thompson officially recognized the authority of the Karabakh general-governor Khosrov-bey Sultanov appointed by Azerbaijan. I think this historical fact should also be clearly stated in the text.
*The last sentence of the paragraph is intentionally misleading formulation indeed: First, the lowland was not ethnically mixed as mountainous part, it was only Azeri populated, therefore the present formulation using words like “directly incorporated” create a false impression that Azerbaijan took forcefully something that didn’t belong to her. Second, it was mountainous part which was separated from the lowlands on the demands of Armenians to create an autonomy in which they would constitute a majority.
Proceeding from the stated above, I suggest the following paragraph instead:
:In 1920, Transcaucasia was taken over by the Bolsheviks who in order to attract public support made promises they would give Karabakh to Armenia along with Nakhchivan and Zangezur (presently part of Armenia separating Azerbaijan from Nakhchivan proper). However, Moscow also had a far-reaching plans concerning Turkey, hoping that it would, with a little help from Russia, develop along Communist lines. Needing to appease Turkey, Moscow agreed to a compromise solution giving Zangezur to Armenia and leaving Karabakh and Nakhchivan within Azerbaijan. As a result, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was established within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923. Most of the decisions on transfer of territories and establishing new autonomous entities were made largely under pressure from Stalin, who is still blamed by both Azeris and Armenians in arbitrary decisions against their national interests.
:::: I disagree. Bolsheviks have never interested in gaining an attraction or any public support. By the time Red Army was entering Transcaucasia, Karabakh was under full Armenian control, but Armenia was facing Turkey army from the South and Red Army from the North. The agreement was reached between Armenia and Soviet Russia. It was agreed that if Armenian forces leave Nakhchivan, Zangezur and Nagorno-Karabakh, then these regions would become part of the Soviet Armenia. As a result, Armenians withdrew the forces, and Red Army was taken over the area. As soon as Red Army took full control over the area, Bolsheviks forgot all about promises made, and, on the very next day, the Nakhchivan and Nagorno-Karabakh regions were given to Azerbaijan as autonomous regions (that was also part of the agreements). The plan did not work so well in Zangezur, as Armenians failed to withdrew their troops from that area. For this only reason it remained within Armenia territory. Overall, Armenia lost Kars, Ardagan, Erzerum areas (which are now part of Turkey), Nakhchivan (which is now part of Azerbaijan), Karabakh (which is now disputed) and some territories on the North (which is now part of Georgia). Over 90% of Armenian territory was lost. This was in addition to other troubles Armenians lived through in XX century - about 1,5 millions were killed during Armenian Genocide (in 1915) and hundreds of thousands more killed during Turkey invasion into the area in 1918. Rovoam 20:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Exploitation of Stalin’s negative image with propaganda purposes

message: I have already shown that Christianity became the official religion of Caucasian Albania in 488 AD following the church assembly in Aluan (situated in present-day Karabakh). This is 5th (fifth) century and not 4th century as Rovoam states. Simple.
p.s. As I said earlier, I’ll be busy at work for next10 days. Hopefuly, I will manage to read the posts and react to them at least once a day.--Tabib 22:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity in Aghbania: 4th c. VS. 5th c.

message: I changed the infobox title to simply "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" for the moment.
Would you both agree that the heading should be:
Nagorno Karabakh RepupblicԼեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետություն(Lernayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetut’yun)Dağlıq Qarabağ(Mountainous Black Garden)
Q: is "Republic" == "Հանրապետություն" ???
Q: is "Republic" == "Hanrapetut’yun" ???
This all amounts to: English NKR, Armenian for NKR, (alt Armenian for NKR), Azerbaijani for NK, (alt Azerbaijani for NK), right?
Would it be acceptable to omit the parentheticals since this is rather a lot of text; it will, of course, all be in the article somewhere!
 — Davenbelle 10:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
----
The most reasonable idea, seems to include the names in an order that doesn't make a political statement but explaining the etymology of the English name (like it was done some in past as you can find in the articles history) so the sentence would look something like this:
:Nagorno-Karabakh (from the Russian (Нагорный Карабах) variant of the Azeri name Dağlıq Qarabağ meening mountainous black garden, the Armenian name is Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ -- Lernayin Gharabagh, Armenians also refer to it by the historical name Artsakh (Արցախ))
:[...] and established the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (եռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետություն -- Lernayin Gharabaghi Hanrapetut’yun)
grammer will have to tweaked a little, but this is probably the stuff a hypothetical reader will want know about the name.
(btw a common problem with using foreign names just like with Republika Srpska, the Nagorno is adjective not a noun, it most likely comes from Нагорно-Карабахской автономной области and as Rovoam pointed outed is incorrect, but thats beyound the scope of this article)
I don't thing it's necessary (or appropriate) to include the Azeri for the NKR itself.
As for the NKR infobox, we include only the name in the official language followed by English as we do in other articles.
As an aside I don't see the point in translating one part of the name and leaving the other transliterated from Russian, why write Mountainous Karabakh, either Nagorno Karabakh or Mountainous Black Garden?
193.219.28.146 15:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My response--Tabib 19:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox title 

message: : There are multiple mistakes in the above comments by Tabib.
:* First of all, Moisey/Moses Kalankaytuk is not an Albanian historian, but rather Armenian. The only book is known as written by this name is "The History of Alwank", and it was written in Armenian language. The history science knows nothing about Moses Kalankaytuk or his ethnic origin, but the old manuscripts of this book exist only in Old Armenian language. This composition is attributed to Moses Kagantvatsi (VII century) or Moses Dashurantsi (X century).
:* Second, there are mentions of the Islam and prophet Magomete in this book, which means it was written after VII century, while "father of Armenian history", Movses Khorenatsi, lived in the V century. It means, Moses Kalankaytuk could not be contemporary of Khorenatsi, as wrongly stated by Tabib (see above).
:* According to Moisey/Moses Kalankaytuk the Christianity in Albania was introduced by Gregory the Illuminator and his grandson Grigoris, who became the first bishop of Albania (during time of Albanian king Urnair).
:* Finally, as I said before, there is no point of going into all these debatable history questions. Armenians existed in Vi century BC (at least) and they exist now, but Albanians no longer exist, and they are not involved in the current ethno political conflict.
:* I also think, it is not appropriate to blame Tigranes II, the ruler of the Kingdom of Armenia, who lived more the 2000 years ago, in today's problem. Maybe it is more appropriate to blame more recent dictators, like Ataturk who killed 1,6 million Armenians in XX century, or even Stalin, who arbitrary placed Karabakh under jurisdiction of Azerbaijan in 1923?!
::: Rovoam 07:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karabakh was never a part of Albania 

message: Rovoam’s subtitle for his message speaks for itself in terms of his compliance with NPOV standards and I can only regret that my counterpart in this discussion is/was mainly not Aramgutang, another Armenian editor in Wikipedia, with whom I (although have disagreements) seemingly would have a more fruitful talk based on facts and not on their constant denial. In order to show that Artsakh was a historical province of Albania I brought authoritative quotes from Great Soviet Encyclopedia (which was the same as Encyclopedia Britannica for the Soviet Union), Columbia Encyclopedia, prominent Armenian historian of early XX c. (Ishkhanian), Armenian medieval chronicler, father of “Armenian history” Moses of Chorene who himself called the Karabakh “Albanian plains with its mountainous part” (!) and also I cited ancient Albanian chronicler Musa/Moses Kalankaytuk. And instead of commenting on these facts Rovoams chooses to play a devil’s advocacy and find “multiple mistakes” in my writings.
* (Rovoam:“Musa Kalankaytuk was not an Albanian historian…”): Musa/Moses Kalankaytuk is considered to be an author of “History of Albania” chronicles, the only (preserved) chronicle written by native Albanian historian who lived somewhat in VII-VIII cc. There are a lot of historical discussions that Musa Kalankaytuk was not one person but several persons working under one name. In fact, the original chronicles consisted of two parts describing history of Albania from ancient times till VIII c., but then a third part was added describing later X c. events. It is widely believed that since Musa Kalankaytuk could not live in X c. then this third part was added later. 
I have mentioned above (within this subtitle) that “History of Albania” by Moses Kalankaytuk reached us only in ancient Armenian language (grabar). However originally the chronicles, at least their earlier parts, were written in Albanian, because in its chronicle Musa Kalankaytuk (or the person(s) writing under this pen-name) describes the history of Albania, its struggle against foreign invaders including Armenians, mentioning the role of Armenian catholicos Yelia in convincing Arabs to subjugate Albanian church to the Armenian church (!). I have mentioned all these facts already, and in my view, the fact that “History of Albania” has reached us in ancient Armenian language also makes this chronicle more reliable, since even Armenians cannot deny the facts written in these chronicles. 
In short, whoever Musa Kalankaytuk was, he is perceived as Albanian historian who wrote famous “History of Albania” chronicles. By comparison, we still have some ongoing discussions regarding the true authorship of Shakespeare’s poems (some argue that it was not William Shakespeare but Francis Bacon, who wrote them), but nevertheless while these discussions are definitely interesting from historical point of view, these discussions do not make us to discard Shakespeare as the author of “Romeo and Juliet”, “Otello” etc.
*(Rovoam:“ Moses Kalankaytuk could not be contemporary of Khorenatsi…”): As I mentioned Moses Kalankaytuk lived somewhat in VII-VIII c. whereas Rovoam rightly says that Moses of Chorene, who I repeat, confirmed that Artsakh was a historical Albanian province, lived in V c. So, when I said they were “contemporaries” I meant that they lived approximately at the same historical period in early middle ages. Maybe I made a mistake, but this was a technical mistake. My point when I mentioned these two historians was not stressing that they were “contemporaries”, but to underline that both of them stated clearly that Artsakh was a historical part of Albania. Therefore, no need for devil’s advocacy here.
*(Rovoam: “Armenians existed in Vi century BC (at least) and they exist now, but Albanians no longer exist, and they are not involved in the current ethno political conflict…”): Yes, you’re right. So what problem you have with simply indicating that they existed in this land before, even if they don’t exist now? This part about Artsakh being a historical province of Albania has to do only with stating the historical fact and not with “current ethno-political conflict”…
* Rovoam’s last “point”: smth like “do not blame Tigrannes II, blame Ataturk and Stalin” (?!): Unfortunately, you do not give up your methods of continuous references to unrelated issues and mixing up everything in one big messy porridge. Who blamed Tigrannes? He’s just an ancient Armenian king who conquered Artsakh from Albanians back in BC era. And why you bring here Ataturk, who is well respected in Turkey and rest of the world, and why you bring the ever inflating numbers of Armenian victims during WWI conflict with Ottoman Turks? (now not 0,5 mln, not 1 mln, and even not 1,5 but 1,6 million, what next?..). Can I treat such attempts as provocations on your side aimed at diverting the discussion to other irrelevant topics? I hope this is just a false impression I got. But in any case, I will not allow the discussion to be diverted to issues not directly related to the Nagorno-Karabakh page content. Wikipedia talkpages are not a forum for discussions but a medium for editors to discus and agree on preferably mutually acceptable page content, based on NPOV. --Tabib 05:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Devil’s advocacy and the irrefutable facts

message: I would like to suggest the following paragraphs to be included into the final article (instead of going into all of the above historical details):
::Ethno demographic evolution of what is now known as Nagorno Karabakh, for a long time was a subject of strong disagreements between the Armenian and Azerbaijan scientists, and each party tried to furnish historical proofs in support of the point of view on the history of disputable region.
::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, 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.
:: Rovoam 03:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.S. The above statements provide enough information on the ancient history subject for this article. More details can be provided in other articles about Albania, Karabakh khanate, Artsakh, etc. Rovoam 19:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Based on the above arguments 

message: Here's the Chapter IV which shows who misinterprets the facts.
ГЛАВА IV
ПОСЛАНИЕ СОБОРА АЛУАНКА АРМЯНСКОМУ КАТОЛИКОСУ ЕЛИИ
Католикосу армянскому, владыке Елии от всего собора Алуанка поклон.
[Мы обращаемся к вам], ибо отцы наши и отцы ваши исповедовали одну веру и заботились о спасении душ друг друга, благодаря чему наша страна до последних дней оставалась непричастной к губящей вселенную скверной ереси халкидонской, которая по попустительству Господа Бога наполнила ныне всю вселенную.
Теперь же, Нерсэс, которого мы считали нашим добрым пастырем, оказался волком и стал раздирать разумную паству Христову. Поэтому мы пожелали напомнить об этом вашей святости, чтобы вы посетили нас, как свою паству, и исцелили наши недуги.
Будьте здравы в Господе.
In order to prevent any further speculations here's the English translation (which may contain minor interpretation errors, but fully preserves the meaning): 
MESSAGE OF SOBOR (CHURCH) OF ALUANK TO ARMENIAN CATHOLICOS YELIA
Bow [or obeissance] to catholicos Armenian, ruler Yelia from the whole sobor of Aluank.
[We turn to you], because our fathers and your fathers practised same religion [implying Monophytism] and cared about salvation of each other's soul, and thanks to this our country till recent days remained uninvolved to the bad Chalcedonian heresy [implying Dyophisitism] which destroys the universe, and which with God's will has filled the whole universe.
And now, Nerses, whom we considered a kind pastor, turned to be a wolf and began to tweak the wise flock of the Christ [meaning Albanian christians]. That is why we wished to remind your highness about this, so that you would visit us, as your flock, and would heal our deceases.
If to decode this religious text, we can see, that a group of Albanian monks was dissatisfied with Nerses Bakur, the Albanian catholicos who embraced Dyophisitism and they invited Armenian catholicos to come and reestablish Monophisitism in the country. Rovoam grossly distorts the facts and historical sources, when writing that according to Moses Kalankaytuk "people of Aluank confirm that they belong to Armenian confession, complaining about bishop Nerses". Nothing of the kind is written in the text. A group of Albanian monks addressing Armenian catholicos on behalf of the Albanian sobor talks about Monophisitism and not some "Armenian confession". This clearly demonstrates who misinterprets the facts, me or Rovoam.--Tabib 12:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On details of subjugation of Albanian church to Armenian: excerpts

message: Are we in a hurry? If not, we can re-write the entire article to make it really perfect from all point of views - both Azeris and Armenians. If nobody minds, I could provide a translation of my Russian version of the article, enhancing it to provide various views and more details for all of the different subjects, discussed above. 
Rovoam 03:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not "in a hurry", but nobody wants to protract this discussion further. This discussion has grown almost 100 pages long and we still cannot agree on simple things because someone constantly and stubbornly pushes for his biased POV. Therefore, I believe it's time to proceed the discussion paragraph by paragraph.--Tabib 10:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We cannot do this simply because current version of the article is not acceptable in general. Rovoam 21:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m talking not about the current version, even not pre-dispute version, but the version I suggest based on our discussions, which corresponds to historical accuracy and Wikipedia NPOV standards much more than any of your suggestions so far. Unfortunately, we are simply stuck in this vicious circle of dispute, because you block any initiative to proceed further.--Tabib 13:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We could do a better work if we take our time