Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic/Archive 6

message: Croissant appears to be not a reliable source. His quote of Narimanov contradicts to what other sources say. According to Potier, Narimanov said: 
As of today, the old frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared to be non-existent. Mountainous Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan are recognised to be integral parts of the Socialist Republic of Armenia.
The same quote can be found even on the website of the Armenian separatists: 
С сегодняшнего дня прежние границы между Арменией и Азербайджаном объявляются аннулированными. Нагорный Карабах, Зангезур и Нахичеван признаются составной частью Армянской Социалистической Республики. 
So the removal of the actual Narimanov quote by Tigran is an attempt to suppress accurate information. Grandmaster 09:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current quote contradicts the same quote in other sources, and I can refer to “NKR” site for cross-reference. And my quote about Dashnaks is as good as Walker, which is a biased source. Grandmaster 09:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't find phraising being anywhere near a neutral fashion. And if it is a matter of translation, Potier did a lot better job at that, so we go with him. Grandmaster 10:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hold it, hold it, hold it.  Tigran, Grandmaster, calm down.  Is this REALLY worth debating about?  It appears to be only a mere case of varying translation.  This does not automatically mean that an author is or is not a reliable source.  To say "As of today, the old frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared to be non-existent" is basically the same thing as saying "As of today, the border disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared resolved" but in a more frank way.  I don't see why it matters.  Let's just leave it like it is for now, alright?  If you guys want to, we can come back to it later.  There are more important and debatable matters in this article than this.  As far as I'm concerned this argument is over until we can solve our disputes over Walker's work.  Okay?  Let's just drop this. -- Clevelander 13:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is important to provide the accurate quote. Alternatively, we can remove the quote altogether. Grandmaster 04:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually wouldn't mind if we used the Potier variation instead (though I say we should keep Croissant reference intact as well, perhaps next to Potier's.  In any case, it doesn't matter.  My point was that we should not worry about details such as this until we solve our more pressing disputes. -- Clevelander 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Potier appears to be more accurate, and his text can be verified from "NKR" website. I think we should go with him, because I see no point of having two versions of the same telegram, it will be confusing. Grandmaster 13:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, no, Grandmaster, I wasn't saying that we should have the quote on the article twice.  Only the Croissant reference would be intact, meaning in other words, after the quote, we would have two references, thus lending more credibility to the quote.  It's a common practice on Wikipedia and it's even encouraged. -- Clevelander 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narimanov quote 

message: ...that we had an administrator mediate this once and for all. -- Clevelander 11:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but who would that be? Btw, Araz republic was created before British took the region over. Also, could you please explain if you have any problems with the Narimanov quote, provided by me? If we continue to revert the article back and forth, it will get protected like many of the articles about Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of having Golbez be the mediator. -- Clevelander 12:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I oppose. We should get someone new. Grandmaster 12:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's wrong with having Golbez mediate? -- Clevelander 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I say we hold on having administrator mediation for now.  If our disputes only get worse, then we'll bring in someone to mediate. -- Clevelander 00:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think it's time...

message: Hellooo out there. Anybody in? Cleve, buddy, what did you do? lol--TigranTheGreat 02:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, I archived our last discussion, of course. -- Clevelander 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody there? 

message: ...we are to discuss major changes to the history section before making them.  Sorry guys, I'm reverting back to my earlier version.  If you guys want to complain about it, bring it to the talk page instead of engaging in a revert war.  Thank you. -- Clevelander 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Clevelander, but you don’t own the article. Check WP:OWN. I have a right to edit and make any legitimate additions I deem necessary, and neither you nor Tigran have any right to remove information, based on authoritative sources. I don’t mind discussing any problems, but you never consulted with me when you made edits to the article, so it is strange that you demand now that we should discuss any additions before making them. That’s against the rules, that say be bold in editing. Grandmaster 11:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't own the article, but as a rule of thumb and to keep some order, I think it would do us all good if we discuss our edits to the history section first before adding them.  I don't see what's wrong with that.  My edits yesterday were "tweaks."  As you can see, I kept Cornell in there but I restored Walker's information per your suggestion of having them both included.  I felt that from here we could discuss and evaluate our differences.  -- Clevelander 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Care to explain why my changes were removed? What's wrong with information from Alstadt? What the Greeks have to do with Nakhichevan it never had any Greek population? Grandmaster 12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because you didn't discuss them on the talk page first. -- Clevelander 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And when did you discuss quotes from Walker? You just added them and ignored my opinion. Grandmaster 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I re-added Walker in compliance with your suggestion that we include both him and Cornell.  In any case, I will look over your edits now to see what you've added.  We will evalaute them here on the talk page and then add them.  -- Clevelander 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You added him long before, man. I suggest you restore my version and try to incorporate the additions I made. I don't make indiscriminate reverts like you guys do and always keep legitimate edits. You remove even such simple things as a link to the article about Khan Khoyski, and many others. I added it 5 times already. And restore the tag please, the article is disputed. Grandmaster 12:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Grandmaster, chill.  When you were writing this message, I already decided to revert your edits back in favor of you explaining them.  Please calm down, we can work this out through discussion.  -- Clevelander 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Walker is a pro-Armenian source, which is a verifiable info. Yet information from his book was included in the article without any attempt to discuss it on the talk page. It is funny that Tigran now talks about neutrality, when the version he reverts too talks about massacres of Armenians that cannot be verified from any authoritative source. Cornell and Alstadt are as good as Walker, and I’m going to add more info from yet another book. All that info should remain in the article, according to the rules the rules the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. And the info that I added is verifiable. Plus, the info was not copied verbatim, I shortened it a little bit due to space limitations, and it is referenced to Alstadt, so everyone can see where it’s taken from. As for Narimanov’s quote, you know perfectly well that Potier’s version is a more accurate translation of the original Russian text. I know that you will be denying it as usual, but I suggest we get an unbiased native Russian speaker to check both Potier and Croissant versions against the original Russian text and pass his judgment. Grandmaster 07:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From now on...