Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic/Archive 7

message: That's a gross lie. Turkey's plan of invasion was revealed by Greek spies and realayed to Russia and Armenia by Greek ambassadors, as soon as Russia threatened Turkey they immediately backed down. In Addition, if we are to use one source that backs the Azeri verison of events we will use another one for the Armenian version. It's not up to you to decide which source is more credible. HRW is a very controversial organization and their statements are not any more credible than any other source. See the Wiki article: Human Rights Watch--Eupator 05:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How could Greek spies reveal something openly declared by Turkey? Also, versions of both sides should be presented, but while Armenian attack on Nakhichevan is something that no one denies, including the Armenian side, the reason they gave for it is disputed and cannot be presented as fact. As for HRW, it is known for its uncompromising approach to human rights violations, and no suprise it has its detractors. But it does not make them unreliable source, as their reputation is very solid. Grandmaster 05:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Idle threats and confirmation of actual plans are far from eachother. I found something even more interesting about the Chechen Khasbulatov's role in it: . The reason given is disputed by you, and we don't care. What you call uncompromising, others may see as unfactual and hysterical. Rememebr the Jenin mssacre? Their reputation is as solid as PETA's reputation.--Eupator 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absurd and you know it. - FrancisTyers · 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire, half of the article about HRW right here on wiki is dedicated to controversies surrounding their findings.--Eupator 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its controversial about Israel because some Israelis don't like being told that what they're doing is wrong. And besides, most of that is about quantity not quality. They are upset that they think that HRW covers Israel more than the rest of the Arabs. Read the criticism and then come back with relevant comments. - FrancisTyers · 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more than enough to question their objectivity in a very similar matter. As far as I know, no controversy surrounds the work of Prof. Wesley Shoemaker, so I don't see why I have to take HRW's ambiguous statement (interpreted quite differently by Grandmaster) as a solid fact while ignoring a clear cut and detailed version by Shoemaker.--Eupator 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're comparing Israel's actions in Palestine with the actions of Armenia in Azerbaijan? Well thats a new one. I wasn't arguing against Shoey, I was arguing against your absurd attempt to paint "HRW" as a "controversial" organisation in terms of this situation. - FrancisTyers · 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nakhichevan shells Armenia, Armenia retaliates against Nakhichevan. So yes. What does it mean in terms of this situation? Is the organization considered controversial or not? It certainly is. In addition, most of the arguments made by Israel against HRW can almost verbatim be made by Armenia., even Indians consider HRW unprofessional. --Eupator 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Say what you will about HRW, it's still an authoritative source. Moreover, HRW are different from office researchers in that they actually travel to the places they report about. So in general they are a more reliable source. And also, how the following line is open for interpretations: "The hostilities broke out around May 4 when three people were killed in the first Armenian attack on Nakhichevan, and have escalated subsequently". If it is indeed so, let's include it in the article and let the reader be the judge. Grandmaster 11:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights Watch debate

message: The Karki segment is unacceptable--it relegates the shelling of Armenian villages to mere Armenian position, even though it's clearly stated in Shoemaker's book. The HRW didn't cite anything, it said that "hostilities broke out ..." And since the statement is open to interpretation, we should omit the 'hostilities' part and include the factual info--i.e. the death of three people.
We should go with the following version:
During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenian forces attacked the Sadarak rayon of Nakhichevan by shelling on May 4, following shelling of villages in Armenia from Sadarak. According to Human Rights Watch, three people were killed during the hostilities. The heaviest fighting took place on May 18, when the Armenians had captured the Nakhichevan exclave of Karki, which presently remains under Armenian control. Hostilities in the area concluded when Heydar Aliyev (at the time President of the Nakhichevan Majlis (parliament)) declared a unilateral ceasefire on May 23 and sought to conclude a separate peace with Armenia.  In the end, Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian signed a cooperation treaty with the Nakhichevan authorities to end the fighting.
As to the rest of the article--Tatars didn't just drive out Armenians in 1918, they massacred them, which is fully sourced and verifiable. We should mention them, including the following lines:
In December 1918, Jafar Kuli Khan declared the Republic of Araks in Nakhichevan, and his Tatar forces with Turkish support massacred thousands of Armenians
in mid-December, Azeris from Ordubad attacked the nearby town of Lower Akulis (whose population was 80% Armenian). Subsequently, Armenian civilians were massacred, though some managed to escape to the Upper Akulis stronghold. However, this was destroyed too.
You can keep Bechhofer's quote, but we should also include Hohler's quote, as it is from a different year:
In response to a massacre against Armenians and Greeks, Thomas B. Hohler of the British embassy in Constantinople privately expressed his concern over the situation to colleague George Kidston in London on August 4. "I think things are perhaps a little worse than ever," he wrote. "There seems to be a fine old massacre going on in Nakhichevan."
The fact that Nakhichevan was a breakaway region is mentioned in sources, and we should include it. 
I see no reason to delete the 40% Armenian population of 1917, after mentioning the referendum. The fact that large number of Armenians potentially didn't accept the transfer to Azerbaijan should not be suppressed.
Finally, we can't use Croissant's name when we do not include his quote. His quote has been there for a while before GM tried to change it, it is repeated on the Armenian MFA's site, and should be used. Potier is less reliable due to mistakes in his book.--TigranTheGreat 02:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tigran's comments (II)

message: I'm going to be on vacation this weekend and will be leaving Saturday morning and returning Monday.  Therefore, I will not be able to participate in further mediation until then.  I would prefer that we put things on hold until I get back as I would like to continue playing an active role in ironing out all (and I do mean all) of the issues with this article before it becomes unprotected.  Thanks in advance!  Sincerely, Clevelander 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. We will resume the work when you come back. Have a nice vacation. Grandmaster 04:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a good one, Cleve.--TigranTheGreat 02:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, guys! :) -- Clevelander 02:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vacation

message: Why Babak uprising was removed from the text? It is mentioned in great soviet encyclopedia. Nakhichevan was one of the main areas of Babak movement, that’s why one of the rayons is named after him. Grandmaster 11:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  I'm not sure.  Again, I was using a version of the text from August 3rd so if this information was added I suppose it was lost in one of our revert wars.  In any case, I'll re-add it. -- Clevelander 11:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Babak uprising

message: There is a mention both on this page and elsewhere on the web that the name comes from the Greek Naksuana (actually as the transliteration of a Greek word it should be spelt Naxuana). However this doesn't doesn't mean "sweet water" or anything else. In ancient Greek, sweet is "hedys" and water is "hydor". If anyone has concrete evidence to the contrary, i.e. from which Greek words it derives exactly, please post it here.
Naxuana seems to be simply a corruption (i.e. Greek version) of the ancient Armenian name which comes from nakh (first) and chevan (encampment). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.106.44 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 August 2006.
:Agreed. The etymology section is messed up and needs major rework.--TigranTheGreat 08:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to Professor Michelson, "Naxuan" is a Greek term meaning "Noah's Zion" or the capital city of Noah.  Grandmaster 08:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek name? 

message: Equipped with information from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, I enhanced the culture section.  However, as the information provided to me by the GSE is possibly out of date, I was wondering if somebody could verify it for me.  Also, the Azerbaijani artists mentioned have abbreviated names, so perhaps somebody can help on that too.  Thanks!  -- Clevelander 00:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is OK for the moment, but I will expand it in the future. I just need to do some research on it. Grandmaster 10:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture section

message: BTW, A.B. Kadishev's Interventsija I Grazhdanskaya vojna v Zakavkazji as well as Artur Tsutsiev's book Ethno-Political Atlas (p. 56-57) confirms that the Armenians did indeed have Nakhichevan under stable control in March 1920.  Both are neutral sources and counting the information by Dr. Andersen, this puts it at odds with Altstadt's work (3-1).  I will re-add my earlier statement.  Likewise, the information regarding Sir John Oliver Wardrop's border proposal is in Kadishev's book.  -- Clevelander 12:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Control of Nakhichevan revisited

message: A question to Nameneko:  When saying Armenians abundantly lived there what figures are we talking about?  100%, 90%, 80%, 40%, 30% or 10%.  What years and what centuries these figures refer to?  And by the way what does Nakhichevan mean in Armenian?  Are you sure it is in Armenian?  Former name of the town of Norashen - I may think for a while, but Naxuana?
--Ulvi I. 07:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nakhichevan is believed by some to be an Armenian term meaning the "place of descent," a reference to Noah's Ark.  Historically the area had been home to Armenians and had been part of Armenia; but due to numerous invasions by foreign powers, their numbers began to shrink.  By the time it fell into Russian possession, Armenians only constituted 17% of Nakhichevan's population. By the end of that year, with the resettlement of Armenians, that number increased to 45%.  Around 1890-1907 Armenians were 42%, then 40% by 1914, 15% by 1926, 1.4% by 1979, and 0% today. -- Clevelander 08:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many? 

message: Does anybody have any pictures of Nakhichevan? Thanks! -- Clevelander 08:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures of Nakhichevan

message: : which is ancient Greek for "Noah's Zion" or the capital city of Noah
No it isn't. The Greek for Noah is Νωε , ignore the typo; the Greek for Zion is Σιων. This source for this cites a adjunct professor of Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech . JCScaliger 17:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that ancient Greek or modern Greek?  I say for now the easiest solution is just not to specify any meaning for the "Naxuana" term until we can find one that's 100% accurate.  -- Clevelander 17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ancient Greek; the links above are to the Septuagint. Nauxana is not Greek, and is unlikely to have any meaning which can now be found, unless the Persic etymology is correct. JCScaliger 04:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noah

message: Josephus does not state what term he is translating (into Greek, the language in which he wrote) as Place of the Descent. Asserting that it is Nakhichevan is pure conjecture, which should be avoided. JCScaliger 04:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an improvement; it does not misrepresent Josephus,  Hubschmann himself would be a better source than this tract - if someone can read his paper; and a current dictionary of Armenian (preferably Armenian-English) would be better than a single scholar writing a century ago. I will see what I can do. JCScaliger 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Josephus

message: Regarding the conflict between Nakhchivan and Armenia in the context of the Nagorno-Karabagh war. I was in Ordubad in 2005 and while passing a semi-derelict house was told that it had been hit by a rocket in 1992, fired from Armenia. I don't see any particularly good reason to disbelieve that information. Several people within the house were killed, I was also told. So it would appear that the conflict was wider in scale than just the Sadarak rayon. Meowy 14:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have actually read that at least four areas in Armenia (specifically in the provinces of Syunik, Vayots Dzor, and Ararat) were shelled from Nakhichevan by Azeri forces in 1992.  This then prompted a response from the local residents of those areas (apparently against the wishes of former Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian).  One of the areas shelled by the Nakhichevan Azeris was in southwestern Syunik (perhaps Karchevan).  The semi-derelict house in Ordubad was probably part of the response given by the Armenians.  -- Clevelander 15:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Karabakh War