Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh

Intro

Brand, please discuss then change the intro. I think it the best way is, to place the terms "de facto" and "de jure" in the first or second sentence of the leading. By the way, I don't agree that the NKR is the result of the NKWar, since when it was proclaimed in 1991, the war was not over yet. I think the war itself was the result of NK's seeking for independence --Vacio (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I hoped there would be no edit war on that, anyway. Here are the reverts: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. I briefly addressed this issue here ([1], [2]), but it vain so far. Eupator was talking about some consensus, whereas I believe it is not a subject to. Even if there was some relevant compromise before, it is to be restarted now (Meowy: Why no mention of the fact that all of it is currently a de jure part of Azerbaijan?; curiously enough, he reverted me since then). I believe the issue is not about the proofs since naturally there are megabytes of them. The point is that we know NK is not a neutral territory, no man's land or terra nullius. Thus the mention of Azerbaijan should somehow go in the first sentence and remain so. Brandспойт 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is not only what must be mentioned in the intro, but how. It useful and usual to bring up your proposed changes of the intro in the talkpage and wait on the reaction of other users. Your last edits in the intro were IMO not proper, Nagorno-Karabakh within the borders of Azerbaijan is an oversimplification considering the fact that the latter has no control over it since 1991 (thus at the very point when Azerbaijan became independent). --Vacio (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the current itro is a very poor one. The identification of NK (especially its borders) with NKAO is another bad oversimplification, according to R. Hewsen the region has a territory of 3,175 square miles. --Vacio (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So any suggestions on how the sentence should begin? I recall a version where Azerbaijan has been stable in the lead for some time. Brandспойт 10:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a geographical region - it is not about the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, or the earlier Autonomous Oblast. Your de jure catechism is off-topic for the introduction of this article. Meowy 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Meowy, about a geographical region. We are only discussing the way how Azerbaijan should be mentioned. Brandспойт 13:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To me, the only solution seems to be this: First, establish its neutral, geographic location, which is in the Caucasus. Then, and only then, do you try to explain the political situation. But there's no reason to try to insert a political situation into the basic geographic definition of the region. --Golbez (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I propose to correct the excerpts where NK is confused with NKAO. Geographically NK lies between Lower Karabakh and Zangezur and it covers the southeastern range of the Lesser Caucasus mountains.--Vacio (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether we want this or not, NK is used as the primary acronym for "NKAO" and "NKR". Everyone types it in the google and wiki, not the other ones. So, why not we have both - "in South Caucasus, within the borders of Azerbaijan". On the other note, why we cannot have primary sources on origins of Melikdoms? There are plenty of primary sources on Armenia related articles. Moreover, these sources are more recent and academic than many other old and antique ones used out there. So I am all for mentioning them. --Aynabend (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Because in one definition (the NKR's), it is not entirely within the borders of Azerbaijan, as the NKR exercises sovereignty over a region that borders Armenia. There is nothing to be gained from going immediately to the political without giving context. --Golbez (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is about NK proper. I agree that first the region's neutral geographic location should go (I left it in the reverted edits), and then Azerbaijan. Brandспойт 13:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. The article is about Nagorno-Karabakh, the region. So establish where it is. Since the region is disputed, THEN give the political facts. Don't start off saying "it's in" or "it's within" the borders of Azerbaijan. At least one group disagrees. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re the current version, while I'm not sure about saying it's within the borders of Azerbaijan (since Azerbaijan does not surround the NKR's claimed borders), I'm happier with the geographic definition being delivered first. Geography is the easy part; the political situation is what's complex. It couldn't be done with a minor clause in the first sentence, it needed genuine treatment. --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO a simple mention of Azerbaijan in intro is not political, besides it goes in the second sentence and the geographic definition is delivered first. Brandспойт 07:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Brand, I think you should wait a little for further discussion about how Azerbaijan should be mentioned in the article. I think at least you must make clear that you are are talking about NK's de jure situation and that de facto Azerbaijan has no authority over it! Other than that your last edit were good. --Vacio (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have once more removed the mention about Azerbaijan from the article, as earlier said this point needs more discussion. I purpose to take as starting point the following: the intro begins with 1) a brief geographic information, then comes 2) historic background, and finely 3) its current condition. Thus something like this:

Nagorno-Karabakh, historically known as Artsakh, is a region of the Southern Caucasus, lying between Lower Karabakh and Zangezur and covering the southeastern range of the Lesser Caucasus mountains. The region is mostly mountainous and afforested and has an area of 8,223 km² . From medieval times until 1828 the region has been an Armenian principality . Nowadays the region is de jure part of Azerbaijan, but de facto ruled by the internationally unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The disputed status of the region is currently a subject of peace talks between the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Geographic information needs probably more datail. --Vacio (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but Artsakh along with the medieval times amd 1828 should depart, I think Golbez wouldn't support it either. Besides we have a contemporary map. Brandспойт 10:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Brand, at two points at least we have a consensus. But can you explain why you disagree with a brief mention of its historical background? The region has been a principality, and for a while a kingdom, from the 9th century till the 19th century (all the time ruled by the same dynasty), I argue that a historical background is noteworthy in the intro, includig that it is historically known by the name Artsakh. Here a qoute about the direct connection of medieval Artsakh and 20th century Nagorno-Karabakh:

...the descendants of the "Kings of Arc'ax" played a prominent role in Karabagh during the period of the Armenian Republic, and even after the establishment of Soviet Power, when as recently as 1965, a certain Nikolai Semyonovich Melik-Shakhnazarov -a direct descendant of Antiochus, Prince of Siwnik' of the time of St. Gregory the Illuminator, was First Secretary of the Communist Party of Highland Karabagh and as such, we may be sure, firmly in control of the land of his ancestors. This so-called "Autonomous" Province of Highland Karabagh, an Armenian-inhabited enclave within the Aserbaidjani Soviet Socialist Republic, is in direct lineal descendant of the medieval Kingdom of Arc'ax. A loose end in Armenian geopolitical history, its very existence is a testimony to the significance of the medieval kingdom, whose geography and whose rulers together imposed a sense of unity, identity and self-awareness upon its inhabitants, all reflected in the present-day "Karabagh Question" which has yet to be adequately resolved.

— Robert H. Hewsen. The Kingdom of Arc'ax. In Medieval Armenian Culture (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies). Thomas J. Samuelian and Michael E. Stone (eds.) Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1984, pp. 54-55. ISBN 0-8913-0642-0.

--Vacio (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Information about the ancient times should not be in the intro. If anything, Karabakh became a part of Russia as a khanate, and there was even a treaty signed between the Russian Tsar and the khan of Karabakh. But all this should be kept out of the intro, as the article is about the region in general, and not its history. --Grandmaster 07:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not information about ancient times, but a mention of its historical status, which is common practice in other Wikipedia articles about regions and countries. Present-day Nagorno-Karabakh is the succesor of the medieval Kingdom of Artsakh (btw. its rulers were internationally recognised) and it was ruled by the same princely house of Khachen for almost one thousand years:

Arc'ax/Xac'en/Karabagh...was hold by a branch of the Siwnids from at least the ninth until the ninetheenth -a period of over 1,000 years

Robert H. Hewsen. "The Meliks of Eastern Armenia: II." Revue des Études Arméniennes. NS: X, 1973-1974, p. 286.

I see no reason to omit this important fact from the intro. The Karabakh Khanate existed only much shorter, it did not correspond to the present Nagorno-Karabakh region and even at that time Nagorno-Karabakh was ruled by its own Armenian princes. --Vacio (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

break

"Present-day Nagorno-Karabakh is the successor of the medieval Kingdom of Artsakh and played an important part in the geopolitical history of the region." I almost reverted this, saying "It's just a geographical reason, it can't be a successor, any more than Anatolia is the successor of the Ottoman Empire." But just before hitting submit, I kind of realized that it's not a purely geographic definition. There's history behind the whole dividing up the area between lower Karabakh, upper Karabakh, Zangezur, Nakhichevan, etc. These aren't purely geographic definitions, are they? I'm still uncomfortable with saying "it's the successor" to something right there in the intro, since we aren't talking about a country at all. So I am going to remove it, but with this comment opening for discussion.

IMO, the intro needs to do three things: State the geographic facts (which are not in dispute, though Vacio's edit also introduced a demographic fact which, while not in dispute, could be disputed since people may want to say something about the depopulation of Azeris, one way or another, during the war, so for sanity's sake this might be removed); state the present situation (which is not in dispute); and give a minimum of context. I don't think it supplies enough context; we could use a link to the war in the intro, for example, as OSCE Minsk would have no work if it weren't for that war. But that's modern context; I think it's a bit off to go all the way back to the Kingdom of Artsakh for context while not giving any of the more recent and familiar context (The Soviet NKAO). --Golbez (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-- Brand why are you removing the Hawsen source? VartanM (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Past population statistics would be best added later in the article - so not worth arguing about imho. But the article is in such a mess. :( Meowy 22:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The article contains a claim, with the reference to George Bournatian:

There is no evidence that there were peoples other than Armenians living on the territory of modern Nagorno Karabakh in considerable numbers prior to the mid-18th century.

However according to Hewsen and other scholars, the original population of the region consisted of various Albanian tribes. Thus, this claim contradicts the information of other sources. Grandmaster 07:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It says modern Nagorno Karabakh - obviously if you go far back enough there will be no Armenians at all living there, just like if you go far back enough there were no Italians living in Italy! Meowy 16:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hewsen nowhere contends that the region was inhabitted by Albanian tribes, please be careful not to misinterpret s source, even if you are right that according to Hewsen the region had originally a varied ethnic character (and conceivably also NK). I would agree with the removal of that excerpt; first because it is inaccurate, then I think we better should mention in the passage Demographics only about the current and recent ethnic character of NK. -Vacio (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This claim contradicts the sources:

There is no evidence of a considerable non-Armenian population living on the territory of modern Nagorno Karabakh prior to the mid-18th century.

Again, the Armenians were not the original inhabitants of the region, they came there only in the 2nd century B.C. Its original population consisted of various Caucasian tribes. The general consensus among the scholars is that Armenians moved gradually into the region, and their ancestors were Phrygians. It is believed that proto-Armenians came from the Balkans. If we start stating the opinions of other sources about that, this section will grow with the info that is not related to demographics. So I suggest to remove the opinions and keep the facts. Grandmaster 06:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The "original inhabitants" of the region were the fish in the Tethys Ocean! Meowy 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Penny Encyclopedia info. I have removed this from the article "many Muslim families emigrated to Persia, while many Armenians were induced by the Russian government to emigrate from Persia to Karabakh". According to Bournoutian only 279 Armenian families decided to immigrate to Karabakh from Persia - and none of them actually settled in the area covered in this article (Nagorno Karabakh), they all settled in Zangezour. See http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/sas/bour2.html. As for the Muslims emigrating to Persia, we need a better source for this than some ancient, encyclopedia version of a penny-dreadful. Meowy 17:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, please do not delete sourced info. If you do that again, I will have to complain to the admins. The source is not obsolete, it is valid and relevant. What you do looks very much as an attempt to suppress information. Please stop it. --Grandmaster 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Complain to admins if you feel you want to - but there is little or nothing for you to base a complaint on. In most cases an encyclopedia is not a suitable source for using in a Wikipedia, even less so when it is an old, anonymous, and long-obsolete work created to unknown standards. And, anyway, the quote is off-topic. As I said above, that encyclopedia mentions Karabakh. This article is about Nagorno-Karabakh. The Bournoutian source (a modern source by a named author), citing a contemporary document, says that none of those arriving from Persia went to Nagorno-Karabakh, and the small number that did go to "Karabakh" settled in and around Meghri. Meowy 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Kurekchay

I removed the excerpt about Turkmenchay Treaty. No source was provided so far. Pprimary sources should be interpreted by third party sources. If the treaty is mentioned in this article, I think it should be also necessary to mention, that according to the Turkmenchay Treaty, the Khans of Karabakh binded themselves not to recognise any jurisdiction except of Russian jurisdiction and they undertook to serve the Russian throne forever as its "slaves" (article 1). --Vacio (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not Turkmenchay, it is Kurekchay treaty. Yes, Ibrahim khan swore allegiance to the Russian throne, and the Russian tsar promised to keep him and his descendants as hereditary rulers of Karabakh. It is a real historical document, and is mentioned a number of times by Bournoutian, in his foreword and footnotes to his translation of Mirza Jamal. For example, page 3: Mirza Jamal was thus present during the signing of the Russo-Qarabaghi treaty between Ebrahim khan and Prince Tsitsianov, which made Qarabagh a protectorate of Russia. There you have a secondary source. Grandmaster 06:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you often so impatient when there are differences about one statement or another? Wouldn't it better to pay some time and add in the article information which would represent a consensus? Now, your secondary source does not support the statments you re-added in the article. Indeed, all secondary sources contend that the Karabakh Khanate passed to Imperial Russia by the Gulistan Treaty rather than Kurekchay treaty (about which I still cann't find a single mention in academic sources). Here some of them:

It was not until 1805 that the Russian Empire gained control over the Karabakh Khanate, from Persia. However, its new status was not to be confirmed until 1813 under the terms of the Treaty of Gulistan, when Persia formally ceded Karabakh to the Tsar, itself the culmination of the Russian-Iranian War of 1804-1813

Tim Potier. Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, p. 2. ISBN 9041114777

By the Treaty of Gulistan (1813), Karabakh was transferred from Persia to Russia.

Leonidas Themistocles Chrysanthopoulos. Caucasus Chronicles: Nation-building and Diplomacy in Armenia, 1993-1994. Gomidas Institute, 2002, p. 8. ISBN 1884630057

By the treaty of Gulistan, 1813, Persia ceded to Russia the Khanates of Sheki, Shirvan, Karabagh, Talish, Bacoo, Cooba, and Derend.

The British and Foreign Review. J. Ridgeway and sons, 1838, p. 422.

Two Russo-Pesrian wars followed, one in 1804-1813 and the second in 1826-1828. The first was ended by the Treaty of Gulistan (1813), by wich Russia obtained the khanates of Karabagh, ...

Taru Bahl, M.H. Syed. Encyclopaedia of the Muslim World. Anmol Publications PVT, 2003 p. 34. ISBN 8126114193

I asked earlier to describe certain political and ethnic conditions based on third party sources rather than primary sources. If you have secondary sources dealing with the Kurekchay treaty qoute them, and we will mention about it based on that sources. But if there are no reliable sources about any topic we should not write about it per WP:PSTS and WP:BURDEN. --Vacio (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I provided a secondary source, and yet you deleted the info on Kurekchay treaty. Why? Your source supports this. It was not until 1805 that the Russian Empire gained control over the Karabakh Khanate, from Persia. And what was in 1805? Right, the Kurekchay treaty. Later the status of Karabakh as a Russian protectorate was confirmed by the treaties between Persia and Russia, the existence of which no one denies. This treaty is a fact, its text available online, and is mentioned by secondary sources. What else do you need? I find it strange that you are asking for a secondary source after such a source has been provided. Quoting Bournoutian once again: Mirza Jamal was thus present during the signing of the Russo-Qarabaghi treaty between Ebrahim khan and Prince Tsitsianov, which made Qarabagh a protectorate of Russia. What is not clear here? Grandmaster 06:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I don't get the point. Even Bournoutian confirms what was reverted recently. brandспойт 09:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, Tim Potier says that the Russian Empire gained control over Karabakh from Persia not Ebrahim Khan, thereby this source does not support but contradicts your information about the Kurekchay treaty. Once again, in the main article about NK we should only use reliable academical sources, if there are no such sources about a topic we should not add information about it. I don't believe that a transient mention of a Russo-Qarabaghi treaty in a footnote by Bournoutian in a translation of a primary source does meets this requirement. Even if it would be, Bournoutian asserts that Kharabakh became a Russian protectorate rather than that it "passed to Imperial Russia", he says that it was signed between Ebrahim Khan and Prince Tstsianov rather than Alexander I. --Vacio (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your point. If Bournoutian confirms the existence of this treaty, if its text available in full from the Russian archives online, then why we are even discussing this? And yes, Tsitsianov signed it on behalf of the Russian tsar, it would be strange if the latter had to travel all the way down to Karabakh to sign this treaty. Karabakh was formally a part of Persia, though Persia had no real control over the region and fought numerous wars with the local khans. So yes, by signing the treaty with the ruler of Karabakh khanate Russia gained the control over the region. The existence of later treaties with Persia on this khanate does not make this treaty impossible. The info on the treaty should be restored to the article. It is supported by reliable sources, both primary and secondary. Grandmaster 08:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny the existence of the treaty. The point is that I don't agree with your interpretation of the historical condition and pirmary source. It was not by the Kurekchay treaty the Karabakh passed to Imperial Russia. Neither was it by this treaty that Russia gained control over Karabakh. It was even before the Kurekchay treaty that the Russians occupied Karabakh.

In his quest for domination over Qarabagh, Panah had the aid of Melik Shahnazar III of Varanda, who went over to his service. This move resulted in serious dissension among the remaining four meliks, whose rule was suppressed by the Russians within a generation after the latter occupied Qarabagh in 1805. Meanwhile, Panah died and was succeeded by his son, Ebrahim, who was killed by the Russians in 1806, upon which the khanate was annexed.

Hewsen, Robert H (2001). Armenia: A Historcial Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 155. ISBN 0-2263-3228-4.

--Vacio (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Russia had not "gained control" over the region, they actually controlled it to a lesser extent that the Persians. A protectorate is (to quote Wikipedia) an autonomous territory that is protected diplomatically or militarily against third parties by a stronger state or entity, in exchange for which the protectorate usually accepts specified obligations. Yes, the info on the treaty should be restored, but it should be worded correctly. Meowy 17:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with a mention of the treaty here if it wiil not be based on our peronal interpretation of the primary source and historical conditions (as the removed passage was). Note that according to WP:VERIFABILITY Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed and If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The point is that, if academical sources dealing with the history of Nagorno-Karabakh don't even mention about the Treaty of Kurekchay, how can we be sure that it is noteworthy in our article? A footnote of Bournoutian in his translation of Mirza Jamal's history is IMO not sufficient. If anyone has reliable sources dealing with the Kurekchay treaty, please quote them and we will add information about it based on that sources.--Vacio (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Even the text of this treaty (both the Russian text and the English translation) is not reliably published, a condition required by WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.--Vacio (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The footnote in Bournoutian is more than sufficient, same as the full text of the treaty in Russian. I see no good reason for removal of this important info from the article. --Grandmaster 11:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And what do you mean that it was not reliably published? If you need a printed source, here you go: Под стягом России: Сост., примеч. А. А. Сазонова, Г. Н. Герасимовой, О. А. Глушковой, С. Н. Кистерева. М.: Русская книга, 1992. p. 275-279. You can check that published source, if you wish. --Grandmaster 11:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And you quoted a number off-topic sources that prove nothing at all. None of them says that there was no treaty between the Khan of Karabakh and the Russian tsar. If you have such a source, quote it, otherwise what is the point of this discussion? Grandmaster 11:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the sources I quoted don't deny the existence of such a treaty, that doesn't mean they support your information. And I quote again Tim Potier that "It was not until 1805 that the Russian Empire gained control over the Karabakh Khanate, from Persia. However, its new status was not to be confirmed until 1813 under the terms of the Treaty of Gulistan". Thus the treat of Kurekchay played no part in the transfer of Karabakh to Persia. If you still think that it is an "important info", please provide reliable sources to confirm that. But if academic sources don't even mention about it, I think we shouldn't do so as well (at least in this article). And yes the footnote of Bournoutian is not sufficient in this case. It says nothing about the validity and legitimacy of that treay, it does not state that the Kurekchay treaty ever took effect. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS before further discussion. --09:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Current activity

Ok, this is the startpoint when Meowy has popped out again. I don't think it is a flamboyant off-topic since the Penny Cyclopædia mentions just Karabakh in general, it does not exclude NK. The only non-controversial edit is this, but the version was already spoiled. Subsequent version has a lapse in the last red bunch from below. Manual restoration anyone? :) brandспойт 16:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to trace those edits now, i'm not sure if you introduced them or if you're just reverting but they're all unrelated and cover a huge timeframe. Each point needs to be discussed separately. The first contested point regarding the status of Caucasian Albania in the late 4th century is the one i'm most familiar with for example. The question is whether Caucasian Albania was a Sassanid administrative unit with Arsacid rulers, a vassal state or a mixture of both.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained my edit re Penny encyclopedia - it's at the end of the "break" subsection of the "intro" section on this page. Meowy 17:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As for Brandmeister's other reversion - the removal of "Persian-controlled" from the phrase "incorporated into Persian-controlled Caucasian Albania", I'm at a loss to explain his objection. Is he disputing the fact that Caucasian Albania was not an administrative unit of the Persian Sassanid Empire? There was no entity called Caucasian Albania that had annexed the Nagorno-Karabakh region - it was the Persian Empire that had done it, and then joined it to the territory of Caucasian Albania. Meowy 17:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Penny is very close to the events it describes, I think Bournoutian has no authority here. And I'm not the only one who states that Albania was not in Persian hands. It was an independent kingdom for many centuries, not even a subject of Rome. Do you see any Iranian activity over CA? :) So "Persian-controlled" goes away. brandспойт 19:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are also disputing "the partition of Armenia between Byzantium and Persia in 387 A.D"? MAybe you would like Bournoutian to have no authority here; alas for you, he has. Meowy 22:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Brand, come back when you're serious. Otherwise stop wasting everyones time. The partition of Armenia was part of the treaty between Rome and Persia, not Rome and Caucasian Albania. "...in exchange for peace in the east the Romans agreed to a partition of Armenia in 387 which left the heartlands of the Armenian kingdom together with Albania, Iberia and Lazika in Persian hands. The Armenian monarchy did not long survive; it was abolished in 428...".The making of Byzantium, 600-1025 By Mark Whittow. Page 205-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Who disputes the partition of Armenian here? The only thing here is the absence of Persian influence in CA throughout most of its history. Meeting half-way, we may leave Bournoutian instead of Penny. brandспойт 08:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The parition was between Rome and Persia. The borders were modified by Persia, as such Albania was under Persian control. As for your next WTF comment. Get real. Iberia, lands as far as west as western Anatolia, Egypt, Northern India etc. were all under Persian influence but Albania, which barely had a few centuries of distinct existence right next to Persia did not?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Albania was not Persian ruled. It had its own kings. While the author in Iranica believes that the kings of Albania only had semblance of authority, other historians think otherwise. According to Josef Wiesehofer, a well known expert on ancient Persia, the territories dependent on Persia had different status. Some were ruled by the relatives of the king, as Armenia, and others had their own kings, but were vassals to the king of kings (Persian shah). And there were territories, called shahr - province. Albania belonged to the category of kingdoms, i.e. it was a vassal state with its own kings, subordinate to the kings of Persia, but it was not a province, even though it was listed among the lands that the Persian king possessed. See this:

If we compare this enumeration with the list of dignitaries from the reign of Narseh in their territorial relations and with the – albeit incomplete – classification of parts of the empire by Kirdir (from the reign of Bahram II), we notice that they have much in common, but that there are also certain differences, i.e. changes. For Shapur we find that certain regions were entrusted as `kingdoms' to the sons of the “king of kings” and other dynasts (MP shah; Greek basileus). These regions lay at the borders of the empire and, in their geographical and political characteristics, must have been a heritage from the late Parthian period, where (in most cases?) Sasanian princes had now taken the places of the previous powerful “petty kings”. Thus Shapur – again in connection with offerings and fires - mentions his following sons: Hormizd-Ardashir (the later Hormizd I) as `great king of Armenia' and thereby crown prince, Shapur as `King of Meshan', Narseh (the later `king of kings') as `king of Hind, Sakastan and Turgistan up to the seashore' or `king of the Sakae', and Bahram (the later Bahram I) as `king of Gelan'. In addition, there were Ardashir, king of Adiabene, Ardashir of Kerman and Hamazasp of Iberia. In its only partially preserved § 92, the Paikuli inscription also lists `kings' (whose names are not specified) of Kushan(shahr), Choresmia, Pardan, Makran, Gurgan, Balasagan, Albania and Segan (see Map 4), as well as two royal individuals called Razgurd and Pand-Farrag (without specifying their kingdoms), and finally the Armenian Tirdad, the king of the Lakhmids, Amr, and his namesake from Edessa. Bear in mind, however, that the NPi does not describe all these kings as subjects of the Sasanian ruler. In § 93 of the same inscription, the enumeration of minor (? and/or local dignitaries?; MP xvaday: `lord') ends with a King Malukh, who does not seem to have ruled in Iran. The relationship of the local rulers with the `king of kings' is usually referred to by scholars as `vassalage'. This term, which applies to medieval Europe, incorporates the threefold condition of the oath of allegiance and military support on the one hand, and enfeoffinent with usufruct of landed property on the other, conditions that, due to the lack of sources, cannot be confirmed for the period under discussion. A second territorial unit after the `kingdoms' is described by the word shahr, which in this case may perhaps be translated as `province.

Josef Wiesehofer. Ancient Persia. ISBN-10: 1860646751

The same source says something different about the Persian governors. It says that they could have been deputies to local kings, but that is not certain:

Whether the 'kingdoms' also had a shahrab as a kind of deputy of the shah cannot be ascertained. It has been assumed that 'provinces' were established only where no other form of government existed, i.e. in all the regions directly subject to the 'king of kings', for instance in the former 'royal land' of the Parthian kings or in the newly conquered territories. Besides, the foundation of cities by the ruler was apparently possible only on 'royal land'.

So, it is unlikely that Albania was Persian ruled, though it is certain that it was a vassal state to the Persian empire. If it was a province, it would have been designated as such, not as a kingdom. So I suggest removing "Persian controlled", as it does not reflect a consensus among the scholars on this subject. Grandmaster 09:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The text doesn't say that Albania was "Persian ruled", but that it was "Persian controlled". It's important to come to some sort of wording that indicates that Artsakh, as a result of the partition, was on the Persian side of that partition (that's actually why I had added "Persian-controlled"). To indicate the status of Caucasian Albania, as an alternative to "Persian controlled", incorporating something along the lines of "as a vassal state of the Persian Empire" would be fine by me. Meowy 16:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Gm, you really wasted your time there. First of all the status of Albania changed so many times that you have to specify a time period when discussing its relations with neighbours otherwise it's useless. We are talking about the late 4th century here, Albania did have its own kings but it's fate was determined by Sassanids, its borders were controlled by Sassanids etc. So Albania had autonomous internal rule but it had no control over its borders or army.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How about something like "After the partition of Armenia between Byzantium and Persia in 387 AD, Caucasian Albania, as a vassal state of the Persian Empire and with Sassanid help, was able to take Artsakh from Armenia." Meowy 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's wrong, because Albania did not take anything from Armenia. There are no primary or secondary sources that say so. After the partition, Sassanids moved the borders around. Some territories were detached from Armenia and attached to Albania, by Sassanids.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedia Iranica source linked to on the Caucasian Albania page names a specific king of Caucasian Albania who did the "taking" (with Sassanid help). But the word "take" implies a military conquest by an entity acting on its own initiative, something which isn't actually indicated in the source, so maybe another word can be found. Meowy 17:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If I were to use a modern analogy, not a bullet was fired and it's unlikely that the local population even noticed any change whatsoever.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Iranica:

The more or less self-interested loyalty of the Albanians explains why the Sasanians helped them to seize from the Armenians the provinces (or districts) of Uti (with the towns of Xałxał and Pʿartaw), Šakašēn, Kołṭʿ, Gardman, and Arcʿax (Pʿawstos Biwzand, History 5.12, 13, in Langlois, Collection I, p. 288; idem, Armenian Geography, tr. A. Soukry, Venice, 1881, p. 39; cf. Markwart, Ērānšahr, p. 118; H. S. Anassian, “Mise au point relative à l’Albanie caucasienne,” Revue des études arméniennes 6, 1969, pp. 306ff.). These territories were to remain in the possession of Albania; a reconquest by Mušeł (cf. Pʿawstos, ibid.) was unlikely.

Hewsen says that the regions of Artsakh and Utik "passed" to Albania:

These peoples, all conquered by the Armenians in the second century B. C., must have been subjected to a great deal of Armenicization over the next few centuries, but most of them were still being cited as distinct ethnic entities when these regions passed to Albania in 387, some 500 years later.

There's a reason why these regions became a part of Albania, they had a population similar to that of Albania, which consisted mostly of various Caucasian tribes. Sasanians helped the Albanian kings to gain these lands, because of their loyalty to the Persian empire. So I think we can mention that Albania acquired the regions of Artsakh and Utik with the support of Sasanid Persia, of which the Albanian kings were loyal vassals. --Grandmaster 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're reading too much into the word "passed" by introducing your OR. Caucasian Albania was not party to the 387 partition between Rome and Persia and any territorial changes made by the Persian shahs were done outside of any ethnic concerns (more likely political, economic factors as well), your OR claims notwithstanding. As Hewsen notes, many of the people of Artsakh and Utik were Armenian or had been absorbed into the Armenian milieu at this time and by the 400s, the regions were, "beyond question", essentially Armenian ("Armenian Influence", p. 34). Like Eupator said, few, if any, people felt any change when this occurred.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Something - accurate, neutral, and unambiguous - has to be read into the word "passed" or nothing is going to be resolved. BTW, I will not be making any more contributions to the talk page until the unjustified protection is lifted. There was no "edit war", and the protected version has removed a lot of material that was non-controversial and which nobody had objected to, and other material that we have been discussing here and which seemed to be settled. I'm not here to humour admins with their flippant "another week, another war" type comments. If admins can't respect us, those who are actually working on the article (including those I may be disagreeing with), then I will not respect them. It would be really good if everyone else would set aside their diferences and make the same decision. Meowy 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not reading into anything, just stating the opinions of 2 sources. Neither says that Albanians had nothing to do with what happened, or that population did not feel any change. Iranica says that Sasanians helped Albanian kings to seize those lands because of their loyalty. Hewsen does not say anything about the role of the Persians. So lets state the facts. 1. Albanian kings were vassals of Sasanians, but Albania was not a province, it was a kingdom, which was under a strong Persian political influence. 2. Persian helped Albanians to gain the lands of Artsakh and Utik. Those lands had mixed population at the time. I believe we should state these facts in a neutral manner, avoiding any OR. As for protection, it was a result of unilateral removal of important info from the article. Vacio removed the link to Kurekchay treaty, and Meowy removed the quote from Penny cyclopedia. Meowy, you violated your 1 rv per week parole. I don't wanna complain about this to admins. But if the purpose of your wish to lift the protection is to revert it again, it is not a good idea. It is better to resolve the problems at talk, and then ask for unprotection. --Grandmaster 11:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no 1 revert per week parole. Again, I ask editors to boycott this talk page for a week, as a protest against the unjustifed protection and the flippant, contempt-filled, "another week, another war" comment. After the protection ends we can start to resolve things using this talk page. Meowy 16:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Sassanids cancelled the Albanian royal dynasty only in the 6th century, but the Albanian independence was ultimately restored in subsequent century, so I don't think the inclusion of "Persian-controlled" makes sense somehow. Last, here at least, Meowy should drop continuous militant stance. brandспойт 18:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous. Armenia had an army much stronger than the tribes in so-called Albania. There is not even the slightest evidence that those tribes had any army by themselves. The soil was richer and more interesting to the Persians in those lands than the rocky highlands of Armenia. Any nation could enter Caucasian Albania without any resistance. But some editors are claiming that Albania was an independent Kingdom when in fact it didn't have the slightest way to resist to the Persians settlements. Brand claims that the Albanian Independence was ultimately restored. Did Brand even bother reading the several discussions in the talkpages? It was documented that Albania was a geographic region by then, and that it was culturally Armenian and those kings were either Armenian, Georgian, etc. There is in fact not even the slightest evidence of what the Albanian language even meant, not even one publication decipherable which is anything else than Armenian. The only non-Armenian language coming from that region was Persian. Even the so-claimed King Vache II was the nephew of Shah Hormid III and Peroz. Where is this claimed independence? When their kings were Persian, Armenian, Georgians etc..., and that any publication coming from there were either Armenian or Persian. What evidence of an Albanian ethnicity can you come with? Atabek has tried the same thing by manipulating sources, was he not topic banned for it? Dowsett writes: The land of the Aluank' or Caucasian Albania, whose geography and customs already attracted the attention of Strabo and Pliny, represents the easternmost part of the Armenian sphere of influence. Dowsett uses the term Albania as a geographic delimitation, he writes: In Albania, Xacen, part of the old province of Arcax,..., for the same period he also writes: Late name of part of pr. Arçax, forming at this time a small independent Armenian principality. Hewsen writes that by the 5th century Albania was culturally Armenian. Under the Arabs the entire region was tagged as Armenia. Where is this claimed independent Albania?

There was no independent Albania formed of a distinct people, if there ever was one in history. And anyone claiming else is obviously POV pushing when there is not one single notable and credible source which could claim there was such an Albania. Claiming Kingdom of Albania without any specification that the Kingdom was Sassanid, Armenian or else is misleading. And the claim that the Persians helped the Albanians to gain Artsakh and Utik is ridiculous, there is not single source, be it Persian, Armenian or any records other than this secondary source which Grandmaster uses, supporting that there was any action in the process to make of the words helping to gain accurate. The Partition was between Rome and Persia, why in the world would Persia take control of Armenia which included Utik and Artsakh and then leave them to a "independent Kingdom?" All those lands became controlled by Persia which just changed it's internal borders. VartanM (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Iranica says:

The more or less self-interested loyalty of the Albanians explains why the Sasanians helped them to seize from the Armenians the provinces (or districts) of Uti (with the towns of Xałxał and Pʿartaw), Šakašēn, Kołṭʿ, Gardman, and Arcʿax

This is it. Sourced info. The Albanian kingdom was a vassal state of Sasanians, that's why they helped them to gain those lands, which had mostly indigenous Caucasian population. They were in the sphere of the Persian influence, which explains why Persians were interested in helping them to expand their territory. Grandmaster 08:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not merge myself much into off-topic, just some emphasizing. The independence of CA is testified by various sources, even Donabédian and Mutafian affirm that. Regarding army, read Strabo's Geography, 11:4. And this is what Rakhman Sakhiboglu writes (translated):

Because of some reductive estimates by Strabo of the nature of socio-economic relations in Albanian environment, the Russian scholar K.V. Trever has fairly pointed out that Theophanes of Mytilene could have an occasion to see the Albanian warriors, their heavy armament (armour, shields, spears, daggers) by himself.

brandспойт 08:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)