Talk:Lachin/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Map

Does anybody have any good and clear map for the Lachin town. I thought it would be good idea to have a map showing where Lachin is located at. ROOB323 04:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Status of Lachin. de facto part of the NKR de jure part of Azerbaijan

I have had some concerns expressed over this] edit. Note that we have split the Nagorno-Karabakh article so when we talk about land that is de facto part of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic we should include the NKR & Armenia's position at the negiotiations. This position has been that Azerbaijan can get back 5 out of the 7 former Rayons but Nagorno-Karabakh keeps the Lachin (Kashatagh) and the Kelbajar (Karvajar) rayons. Note also that the NKR includes census data from the Kashtagh province which includes the town of Lachin (Berdzor). Hence we need to express that Lachin is de facto part of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lachin is not even de facto part of the NKR, as they have not claimed it. At most, it is occupied territory, just like Iraq is of the United States, and no one has seriously said that Iraq is part of the United States. The negotiations may thus far require that NK/Armenia keep Lachin, but at present they have made no official claim or annexation of the land. The borders of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, as laid out by the breakaway government, specifically include only the 5 districts plus Shahumian. Lachin is considered by all parties to be presently part of Azerbaijan. That they want that status changed in the future does not change its present status. --Golbez (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to add the Armenian language name to the article, but I see that Golbez removed it back in February. What do Golbez and others think about this? And how did this anon "contribution" went unnoticed?VartanM (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to fix the anon; I cannot be everywhere at every moment. As for the Armenian name, note that it basically said it was in the "rayon of Kashatagh", which is false. The name of the rayon is Lachin; if you want to say "also known by the local population as Kashatagh" that's fine, but the rayons are an official division of Azerbaijan that cannot be changed by another population. The city is a different matter; cities can and do easily be renamed. But the divisions of Azerbaijan are handled on the national level, and the land has not been annexed by Armenia or Nagorno-Karabakh. If it was, you could say "in the NK division of Kashatagh" but that's not the case. The only second-level political entity that Lachin exists in is the (Armenian-occupied/controlled) Azeri rayon of Lachin. You can mention the local name for it if you like, but the primary political divisions of Azerbaijan are dictated by Baku and no one else.

Long story short - it would be odd to have an occupied/foreign controlled area change its designation in the national scheme of Azerbaijan, with Azerbaijan having no input whatsoever. Which is why I think we say on the Stepanakert that it is officially Khankendi in the Azeri subdivisions. It's not "the Azeri sahar of Stepanakert", that would again be false. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the map at the official site of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic. I can't read Armenian but it is clear that they are not distinguishing (hence claiming) all the territory under their control as well as certain parts that are currently under control of Azerbaijan. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a map showing the official Line of Control; note it includes far more than Lachin and Kalbajar. Perhaps this is how they would like the NKR to eventually be, but this is not how the NKR is now. The NKR has not officially claimed nor annexed land beyond its original districts that I know of; you'll need more than a map to source anything else. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter if "NKR" includes Lachin in its borders or not? Such a state does not exist de-jure, has no recognition whatsoever, and you cannot find it on any world map. The only legal owner of the region is Azerbaijan, and we should use only the Azerbaijani divisions. Note that international community considers Lachin and other rayons controlled by separatists the occupied territories. Grandmaster (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not helpful, GM. It's not like we haven't heard that argument over and over again, but I think the people actually in Lachin would disagree that they do not exist. Let's talk about the actual subject of discussion rather than falling back on your old tired routine? --Golbez (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The current Lachin is a town in Azerbaijan is unacceptable. We are not writing fantasypedia. I have nothing against addition of the information that its de-jure part of Azerbaijan, but it can not be in the lead as it is now. The lead should reflect current status of the town and not be misleading. VartanM (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But... it is in Azerbaijan. It's in land occupied/controlled by Armenia/NKR, but it is claimed nor annexed by neither; it is part of Azerbaijan, universally acknowledged, just as Basra was always part of Iraq and Paris was part of France in the early 1940s. If you want it changed, you will have to show me a source specifically saying the political (not physical) ownership of Lachin has changed. Anything less is original research. --Golbez (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, de-jure non-existence does not mean that someone or something does not exist in real life, it means that he/it does not exist as a legal person/entity. And NKR does not exist in legal terms, it has no recognition, no membership in any organizations, and legitimacy of its government is rejected by the international community. I think it is a valid argument which we should bear in mind when discussing "NKR". Grandmaster (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If only what you said had any bearing whatsoever on the discussion thread we're in. --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani name goes first, as Azerbaijani is the official language in Azerbaijan and Lachin is part of it. That's the way it is done in any other articles about regions and towns. Grandmaster (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. In fact, why include the Azerbaijani name at all? It's not any different so it's irrelevant.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is Azerbaijani spelling of the region that matters. Since it is also a name of the region with Azerbaijani origin, not Armenian (like Berdzor), it matters even more. Lachin and Laçın are different and the latter should come first according to common sense. In the opposite Armenian spelling should not be there, since the Armenian side hardly ever uses this name to call/mean this region. --Aynabend (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with that; Lachin is not quite the same as Stepanakert, and it's not claimed or annexed by anyone but Azerbaijan so that name should go first. That there is a substantial Armenian population there is the reason why we then also include Armenian. --Golbez (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the line that said Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh renamed the region. Armenia cannot rename the territory of the neighboring state, neither can unrecognized local authorities. So I used more neutral wording. Grandmaster (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted some obviously uncorrect unsourced "info" on currect Azerbaijani and Kurdish popualetion added by an IP. Also some expanding and checking of the historical part is needed. The Kurdishmedia is not a reliable source for this controversional topic.Andranikpasha (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The same POV here, stating that Lachin, which does not officially belong to either Armenia or Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, is under control of "Nagorno-Karabakh" is not neutral. Since in either case, those are Armenian forces occupying the district, it's better to just state so, that it's under control of Armenian forces. Atabek (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) It does not officially belong to either Armenia or Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, it is an official part and corridor of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Andranikpasha (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What?? Lachin is a rayon of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenian forces as a corridor to Karabakh? Which source says that it's "official part of NKR", please, substantiate your POV with reference or otherwise, remove your original research. Atabek (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I added that "NKR" is not internationally recognized, this fact is worth mentioning, since the status of NK has 2 aspects: de facto and de jure. Mentioning one entails mentioning the other. Grandmaster (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the two editors who have removed Grandmaster's addition. It is unfortunate that some editors whose main aim here is to ~~promote~~ reproduce Azeri propaganda seem to want Wikipedia articles to be mirror-like reflections of Azerbaijan press releases, whose writers are obliged to use such phrases. There is no need for the Azeri stock phrase "not internationally recognised" to always appear whenever the words Nagorno Karabakh Republic are mentioned. Meowy 16:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First, mind WP:AGF. Accusing other editors of "promoting Azeri propaganda" is not acceptable, comment on content, and not the contributor. Second, the IP is banned User:Azad chai, who has been stalking me for quite some time. Check his contribs, they are nothing but vandalism and edit warring. And third, what's wrong with adding factually accurate info about so called "NKR" having no international recognition? Like it or not, it is a fact that reader needs to be aware of without having to check the main article. Grandmaster (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer "reproduce" to "promote"? As for following who is banned and who is not and who is alleged to be such and such a person's sockpuppet, I'm happy to say such wikkifaggotry doesn't interest me, and I hope I look at content and judge it based on its quality rather than judge it based on who wrote it. Meowy 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't prefer any personal comments. Keep them to yourself, you already have a number of incivility blocks, so you should be aware of consequences of such comments. As for banned users, enforcement of wiki policies should be everyone's concern. Banned users are not allowed to contribute, and especially engage in edit warring and harassment. Grandmaster (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, since there is preference to "de-facto independent" instead of "unrecognized", I added a bit more clarification on "de jure" being part of Azerbaijan. Atabek (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The article already states, clearly and succinctly, in the very first sentence, that Lachin "is a town in Azerbaijan". Meowy 02:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned user Azad chai deleted Azeri name, as usual, which I restored. Grandmaster (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, Karapetyan is not a reliable source. Please cite third party sources. Grandmaster (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please point to concrete examples in Karapetyan's book so we may reconsider his reliability as a source. An interview is simply an interview; just because he expresses a certain viewpoint does not mean automatically mean that he is unreliable. Let's be logical here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See my response here [1] and please cite third party sources. Karapetyan is a person, who denies the right of Azerbaijani people to live in Lachin. How could such a person be a reliable source? A quote from de Waal's book, check the words of Karapetyan:

What claims does history have on the present? In what sense can Kelbajar be called "Armenian," when no Armenian had lived there for almost a hundred years? I said that I could not accept that Kelbajar was "liberated" territory, when all of its fifty thousand or so Azerbaijani or Kurdish inhabitants had been expelled. Surely, I argued, these people had the right to live in the homes in which they were born. But for Samvel, the past eclipsed the present: those people were "Turks" and interlopers. When he used to travel on buses in Azerbaijan, he would always end up losing his seat: "Every Turk or Azerbaijani asks you for a little land and says, 'Just give me a little land to live in!' But in a few years you end up with a tiny piece of land and he gets the lot".

Since when racist authors like Karapetyan are considered reliable here? If what he says about the ancient name is true, you should have no problem finding a third party source saying the same. There are many reputable international scholars who worked in this field, so it should not be problem, if such a name indeed existed and is not Karapetyan's invention. Grandmaster (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I second. For controversial issues we should use neutral sources.--Dacy69 (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is bad-faith at work in Grandmaster's removal of clearly factually-correct information. One need only look at any 19th century map to see that the old name of Lachin was Ardalar (or spellings similar to Ardalar: for example it is spelt "Abdalyar" on Lynch's 1901 "Map of Armenia and Adjacent Countries". Did Grandmaster not bother to check such maps? Meowy 20:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in this article there need to be a mention of, and a link to, the entry for the town of Lachin. Does anyone know if the Lachin rayon was given that name because of the name of the town of Lachin, or was the settlement renamed Lachin because that was what the rayon was named? And what does the word "Lachin" mean?

Once again, Karapetyan is not third party source and should be removed. And Meowy, if you have any maps that cannot be found in modern publication, maybe you could upload scans so that we could check your claims? As for the meaning of the name of the city, Lachin means hawk in Azerbaijani. Grandmaster (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Means peregrine falcon in Turkish. Meowy 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lynch_map_extract.jpg - use the position of Shusha and Tatev to orient yourself (most of the other place names have changed). Meowy 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The map is not needed, interpretation of maps is OR. But I found a Russian source on Abdallar: [2] It's Russian toponimical dictionary. It says that until 1923 Lachin was a village by the name of Abdallar, after the Turkic tribe of abdaly that lived there. In 1923 it was made a town, and in 1926 renamed to Lachin. So if no one objects this source can be used in the article as a reference. Grandmaster (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

But Lynch's map is interesting, because it shows that at that time all of the geographic names in the region were Turkic. Thanks for uploading, the info is interesting. Grandmaster (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

First you ask to see the map (with the implication that I might be lying about the map's contents), then, when you do see it, you say it "is not needed". Maps are not "interpreted", they are "read", just like any printed source is "read". Meowy 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, I've not added copyright info to the map extract whan I uploaded it, so it will be erased by Wikipedia soon. This was intentional, since the map is not going to be linked to any Wikipedia article and it was only uploaded so that Grandmaster could see it. Meowy 19:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was interested in the map, but maps are normally not used as references. We can use them in the discussions though. Text sources are preferable, because people can read the maps differently, while it is a lot less complicated with texts. In any case, I found a text source for the former name, which can be used. And Aynabend was right in removing the mention of the name Ardalar, because we have not reached consensus about the sources at the time. Now we have, so it is ok to add Ardalar, but Karapetian is still no good and should be removed. I find it very strange that you readded it after so much discussion and after I provided a better source. Grandmaster (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

An English-language source is a preferable to a non-English language source when they are both giving the same information, especially when the non-English language source is in Cyrillic and the information just concerns a place-name. Meowy 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That is in case that English source is reliable. Grandmaster (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, according to Azeri authors reflecting on historical truth, entire present-day Armenia is essentially ethnically cleansed and Armenian settled land of Azeris. The fact is also confirmed by Bournoutian by the way. I would guess that you will claim such opinion as not neutral. Well, then I don't see how the reference of Karapetyan can at all qualify on this page. Please, provide neutral authors for future reference. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As explained in another entry, I will not wasting time responding to this sort of childish stuff. The cited book is a completely acceptable source. An "Azeri author" is not capable of reflecting on "historical truth" - if he/she were, the author would pretty quickly be languishing in an Azerbaijani prison. An Azeri author's "historical truth" might as well be that all Armenians actually came from outer space sometime in the 19th century, exterminating millions of good, honest, and always completely peacefull Azeri Turks who had been living everywhere in the Caucasus since time immemorial - and anything anyone produces contrarary to that is all down to Photoshop, money, and Armenian plots. Meowy 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So according to you wikipedia rules are "childish stuff"? I beg to differ. You were explained in much detail why Karapetian is no good. And I like how you make all Azerbaijani sources unreliable, while at the same time using an Armenian chauvinist as a source. Very convenient, isn't it? Just pick the sources that suit you and discard those that do not. But it does not work like that here. Azerbaijani sources are as good as Armenian ones, but per wiki rules we should give preference to third party ones. So please come up with something a lot better than Karapetian, i.e. a source that has no conflict of interest in this issue. Grandmaster (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw, the claims like "An "Azeri author" is not capable of reflecting on "historical truth"" are quite racist, don't you think so? Grandmaster (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's legitimate criticism and an obvious allusion to Azerbaijani historians' penchant for removing any mention of "Armenians" prior to the early nineteenth century. How can a historian be taken seriously if they claim that a monument in Martakert, dedicated to the completion of the Russian conquest of the Caucasus, is in fact a dedication to the Armenian "settlement" in Karabakh? Or, pray tell, what do other historians make of claims that Armenians stole the Caucasian Albanians' culture and alphabet?

The burden of proof comes down to you proving Karapetian's work as unreliable which you, as of yet, have failed to do so. You can cite an interview only so many times and interpret it in so many ways, but that still gets you nowhere. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've shown that the source is not reliable, and I pointed you to the rules that require using third party sources. So the burden of proof is on you, if whatever Karapetian claims is true, you should have no problem citing neutral sources. And I can cite many sources about how Armenian historians manipulated historical sources for political purposes, including those about Caucasian Albania. Hewsen criticizes certain prominent Armenian scholar Mnatsakanian, who tried to prove that Albania never ever existed. There are many more examples, I can cite reliable sources about that. So Armenian scholars are as good as Azerbaijani scholars are, and it is better to stick to third party ones. So I'm still expecting you to provide a decent source to support your claims. Grandmaster (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to distinct Yezidi Kurds in neighbouring Armenia, it needs to mentioned that deported Kurds were Muslim. Moreover, renaming the region sounds too official, it is better to keep it this way. On separate account, some historical data about the previous name(s) of the region may be added here. For example in the 18th century, the region's name goes as "Keshtak". --Aynabend (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aynabend's "few additions and changes" actually consisted of the removal of a section of fully referenced material - all done without any explanation here (not that there could be a legitimate reason for removing the information that the settlement's previous name was Ardalar). Also, this article is about the settlement of Lachin, and not Lachin region. There is probably a case for merging them, but for now the info needs to be kept separate. Meowy 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha just deleted the info from the article claiming that Azerbaijani source is not reliable. How come Karapetian is reliable, and Azadliq is not? Grandmaster (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

An Azerbaijani source is used to prove something dubious, so its surely not reliable. And Karapetian is just one of the sources (used not by me) saying something factual, isnt it? So what's the problem? Are you protesting well-known historian Karapetian just for his Yan, or maybe the name he cite is radically pro-Armenian:)? Andranikpasha (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And the Azerbaijani source used among with Karapetian, is in Azerbaijani language... Did you forget about this source when wrote about Karapetian? Azerbaijani source cant be checked so its an unreliable source per Wiki rules and will be deleted. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed "Abdallar" to "Abdalyar" - the three sources give different spellings for the former name of Lachin. Given that the 1901 source dates from the time it was called Abdalyar, it is the more likely one to be correct, I think. Meowy 22:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a bunch of anon IPs edit warring on Lachin related articles. I suspect they are connected to a certain registered user. If the anonymous user really wants to get his edits included, the best way is discussion, and not edit warring. --Grandmaster (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Anons generally don't discuss - it's their nature. However, comparing the last edit I made, with the current edit - which is one by the anonymous editor, I don't see much to argue about. It is obvious that the pre-war population of Lachin region is much greater than its current population. Infoboxes are meant to give a concise overview of the topic, so I think it should be its current population that is inserted there, if it is known with confidence, and not the pre-war one. Or alternatively, both the current and the pre-war one should be given. The "history" section seems well sourced but not as well written as it could be, and it should be incorporated into the rest of the text - the history of Lachin didn't begin in 1992. The erased "During the occupation of Lachin, May 18, 1992....." section was right to be erased. It was propagandistic in tone and content (e.g., wording like "During the occupation" implies that those 333 people were killed after its capture), and is deceptive in its source (it is not a RFE/RL report - and these sort of claims need third-party sources). Maybe the two entries for Lachin town and Lachin rayon should be merged, given the limited amount of material and the fact that much of the material seems to overlap? Meowy 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Red Kurdistan"

I think that part of the entry needs to have a clearer and more accurate account, especially since it is an interesting bit of history. The quote "the small Kurdish population of Azerbaijan was given "an ethnic territory in the Lachin Corridor between Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia" is factually wrong. The Kurdistan Uyezid covered a far greater area than just the "Lachin Corridor", it extended into Kalbajar. How much into Kalbajar I don't personally know, but there must be sources and maps about somewhere. For example, Karapetian mentions a February 1923 decision of the Transcaucasian Central Executive Committee to take territory from Armenia and give it to Kurdistan district. The bit of land that was taken is now part of Kalbajar region (it's the bit of terrirory that sticks out into Armenia). So some of the onetime Kurdistan Uyezid was certainly in Kalbajar. "Lachin Corridor" has a specific meaning, namely the road linking Nagorno-Karabagh with Armenia, and the fact that the quote has it capitalised makes it certain that its author was referring to that specific bit of land. So I am removing that quote because of its inaccuracy - the Kurdistan Uyezid did not consist of just the Lachin Corridor. Meowy 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Time zone

Is there such a thing called Azerbaijan time? Why are we using POV labels? Why can't we use the good old UTC? VartanM (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Flag in the infobox

Golbez, I will give you $10,000 if you go to Berzor/Lachin and find One(1) Azerbaijani flag. VartanM (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, all I'm saying is, before we do a wholesale switch from one country to the other, it be brought up on the talk page. That's not too much to ask, is it? :P --Golbez (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be following this discussion with interest because it will impact many other town and city articles in wikipedia. For articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh, I think that if we are to conclude that this is enough to say that the area between the Nagorno-Karabakh region and Armenia is de facto part of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic then we should set up the infobox similar to how the infobox at Aghbulag is set up.

I have no problem having both, or none at all. VartanM (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable with saying that just because the census includes these areas, that they have been annexed or claimed. It appears the census is only for the portion of Shahumian that they control; would you suggest we omit the remainder of Shahumian when dealing with the extent of the NKAO? My feeling - until we have a concrete statement in text, rather than guessing what a census report means - is that they are administering the western rayons, but have not claimed or annexed them. If this census report is the only official document suggesting a claim on the western rayons, then I think we need to be much more careful in our statements; if we can find a concrete statement from the NKR government saying they claim or have annexed the western rayons, then we can be more solid about it. But until then, I'm not comfortaable with saying Lachin is claimed by the NKR. I know I'm being pedantic, but this stuff matters: If we're saying all of the land west of the line of control is part of the NKR, are we also saying the land east of it is not, even though it falls under the NKAO (which was claimed in whole by the NKR)? Maybe we need an RFC on this topic. --Golbez (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"NKR" Template

NKR template does not belong to the article. Nor to the Kelbajar one. These territories are occupied as much as Artsvashen is occupied by Azerbaijani forces. The latter does not have an Azerbaijani territorial divisions template. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to equate the NKR to Artsvashen, and say that the template has no point here, then you should be pushing to delete it as based on that logic, the rayons of the former NKAO are also merely occupied territories and not part the NKR. --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And let me point out that Lachin is not an administrative division of the NKR, so I'm not necessarily arguing for the inclusion of the template, and will stop warring to that point; my main issue was your assertion that Lachin is not part of the NKR. --Golbez (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Tsutsiyev

Please do not refer to amateur sources like Tsutsiyev. This person is a philosopher by education, sociologist by occupation, and not a historian, and he made so many rude mistakes in his atlas that he cannot be trusted. Here's info about him:

Цуциев Артур - Кандидат философских наук, старший научный сотрудник Центра социальных исследований Владикавказского института управления. [3]

Please refer to expert sources, professional historians, who made dedicated researches on the topic, and are third party. Grandmaster 15:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, be aware with this. Here You can find that he is historian. And here You can see that he is really well-known. So in future try to obtain deletion of sourced information. Best wishes. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for example. Robert Bruce Ware. Here is his page in the university. He write here "Artur Tsutsiev graciously permitted us to adapt two of the maps from his Atlas etnopoliticheskoi istorii Kavkaza." --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is just a mistake by Sokirianskaya, according to all sources, including the articles published by this author (this one, for instance: [4]) Tsutsiev is a philosopher, and not a historian. He is a candidate of philosophical sciences (MA in philosophy by western terminology), and works as a sociologist in the Institute of public administration in Vladikavkaz. Even the publisher of his book refers to him as a philosopher: [5] [6] Philosophers cannot be used as sources on history. Grandmaster 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is only Your opinion. Reliable sources links to Tsutsiev works as on historian works. When historians wouldn't links and recognise his works as historian, I'll agree with You. But know it is only Your opinion, not more and not less. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The rules are the rules. We should refer to professionals, and not amateurs. If what Tsutsiev says is true, you should be able to find a reliable third party source that says the same. Grandmaster 09:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw, Robert Bruce Ware is not a historian either. He is also a philosopher, and published on "politics, ethnography, and religion of the region", but he is not an expert on history of Caucasus, and Transcaucasia in particular. Grandmaster 09:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have wrote reliable sources which recognize Tsutsiev and his works as historic. Do You have some reliable sources which criticise his works are which express a different view on the issue? If not, then Tsutsiev the most reliable source on this question. --Ліонкінг (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

More than that. In the Hewsen's atlas we can find the similar info. (Robert H. Hewsen Armenia: A Historical Atlas, ISBN: 978-0-226-33228-4, ©2001, 11 x 17, 336 pages, 232 color maps, 3 line drawings). [7]

Page 242: The Peace Treaties, 1918 (after Richard G. Hovannisian) control of local communist governments purged of any and all elements thought to be less than devoted to the regime in Moscow and to its goals. The personnel of the Armenian government was 95 percent Armenian as early as 1929. Meanwhile, five other adjustments of territory had been made in South Caucasia: (1) On 4 March 1921, the Abkhazians (a people related to the Circassians) were given their own autonomous republic within Georgia, the Abkhazian ASSR. (2) The Adzhars (Muslim Georgians) were given their autonomous republic on 16 July 1921, the Adzharian ASSR, with its capital at Batumi. (3) The Ossetians, an Iranian-speaking people living in great numbers in central Georgia, were given an autonomous province (oblasf), the South Ossetian Autonomous Province, on 22 April 1922, with its capital at Tskhinvali (later renamed Staliniri). Similarly, the regions of Karabagh and Nakhichevan were separated from Armenia during this transitional period—the former cut off by Azerbaidzhan from the rest of the Armenian Republic as (4) the Nagorno-Karabakh (Highland Karabagh) Autonomous Province on 7 July 1923 (map 263), and the latter as (5) the Nakhichevan' Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic on 9 February 1924 (map 265). With Shushi still in ruins, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh was set at the nearby Azeri village of Khankendi, which was renamed Stepanakert after the Armenian Bolshevik Stepan Sha[h]umyan (1878-1918). The notion that a final border adjustment was made in connection with this "autonomous" province in 1930, when a strip of its territory that bordered with the Armenian Republic was supposedly taken from it to form a new Soviet Azerbaidzhani district {raion) of Lachin, leaving Highland Karabagh an island within the Azerbaidzhani Republic, is erroneous, being based on the map of the Armenian Republic in the first (1926) edition of The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (BSE), whose small scale made it almost impossible to perceive the ten-mile gap between the autonomous province and the Armenian Republic. In actuality, the territory between the two entities for a time formed a Kurdish uezd 'county', which, however, was dissolved in 1929. No changes of any kind were made in regard to Armenia, although some of its districts, as we shall see later, were altered in composition over the years.

Page 242: Also in 1923, the four districts (raiony) of Kel'badzhar (Arm. Karvatjar), Lachin, Kubatly, and Zangelan, filling the gap between Highland Karabagh and Armenia, were joined to form the autonomous region of Krasny 'Red' Kurdistan with its capital at Lachin. The rationale behind this move is not entirely clear, but it was probably made in part to woo the vast Kurdish population outside of the Soviet Union toward a pro-Soviet posture and also to create a permanent ethnic wedge between the Armenians of Highland Karabagh and those of the Armenian Republic. In 1929, however, again for reasons not fully understood, this jurisdiction was dissolved, and the local Kurdish population was later deported by Stalin to Central Asia (1937-1938, 1944), not being allowed to return until 1957.

Page 245: Among the peoples deported by Stalin during the Second World War were a number of Muslims living on the territory of the old Georgian province of Samts'khe (Meskhet'i / Meskhia). Mainly composed of ethnic Turks and Turkomans with some Muslim Georgians and islamized Armenians among them, it was apparently felt that in the event of Turkey entering the war on the German side, these elements could not be relied upon to defend their sensitive frontier zone. For this reason, most of these people were rounded up early in the Second World War and shipped to Central Asia, as were all the German colonists who had been living in Georgia and Azerbaidzhan for the previous 125 years. Decades later, these disparate elements banded together under the name Meskhetians and began to agitate—as yet unsuccessfully—for a return to their former homes. In 1988, the Kurds of Soviet Armenia began agitating for the restoration of their old territory centered in Lachin. Interestingly, however, they wanted it to be included within the Armenian Republic, where they perceived themselves to be better treated than they were by the Azeris, who, because the Kurds were of Muslim background like themselves, attempted to suppress them culturally and to assimilate them into the Turkic-speaking Muslim population.

In addition that Tsutsiev recognized by the academic community as historian, his attention very well correlated with Hewsen, we have every right to bring him in as the reliable source. a--Ліонкінг (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read what Hewsen wrote?

The notion that a final border adjustment was made in connection with this "autonomous" province in 1930, when a strip of its territory that bordered with the Armenian Republic was supposedly taken from it to form a new Soviet Azerbaidzhani district {raion) of Lachin, leaving Highland Karabagh an island within the Azerbaidzhani Republic, is erroneous, being based on the map of the Armenian Republic in the first (1926) edition of The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (BSE), whose small scale made it almost impossible to perceive the ten-mile gap between the autonomous province and the Armenian Republic. In actuality, the territory between the two entities for a time formed a Kurdish uezd 'county', which, however, was dissolved in 1929. No changes of any kind were made in regard to Armenia, although some of its districts, as we shall see later, were altered in composition over the years.

That means that were no border changes between Armenia and Azerbaijan, i.e. this contradicts what Tsutsiyev says. So as you see, Tsutsiyev contradicts other authors. Grandmaster 09:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll come back to this at a later date -and I've already mentioned it a long while ago (see my "Red Kurdistan" post above). As well as using territory in Azerbaijan, territory was taken from Armenia to form "Red Kurdistan". When the uyezd was abolished, the formerly Armenian territory was not returned to Armenia but was incorporated into Azerbaijan proper. This is why the pointy bit of Azerbaijani territory that protrudes into Armenia exists: it was originally part of Armenia until the creation of the Kurdistan uyezd. Meowy 22:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

pfft

Honestly, people, you should know better than to get into an edit war. --Golbez (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

?

Where do you guys find this websites? Mark Barsky (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know either where one finds these sites. Also how Dighapet can say "it's neutral, don't worry". Just quotes from the site: "Armenian aggressors", "Lachin invasion by Armenia", "Long live Azerbaijan" (nationalist propaganda?). Probably this site is OK to quote Jabrayilo (if it is ever somewhere necessary), but it surely cannot serve a source to refer to regarding such a sensitive topic as migration during 1990s. @Dighapet, why wouldn't you look for a neutral source? -- Ashot ^(talk) 10:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ashot, you're very right. Sorry I clicked at another source. I look that website now. It looks like blog. But the information in the website is from reliable sources. When I find, I will place it here. Dighapet (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Defaced memorial

It is absolutely untrue that this image is of a monument complex built by Armenians after they established military control over the region. It is a monument complex in honor of the soviet warriors died in battles of World War II (This image there is in Encyclopaedia of Soviet Azerbaijan, gallery for article Lachin). The monument was desecrated by Armenians in 1993, Soviet emblems had removed and written the names of Armenian militants.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the rather propagandistic tone of the edit warring that has been going on with the picture's description on Wikipedia Commons, and the seemingly unverified nature of the monument's status and history, I think this image should be removed for now. However, to my eyes, the monument looks older than the 1990s, which suggests it is memorial to WW2 dead, but the extent and the position of the list of names seem consistant with the original design, ie. no "desecration". If what is meant by "desecration" is just that there have been new names added to the existing list, then it is a common and acceptable practice for more recent combat fatalities to be added onto existing war memorials and it would be inaccurate to describe such a practice as a "desecration". Meowy 21:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The same monument with its Soviet emblems: [8] - however, the viewpoint does not show the bases of the three "pylons", so does not reveal if the list of names depicted in the modern photo is a recent addition or an original feature. Did Soviet war memorials usually have lists of the dead on them? Meowy 21:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Until occupation by Armenian armed forces (1992) in the city of Lachin didn’t live Armenians, so Armenian militants have not enough information on this monument and when they seized the city in affect of victory they shot the monument as an Azerbaijani symbol. But this was a monument complex in honor of the soviet warriors died in battles of World War II, this is its view until 1992 and after when they realized that Russians can be displeased with its demolishing the Armenians removed only Soviet emblems from the monument, repaired its face and wrote the names of Armenian militants. This is its view after repair. Now these “civilized barbarians” call it "A monument complex in honor of liberators of Artsakh war".--Melikov Memmed (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I expect that the Russians were far more displeased with the demolition of the Baku Commissars monument in Baku, and the destruction of the Russian cemetery in Baku! Appropriating a memorial erected to honour the dead of one war and reusing it for a memorial to the dead of another war is a morally questionable act, though it hardly compares to the demolition of all medieval Armenian monuments within the territory of Azerbiajan undertaken your own "civilised barbarians". But are we agreed that this particular image should be removed, given that we have no source about what these recent additions made to the monument represent? Or are you just wanting the image's caption changed? Meowy 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don’t think that this image should be removed, but the image's caption have no source (and in fact gives untrue information about this monument)--Melikov Memmed (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If the image is to stay it needs a correct caption. But what source are you going to use for an alternative caption? It was erected as a memorial to Soviet soldlers who died during WW2 - we have a source for that. But we have no source for its alteration / change of use. When was it done? What names are on it? There seems to be a lot. Are they Armenians who died during the capture of Lachin? Are they Armenians who died during the fighting over the whole Kelbajar region? Are there civilian dead noted on it? None of this is known. Meowy 21:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent reverts

With regards to this, this, and this revert, which I rolled back here, here, and here, the statement added by the anonymous editor that the town "was known as Abdalyar until 1923" is not only unsupported by the source being cited, but also contradicts it (Pospelov states that the name of the town was changed to "Lachin" in 1926; 1923 is when town status was granted). Now, I don't know if there was a name change in 1923 and then another in 1926, but if there was, it will need another reference to support it. Here is what Pospelov says, verbatim:

Название селения Абдаляр (Абдалляр) связано с этнической историей народов Азербайджана: тюркское племя абдалы упоминается с VI в... В 1923 г. селение преобразовано в город, а в 1926 г. переименовано в Лачин...

The name of the settlement Abdalyar (Abdallyar) is connected to the ethnic history of the peoples of Azerbaijan: the Turkic Abdal tribe was first mentioned in the 6th century... In 1923, the settlement was transformed into a town, and in 1926 it was renamed Lachin...

As can be seen, there is no mention of a renaming in 1923.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 24, 2015; 14:12 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lachin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Category

Map