Talk:Qazakh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Azeri, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azeri-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.

Archives
Talk:Qazakh/archive

Contents 1 Name 2 Article 3 Quote 4 Movses Khorenatsi

[edit] Name

Why is it important to have the Armenian version of the city's name in the introduction? Parishan 05:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article

Per our discussion, which was so nicely archived by Aivazovsky, I've modified the article to better reflect tonns of evidence I have presented. I am not quoting all the sources I have presented, but if needed to, can.

According to medieval chroniclers (e.g., Movses Khorenatsi^[1], Hovaness Draskhanakertci,^[2] and Moisey Kalankatuyski (Movses Dasxuranci)^[3]), in ancient and medieval times, the region was part of Caucasian Albania. In 1801, the region was made part of the Russian Empire. Under the Russian Empire, the region was a northeastern part of the Kazakh (Qazakh) uyezd of the Elisavetpol Guberniya. With the fall of the Russian Empire, the region, where Azerbaijanis made up 57% and Armenians 39% of the population Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. "Kazakh". St. Petersburg, 1890-1907, became part of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR). Throughout their independent existence in 1918-1920, Armenia and Azerbaijan were in dispute over Qazakh region. When the South Caucasus came under British occupation in December 1918, Sir John Oliver Wardrop, British Chief Commissioner in the South Caucasus, decided that affirming the Erivan Governorate and the Kars Oblast to Democratic Republic of Armenia (DRA) and the Elisavetpol Governorate and Baku Governorate to the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) would solve the region's outstanding disputes. However, this proposal was rejected by both Armenians and Azerbaijanis, and soon the British withdrew from the region in August 1919.
After the British evacuation and more fighting between Armenians and Azerbaijanis ensued, the Soviet Eleventh Army led by Grigoriy Ordzhonikidze occupied Azerbaijan on April 28, 1920 and Armenia by December 1, 1920. During the process of Sovietization, the borders of the Transcaucasian republics were redrawn several times. By the end of 1921, the territory of the former Kazakh (Qazakh) uyezd was divided between the Armenian and Azerbaijani republics along ethnic and sectarian lines.^[4] The northeastern region, including the town of Qazakh itself was left in Azerbaijan, while the southwestern portion, roughly corresponding to the present-day Armenian province Tavush, was left to Armenia.^[5] During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenia gained control/occupied Yukhari Askipara and Barkhudarli, the two exclaves of Qazakh region of Azerbaijan. Besides this, neither country has disputed the boundary since.

--adil 06:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a new interesting quote I recently found, that is of ethnographic importance: When describing the events leading to the Turkmanchay Treaty, a contemporary military historian notes the following ethnographic detail: "Abbas Mirza's route lay through the country of the great tribe of the Casaks, which is extremely strong and thickly wooded." He further notes that: "These have no connection with the Russian Cossacks. They are descended from men of the Kirgis Casaks, left by Genghis Khan, and are Mahomedans of the Soonnie [Sunni Muslims] sect. They are frequently called Kara Papaks, from wearing black sheep-skin caps."^[6] --adil 06:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not mention Caucasian Albania as that only brings us to our earlier dispute over the status of the Utik region of which modern-day Qazakh was a part. I don't want to debate this region's ancient history.

I still object to your statement that it was administered by the ADR after the dissolution of the Transcaucasian Federation. You haven't provided any neutral sources to back-up your claims.

You also claim that the division of the uyezd occured at the end of 1921. This is based on your original research. You have not provided a source that says this outright.

Other than that, I don't have an issue with the rest of your edits. -- Aivazovsky 11:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, you are right that I didn't provide neutral sources -- instead, I stuck mostly to Armenian sources. :) I definitely want to mention the ancient history, and if anyone wants to debate the facts I've presented -- let them go ahead, they don't have any chance against primary sources -- and I provided not one, not two, but three primary sources, of which two are Armenian. I will start inserting more info about the Azerbaijani khanates and dynasties that ruled it too, such as Atabeks, Safavids, Afshars, Qajars, if needed, too, as well as Seljuks, Shaddadids, Mongols and Arabs. For now I don't to avoid debates. About the 1921 see the extensive facts presented -- in any case, by 1922 USSR formation, Azerbaijan entered with Qazakh, and as facts show, Qazakh was part of ADR without any Armenian occupation or claims at least until the beginning of 1919. You simply don't have any sources that dispute the fact that by USSR's and Transcaucasian Fed formation, Qazakh was not part of Azerbaijan. --adil 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you smiling? How very nice of you. You haven't presented anything serious. You think you're being funny by adding medieval Armenian sources and attributing them to your school of thought?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am smiling because you have little to say, and nothing else to do aside from reverts. I have placed back the sourced text with all the appropriate references. Yes, the mideval Armenian and Albanian books are a primary source and in this particular instance they are correct, as there was no need for them to falsify it. Also, the British Lt-Gen.'s quote should not be removed either. --adil 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

Aside from other disputes, can anyone please explain why the following quote was removed:

When describing the events leading to the Turkmanchay Treaty, a contemporary military historian notes the following ethnographic detail: "Abbas Mirza's route lay through the country of the great tribe of the Casaks, which is extremely strong and thickly wooded." He further notes that: "These have no connection with the Russian Cossacks. They are descended from men of the Kirgis Casaks, left by Genghis Khan, and are Mahomedans of the Soonnie [Sunni Muslims] sect. They are frequently called Kara Papaks, from wearing black sheep-skin caps."
ref: Lt-Gen. William Monteith, Kars and Erzeroum: With the Campaigns of Prince Paskiewitch, in 1828 and 1829; and an Account of the conquests of Russia beyond the Caucasus, from the time of Peter the Great to the Treaty of Turcoman Chie and Adrianople, London: Longman, 1856, p. 60

In my opinion, it is verifiable info and should remain in the article. Grandmaster 05:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Adil's edit is also well-referenced. Khoikhoi who reverted it - would be good to explain this motion. What is wrong with those sources?--Dacy69 05:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because there was no consensus to add the info. All new additions must be agreed upon by everyone, and for controversial topics such as these, substantial changes must be discussed first. Khoikhoi 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thus far no one put forward reasonable objection. Let's wait for some time. I believe that edit in Wikipedia should be removed if there is strong and well-explained objection produced. But, taking into account the long debate on this page, we can wait for certain time.--Dacy69 06:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, it appears you are acting now on behalf of Aivazovsky, whilst you should stay neutral and revert only vandalism and otherwise unjustified POV/OR edits. As you understand, this is not the case with my edit -- I've backed up every statement with facts, mostly from Armenian sources. What do you mean about controversial and consensus? This is a violation of Wikipedia policy on inclusion of all major verifiable sources, such as all the sources I cited. And since when are Armenian primary sources, on which their history is obviously based upon, controversial to Armenians themselves? If Aivazovsky or you don't like my edit, then do discuss it, instead of just reverting back to POV. --adil 06:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Once more, I am expressing bewilderment at the revert, as my wording has been discussed at length and worked out for the past several months. If there is a specific point that should be re-worked, let's do that, but there is no need to revert so many verifiable and authoritative sources. --adil 06:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, with due respect, it is not understandable your eager here. Aivazovsky, Euaptor or someone else failed to make reasanoble opposition to last edit and references brought by Adil but you are still reverting. Euaptor just said that it is not serious which should be further explained. The same with Aivazovsky. Removal of text should be accompanied by explanation either.--Dacy69 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything save the British Lt-Gen quote has been discussed at length for months. This page was for some reason kept locked for a very long time and no compromise nor interest to compromise nor even interest to participate in discussions was shown. My version of the compromised wording doesn't even cite Azerbaijani sources, but cites two Armenian sources, and all those sources are verifiable and highly authoritative, as some of them are primary sources. --adil 07:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have revised this article to keep it in accordance to the proposed version by Khoikhoi and I but at the same time include the quote from the British Lt-Gen. -- Aivazovsky 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You and Khoikhoi failed to produce reasanable explanation to citation and references brought by Adil.--Dacy69 14:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything Adil wrote, despite his citations, was based on his own original research. His work was not valid and thus cannot be included in any neutral or compromise version of this article. -- Aivazovsky 14:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not explanation. It is your POV. Please explain what is wrong with citations--Dacy69 14:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? Are you referring to Adil's citations on the Caucasian Albania line? The reason why that line isn't included is because it only brings us to our earlier dispute over the status of the Utik region of which modern-day Qazakh was a part. I don't think anybody is up to debating this region's ancient history, especially after our long discussion over the region's modern history.

Also, please don't accuse me of POV and try to assume good faith. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the hostility and suspicion that has dominated Armenian-Azeri disputes here on Wikipedia. We should put an end to it and learn to at least trust one another instead. -- Aivazovsky 14:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it was me who approached you on that and later I have seen to what it was turned into. About edit - I don't see well grounded explanation why we should not write thoroughly Qazakh history or use ancient sources about Qazakh. It obviously might not fit someone opinion. Again - total failure to object in essence to citations and references. Blind removal of 6 references and at at the same time - how it comes - it is ok to leave your reference? maybe we can resolve this issue through mediation? --Dacy69 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, two of Adil's references are completely intact. Only the three that refer to Caucasian Albania and one from Cornwall's article from the Geographic Journal which is more about Nakhichevan and the Treaty of Kars than Qazakh have been removed - that's only four references removed contrary to your claim of six. Again, I don't think anybody is up to debating this region's ancient history, especially after our long discussion over the region's modern history. -- Aivazovsky 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you give a little more on intactness of two references. And for ancient part - we have this part on many pages, like Nakhichevan, Karabakh and you are quite eager to edit, discuss it there. Your excuse on that here is weak. Removal of - ok - even not 6 but 4 references is not appropriate. Khoikhoi as neutral admin should care about it as well. Finally, I believe we can sort out differences with you in a decent manner. I am open to suggestions, one of which might be mediation. I will come back after Easter holidays.--Dacy69 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I readded Adil's references to Caucasian Albania while elaborating on the region's ancient history (in a nutshell, basically). This should end the dispute. -- Aivazovsky 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, Andrew Andersen references were discussed at length and proven to be unacceptable and dubious. I don't see why it was added it back now again. Do we have to go back to the archived discussion again to get that quote removed? The fact that British left Caucasus in 1919, is cited by numerous credible researchers, so references to adventurists are not needed. Atabek 10:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movses Khorenatsi

You guys have mentioned three classical Armenian sources but you have not provided page numbers. If you can provide the page numbers for the English edition It would be more verifiable. Artaxiad 23:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)