Talk:Treaty of Kars/Archive 1

Non partisan sources

Only non-partisan and reliable sources should be used if you intend to sway this article to your pov Adil. http://www.axtar.az and http://www.turkishweekly.net are unacceptable.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Petri You might not know this but Adil works for the turkishweekly.net[1], axtar.az is Azerbaijani web site with Azeri POV and www.mediaforum.am is Armenian web site with Armenian POV. We need neutral sources Please revert back to its original pre-Adil form. Vartanm 19:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the content. What part of it are you contesting? Or are you just disagreeing with the inclusion of references to Turkish websites? If you disagree with the text suppored by the "Turkish" sources, please provide your own sources. Do not ask for "neural" sources, when you have not even provided "Armenian" sources to negate the expanded version.

Basically, the issue here seems to be, that some Armenian editors want the article to give the impression, that Armenia has irredentist claims on Turkey. If this was the case, it should definately be supported by sources! (Compare this with Karelian question in Finnish politics.) -- Petri Krohn 02:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Officialy Armenia never recognized the Treaty of Kars, not it was rejected. Adil didn't contibuted in this article in good faith, Its just a small part in his recent activity in Armenian articles. Take a look [2] He's being disruptive and is edit warring all over the place. If it wasn't for his temporary 1RR parole this article would have been locked already. To fully understand the reason he added the text to the document just take a look at his contribution page. No matter what I add he's going to remove it. He won't be satisfied unless its his version. Also he violated his temporary parole by not providing explanation in the talkpage. Vartanm 02:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked the articles Foreign relations of Armenia and Armenian-Turkish relations. Both of them repeat the irredentism claim, but neither of them give any references to support it. The only source given is a Wikipedia:self-reference to Talk:Armenian-Turkish_relations#Kars_treaty! I also checked the CIA Factbook article on Armenia. It does not mention any open border or treaty issues between Turkey and Armenia. I would expect any open international disputes to be listed, as even peacefull Finland is listed as having a potential irredentist claim on Russia.[3]

The way I see this, this issue is yet another example of nationalistic POV-pushers making their irredentist claims on Wikipedia, without any support from their governments. Prove me wrong by providing sources; please present the Armenian warmongers! -- Petri Krohn 03:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Aivazovsky's version. He changed the crappy map and added all the info. Lets just wait and see if Adil likes it. Vartanm 03:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The truth is that its really my fault. I made plans to change all current references to the article to mention Armenia's acceptance of the treaty and the statement by FM Vartan Oskanian. I just never got around to it. I apologize. -- Aivazovsky 03:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess not. Like I said before Its either his version or nothing at all. He sees every Armenian editor as a Turk/Azeri hating enemy. Vartanm 03:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The full treaty is already included in the article in English. Vartanm 03:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not! It's a PARTIAL treaty.

This is quite outrageous! First off, Aivazovsky, Eupator, Vartanm are all acting in bad faith and are known POV-pushers, who have somehow all surfaced on this article [4]. This is ridiculous - they remove everything, irrespective of whether it was there 1) before my edit, or is 2) properly cited and verifiable. The Treaty of Kars concerns Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey, as well as Georgia and Russia, hence using those sources is OK. In this case, the Axtar.az is just a website that has the FULL Kars Treaty in ORIGINAL Russian in it, and there is no basis as to why it should be removed. Otherwise, please go and remove every single Armenian reference in any Caucasus-related pages! The TurkishWeekly is just a repository of the TDN newspaper's interview with Armenian FM Oskanian. And Vartanm, your slander is laughable -- I don't work for TurkishWeekly; although TW is a good source of information and its webmasters are doing a fairly good job in archiving articles.

Now, let's go point by point: I removed the unfactual and false "without the consent of the Armenian people" claim, since it doesn't make sense -- TWO Armenian ministers SIGNED the Kars Treaty, and later it was RATIFIED in Yerevan. So what are you talking about?!

Then, you have removed this fact, which was there BEFORE my edit: "former Sharur-Daralagez uyezd (which had a solid Azeri majority)".

Then, this section has two references from Turkish and Armenian sources, and has disproven the previous version of the article that Armenia didn't recognize Kars Treaty after its independence or at least never made its position clear -- the statement of FM Oskanian is clear. Hence, this wording is good: " Since its establishment in 1991, the government of the Republic of Armenia has accepted the Kars treaty. Recognition of the treaty by Armenian public is in diffuse; arguments regarding both rejection and acceptance had been voiced to successive governments of Armenia. Still, because the Transcaucasian republics are the legal successor entities of the former Soviet Union, their borders as established by the treaty have been recognized internationally."

Last, but not least, in the intro paragraph I only made two important changes: mentioned the Moscow Treaty, which preceeded Kars Treaty, and must be mentioned, as it's mentioned even in the Kars Treaty itself, and listed out ALL those who signed the treaty -- not just "Karabekir" (spell out the full name of this great man), and Russian Amb (who was not even Amb to Turkey, but to Baltics), but the Georgian, Azerbaijani and Armenian reps and their position. And once again, the Axtar.az reference is just to the FULL text in ORIGINAL Russian -- so any objection to the language of the treaty (!) is laughable. If you have a different source of the FULL treaty in either of the original languages -- Russian or Turkish -- then provide it. But no need to replace the whole paragraph or the article, which is completely NPOV. "It was a successor treaty to the earlier Moscow Treaty of March 1921. It was signed in Kars on October 23, 1921 by: Turkish Nationalist Representative Gen. Kazim Karabekir Pasha, MP and Commander of Eastern Front Veli Bey, MP Mushtar Bey, and Ambassador Memdu Shevret Bey, Russian Ambassador Yakov Ganetsky, Georgian Minister of Military and Naval Affairs Shalva Eliava and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Financial Affairs Alexander Svanidze, Azerbaijani Minister of State Control Behbud Shahtahtinsky, and Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs Askanaz Mraviyan and Minister of Interior Pogos Makinziyan. The Treaty was ratified in Yerevan on September 11, 1922." --AdilBaguirov 03:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Adil, but there's an English version of treaty that's already included in this article from a neutral source. Why use an Azeri source instead? -- Aivazovsky 04:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Both English and Russian versions have 20 articles how is that partial? Vartanm 04:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is a dispute on the reliability of Azeri/Armenian language sources, then links to versions from both sides should be included in the references. -- Petri Krohn 04:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky et all -- you are comitting vandalism and engaging in revert warring! You have no right to remove sourced and verifiable info! And you have no right to object to the FULL Treaty (which is not only in original language, but specifies the signatures under the treaty and all three ammendments. And how can you remove the treaty in Russian, but leave the one in English which is residing in the ARMENIAN website, Groong?! And why are you removing the names of all those who signed the treaty? And all other references as specified above? Stop being a POV pusher and stop disrupting edits, and bringing all those meatpuppets with you. --AdilBaguirov 05:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the insult Vartanm 05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

While left the Armenian Mediaforum.am reference, have placed back also the Turkish one, from Turkishweekly. Also, the reference to full Kars Treaty in Russian, which is one of the original languages, has also been placed back as it obviously have greater importance than the slimmer version from Armenian Groong news service. --AdilBaguirov 07:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, if Turkish and Azerbaijani sources are removed, even if they interview Armenian FM Oskanian, then definitely Armenian sources like Groong and Mediaforum.am will also be removed. That's compromise. --adil 06:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Parties to the treaty

Quoting from the treaty text itself:

The Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, on the one side,
and the Governments of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia (SSRA), the Azerbaijan Socialist Soviet Republic (ASSR), and the Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia (SSRG), on the other side,
Agreeing on the principle of the fraternity of the nations and on the right of the peoples to dispose freely of their destiny; desirous to establish cordial affinity and sincerely amicable relations between them, based upon reciprocal interest;
Have decided to enter into negotiations, with the participation of the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR), to conclude a Treaty of Friendship and for this purpose have appointed as their plenipotentiaries:

I cannot understand how there can be any question about the parties to the treaty. Armenian SSR was a party, it could not be said any more clearly. The Russian party was the Russian SFSR, not "Bolshevist Russia" or whatever. -- Petri Krohn 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, note that the Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Georgian socialist republics were all under the control of Moscow. They were not independent states at this time, despite the fact that representatives from these republics signed the treaty. Also since the Soviet Union did not come into being until the union treaty of December 1922, it would be correct to refer to the political entity governing the territory of the future Soviet Union as "Bolshevist Russia". I need to go to the library, but many books affirm that the Kars treaty was a friendship treaty between Turkey and Russia and not each individual Transcaucasian republic. -- Aivazovsky 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting bit of original research... -- Petri Krohn 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You do not need to go to a library, as you have the text of the treaty right here, and available on this pro-Armenian site. -- Petri Krohn 23:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Petri, sources such as the Journal of Turkish Weekly are far from neutral. They are especially biased on subjects such as Armenians and Armenian history. It would be better if you could provide third-party sources instead. Khoikhoi 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The source here is the primary source, the treaty itself, in English translation as presented by an Armenian web site. [5] -- Petri Krohn 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, let me state that the Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Georgian socialist republics were all under the control of Moscow by the time this treaty was signed. They were not independent states, despite the fact that representatives from these republics signed the treaty. Rather, they were part of Bolshevist Russia. -- Aivazovsky 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

According to WP policy, the interpretation of primary sources such as the treaty itself is considered original research. Though it is sometims useful to quote such sources, normally their interpretation should be left to professional scholars. WP then reports on their work (secondary sources). Khoikhoi 23:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources:

Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

As you see, relying on primary sources is not "original research". In this case the "claims" can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

The point of view that the Caucasus SSRs did not really exist, and that any reference to them in primary sources in fact refers to "Moscow" is interesting, and could be covered in the article, provided that it can be supportered by reliable sources. -- Petri Krohn 23:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, by December all of the Transcaucasian republics were united in the Transcaucasian SFSR. In any case, it is generally accepted that the treaty took place between Turkey and Soviet Russia, though the Sovietization of Transcaucasia is still grossly under-researched. -- Aivazovsky 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did some research on this and all the books that I've found list Russia and each Transcaucasian republic as seperate parties to the treaty (even though they formed part of the Soviet Union by December 1922). I apologize for sticking to a nonfact. -- Aivazovsky 01:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is Original Research on your part, Aivazovsky. There is no such "generally accepted" view among specialists -- whilst non-specialists are of no importance. The parties of the treaty are clear, they all signed the treaty, several times, and are clearly listed in the treaty. Reading, reporting and quoting the text of the actual treaty is not OR, whilst trying to interpret it through POV is OR. Moreover, Russia was a step lower than the 3 republics and Turkey juridically speaking -- if you read the treaty, it says that the signatories are the National Assembly of Turkey with Armenia SSR, Georgia SSR and Azerbaijan SSR, with the participation of RSFSR (Russia). That's the special wording of particular importance, that of course should be reproduced in the Wiki article. Also, whilst all the republics and Turkey provided very high representation, on the level of ministers, RSFSR was represented only by an Ambassador to ... Latvia (!), Yakov Ganetskiy, who never played any role in the politics in Caucasus.

Meanwhile, your complaints about TurkishWeekly journal, which only displays the interview with the Armenian (!) Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian, whilst keeping and putting back references to Mediaforum.am news piece, is a mockery. I was the one who found both references and put them in the article precisely on the grounds of balancing one Turkish with one Armenian source (although, it was still unfair, since both sources reported an Armenian view).

Same applies to the text of the treaty -- Groong is an Armenian source, and should not be there. One can't complain about Axtar.az when he keeps on including Groong Armenian source. All references to Armenian URLs will be removed exactly on the same grounds you cite -- POV. --AdilBaguirov 04:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Armenia was never "blockaded" by Turkey, as that's physically impossible, and 1) air corridor is open, with Yerevan flights arriving to Istanbul and other Turkish cities several times per week, and 2) Armenians pay the same visa fee and are subject to the same visa requirements as everyone else. Also, 3) and there is a trade and business council that operates between the two countries. Hence, it's only the land-based highways and RR that are not working. Hence, instead of "blockade", the term "embargo" is more correct. --AdilBaguirov 05:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the article for some reason mentions the unrelated "Armenian oblast", which existed for only 12 years, 81 years before the Kars Treaty -- from 1828-1840. The Irevan khanate and Nakhichevan khanate have far more right to be mentioned, along with Erevan guberniya, etc. A compromise wording should be done. --AdilBaguirov 05:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)