Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treaty of Kurakchay

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments for Keep have established that the treaty exists but there is no successful argument to show that it is notable. If anyone wants to merge any of the information elsewhere I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 18:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Kurakchay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After having digged about this whole matter for a pretty long time I found out and can conclude, pretty safely, that this entire matter is a complete hoax. There was no such thing in history, as a "Treaty of Kurakchay" or "Kurakchay Treaty". I brought the matter up at Doug Weller's talk page as well, not that long ago, asking about the main source that was cited here (Johannes Rau), who turned out to be non-WP:RS as well, see; [1]. Not a single reputable historian or scholar who specifies in the region has ever coined such a treaty. When you type "Kurakchay Treaty" (or any of the two other names) in google, or google books you get either 1) non-WP:RS books/links 2) websites from the Azerbaijan Republic. 3) Wikipedia mirrors. The image added here as well, is not even the Kurakchay Treaty, but a file dating from 1868 authorized by the Caucasian Archeological Commission (in Russian), which thus dates from some ~ 60 years after the so-called "Treaty" was signed. Furthermore, I have all the pages of the other authors put in the article literally laying in front of me as well, by Mostashari (2006), Bournoutian (1994), Atkin (1979), and not a single one of these mention anything even remotely close to the matter presented here, aka a treaty with such a name/such names.

Its pretty amazing how such a hoax managed to linger forth for such a rather long time, just because the whole matter is a low-profile subject. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly not a hoax, per reliable sources found by this search and the same search in Google Books, which I can't link because for some inexplicable reason I can't save this page with that link included. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These "reliable sources" just copy-pasted it from Wikipedia. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which of them does that? I certainly can't see any such copying and pasting. One example where that would be impossible (and it's not the only one, just the first that caught my eye) is this book published by Aarhus University Press in 1998, eight years before our article was created and several years before Wikipedia even existed. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since LouisAragon has had a longstanding awareness of the article he is probably more able than most to spot if current or previous versions of the Wikipedia article's text has made it into any of those sources. But each Google Scholar source is going to have to be individually looked at (though there are not many so it is do-able). Also, a number of then seem on the surface to be non RS, being black propaganda texts produced by Azerbaijan. There is a past edit that placed into the article the actual text of the supposed treaty [2] but its source, a book titled "Sources on Azerbaijani history" published in Baku in 1989, so will be very doubtful as a RS. If this treaty did exist it surely must be mentioned in sources written before the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh began. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bournoutian is cited as a source in the article, and in the talk page is mentioned as the source for the "Russo-Karabakhi treaty" alternative name. LouisAragon, what does Bournoutian actually say? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that text from the Wikipedia article, on a site that was created in 2001, might have made its way into a book published by a Danish university in 1998? Let's keep the discussion in the realm of the possible. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you, Mr Anon, are going to continue to make accusations without any substance I suggest you leave this discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without substance? Do you dispute that Wikipedia was created in 2001? Or maybe you want a reliable source that says that 1998 came before 2001? What substance is missing from my observation that not all of the potential sources are copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article, as stated by KATMAKROFAN? And you don't get to choose who takes part in deletion discussions. Those of us without a dog in this fight are better able to judge notability than editors with a preconceived point of view. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.17.222.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), IDK why you're constantly bringing up a book that's not even WP:RS. I agree that the content of that book doesn't seem to have been copied from Wikipedia, but nevertheless, its authors are not historians, thus the whole thing plays no role here.

@Tiptoethrutheminefield:, the Bournoutian source cited here, without a page, is a translation of an early 19th century work ("A history of Qarabagh: an annotated translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh"). Bournoutian adds to the relevant passages himself (page 11) that; "His [the writer related to the Khanate] work covers the history of the khanate of Qarabagh from the death of Nader Shah and the appointment of Panah Khan as the khan of Qarabagh in 1747/48 to the signing of the Russo-Qarabakhi treaty in 1805", while on page 3; "Mirza Jamal was thus present during the signing of the Russo-Qarabaghi treaty between Ebrahim Khan and Prince Tsitsianov.[footnote]" In later passages of the journal, Bournoutian always refers back to the same thing as "an agreement" or the "treaty signed with Russia", but never the words "Kurakchay Treaty" or "Treaty of Kurakchay". Mind you, Bournoutian is the sole WP:RS author that even mentions such a word (Russo-Qarabaghi), and even then, throughout his entire euvre, as far as I can see/know, he does so on one mere occassion; only in this translation. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be hung up on the name of this treaty, rather than its existence. Are you doubting that a treaty was made between these parties on the date given? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not actually called "Treaty of Kurakchay" then there are problems calling the article "Treaty of Kurakchay". Yes, something existed. An agreement was made between the Russian commander on the ground and a local ruler who was dependent on Persia, in which that ruler agrees to switch allegiance if his and his family, and his descendants position is guaranteed within the Russian Empire. The modern back story here is that Azerbaijan tries to inflate this agreement concerning a ruling family into a treaty entered into between two states - the Russian Empire and an independent state called the Karabakh Khanate. If an independent Azeri-ruled state can be made out to have existed in 1805, with its continued existence treaty-guaranteed by Russia, then this can be used to question the legitimacy of the Nagorno Karabakh republic. My feeling is that, given the vagueness of its status and its name, the content of this article should be merged into related existing articles. There we can refer to it as an agreement, described in later sources as the "Treaty of Kurakchay" or the "Russo-Qarabaghi treaty". (Providing of course that there are at least some RS sources that do refer to it as "Treaty of Kurakchay") Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that this discussion is a puerile nationalist dispute rather than an attempt to improve this encyclopedia. As I said before I have no dog in this fight, but I have no trouble identifying who does. The legitamacy of the Nagorno Karabakh republic is not recognised by any UN member state, so anything other than questioning of that legitamacy is very much a fringe view. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually confirming to us your fringe pov. The Nagorno Karabakh republic bases its legitimacy on the self-evident fact of its existence, on the right of its population to have self determination, and of it being historically an integral part of Armenia, ethnically and culturally. However, Azeri historiography, which is not supported by RS, claims that, historically, NK was actually "Caucasian Albania", that its "Caucasian Albanians" over time either became assimilated into Muslim Azeris or assimilated into Christian Armenians, and that any real Armenians in NK are actually post-Russian conquest newcomers. This is why Azerbaijan talks up the status and importance of this treaty. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the position held by 193 UN member states is fringe, but that held by none is not. That's a weird topsy-turvy interpretation of the word "fringe". I have no doubt that many Azerbaijani nationalists distort history to support their aims, just as other nationalists, including many Armenians, do, but to any neutral observer the existence or otherwise of a minor treaty signed over 200 years ago is utterly irrelevant to the issue of how Nagorno Karabakh should be governed today. I'm not here to further any nationalist point of view, and haven't given an opinion about whether this should be kept or deleted, but I'm challenging errors of fact, such as that this is a hoax and that all sources found are copied and pasted from Wikipedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the treaty is mentioned in a book by Kaveh Farrokh, Iran at War: 1500-1988, which appears to be RS. So it's not a hoax. It's significance is unclear, so I'm not sure it warrants an article or not; the book devotes several paragraphs to it noting: "The exact nature of the Kurakchay treaty has been disputed".

The book Small Nations and Great Powers mentions that Karabakh was "conquered" in 1805 so the date matches the supposed treaty under discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Svante Cornell source is non RS propaganda that peddles Turkish and Azeri historiography - I can spot numerous lies and distortions in just that single page. "Russia's stirrings in the South Caucasus soon led to a Russo-Persian war". This is a lie - it was Persia's stirrings, seeking to re-impose its traditional supremacy over the Southern Caucasus, who invaded, causing the local Christian rulers in Georgia to ask Russia for help. And similarly, the "former Persian Lands" were not, they were still officially part of Persia though in the hands of mostly autonomous local rulers. The claim that Russia tried to extend its control over Armenia because Armenians were Christian is ludicrous, and it is a fantasy I have seen expressed in no other source. Russia had no intention during WW1 to "annex large parts of eastern Turkey". W.E.D. Allen and Paul Muratoff, in "Caucasian Battlefields", the definitive account of the military events, makes clear that for the Russian Empire the Caucasus front was always considered a sideline, was always under sourced, and was to be fought defensively. And of course Cornell is an Armenian Genocide denier, even using the stock denialist wording "tragic events" to dismiss it, placing "genocide" in inverted commas, and accusing Ottoman Armenians of being allied with Russia and being a fifth column. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the Kaveh Farrokh source that I found is not sufficient RS for a stand alone article. PS -- I do not quite understand the above comment. Anyway, delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is content in the Farrokh source found by K.e.coffman that could be added to the Shusha article - currently there is nothing on the Russian occupation of it, the Persian advance, Ibrahim Khalil Khan Javanshir ignoring his earlier treaty and switching back allegiance to Persia, his subsequent death, etc. I think there, and on the Ibrahim Khalil Khan article, and with a mention on the Karabakh Khanate article, is the most appropriate place for the subject detailed in this article. It was not a treaty between nations, but was an agreement with an individual (Ibrahim Khalil Khan) who had been appointed by Persia to govern territory that the Persian empire considered an integral part of Persia. Even though sources describe it as a treaty, giving it various names, I think it does not have the status that justifies an article - unlike an actual named treaty between nations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: could you please clarify? If the source that I presented is good, it can be used at the Shusha article. This article under discussion does not need to be merged there, as this source is not being used in the article at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly merge). A book published by a University Press is certainly RS; hence this is not a hoax. It may well be that the treaty had little effect, due to the vagaries of war, but that does not mean we should not have an article. I am not clear what merge target is proposed: an article on the war, in which it was a diplomatic event might be a feasible target. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It being published by an "University Press" means nothing. "Ole Høiris" and "Sefa Martin Yürükel" are both anthropologists. This being a purely history-related matter, the source is therefore absolutely non-WP:RS.- LouisAragon (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A book that apparently does not mention the subject is not a good source for the subject, no matter who wrote it or who published it. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.