Talk:Qazax District

Aivazovsky violating consensus achieved

It's been long discussed that so called "Andrew Andersen PhD" is not a known or credible scholar, and in fact, per information by one of the contributors, was also fired for racism against Muslims. So, the reference to "Andersen's" blog was removed from the page, and deemed unencyclopedic, and now User:Aivazovsky is trying to add it back under the cover of other edits. Atabek 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also removed the external link, as it's purely one-sided POV and historical revisionism. Atabek 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, and for those not wishing to peruse the tedious archive, there was no such decision and all of the above is just Atabek being even more POV than usual. Meowy 21:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, can you please, produce evidence for claims/points above. Otherwise, I don't see why you feel free attacking me with or without reason on talk page edit from a year ago. Perhaps, it would be helpful for you to WP:AGF. Atabek (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember Andersen was indeed dismissed as an unreliable source, and wiki admin mikka agreed with that. Grandmaster (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for revert Grandmaster, I accidentally pushed the wrong button. I just had a quick look at the archive page and all I can say is poor Aivazovsky, he was up against you, Atabek, Adil, Dacy, even Parishan. I also noticed how all of the neutral editors said that there was nothing wrong with Anderson, but the now regular circular discussion was going full speed. I also appreciate the visual aid Aivazovsky provided. VartanM (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not pity Aivazovsky. Proper sources need to be presented. Read what the admin said about Andesersen at the bottom of this thread: [1] So how come that "all of the neutral editors said that there was nothing wrong with Anderson"? Grandmaster (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't, he was chased away from the endless discussion. When it comes to content disputes admin's are just another editors and don't have any special powers. If you read closely Khoikhoi (admin) agreed that there was nothing wrong with Anderson. Kober also had nice things to say about him, So did Ldingley. VartanM (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

But it is certainly not that all neutral editors supported the use of that source. Plus, both Kober and Ldingley agreed that Andersen is better not used in this particular article. Mikka is right, the credentials of Andersen are very dubious, it is a self-published source which is not properly referenced. Grandmaster (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, naturally anyone who happens to disagree with your points of view automatically becomes unreliable or untrustworthy. What a great example of showing that compromise can come simply by running other users off the talk page and then claiming that you all came to consensus!--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How about WP:AGF? I suggest you reread that again and refrain from personal comments. It has already been demonstrated that third party users like mikka also doubted reliability of that one and only source Aivazovsky used. Why don't you find some other source to support your claims? Grandmaster (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the article Azeris in Turkey uses Andersen to claim that Azeris in Turkey escaped massacres by Armed bands of Armenian nationalists. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is just one of the sources there. I don't think that source should be used in AA related articles. Grandmaster (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The other source doesn't look that great either. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what is actually being disputed here? What part of the article you do not agree with? Grandmaster (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you confuse yourself? You and Atabek are disputing the use of the Anderson as a source. VartanM (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is what the use of Andersen is supposed to prove? Obviously, if you want to add that source to the article, it must be a reference for something, right? Grandmaster (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious??? You don't even know what you're arguing about? VartanM (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I do, but do you? Please explain why you want that particular source here, and why you are unable to present any other source to support your claims? Grandmaster (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No you don't, otherwise why are you asking questions? My suggestion for you is that you at least read this discussion, if not the archives. Let me know when you understand what you're arguing about. Good day. VartanM (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So you have no idea what Andersen as a source is supposed to prove? Ok, does anyone else know? The article is Ok the way it is now, so what changes are being proposed to be made? What is the point in arguing about a source that was not published in any authoritative publication, if people wanting to use it have no idea what they want to reference with it? I was involved in previous discussions about this source and unlike those who joined just now I do know what Aivazovsky wanted to prove with it, but do any of those supporting that source know? Grandmaster (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And how did you come to that conclusion? Only minutes ago you were clueless about what you were arguing about. I have to warn you, I'm not Ayvazovsky and I don't get intimidated, especially not by you. I think this would be a good time for you to start familiarizing with the article and the archive page. Otherwise I have no time to give you pointers on why you're arguing. As for this article being "Ok the way it is" I can re-add the material that was removed any time, I just thought it would've been nice to discuss it at first, and maybe avoid another edit war. Thanks for proving me wrong. VartanM (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So you still have no idea what material you want to add to the article? You've been dodging the question for quite some time now. Grandmaster (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I will save talk space and stop this pointless beating about the bush by some people. Aivazovsky used this source to claim that Qazakh was at certain point a part of the Republic of Armenia, however he failed to provide any source other than this website. If the author is indeed a credible scholar, he must have used some other sources in his research, so anyone wishing to add that claim should be able to locate them. So please be so kind and find better sources than Andersen, his credentials are disputed not just by me, but by third party editors as well. Grandmaster (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar, redundancy, typos and other fixes

I am currently fixing some redundant text, grammar and typos in the article. Atabek 18:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also Movses Kalankatsi (Dasxuranci) was Caucasian Albanian historian, his words were translated into English by C J W Dowsett and published in 1961. Made the appropriate fix on the page. Atabek 19:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Qazax rayon and city is in Azerbaijan, so there is no need for extra transliterations in English. Articles in those languages already exist in relevant language Wikis and are linked to this article already. Atabek (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Qazakh District. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101114161101/http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/az/011.shtml to http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/az/011.shtml#s10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Qazax which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)