Talk:Qazakh/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

1 Andrew Andersen
2 Who is Andrew Andersen?
3 Map of Armenian borders after the 1921 Kars treaty
4 Summary - finalizing facts against Aivazovsky's version of history and edits
5 Credibility of Andrew Andersen and Neutrality of the Article
6 Compromise proposal
7 My 2¢
8 Andersen
9 Page blocking
10 Some more info about Qazax
11 Andersen POV
12 Compromise?
13 Name
14 Article
15 Quote

Andrew Andersen

Again Andrew Andersen is the only source for the claims that Kazakh was transfered to Azerbaijan in 1931. I would suggest to get a confirmation from another source. Grandmaster 12:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think the information of Andersen on transfer of Kazakh rayon to Azerbaijan in 1931 is credible for a simple reason – it was part of Yelizavetpol governorate, which you said was assigned to Azerbaijan. How come then that one of the uyezds of Yelizavetpol with predominant Azeri population became part of Armenia?

Here’s the article on Kazakh uyezd from Brokhauz: [1] Grandmaster 09:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from Andersen, other sources confirm that Armenia did have effective control over Qazakh (this is mentioned in works by A.B. Kadishev, Artur Tsutsiev, and seen on the maps of Atlas Istorii SSR by Konstantin Bazilevich (where Armenia is clearly showing having a boundary on the Kura River)). I assume it was transferred to Azerbaijan for the reason you just gave above: it had a majority Muslim population (59% with 57% specifically being Azeris) with an Armenian minority (which constituted 39%) - these are from your demographic sources from cultinfo.ru that you provided above. Given this information, it seems possible (despite the region's Muslim majority) that Armenians could have taken control of it due to their numbers (almost 40%).

Also, yes, it was transferred to Azerbaijan under British occupation as part of the Yelizavetpol governorate (this is also mentioned by Andersen as he states that the Armenians did not wish to give up their claims to it; I, however, failed to mention this myself and I probably should have). However, by the time the Red Army invaded the region, it was under full Armenian administration. By the 1930s, it was back in the hands of Azerbaijan. -- Clevelander 10:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We need better sources for that. I'm checking the books that I have access to, but they have no info at all about this. Grandmaster 11:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There are four sources that I just gave (Kadishev, Tsutsiev, Bazilevich, and Andersen), all are impartial and for the most part accurate. Also note that not every book would have a complete history on the region during this time period as it is extremely under-researched.

I'll be willing to insert the information regarding its assignment to Azerbaijan under British occupation. I will add this information later. -- Clevelander 11:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is Andrew Andersen?

No references provided to legitimate journal articles. This "PhD" does not hold water. Atabek 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See here: [2] He is a Canadian historian of Scandinavian descent. I was told about both him and his website by Georgian editors here on Wikipedia. He is NPOV. -- Aivazovsky 11:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that he is not citing any sources for his claims, and is not reliable. There is no question that Armenia claimed that area, and there is no question that as war broke out, the Armenian and Azerbaijani armies were fighting each other not only in Karabakh, Zangezur and Naxcivan, but also in Kazakh. However, to state that it remained part of Armenia until 1931 is not possible. Indeed, Armenia lost the war to Azerbaijan in 1920, the total loss was prevented only by Sovietization of Azerbaijan in April 1920. Still, despite this temporary relief, Armenia soon was overrun by Kazim Karabekir Pasha in Sept-Nov 1920, and signed the treaty. Armenia was in no position occupy Kazakh, especially since aside from declaring war on ADR in 1918, it did so on Georgia too, whilst ADR and Georgia signed a defense treaty in 1919. Georgia even occupied Lori district in Nov 1920. Of course, Kazakh is near Georgia, so this is all relevant.

The confusion of Andersen et al is probably stemming from the fact that Kazakh uezd, like many other uezds, was LARGER than the Kazakh region of Azerbaijan. E.g., Kazakh uezd included Noemberyan [3] which is part of Armenia even today.

In fact, here's from an Armenian website that makes clear that there was no question of the entire former Kazakh uezd, but only part of it, that is today part of Armenia:

"после чего 2 декабря полномочным представителем РСФСР в Армении т. Леграном было подписано соглашение с представителями дашнакской Армении об объявлении Армении независимой Социалистической Советской Республикой. По этому соглашению до созыва Съезда Советов Армении образуется временный Военно-революционный комитет, к которому переходит вся власть в Армении. Определяется территория ССРА: Эриванская губерния, часть Карсской области, Зангезурский уезд, часть Казахского уезда и те части Тифлисской губернии, которые находились в обладании Армении до 28 сентября 1920 г." [4]

"after which on 2 December [1920] by the plenipotentiary representative of RSFSR [Soviet Russia] in Armenia, comrade Legran there was an agreement signed with the representaive of Dashnak Armenia about announcing Armenia as the independent Soviet Socialist Republic [SSRA]. According to this agreement, until the call up of the Assembly of Soviet [Parliament] of Armenia, a temporary Military-revolutionary committee is formed, to which the entire power in Armenia is being passed. The territory of SSRA is being defined: Erivan guberniya, part of Kars oblast, Zangezur uezd, part of Kazakh uezd and those part of Tiflis guberniya, which were in possession of Armenia before 28 September 1920."

So as you see, it clearly mentions "part of Kazakh uezd".

And here's what an Azerbaijani website says [5]:

"22 марта 1920 года армянские отряды напали на Ханкенди, что послужило сигналом для начала армянского мятежа на территориях, где проживали армяне - нагорная часть Карабаха, Гянджинский и Казахский уезды. Этот мятеж вынудил правительство Азербайджана сосредоточить почти все вооруженные силы в этих местах."

"On 22 March 1920 Armenian detachments attacked Khankendi, which served as a signal for the beginning of Armenian revolt in the territories, where Armenians lived -- mountaneous part of Karabakh, Ganja and Kazakh uezds. This revolt forced the government of Azerbaijan to dedicate almost all its armed forces in these places."

Hence, it makes clear that Kazakh was ADR's w/o problems until 22 March 1920, when revolt arised and by sending there troops, ADR was able to at least show presence and not allow annexation of this territory, however, as specified above, it was probably able to take care of the problem.

Since there is no hard evidence by known scholars, Soviet or ADR or DDR documents, etc., the pages must be revised and re-written to take into account only correct and verifiable information. --AdilBaguirov 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, Adil, Andersen isn't the only source that backs this up. The fact that Armenia once had full control of all the territory of the Kazakh uyezd is mentioned in works by A.B. Kadishev, Artur Tsutsiev, and seen on the maps of Atlas Istorii SSR by Konstantin Bazilevich (where Armenia is clearly showing having a boundary on the Kura River). As a matter of fact, here's a map from Tsutsiev's book which clearly shows how the territory looked prior to 1931:

Also, I know that the uyezd was larger than the present rayon of Azerbaijan. That's why this article reads: Under the Russian Empire, the rayon was part of the Kazakh uyezd of the Elisavetpol guberniya. Also note that Armenia still could have held Kazakh during the Turkish-Armenian war as that was largely fought on Armenia's western frontier. Georgia occupied Lori was at Armenia's request to save the Armenians of that region from a possible Turkish invasion. The Democratic Republic of Armenia still retained the entire territory of the Kazakh uyezd until Grigoriy Ordzhonikidze invaded Armenia and encouraged a pro-Bolshevik movement in the country. The first major city that Ordzhonikidze captured in Armenia was Karavansarai (present-day Ijevan), which was part of the Kazakh uyezd.

Adil, your Azerbaijani sources are not credible for the very fact that they are Azerbaijani sources and that they hold a bias. My sources are all NPOV. I don't know about you, but I would trust a source by Andrew Andersen over some website called azeri.ru. -- Aivazovsky 12:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, you seem to have misunderstood what was said -- first of, my sourceS are mixed -- one is Azerbaijani (which says everything correctly, and does not state anything that is not factual and/or disputed by Armenia), and the other one is Armenian source. So don't make both of them "Azerbaijani" please. Secondly, I don't know what K.Bazilevich supposedly wrote, show the full citation and quote or map. Otherwise, it's like with Urartu -- you never read the books, but cite them to me as if they all state your version of history. Wrong. Third -- you must have misread, but Tsutsiev's atlas CLEARLY says those provisional Soviet borders (true only from December 1, 1920 -- date of Sovietization of Armenia) were correct only till sometime in 1921 (most likely summer of 1921, same time as the NK issue was being decided). Hence, where in the world do you take the 1931 date from? Seems like someone mistyped 1931 for 1921. You've got absolutely no evidence and no sources for the POV version of the article that is present displayed now. --AdilBaguirov 12:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, note that in addition to Azeri.ru, there was a Genocide.ru cited. And Andersen's website is just a personal website hosting various maps and writings, so no need to make Andersen some world-renowned scholar and that site as source of truth in the last degree. --AdilBaguirov 12:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm apologize for not noticing the Armenian source. Still, non of these sources appear to confirm your point. Before 1931, the uyezd was in partial possession of Georgia so the phrase "part of Kazakh uezd" can easily be read to mean that. What other sources do I have proving that the borders did not change until 1931? How about maps made before 1931 and maps showing the area before 1931? Two maps here are from Konstantin Bazilevich's book:

I also doubt that "someone mistyped 1931 for 1921." All the best, Aivazovsky 12:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do doubt -- no map says what you allege. All of them are about 1920-21 military actions. There is simply no evidence about the rest of the decade and until 1931! In fact, you are clearly manipulating facts by labeling your maps as "Map of the South Caucas prior to 1931 from Atlas Istorii SSR by Konstantin Bazilevich" [6], whilst the map itself has a clear inscription on the top "Military actions in Transcaucasus. April 1920- July 1921" and at the border: "Borders: of Socialist Soviet Republics to March 1921." [7]. Since you have the book, why don't you scan all the subsequent maps, such as AFTER July 1921? Thus, once more, your references do not support your POV. --AdilBaguirov 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The latter two maps were published during the 1920s. The third from the top was published in 1924. Also, I don't mind debating, Adil, but please try to be more civil. -- Aivazovsky 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"during the 1920s" is very imprecise and is definitely not 1931. Secondly, for example the fourth map, also clearly says that: "The Basis of the map is the situation about 1910. Territorial changes in 1913 are indicated in dark blue, and in 1920-1922, in red".[8] Thus, the same as above applies -- these borders are provisional and true for 1920-21 unpredictable situation. Moreover, the map "forgets" to show that Turkey had a border with Naxcivan, over which it had a protectorate. Likewise, with regards to the third map -- it again shows provisional borders, which is clear as despite showing autonomous areas (those numbered 5) elsewhere, it does not show South Ossetia, Ajaria or NKAO. Turkey, whilst showing correct border for Naxcivan, doesn't have Ankara, and has Constantinpole instead of Istanbul. Also, Crimea appears to be part of Ukraine, whilst it was part of Russia until Kruschev gave it to Ukraine in 1950-60s. But of course the main problem is with you claiming 1931 whilst showing maps true of situation in Caucasus in 1920-21. --AdilBaguirov 05:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting sign in. Andersen's website which is given as a basis for information is very dubious as it was pointed out previously. He does not cite any soutces in the body of his text (research). All assumption on such matters should be referred properly to original sources of that period.--Dacy69 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So? There are plenty of history books and websites that do not directly cite their references. Please don't remove references from Wikipedia. -- Aivazovsky 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are many webisites which don't cite their sources. And in this case such research is dubious, unless this sites are not about well-known facts. Here we have the disputable case. Andersen makes several mistakes. Moreover, this one man site - it is not of reputable instituion, encyclopedia, etc. If I tomorrow create website - what it means - information there is blessed as by the only truth?--Dacy69 21:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

While Andersen does not cite his sources we have the following: 1. Qazakh uezd was 5,908 sq. km according to Caucasian Calendar of 1903 printed in Tiflis (p.30) (Tbilisi) - Кавказский календарь на 1903 год. Статистические сведения. Типография А.В.Кутеладзе, Тифлис. 2. Azerbaijan Communist Central Committee (AзЦИК) (mostly comprised by non-Azeri) on its meeting on 22 April 1922 (after Azerbaijan was incorporated into Transcaucasian Federation) decided, after the hearing of the report of "the Committe on administrative re-arrangement of Azerbaijan": "Leave Qazakh uezd in its former administrative borders without any changes" (Казахский уезд оставить в старых административных границах и в отношении этих границ не вносить никаких изменений") - State Archive of Azerbaijan's Political Parties and Public Movements (Former Soviet Communist Party Archive) ГАППОДАР. ф.1, оп. 74, д. 127, л.160-161

So if it were a part of Armenia, as Andersen claims, the desicion would have had different language. Yes, Qazakh uezd was a part of ADR-DRA dispute but was not in the possesion of Dashnaks. However after 1922 incrementally, piece by piece certain part of Qazakh uezd (rayon) was given to Armenia.--Dacy69 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is, when was the uyezd divided? I agree that we need to do more research on this. Andersen is usually a verifiable source, but on this particular issue, I think we need to do some more work. -- Aivazovsky 22:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to have the atlas of maps, why not scan other maps, from after 1921? The summary we have right now is that none of the maps you post are from after 1922, except for one (1924), which in itself is flawed as outlined above, in fact, it's flaws are very strange (e.g., showing Crimea as part of Ukraine). In reality, all those maps show the provisional borders until summer 1921, i.e., the time when Bolsheviks were finalizing the contours of the borders, establishing NKAO inside Azerbaijan, transferring Zangezur to Armenia (see N.Narimanov's 30 November/1 December 1920 letter), etc. Plus all written and archival references show that Kazakh rayon was part of both ADR and AzSSR, although the former Kazakh uezd, whenever it was split, did partially become part of Armenia, such as the Noemberyan town. Thus, in 1931 and before, in 1922 and before, and in fact from about the summer 1921, Kazakh region was part of Azerbaijan SSR and not part of Armenia. Also, from 1918-1920 it was part of ADR, but at some point, later, DDR did claim it perhaps, and fought for it, perhaps even briefly holding military advantage after ADR fell (however, note that DDR fell and Soviet Armenia was proclaimed in December 1920, and the Red Army actually entered DDR from Kazakh region). Thus, changes to the text are warranted to reflect the objective situation, but more research is welcome, particularly more maps from Tsutsiev atlas. --AdilBaguirov 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait nevermind! The mistake was on my part! The territorial adjustments weren't made in 1931, they were actually made between 1923 and 1928. Here's a direct quote from Andersen's website:

Borders of Armenia proper (Arm.SSR) were also redrawn several times after 1922. Some major “adjustments” were made between 1923 and 1928. As a result, Armenia had to cede to Azerbaijan the northern half of Kazakh-Shamshadin district and a number of smaller parts of Zanghezur. However the same year, Armenia received small territorial compensation by being assigned Lori district of Georgia (former Lori canton of Borchalo district that had been a “neutral zone” between 01.1919 and 11.1920). All the above-mentioned territorial changes left all involved parties deeply unsatisfied and most likely built up the basis for future conflicts and disputes

I'll fix this now. -- Aivazovsky 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! You've had this question posed to you since August of 2006, and after so many months, and reverts, and arguing with me for the past week, you make a change, blaming an unspecified oversight. Or maybe Andersen decided to change the date on that amateur website? But this is not enough, as Andersen is still not a reliable source, and his wording is even POV -- "compensation"?! And what "canton" -- this is not Switzerland, this is Caucasus! --AdilBaguirov 02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Map of Armenian borders after the 1921 Kars treaty

Aivazovsky, the attached map is from J.H.M. Cornwall. "The Russo-Turkish Boundary and the Territory of Nakhchivan",The Geographical Journal, Vol. 61, No. 6. (Jun., 1923), pp. 446

Now take a careful look at the Eastern border of Armenia, and provide further proofs that Kazakh uyezd ever belonged to Armenia prior to 1931. My grandparents were born in Kazakh uyezd in 1920s, and no one ever remembers Kazakh belonging to Armenian SSR, but indeed Western part of it was ceded to Armenian SSR under Soviet regime, in form of Karvansaray (which was renamed to Ijevan), Allahverdi (Alaverdi), Noyemberyan raions, etc. But apart from those, based on the map presented, you should denounce your claims to both Karabakh and Kazakh uyezd altogether. Atabek 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

First, look closely at that map. The borders of the Transcaucasian states are those of the former Russian guberniyas! Hence, they do not reflect who administered what territory at that time. If you look closely, you can seen the dotted borders of the former Batumn guberniya, as well as the Tiflis and Kars guberniyas.

Second, if your family was from Qazakh, I doubt that they would remember if it was part of Armenia or Azerbaijan at the time because they were both united under the Transcaucasian SFSR. Also, the borders of the republics within the Transcaucasian union during the 1920s were drawn and redrawn several times over. It wasn't until around 1928 that they took their present form.

Third, nice map! -- Aivazovsky 01:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, you seem not to comprehend yet, that the eastern boundary is the territory of Azerbaijan, as the one above is territory of Georgian SSR clearly in boundaries presented in your Andersen maps. Otherwise, how did Andersen invent who administered which territory? What's his evidence based on? Which paper? There were no gubernias in 1923, at the time of publication I presented, but constituent republics, whose borders even within ZSFSR were defined. I would think my grandparents would know better than you guestimate now, which constituent republic they lived in 1924, but that's a separate subject.

The reference to the similar map is provided at:

J. H. R., "The Russo-Turkish Boundary of 1921", The Geographical Journal, Vol. 61, No. 3. (Mar., 1923), pp. 209-212.

Also, I would like to point out on both maps, the name of lake Gokcha, the real Azerbaijani name of the Lake Sevan, as it's labeled now in Armenia. We will be incorporating all these references into Kazakh article soon. Atabek 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Andersen is a ~~certified~~ credible historian most of his work comes from his original research. He didn't "invent" who administered which territory, it just happened that way, that was how history went. His boundaries are defined by those established through who occupied what, etc. at the time of Sovietization.

I'm sorry, but we can't use your grandparents' testimony on Wikipedia. That would be OR. Why not ask them to write a book about it first?

Great...you already listed this above.

Okay...what's your point? Back then, Tbilisi was referred to by its Turkish name Tiflis, Gyumri was referred to by its Russian name Alexandropol, Elazığ was known by its Armenian name Kharput, and İzmir and Istanbul were referred to by their Greek names of Smyrna and Constantinople. -- Aivazovsky 02:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, don't mix my responses with yours, for clarity, this is not email thread, it's a discussion page, where everyone's point needs to be clear.

Historians, FYI, are not engineers, hence are not certified :)). As for boasting about his original research, I would love to see a single article of his based on serious research, if you can provide. Don't provide me with links to Armenian amateur fan websites, but to real publication in journal or conference.

I brought you two references above, one from June 1923 by Cornwall, another one by J.H.R. from March 1923, so don't mix them. As I said, my grandparents knowledge is my confidence, of course, it's not reference, but for me Armenian claim to Kazakh prior to 1931 is laughable apart from references, I provided. If you want yet another reference, here is to my delight:

The Geographical Journal, Vol. 69, No. 6. (Jun., 1927)

Check out pages 436-437, Kazakh District - Azerbaijan :)

As I said, I will be delighted to integrate these references, very soon. Cheers. Atabek 02:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you could upload these images that you keep referring to, that would be great. Furthermore, as I stated above, the boundaries between the Caucasian republics were not settled in 1931, but were fully decided between 1923 and 1928. Today, I just noticed that Andersen had altered his work to reflect these dates instead of his earlier 1931 assertion. -- Aivazovsky 02:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second...I think I know how the Geographical Journal drew their borders for the Caucasian states (especially between Armenia and Azerbaijan). They used the border line proposed by John Oliver Wardrop, British Chief Commissioner of the Caucasus. Wardrop's proposal left Azerbaijan in complete control of the former Elisavetpol and Baku guberniyas and Armenia with the former Erivan and Kars guberniyas. Because of constant warfare, this proposed border did not last. But I believe that Geographical Journal (being, I assume an English publication) followed the Wardrop boundary for lack of anything more accurate. -- Aivazovsky 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gokcha (Goycha) is the historic name of the lake, predating Russian control.

However, once again, the problems with Andersen's Original Research and essentially a POV, is that he does not cite any sources at all, he is not a well-published historian, his research is hosted only on some unauthoritative websites, and he is contradicting both evidence and simple logic. Moreover, none of the maps and counter-arguments you have presented in his defense withstand a simple factual and historic test, and in fact, appear to have been manipulated by being misrepresented (e.g., when maps clearly say they are from 1921-22, they are mislabeled as for 1931). The old version of the page, as written and maintained by Aivazovsky, is incorrect and has been edited to make it NPOV. Aivazovsky, you had time since August 2006, when first questions of the reliability started to be pondered, to either re-write he article and make it NPOV, or present more authoritative, solid, third-party sources in defense of your postulates. Since none has happened, please don't engage in Revert war, don't violate the 3RR rule which you already did violate massively, and don't undo NPOV changes. Thanks. P.S. And not sure where you took yet another date, 1928, from. The borders were settled by the end of 1921, although gradual changes continued, by having Azerbaijani lands in Zangezur (well, whatever remained of it after its transfer was done in 1921), Qazakh and Naxcivan (stopped in 1930) being transferred to Armenia until 1969, and then once more again in 1982. --AdilBaguirov 02:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ayvazovski, if as you say the fate of disputed territory of Elizavetpol gubernia was "decided between 1923 and 1928", then how come your text states "were ceded" to Azerbaijan. You can't claim territory being ceded, as Armenia did not own it. No one ever recognized it as Armenian territory, and control of it, as alleged by POV freelancer Andrew Andersen, is yet to be proven as well. The same applies to Karabakh, it wasn't ceded, as it wasn't assigned to Armenia even by the biggest fan of Armenians, Woodrow Wilson on his famous "Wilsonian map".

I noticed the page was quickly locked. Good, now we will come to consensus, and you will prove us that borders were modified between 1923 and 1928 with a third-party (that is NOT Armenian, and NOT Azerbaijani) references. And NOT Andersen, as his scholarly qualification to be referenced as an expert in the region's history is very questionnable. Atabek 07:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I said "ceded" was because, according to Andersen, after Wardrop's border proposal, Armenians and Azeris plunged into all-out war. Armenians didn't want to give up their claims to Zangezur (Syunik), Karabakh, and Kazakh. Likewise the Azeris did not want to give up their claims to Nakhichevan. The British who were in occupation of the area could do little to prevent armed conflict. By March 1920, a month before the Soviets gained control of Azerbaijan, the Armenians launched an offensive on all the disputed territories and eventually, Kazakh, among other areas fell under Armenian control.

I would also like to point out that when the Soviets led by Grigoriy Ordzhonikidze entered Armenia and encouraged a communist uprising in the country, one of the first major cities that they captured was Karavansarai (present-day Ijevan) which was, under the Tsar's rule part of the Kazakh uyezd.

Regarding "Wilsonian Armenia" - the eastern borders of Wilson's Armenia were not clearly defined, but the western frontier was (in Turkey) was. It was Armenia's western frontier that, at the time of the Treaty of Sevres had more significance than Armenia's eastern claims.

I still find Andersen's work to be credible. He is an objective historian and his biography can be found here: [9] However, I'm open to doing more research on the subject of Qazakh. -- Aivazovsky 11:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Just a humble comment… As far as I know, Andrew Andersen is quite a respected expert in Canada and even briefs the U.S. congress on the Caucasus affairs. I find his Georgia maps pretty accurate. However, I know NOTHING about the Qazakh problem. I tried to do some further research on Google Books and Google Scholar, but failed to obtain any valuable info. Anyway, I would suggest the following two articles:

WED Allen (May 1927). "New Political Boundaries in the Caucasus". Geographical Journal 69, No. 5: 430-441.

Anita L. Burdett, ed. (June 1, 2001). "Caucasian Boundaries. Documents and Maps. 1802–1946". Central Asian Survey 20, No. 2: 229–249.

I think both works are NPOV. Note that the former is authored by a contemporary scholar and contains a folded map of the Caucasus. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to either of them right now. So, if you can retrieve these articles, they will be of great help, IMO. Cheers, Kober^Talk 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, with the help of my local library's website, I can now access the Geographical Journal references recommended by Kober and Atabek. I'll comment on these later. Unfortunately, I still can't get to Central Asian Survey's "Caucasian Boundaries. Documents and Maps. 1802–1946" which I'm eager to have access to, because it will give us even more insight into the borders of the Caucasus at this time. All the best, Aivazovsky 15:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading over some of these sources now. According to Kober's suggested New Political Boundaries in the Caucasus from the Geographic Journal 69, No. 5: 430-441, the division of the Kazakh uyezd was complete by 1927 (Andersen claimed that the border changes between the Transcaucasian Republics occured between 1923 and 1928). Now I think it's more of a question of when the division of the uyezd occured and who was in possession of it before Sovietization. -- Aivazovsky 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary - finalizing facts against Aivazovsky's version of history and edits

OK, so let's finalize the problems with Aivazovsky's version of history and editing of the page, which he has been misrepresenting since August of 2006, despite repeated objections and appeals to do more research and edit the page in a NPOV way:

1) Andrew Andersen is not an authoritative scholar on the issue, his writing is available only at an amateur website;

2) Andersen fails to cite even a single source regarding his thesis;

3) The date "1931", which was the claimed date until which all of Qazakh was allegedly part of Armenia, after repeated objections and evidence to the contrary, has been acknowledged by Aivazovsky as mistaken, and now a new date, 1928, has been placed instead;

4) Not a single map has been presented which would show any of the claims, especially regarding Qazakh being part of Armenia from about 1922 until 1928 (and before, until 1931), true;

5) All maps shown by Aivazovsky as "evidence" of Qazakh, and other territories, being "Armenian", until first 1931, and now 1928, have been mislabeled and misrepresented, as they all show borders at most until 1922, although most likely summer of 1921 (one map was supposedly done in 1924, but shows completely wrong borders for Crimea, Ajaria, South Ossetia, NKAO);

6) In fact, a fully referenced scholarly map of 1921 shows Qazakh in Azerbaijan [10]

7) Another archival evidence also shows that Armenia only had (and has to this day) only part of the former Qazakh uezd (the other part became what is known as Qazakh region (rayon) of Azerbaijan):

8) The date 28 September 1920 is named for a reason -- after years of attacks and occupation of parts of Eastern Turkey, the Turkish army under the command of Gen. Kazim Karabekir Pasha defeated Dashnak Armenia in a barely two month campaign, and the Alexandropol Treaty was signed.

9) Prior to that, during the initial negotiations over the founding of ADR and DDR in May 28, 1918, ADR actually ceeded its territory of former Erivan guberniya (where majority of population were Muslim Azerbaijanis) to newly founded Armenia. This was announed the PM Khan Khoyski of ADR in his 29 May 1918 telegram. ЦГАОР Аз. ССР, ф. 970, оп. 1, ед. хр. 1, л. 51.

10) As of mid-1918, even Armenian sources acknowledge that the whole territory of DDR was only consisting of Erivan guberniya: "от 4 июня 1918 г. территория Армении составляла всего 12 тыс. кв. км.... В таких условиях Армения была отрезана от Карабаха и не могла оказать ему действенную помошь." (from 4 June 1918, territory of Armenia totaled only 12 thousand square kilometers... In such conditions, Armenia was cut off from Karabakh and could not provide it with tangible assistance." (Suren Zolyan, "Nagorno-Karabakh: Problem and Conflic." // "Chapter 2. Nagorno-Karabakh in years 1918-1920." Yerevan: Lingva, 2001, http://www.armenianhouse.org/zolyan/nf-ru/karabakh/2.html)

11) Qazakh uezd was 5,908 sq. km according to Caucasian Calendar of 1903 printed in Tiflis (p.30) (Tbilisi) - Кавказский календарь на 1903 год. Статистические сведения. Типография А.В.Кутеладзе, Тифлис. Meanwhile, the Azerbaijan Communist Central Committee (AзЦИК) (mostly comprised by non-Azeri) on its meeting on 22 April 1922 (after Azerbaijan was incorporated into Transcaucasian Federation) decided, after the hearing of the report of "the Committe on administrative re-arrangement of Azerbaijan": "Leave Qazakh uezd in its former administrative borders without any changes" (Казахский уезд оставить в старых административных границах и в отношении этих границ не вносить никаких изменений") - State Archive of Azerbaijan's Political Parties and Public Movements (Former Soviet Communist Party Archive) ГАППОДАР. ф.1, оп. 74, д. 127, л.160-161

So if it were a part of Armenia, as Andersen claims, the desicion would have had different language. Yes, Qazakh uezd was a part of ADR-DRA dispute but was not in the possession of Dashnaks. However after 1922 incrementally, piece by piece certain part of Qazakh uezd (rayon) was given to Armenia.

12) See: The Geographical Journal, Vol. 69, No. 6. (Jun., 1927), read pages 436-437, Kazakh District - Azerbaijan.

13) Aivazovsky refuses to scan and make available the subsequent (after 1921) maps from the Tsutsiev atlas, which would show borders for Azerbaijan and Armenia to correspond more or less to present-day borders, and thus Qazakh region firmly inside Azerbaijan.

14) there are many more archival documents and references showing that neither the Andersen's writings, nor the position taken by Aivazovsky is corresponding to the historic reality. --AdilBaguirov 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I would respond to each of these, but this time, I don't think I will. Look, Adil, you're not helping the situation at all. I'm working on resolving it constructively with Atabek and Kober above. Although his views may not exactly agree with my own, Atabek has been especially helpful is sorting this out with the maps and references he has provided. -- Aivazovsky 21:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky - would you agree for mediation on this? If yes, we can file a request and let third party help with this--Dacy69 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need mediation on this. All we (or actually I, as one of two editors here defending Andersen) need to do is find more sources to verify Andersen's claim. Note that I am not "refusing" mediation as Adil would probably put it, I just think that it would not be appropriate at this time. If you scroll above, you'll see that I'm already working on ironing this out with Atabek and Kober. I believe that Adil started this topic, "Summary - finalizing facts against Aivazovsky's version of history and edits" with the intention of derailing these efforts. -- Aivazovsky 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How long we should wait? If it is formal refusal we can resort to arbitration. I believe there is a plenty of evidence to support that Andersen version which the only source you have is unsubstantiated. Nobody derails - Adil just pulled together our arguments. But let's wait for a couple of days - sounds fair?--Dacy69 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If we need mediation or arbitration, then we will do it. Please don't push me into doing it right now. Also, looking through all of the evidence you guys provided, nothing really refutes Andersen's claim, nor have we been able to locate anything to accept it. -- Aivazovsky 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Or you just don`t want to see all evidences above provided to support that Qazakh was a part of Azerbaijan. It was torn later during the Soviet times. And don`t threaten - you can do it right now. Actually I will wait day or two and then ask for relevant procedure.--Dacy69 00:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, you are stalling and sabotaging the constructive work, you've had time since August 2006 (!) and have refused to change the POV. This is unacceptable.

Here's the additional source, that Kober mentioned, "New Political Boundaries in the Caucasus", W.E.D. Allen, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 69, No. 5. (May, 1927), pp. 430-441. Before I provide quotes, it should be noted that WED Allen has reviewed all the major official publications and books in Russian about the new Soviet boundaries, and listed them in his article, but they are too lengthy to reproduce. However, this assures that he has done an expert job and scrupolou research. Also important, at the end of the article, he includes a folding map of Caucasus, produced by the Royal Geographical Society, which has borders almost same as today's, with Qazakh city and part of Qazakh region inside Azerbaijan, and another part of the former Qakakh uezd, inside Armenia. Also, Armenia does not touch Kura river. Hence, once more, all insinuations and allegations to the contrary have once again been disproven. The Qazakh page must be changed as soon as possible to reflect the historic reality, not the POV of some ideologically motivated editor and his unscholarly and unacademic amateur websites.

"Boundaries of the Transcaucasian Republics

GEORGIA S.S.R. (capital Tiflis, which is also the capital of the TSFSR) comprises the former Government (Guberniya) of Tiflis [with the exception of the Circuit (okrug) of Zakatali and part of the District (uezd) of Borchalu] and the whole of the former Government of Kutais. There are three lesser units either united with or included in the Republic." (p. 433)

"The eastern boundary of Georgia with Azerbaijan follows the old local boundaries of the Districts of Signakh and Tiflis; and that with Armenia follows the former boundaries between the Governments of Tiflis and Erivan, with the exception that the Circuit of Lori, formerly in the Georgian District of Borchalu, is now part of the Armenian District of Bambak." (p. 434)

"AZERBAIJAN S.S.R. (capital Baku) comprises the whole of the former Government of Baku and the former Government of Elisavetpol (Ganja), with the exception of the District of Zangezur, and part of that of Kazakh, and includes the Zakatali Circuit of the former Government of Tiflis." (p. 436)

"The southern frontier of Azerbaijan follows the old Russo-Persian forntier of 1914: the river Astara, the Talish chain - Belyasuvar - whence it cuts due north-west across the Mughan Steppe, to its junction with the Araxes, which it follows to the Armenian boundary, where the small district of megrin alone separates Azerbaijan from its autonomous protectorate of Nakhichevan." (p. 437)

"ARMENIA S.S.R. (capital Erivan) includes the former Government of Erivan, with the exception of the Districs of Surmali (Turkish) and of Nakhichevan. It includes also, from the former Government of Elisavetpol (Ganja), the District of Zangezur, and part of the District of Kazakh, formed by the Region of Delijan. The Lori Region, formerly part of the government of Tiflis, is also included in Armenia." (p. 437).

--AdilBaguirov 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Credibility of Andrew Andersen and Neutrality of the Article

I have been doing some research trying to find the identity of this "historian" Andrew Andersen "PhD", find which university, school, college, publication, conference, etc. he is associated with, so that to check the credibility. So far I found none! Except for the amateurs website: http://www.conflicts.rem33.com the so called "historian" has absolutely no teaching or scientific publication reference. Where is his CV? Where is his publication list? How is it comparable to expert scholarly works such as those by Firuz Kazemzadeh, W.A.D. Allen, etc. Andersen's work as it's now serves nothing more than fueling baseless ethnic and territorial claims of one country to another, and he has neither credibility nor references to support that. Atabek 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Okay, I think that this has gone on for far too long and I'm tired of Adil attacking me as "sabotaging the constructive work".

I still hold that Andersen is a credible source. I've given you his biography showing you that he indeed has a PhD and even Kober entered this debate to uphold his reputation. I don't think that his work "serves nothing more than fueling baseless ethnic and territorial claims of one country to another." I'm sorry if you believe that the only reason why he's included here is to assert some sort of Armenian claim over Qazakh. The Armenians don't even want Qazakh. The Armenian government never even expressed an interest in it.

Anyway, the root of the problem is who administered the region after the collapse of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic and before Sovietization. I haven't had much time to really investigate Andersen's claims (I didn't neglect this article on purpose as Adil states), though, it should be noted that it is incredibly difficult to find any objective source about the Caucasus from this period. Still, I think the best solution, for the sake of compromise, would be to do this:

Under the Russian Empire, the rayon was part of the Kazakh uyezd of the Elisavetpol guberniya. With the fall of the Russian Empire, dispute over the region arose between the Armenians (who made up 39% of the population) and the Azerbaijanis (who comprised 57%). When the South Caucasus came under British occupation, Sir John Oliver Wardrop, British Chief Commissioner in the South Caucasus, decided that assigning the Erivan and Kars guberniyas to Democratic Republic of Armenia (DRA) and the Elisavetpol and Baku guberniyas to the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) would solve the region's outstanding disputes. However, this proposal was rejected by both Armenians (who did not wish to give up their claims to Kazakh, Zangezur (today Syunik), and Nagorno-Karabakh) and Azerbaijanis (who found it unacceptable to give up their claims to Nakhichevan). As conflict broke out between the two groups, the British left the region in mid-1919.

After the British left and more fighting between Armenians and Azeris ensued, Bolshevik forces gained control of the region and annexed it to the Soviet Union. During the process of Sovietization, the borders of the Transcaucasian republics were redrawn several times. By 1927, the territory of the former Kazakh uyezd was divided between the Armenian and Azerbaijani republics along ethnic and sectarian lines. The northern region, including the town of Qazakh itself was given to Azerbaijan while the southern portion, roughly corresponding to the present-day Armenian province Tavush was given to Armenia. Neither country has disputed this boundary since.

So we're basically just saying that after the Wardrop proposal fell through, the region became disputed and the Bolsheviks took over and divided it along ethnic and sectarian lines (part was given to Armenia, part was given to Azerbaijan). As you can see, the St. Petersburg source and the first Andersen source will be retained. The second Andersen and the Azerbaijan State Archive sources shall be removed and in their place will be New Political Boundaries in the Caucasus, W.E.D. Allen, The Geographical Journal. Sound good? All the best, Aivazovsky 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, this does not sound good as it contravenes presented evidence and maps -- the date 1927 is made-up, not a single source has come to show its true. Not a single one. So what is the supposed "compromise" when it's the same doze of unsubstantiated claims that have been around since August 2006? The status of Qazakh, like all of Caucasus, was turbulent in 1920-21, but much more stabilized after that. Before that, the ADR has clearly presented it on its maps (as was Naxcivan), and frankly, having majority of population Azerbaijani (like in Naxcivan), makes that credible, especially since Armenia has exhausted itself, and lost two wars to Turks in 1918 and 1920, and had Georgia occupy one of the regions (and deny transit of weapons and arms from Batumi port), and in general, ADR and Georgia had a military pact since 1919. Also, the history of Qazakh region does not start with British occupiers, and thus over-emphasizing what Sir Wardrop wanted, is not pragmatic. Perhaps we should then mention the telegram of PM of ADR, Khan Khoyski, in which he says that on May 28, 1918, ADR ceeded Erivan city to Armenia, and thus Armenia promised to not make any claims in the future. Also, history of Qazakh should probably start from its being part of a khanate, and not immediately from a Russian rule, and also specify since which year did it join the Russian empire. In addition, once more, Andersen is not credible -- he doesn't have any publications in English or Russian in major and reputable journals and magazine either in "native" Russia or in North America. Zero. But the problem is not just that -- it's that he doesn't cite any sources, which coupled with his weak credentials and the fact that his short writing is presented at amateur websites, makes for unscholarly, unacademic source. At the same time, he might be different on other subjects -- he might know better the historic facts of other regions, and comply with rudimentary academic standards -- i.e., cite sources, quote, etc., and hence be useful and trustworthy. But not on Qazakh. --AdilBaguirov 18:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The date 1927 is used because New Political Boundaries in the Caucasus, a reference you endorsed, was published in 1927 and by this time, the work claims that the division of the uyezd was made. This isn't an Andersen date, so calm down. -- Aivazovsky 18:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, I'm not sure why would you misinterpret my (and everyone's) endorsement of WED Allen's article and somehow twist it to make seem like your statement: "By 1927, the territory of the former Kazakh uyezd was divided between the Armenian and Azerbaijani republics along ethnic and sectarian lines" would be satisfactory and true. Your date of 1927 (first, your preferred date was 1931, as we all remember) is misinterpreted, since you've already been presented more than enough sources such as W.E.D. Allen's. He PUBLISHED his article in May 1927 in a prestigious journal, after familiarizing himself and properly citing all other relevant publications -- something Mr. Andersen has not done at all. Obviously years are needed, especially in turbulent 1920s, for all official publications to appear, and he is especially proud to note that he familiarized himself with the official Soviet maps of 1925 (and another official July 1923 map), based on which his map in the article is drawn, on Soviet Constitution, on the British official documents, etc. I.e., he is a historian who writes about the past, not a journalist who writes about the present. Reflecting in 1927 about events of 1920-21 is very appropriate, as enough materials appear. Thus make no mistake, W.E.D. Allen wrote primarily about 1920-21, the time when Soviets were actually drawing most of the borders, particularly Qazakhs. Here's EXACTLY what he wrote in the section "Boundaries of the Transcaucasian Republics":

"AZERBAIJAN S.S.R. (capital Baku) comprises the whole of the former Government of Baku and the former Government of Elisavetpol (Ganja), with the exception of the District of Zangezur, and part of that of Kazakh, and includes the Zakatali Circuit of the former Government of Tiflis." (p. 436)

"ARMENIA S.S.R. (capital Erivan) includes the former Government of Erivan, with the exception of the Districs of Surmali (Turkish) and of Nakhichevan. It includes also, from the former Government of Elisavetpol (Ganja), the District of Zangezur, and part of the District of Kazakh, formed by the Region of Delijan. The Lori Region, formerly part of the government of Tiflis, is also included in Armenia." (p. 437).

Obviously, there were no major border changes in 1927, and indeed, none since summer of 1921 -- so his "boundaries of the Transcaucasian Republics" is clearly reflecting that.

Also, he makes an important statement about March 1922 meeting of 3 republics and wanting to join USSR, a request which was approved on December 1922. He then reminds the important treaties of Moscow and Kars, both signed in 1921, and then writes: "The frontiers of the Federation with the Russian S.F.S.R. and with Turkey may be considered in conjunction with the specific boundaries of the different Republics". In other words, by March 1922, and indeed, by October 1921 (Kars Treaty), all 3 republics had stable borders and joined USSR with such stable borders, and had stable outside borders too. The first phase of Soviet border drawing ended in 1921.

Anyhow, calm down, you can cite Andersen elsewhere if you want, as long as his writings comply with elementary scholarly rules. As of your proposal on removal of history section, quite the contrary, it should be expanded. Here's the start: map from Great Soviet Encyclopedia, entitled "Struggle for Soviet power in Azerbaijan (October 1917-August 1918) [12] (where you can see Qazakh and how large the uezd was as opposed to the rayon, and Turkish army and Azerbaijani army marched through it in 1918), and from same source, "Azerbaijan and neighboring regions in the first half of 19th century", which shows that Qazakh was made part of Russian Empire in 1801, like Aghstafa region and Eastern Georgia. [13]. We can then cite Movses Dasxuranci (Moisey Kalankatuyski) and even Movses Khorenatsi about borders of Caucasian Albania extending to the Khnarakert castle. But far more pressing is fixing the unfortunate mistakes and misrepresentations in this article that have gone unfixed since August 2006 despite repeated friendly appeals to fix it. --AdilBaguirov 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My 2¢

Aivazovsky asked me to have a look at this, so here goes. The dispute is regarding Andersen, right? What we can do is still include him, but also include a source with an opposing POV, and state the two viewpoints, both Armenian and Azeri. Another option is to only include Armenian and Azeri sources, showing what both sides think. Khoikhoi 08:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've thought of this too, and would gladly agree had there really been any scholarly or factual disagreement. However, the issue is made-up, and Aivazovsky does not have any sources that really contradict the above cited sources -- pretty much all his maps are showing the turbulent borders of 1920-21 and not 1927 or 1931. But there is not a single source that mentions any other later dates except for Andersen, and frankly, why include his uncited POV from an amateur website -- this opens a dangerous precedent for all other articles, when any unverified info from any free website can be then used as a "source". Andersen is contravened by too authoritative and too scholarly of sources, like W.E.D. Allen and bunch of maps, as well as plenty of other indirect and direct evidence. In addition, Aivazovsky has not been very honest in his presentation, as he has been stalling the process since August 2006, has misrepresented several maps, and has insisted, since August 2006, on another made-up date of 1931 and dropped that claim only this week. I'm sorry to be this frank and blunt, but while it is OK to disagree and to have different interpretations of events and facts, it is not OK to engage in various misrepresentations, like described above, and be rewarded with having POV remain in the article (in addition to having broken the 3RR rule and not facing any consequences). --AdilBaguirov 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Andersen does appear to be a recognized historian, right? I don't think that the quality of his website should have to affect his credibility. The fact of the matter is, he appears to meet WP:V, and I think it's fine to include his view, in addition to that of someone else. If you disagree, what do you think about my idea of only having Azeri and Armenian sources? It's not our job as Wikipedians to show the "truth", but simply state how it is from different perspectives. Also keep in mind that interpretation of primary sources (in this case the maps) is considered original research. Finally, let's try to avoid discussing other editors. Comment only on content. Thanks, Khoikhoi 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

the maps were brought in and interpreted by Aivazovsky first -- it is clear from the Talk page, as he was first to bring in 4 maps. Andersen doesn't appear to be a recognized historian -- neither can we find a single publication of his in either English or Russian, nor has any publication (except Wiki) cited him at all. That means he is unrecognized, and unverifyable. --AdilBaguirov 02:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Andersen

I personally don’t think that Andersen can be used as a source for this or any other article in Wikipedia. According to the rules:

Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. [14]

I don’t think that whatever information Andersen placed on his personal website has previously been published by any reputable publisher. Therefore, Andersen cannot be accepted as a source. Grandmaster 07:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I second Grandmaster opinion. I checked Calgary University. His credibility for the purposes in this page is under question.--Dacy69 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, before we come to any kind of compromise, first things that should be set straight are:

the lack of proof that person with identity "Andrew Andersen, PhD" exists;

the lack of any scholarly reference to "Andrew Andersen, PhD" in a scholarly paper published at a relevant conference or journal;

the lack of proof that "Andrew Andersen, PhD" is a scholar or really holds a PhD from an accreditted university;

lack of proof that "Andrew Andersen, PhD" is professor or a research associate at any accreditted university or research institution in Canada, the United States or any other country;

lack of credible references to any material that "Andrew Andersen, PhD" publishes in "his" blog

Until you're able to prove otherwise, on the above mentioned counts, I will inquire with administrators to review the relevance of "Andrew Andersen, PhD" works in any of the pages, where those are published. Thanks. Atabek 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you guys have totally ignored Kober's testimony to his credibility as well as this link that I already posted here twice: [15] -- Aivazovsky 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Kober, he provided articles which I have already provided on other sites as well, that substantiate Georgian claims to Lori district. I will be more than glad to provide more supporting references from the work of Dr. Firuz Kazemzadeh (Professor Emeritus of History from Yale), who has whole section devoted to Armeno-Georgian war and futile attempts of Dashnaktsutiun to lay territorial claims on its northern neighbor.

With all said, the articles given by Kober do not yet establish ground for considering Andersen as a scholar, nor proving Andersen's existence or credibility as such or his claims about Qazakh. Aivazovsky, it seems that you're well familiar with the academia in the U.S., and figuring out what it means to be a scholar/scientist/expert in a certain field should not be difficult for you. The scholar usually is associated with certain accreditted institution, has published works at major conferences and journals on the subject, participates in and regularly organizes seminars, has patents or any kind of independently cited work of scholarship. None of that is Andersen. He is just a blogger with skills in Photoshop and God even knows what is his real name. Completely unfit for NPOV in Wiki. Atabek 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, Andersen is his real name and he is credible. You seem to have again totally disregarded the biography link I provided (I've posted it on this talk page about three times). -- Aivazovsky 03:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He is real. It is true. But his work without any reference. He is not encyclopedia or database university. Individual work should be properly referenced to be credible. And I doubt that he is still affiliated with the Calgary University. I am here in Canada and checked with people there. Tomorrow I will get final answer whether he is still there or freelance writer who makes his research without credible references. And you - Clevelander-Aivozovsky, due to long experience in Wiki, perfectly know what good reserch must be. --Dacy69 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are missing the point. The info that Andersen placed on his website needs to be previously published by some reputable publisher. Where else has the info from his website been published? Until we clear that up we cannot use Andersen. Grandmaster 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but Andersen's info on Qazakh contradicts all maps, archives and articles on the issue, or could have simply been mistranslated or misused by the website admin. Anyhow, Andersen's info is POV and does not qualify to be cited here. --AdilBaguirov 07:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Andersen is not affiliated with Calgary University. That is info from the University. I got it today. Anyone can check. Nevertheless, here it is no so important. The main problem with his work that he does not cite his sources, his map is wrong, and info, as well.--Dacy69 17:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, I looked at the website that you provided, which comes from archiving service and yet to be proven that the archived page belonged to university. Moreover, if you have familiarized yourself with works of Andersen and use them as scholarly reference in discussion, please, provide us not with his bio but with his curriculum vitae, consisting of list of publications at conferences or in journals, his books. Also, please, quote the particular source/article/book/page number of Andersen's work, where you have obtained the indicated map as well as the opinion that Kazakh was controlled by Armenia until 1931. Since you quickly replaced your quote to 1927 recently, I also want you to provide precise quotes saying it was between 1923 and 1927 that Armenia controlled Kazakh town and rayon of modern Azerbaijan. If you're, however, unable to provide such references, we should request the attention of administrators to have independent investigation and lift the block and remove the POV from this particular Wiki page. Atabek 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Azeri friends. You know very well how respectful and admirer I am of your great nation, culture and country (same goes for Armenians). And I always avoid any involvement in your endless arguments with each other, because I really despise the Armeno-Azeri conflict (senseless, idiotic and tragic). You all are distinguished Wkipedia editors (Grandmaster and Aviazovski, sorry I don’t know the other users) and I just wanted to make my own input on this issue. Dr Andersens work is well known in the field of Caucasian studies. He has brilliant and accurate collection of historic maps and published couple of scholarly articles about the ethno-conflicts in Caucasus (particularly in Georgia). He has a good respect and reputation among the academia here in Canada. Lets not bother Dr Andersens work and his scholarly background. Let us agree that we will avoid any claims that some territory in Azerbaijan belonged to Armenia in 1931 and so forth. It will cause more conflict, dispute and our mutual work will suffer. For example, Georgia related articles are under attack from the Russian users who have their own nationalist agenda when it comes to Abkhazia or South Ossetia. This only downgrades their efforts and integrity of their intentions. Lets not make the same mistakes here. In my opinion, besides Dr Andersen, we should look also for other sources (supportive or objectionable to the claim). However, I do believe that we would avoid such statements of which territory belong to which nation. It’s senseless, useless and backward. With great respect and love for Azerbaijan and Armenia. Ldingley 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ldingley, thanks for insightful comments. I agree with you that it's sad to see Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict escalate into Wikipedia. But it's also natural, if two nations are unable to come to terms on the ground, they most definitely won't come to terms on such touchy subject as history, interpretation of which by Armenian side became the basis for the flaring of conflict. It's Armenians who lay claims on neighboring countries, including Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan, based on fragmented and often forged historical references. The result is the disastrous conflict that we have today all over the Armenian borders.

But my view of the problem is not to attack Andrew Andersen's personality. I rather want to get at least a single reference to his work of scholarship, which I did not see so far. All we see is some published maps online and a blog, which is far from being a scholarly source. If Andersen claimed Qazakh uyezd of Elizavetpol gubernia belonged in its entirety to Armenia until 1931 (something alleged by Aivazovsky), based on real historical evidence or reference to other works on history of the region, I will gladly agree to leave the reference to him. But pending the fact that such evidence is provided, the citing of Andersen on this or any other page seems nothing other than POV, which actually fuels the conflicts rather than settling them. Thanks and kind regards. Atabek 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Armenia doesn't lay claims to any parts of Georgia or Turkey. They continue to recognize the Kars Treaty and have not put its status into question. It's the ARF that claims territory from these nations, not the Republic of Armenia. See here. RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian even stated that "Armenia has never made a problem of validity of the Treaty of Kars, as Armenia remains loyal to all agreements inherited from the Soviet Union". Let's clear this up now.

Furthermore what "forged historical references" are you talking about? Do you deny that an Armenia nation consisting of territorites now located in other countries never existed? If anything, I think that the Azerbaijani side is the one who has "forged historical references". Azerbaijani nationalists rewrite history so they can show that Lake Sevan, Syunik, Vayots Dzor, and even the holy Armenian city of Echmiadzin were "Azeri territories." -- Aivazovsky 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, please, do not break my postings and insert yours in between, this really confuses the order of the threads. If you have a comment, post it after completion of my whole comment. Now the territorial claims do come from mainstream Armenian society, whether or not Armenian state is capable of backing them up or not. And I am sure, you agree, that if Armenian state will be capable to stand behind those claims, it will do so without any second thought. To freshen you up with some information, the Armenian parliament (the main decision authority on the issue) up to date did not announce its recognition of the Kars treaty. Considering that the parliament's vice speaker is ARF member Hovhannissian, who said an interview to Radio Free Europe once, quote: "We killed 25,000 Azeris in Karabakh, I am proud of that".

Claims to Georgia are formulated in current Armenian autonomy demands (they were starting this way in Karabakh too) in Georgia's Javakheti district. So, the aggressive nature of Armenian state at different stages of its development is not only due to ARF. The obsessive idea of greater Armenia from Cilicia to Caspian, and from Black Sea to Middle of Iran has existed for ages before. ARF was just a failed executor of it in 20th century. And indeed, what's now the territory of the Republic of Armenia (i.e. Erivan Khanate, and later gubernia) was settled by 80% of Azerbaijanis at the end of 19th century. If you have doubts about that, you should check your own Armenian scholar George Bournoutian. I can bring you the exact quote if you so wish.

I have a deep respect to many moderate Armenians, who consider ARF as a major party responsible for making Armenians a pariah to all their neighbors, launching failed wars on Azerbaijan, Turkey and Georgia in 1918 - 1921. It's really sad that Armenian nation is victimized by a bunch of demagogues who care very little for welfare of their own ordinary people, and do not realize that sooner or later Armenians will have to live in peace with all their neighbors.

Now, we should concentrate on Andersen, I am still awaiting your response on his scholarly work. So please, do not interfere with these irrelevant topics. If you're interested, discuss them in private. Thanks. Atabek 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all I strongly suspect that Andrew Andersen is not the person's birth name, see his bio here: Andrew Andersen was born in the USSR and grew up in Siberia and Latvia. He received his Master's degree from Moscow State University in 1980 where he later taught. I am quite sure there was no "Andrew Anderson" among professors in Moscow State University.

Second, the bio says "Andersen has written a number of books", but I failed to find any. The conflicts.rem33.com website doesn't mention any either.

There was a fuss in UVic about accusations of prof Andersen in racism and having been fired on these grounds in 2003, which contradicts to the opinion of user:Ldingley about his reputation. In any case, I would expect user:Ldingley to provide some solid proof of his opinion, if he wants it to be taken seriously.

Third, as I see the website www.conflicts.rem33.com is quite notable of not providing any references where data for all these maps came from. I am strongly inclined to move for removal of all his maps from wikipedia as unreliable. `'mikka 23:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Page blocking

Aivazosky, it's clear that you have failed to provide references either in support of credibility of Andrew Andersen, or in support of the argument that Kazakh uyezd was "administered by Armenia till 1931" (as your initial edit claimed) or till 1927 as you claim now yet again without references. Pending these explanations, the page will need to be unblocked, and I will request third party arbitration on this page if necessary. Atabek 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Before unblocking the page, I would like to hear the intentions about any significand edits of the page, so that the revert war will not be started again. `'mikka 23:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mikkalai, thank you for your input on credibility of Andrew Andersen, "PhD". The problem is that the map attributed to this blogger, is also posted as a scholarly reference at Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page. So speedy resolution of the question with the credibility of this "scholar" could also help to correct the situtation on other pages. I would even suggest removing the map altogether from Wiki, as it seems to violate Wikipedia:No original research and possibly copyright rules.

Regarding this page, now I don't think it should be unblocked until the dispute is settled at [[16]], where User:Aivazovsky is referencing this talk page to further attack otherwise valuable contributions (as seen above) of User:AdilBaguirov. We would like a fair arbitration, based on the condition that this page is currently in. Thanks. Atabek 00:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Some more info about Qazax

http://www.turan.info/forum/archive/index.php/index.php?t-301.html (Russian) , forum, with extensive quotations. `'mikka 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Andersen POV

I would like to thank User:Mikkalai for the reference to UVic stories about Andersen. Here is an interesting quotes at [[17]]:

For those who don’t remember, Dr. Andrew Andersen, a sessional professor of political science at the University of Victoria, was accused of racism and prejudice against minorities, Muslims in particular in May 2003. In response I organized a letter writing campaign and petition in support of him. Despite this, Andersen's contract was not renewed and he is currently involved in research related to his discipline. The investigation into these allegations is still pending.

Sufficient to say that "Dr." Andersen, a sessional professor, is not only a POV, but is also dismissed for racism against Muslims. So it's difficult to imagine how his made-up maps or quotes could reflect the reality with fairness to Muslim people of Caucasus. Atabek 01:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think by now it has been established very clearly that Andersen's POV is inadmissible, and that user Aivazovsky had been incorrect on several counts, making many mistakes that were already outlined above, doing Original Research with maps, etc., etc. The page should be unprotected, and the corrections should be made to it -- there has been exhaustive evidence presented to clearly show without a doubt that Qazakh was part of Azerbaijan before Sovietization, and was clearly part of Azerbaijan by end of 1921. --AdilBaguirov 04:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you connect "but is also dismissed for racism against Muslims" to "The investigation into these allegations is still pending"? These allegations could be hogwash and the type of teaching position he holds is completely irrelevant to his credibility.--MarshallBagramyan 02:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise?

Under the Russian Empire, the rayon was a north-eastern part of the Kazakh uyezd of the Elisavetpol guberniya. With the fall of the Russian Empire, dispute over the region arose between the Armenians (who made up 39% of the population) and the Azerbaijanis (who comprised 57%). [18] When the South Caucasus came under British occupation, Sir John Oliver Wardrop, British Chief Commissioner in the South Caucasus, decided that assigning the Erivan and Kars guberniyas to Democratic Republic of Armenia (DRA) and the Elisavetpol and Baku guberniyas to the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) would solve the region's outstanding disputes. However, this proposal was rejected by both Armenians (who did not wish to give up their claims to Kazakh, Zangezur (today Syunik), and Nagorno-Karabakh) and Azerbaijanis (who found it unacceptable to give up their claims to Nakhichevan). As conflict broke out between the two groups, the British left the region in mid-1919.
After the British left and more fighting between Armenians and Azeris ensued, Bolshevik forces gained control of the region and annexed it to Bolshevist Russia. During the process of Sovietization, the borders of the Transcaucasian republics were redrawn several times. By 1927, the territory of the former Kazakh uyezd was divided between the Armenian and Azerbaijani republics along ethnic and sectarian lines.^[1] The northern region, including the town of Qazakh itself was given to Azerbaijan while the southern portion, roughly corresponding to the present-day Armenian province Tavush was given to Armenia. During the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenia gained control/occupied Yukhari Askipara and Barkhudarli, the two exclaves of Qazakh. Besides this, neither country has disputed the boundary since.

^ W.E.D. Allen (published 1927). New Political Boundaries in the Caucasus. The Geographical Journal.

Khoikhoi 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. -- Aivazovsky 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement doesn't reflect the historical facts and the dates, such as 1927, are arbitrary and from nowhere. WED Allen's article is quite good and makes it clear that Azerbaijan SSR included part of the Kazakh uezd. Also, other maps and historical accounts make clear that Dashnak Armenia was invaded by Bolsheviks from Kazakh, thus making it clear that it was not Armenian or part of Armenia. Also, undue weight it given to British, who were masters in the region for less than a year.

As such, the statement: "By 1927, the territory of the former Kazakh uyezd was divided between the Armenian and Azerbaijani republics along ethnic and sectarian lines" is not satisfactory and not based on facts. WED Allen published his article in May 1927 in a prestigious journal, after familiarizing himself and properly citing all other relevant publications -- something Mr. Andersen, for example, has not done at all. Obviously years are needed, especially in turbulent 1920s, for all official publications to appear, and he is especially proud to note that he familiarized himself with the official Soviet maps of 1925 (and another official July 1923 map), based on which his map in the article is drawn, on Soviet Constitution, on the British official documents, etc. I.e., he is a historian who writes about the past, not a journalist who writes about the present. Reflecting in 1927 about events of 1920-21 is very appropriate, as enough materials appear. Thus make no mistake, W.E.D. Allen wrote primarily about 1920-21, the time when Soviets were actually drawing most of the borders, particularly Qazakhs. Here's EXACTLY what he wrote in the section "Boundaries of the Transcaucasian Republics":

"AZERBAIJAN S.S.R. (capital Baku) comprises the whole of the former Government of Baku and the former Government of Elisavetpol (Ganja), with the exception of the District of Zangezur, and part of that of Kazakh, and includes the Zakatali Circuit of the former Government of Tiflis." (p. 436)

"ARMENIA S.S.R. (capital Erivan) includes the former Government of Erivan, with the exception of the Districs of Surmali (Turkish) and of Nakhichevan. It includes also, from the former Government of Elisavetpol (Ganja), the District of Zangezur, and part of the District of Kazakh, formed by the Region of Delijan. The Lori Region, formerly part of the government of Tiflis, is also included in Armenia." (p. 437).

Obviously, there were no major border changes in 1927, and indeed, none since summer of 1921 -- so his "boundaries of the Transcaucasian Republics" is clearly reflecting that.

The historical background of the article should be expanded, including perhaps map from Great Soviet Encyclopedia, entitled "Struggle for Soviet power in Azerbaijan (October 1917-August 1918) [19] (where you can see Qazakh and how large the uezd was as opposed to the rayon, and Turkish army and Azerbaijani army marched through it in 1918), and from same source, "Azerbaijan and neighboring regions in the first half of 19th century", which shows that Qazakh was made part of Russian Empire in 1801, like Aghstafa region and Eastern Georgia. [20]. We can then cite Movses Dasxuranci (Moisey Kalankatuyski) and even Movses Khorenatsi about borders of Caucasian Albania extending to the Khnarakert castle. Anyhow, Qazakh town and region was part of ADR and was part of Azerbaijan SSR, with only time to be in a limbo or occupied from around April 1920 (fall of ADR) to 1921. That's it. In other periods this region was part of Azerbaijan, legally and physically. --AdilBaguirov 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Friends, on both sides of the fence, I have been trying to follow these disputed pages for some time. I do not expect you solve any of them at all. But, still I have difficulty understanding why both sides talk back and forth on a couple of sources. Both sides have native Russian, and there should be thousands of documents in the Russian archives waiting serious research. How do you imagine you can bypass WP:V by a handful of secondary sources on such historically "life and death" topics. Exceptional issues require exceptional sources. So, you need to turn Soviet archives upside down, before making any meaningfull progress. Regards. cs 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What you describe is ideal, and hopefully it would be possible in the future. For the time being, however, it's best to rely on serious scholars, such as WED Allen, as opposed to some unknown sources like Andersen, and misquoting even maps (nevermind that its OR). --AdilBaguirov 23:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil is indeed right, after reviewing the W.E.D. Allen article myself, I noticed that indeed he makes no mention of division being made by 1927, it's only the article that was published in 1927. This was actually an invention of User:Aivazovsky presented on this talk page earlier. I apologize for my previous oversight, but I do not agree on that count. For compromise, I would like User:Aivazovsky to substantiate with evidence that Qazakh was divided by 1927. Thanks. Atabek 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the article was published in 1927 and that it is the earliest known source to explain these new borders the phrase "by 1927" would be appropriate because we know that by that year, the new boundaries were determined. Nobody knows exactly in what year these boundaries were drawn up, but we can ascertain by what year they were set, which was 1927.

If you're still uneasy about this, we can say "during the 1920s" or even better "during Sovietization" rather than mentioning a specific year. -- Aivazovsky 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, saying that "nobody knows exactly in what year" is an overstatement -- WED Allen makes clear the borders of both Armenian SSR and Azerbaijani SSR. Since both were firmly part of USSR by January 1, 1921, and since the Moscow Treaty and Kars Treaty were concluded on March 1921 and October 1921 respectively, and NK was decided upon by July 1921, we can firmly state that 1921 was a year when most borderland questions were settled. Hence, both 1927 and 1920s would be misleading -- the city of Qazakh, and the Qazakh region were part of Caucasian Albania, and have joined Russian Empire as Muslim lands in 1801, then formed part of ADR, and after some changes in favor of Armenia in 1920-21, once again became part of Azerbaijan. Likewise, Ijevan and the western portion of the Qazakh uezd was part of Armenian SSR. --AdilBaguirov 23:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

::::A rather naive suggestion, from this humble obverver, could be focusing on what you can settle at an abstract level. Scholars like Suny, Swietochowski (and many more with solid credentials) have studies you can rely on at some level. Overlooking disputed details, even if some controversial works exist on them, could be a way out until further solid studies show up. I am sure both sides could find some studies by phds of controversial nature to bolster their side, but historical justice wont be served by citations of fringe scholars. "Freezing" the disputed details could be a way out. Soviet Union had done that for many decades :)cs 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

While I am preparing a compromise version of the article, here's some more from Armenian and other sources to remember, which proves once again that Qazakh town and region (eastern half of the former Qazakh uezd) was firmly part of Azerbaijan from 1918 until March/April 1920, and then again from middle of 1921 on.

As of mid-1918, even Armenian sources acknowledge that the whole territory of DDR was only consisting of Erivan guberniya: "от 4 июня 1918 г. территория Армении составляла всего 12 тыс. кв. км.... В таких условиях Армения была отрезана от Карабаха и не могла оказать ему действенную помошь." (English translation: "from 4 June 1918, territory of Armenia totaled only 12 thousand square kilometers... In such conditions, Armenia was cut off from Karabakh and could not provide it with tangible assistance." (Suren Zolyan, "Nagorno-Karabakh: Problem and Conflict." // "Chapter 2. Nagorno-Karabakh in years 1918-1920." Yerevan: Lingva, 2001, http://www.armenianhouse.org/zolyan/nf-ru/karabakh/2.html )

In fact, here's from an Armenian website that makes clear that there was no question of the entire former Kazakh uezd, but only part of it, that is today part of Armenia: "после чего 2 декабря полномочным представителем РСФСР в Армении т. Леграном было подписано соглашение с представителями дашнакской Армении об объявлении Армении независимой Социалистической Советской Республикой. По этому соглашению до созыва Съезда Советов Армении образуется временный Военно-революционный комитет, к которому переходит вся власть в Армении. Определяется территория ССРА: Эриванская губерния, часть Карсской области, Зангезурский уезд, часть Казахского уезда и те части Тифлисской губернии, которые находились в обладании Армении до 28 сентября 1920 г." [21]

Translation into English: "after which on 2 December [1920] by the plenipotentiary representative of RSFSR [Soviet Russia] in Armenia, comrade Legran there was an agreement signed with the representaive of Dashnak Armenia about announcing Armenia as the independent Soviet Socialist Republic [SSRA]. According to this agreement, until the call up of the Assembly of Soviet [Parliament] of Armenia, a temporary Military-revolutionary committee is formed, to which the entire power in Armenia is being passed. The territory of SSRA is being defined: Erivan guberniya, part of Kars oblast, Zangezur uezd, part of Kazakh uezd and those part of Tiflis guberniya, which were in possession of Armenia before 28 September 1920." [22]

So as you see, it clearly mentions "part of Kazakh uezd", that is the western half of the former Kazakh uezd. Also, see the map from J.H.M. Cornwall. "The Russo-Turkish Boundary and the Territory of Nakhchivan",The Geographical Journal, Vol. 61, No. 6. (Jun., 1923), pp. 446, which also shows Qazakh as part of Azerbaijan. --AdilBaguirov 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise version:

According to medieval chroniclers (e.g., Movses Khorenatsi, Moisey Kalankatuyski), 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 north-eastern 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 [23], 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 and Kars guberniyas as part of Democratic Republic of Armenia (DRA) and the Elisavetpol and Baku guberniyas as part of 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 left and more fighting between Armenians and Azerbaijanis ensued, Bolshevik Soviet forces occupied Azerbaijan in April 1920 and Armenia in November 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.^[1] 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. 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.

^ W.E.D. Allen (published June 1927). New Political Boundaries in the Caucasus. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 69, No. 6.

--AdilBaguirov 02:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree to this compromise version, as it best reflects the scholarly sources. Thanks.Atabek 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Adil presented good sources. I second his proposal. We can work on his version and I'd prefer to take it as a basis.--Dacy69 02:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't accept Adil's "compromise version". It's too biased towards the Azerbaijani point of view. His version does not reflect "scholarly sources" for one simple reason: there are very few references in his proposal. Furthermore the line "became part of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR)" is unverified and probably cannot be backed up by any non-Azerbaijani source. Another line: "According to medieval chroniclers (e.g., Movses Khorenatsi, Moisey Kalankatuyski), in ancient and medieval times, the region was part of Caucasian Albania" will likely cause a major Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute (similar to what took place on the Paytakaran article). I suspect that he planted that line in there for this purpose.

The irony of this whole situation is that we were so close to coming to an administrator-mediated compromise, agreeable to both sides, but then Adil entered the picture and now this dispute will probably never be resolved. -- Aivazovsky 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the Compromise version, but I also think that leaving out the phrase "became part of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR)" does nothing to hurt the article, as the following paragraphs make the dispute and final decision clear. --Bejnar 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried hard to make my version unbiased and NPOV, but user Aivazovsky seems to be interested only in what he has been doing best since August 2006 -- stalling and stonewalling the process! He has taken us all hostage since last August, where even on this small article, he has been constantly stonewalling and damaging the process of presenting a normal, NPOV version of the article, that has been for far too long filled with ridiculous, indeed, outrageous errors and Armenian POV. Enough is enough, have the decency to stop these tricks, they are counterproductive and will not result in me "forgetting" about this page and just going away.

Now, let's review the so-called "problem" that Aivazovsky claims are with the compromise version: 1) the reference to Movses Khorenatsi and Moisey Kalankatuyski, the two medieval chroniclers, Armenian and Caucasian Albanian respectively, who testify that Qazakh region was part of Caucasian Albania.

2) and the statement that Qazakh became part of ADR in 1918, and remained part of Azerbaijan SSR (way before 1931, or 1927, or any other made-up dates of Aivazovsky's mind)

OK, let's tackle both of those made-up "problems" one-by-one (although it has been done already before, most of the evidence will not be new, all "thanks" to Aivazovsky's "strategy" to just ignoring facts and pretending he doesn't see them -- just like he didn't see the made-up 1931 date and many other things already discussed at length above).

Point (1) Moses Khorenatsi, who wrote about the borders of ancient Albania: [first Albanian ruler, Arran] "inherited the Albanian plain with its looking towards mountains side, beginning from the river of Yeraskh [Araxes] till the fortress called Khnarakert..." Here's the fuller excerpt from Book 2, Chapter 8 of Movses Khorenatsi, "History of Armenia", translation from ancient Armenian by G.Sarkisyan, Hayastan Publishing House: Yerevan, 1990, in Russian [24]: "Вслед за тем он учреждает наместничество в великом и, славном, многолюдном северо-восточном крае, вдоль большой реки по названию Кур 47, что прорезает обширную равнину, (назначив) Арана 48, мужа именитого, первого во всех делах мудрости и разума. Узнай, однако, и о людях Сисака,— ибо это великое и именитое племя мы забыли упомянуть в Первой книге,— которые унаследовали Алванскую равнину, включая ее обращенную к горам сторону, от реки Ерасх до крепости, называемой Хнаракерт 49; страна же получила название Алвании из-за его кроткого нрава, ибо его называли «алу» 50. И вот, один из его потомков, упомянутый именитый и доблестный Драя, и был назначен парфянином Валаршаком наместником-десятитысячником. Говорят, что племя утийцев и княжества гардманцев, цавдейцев и гаргарцев происходят от его отпрысков 51."

An additional confirmation of Khnarakert as the border castle can be found in later Armenian historian's as well, such as Hovaness Draskhanakertci's "History of Armenia", Chapter XXXI [25]. Same proof is available in Book I, Chapter IV of Moisey Kalankatuyski's "History of Caucasian Albanians" (published in Yerevan, 1984, translation into Russian by Sh.V.Smbatyan) [26]: “Здесь начинается [история] княжества страны Алуанк. От начала сотворения человеческого рода до царя армянского Валаршака о проживающих близ высоких гор Кавказа мы не можем ничего достоверного рассказать слушателям. При установлении порядка у жителей северных он созвал [представителей] пришлых диких племен, живущих в северной равнине и у подножия Кавказских гор, в долинах и ущельях к югу, до того места, где начинается равнина, и приказал им прекратить разбой и вероломство, платить покорно царские подати. Затем [царь] назначил им вождей и правителей, во главе которых по приказу Валаршака был поставлен некто из рода Сисака, одного из потомков Иафета, по имени Аран, который унаследовал долины и горы страны Алуанк, от реки Ерасх до крепости hЫнаракерт [ÐÝ³ñ³Ï»ñï]. Из-за его [Арана] мягкого нрава страна эта была названа Алуанк, ибо из-за мягкого нрава звали его Алу. Многие храбрые и знатные из потомков этого Арана, говорят, были назначены Валаршаком Партевом наместниками и тысячниками. От его [Арана] сына, произошли племена [½³·ë] Утийского, Гардманского, Цавдейского, Гаргарского княжеств. До сих пор указание о родословной."

So, then where is this Khnarakert castle? The answer we can find, for example, in Anania Shirakatsi's "Ashkharatsuyts" (Armenian Geography) or in the abovementioned Hovaness Draskhanakertci's "History of Armenia" book published in Armenia (and residing on Armenian server): [27]

"Хунаракерт (а также Хнаракерт) — древняя крепость и город с епископской резиденцией, расположенный там, где смыкаются границы Армении, Алванка и Грузии, недалеко от устья р. Храм, близ современной Кызкала. (Армения по «Ашхарацуйц»-у, с. 63; Крепости Армении, с. 485—486)."

Translation: "Khunarakert (also Khnarakert) -- ancient castle and city with episcopal residency, located there, where borders of Armenia, Albania and Georgia come together, not far from the mouth of Khram river, near modern Qizqala (Armenia according to "Ashkharatsuyts", p. 63; Castles of Armenia, pp. 485-486)".

OK, then where is this Qizqala village? It is the modern village Akhchkaberd of the former Ijevan rayon of Armenia (currently Tavush marz, near the mouth of the Akstafa river. That is Armenians changed the Azerbaijani name of Qizqala to Akhchkaberd.

For proof about geography (to save you time from looking on the maps, hoping to prove me wrong at least once), again from Hovaness Draskhanakertci's book published in Armenia (and residing on Armenian server):

[28] "140. Кайеан (также Кайан, Кайен) — крепость, была построена в начале Х в. Впервые в армянской книжности была упомянута в Истории Иов. Драсх. Как полагает Р. Матевосян, крепость Кайеан можно отождествить с Ахчкабердом (Кызкала) в совр. Иджеван,ском р-не Арм. ССР, которая занимала стратегически очень выгодное положение на одном из ответвлений хребта Ховк и доминировала над долиной р. Акстев. (См.: Матевосян. Р. Ташир-Дзорагет (X—начало XII вв.). Ер., 1982, с. 21—38, на арм. яз.)."

Translating the applicable part: "Akhchkaberd (Qizqala) in modern Ijevan rayon of Armenian SSR, which occupied a very advantageous location from the strategic point of view, on one of the branches of the Khovk ridge and dominated over the valley of the river Akstev [Armenian for Akstafa].

Hence, we prove that all medieval chroniclers unanimously agreed that Khnarakert was part of Caucasian Albania, and that Khnarakert actually is located not only in the former Kazakh uezd, but in Ijevan/Tavush region of Armenia -- that is not only all of the modern Qazakh rayon/region was part of Caucasian Albania, but in fact most of the former Qazakh uezd was.

Now let's move on to Point (2). How can one object to Qazakh being part of ADR, when:

a) As of mid-1918, even Armenian sources acknowledge that the whole territory of DDR was only consisting of Erivan guberniya, per the June 4, 1918 Treaty with Turkey: "от 4 июня 1918 г. территория Армении составляла всего 12 тыс. кв. км.... В таких условиях Армения была отрезана от Карабаха и не могла оказать ему действенную помошь." (English translation: "from 4 June 1918, territory of Armenia totaled only 12 thousand square kilometers... In such conditions, Armenia was cut off from Karabakh and could not provide it with tangible assistance." (Suren Zolyan, "Nagorno-Karabakh: Problem and Conflict." // "Chapter 2. Nagorno-Karabakh in years 1918-1920." Yerevan: Lingva, 2001, http://www.armenianhouse.org/zolyan/nf-ru/karabakh/2.html )

b) In fact, here's from an Armenian website that makes clear that there was no question of the entire former Kazakh uezd, but only part of it, that is today part of Armenia: "после чего 2 декабря полномочным представителем РСФСР в Армении т. Леграном было подписано соглашение с представителями дашнакской Армении об объявлении Армении независимой Социалистической Советской Республикой. По этому соглашению до созыва Съезда Советов Армении образуется временный Военно-революционный комитет, к которому переходит вся власть в Армении. Определяется территория ССРА: Эриванская губерния, часть Карсской области, Зангезурский уезд, часть Казахского уезда и те части Тифлисской губернии, которые находились в обладании Армении до 28 сентября 1920 г." [29] Translation into English: "after which on 2 December [1920] by the plenipotentiary representative of RSFSR [Soviet Russia] in Armenia, comrade Legran there was an agreement signed with the representaive of Dashnak Armenia about announcing Armenia as the independent Soviet Socialist Republic [SSRA]. According to this agreement, until the call up of the Assembly of Soviet [Parliament] of Armenia, a temporary Military-revolutionary committee is formed, to which the entire power in Armenia is being passed. The territory of SSRA is being defined: Erivan guberniya, part of Kars oblast, Zangezur uezd, part of Kazakh uezd and those part of Tiflis guberniya, which were in possession of Armenia before 28 September 1920." [30]

c) So as you see, it clearly mentions "part of Kazakh uezd", that is the western half of the former Kazakh uezd. Also, see the map from J.H.M. Cornwall. "The Russo-Turkish Boundary and the Territory of Nakhchivan",The Geographical Journal, Vol. 61, No. 6. (Jun., 1923), pp. 446, which also shows Qazakh as part of Azerbaijan.

d) Here's another quote from yet another Armenian source, the Armenica encyclopedia: [31], Chapter: ОКТЯБРЬСКАЯ РЕВОЛЮЦИЯ И УСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ СОВЕТСКОЙ ВЛАСТИ В АРМЕНИИ

"Еще в июне 1920 г. завершилось организационное оформление Коммунистической партии Армении, которая возглавила революционные выступления трудящихся против правительства дашнаков. В сентябре 1920 г. Кавказское бюро ЦК РКП (б) утвердило состав Центрального Комитета Коммунистической партии Армении. В середине ноября 1920 г. в Баку был образован Военно-Революционный комитет Армении—Саркис Касьян (председатель), Аскаяаз Мравян, Саак Тер-Габриелян, Александр Бекзадян и др. В конце ноября Военно-Революционный Комитет Армении перебрался в Казах—на границу с Арменией. Здесь же находился Армянский полк, который был сформирован из повстанцев, отступивших на территорию Советского Азербайджана после поражения Майского восстания. Ранним утром 29 ноября 1920 г. Революционный Комитет Армении вместе с армянским повстанческим отрядом пересек границу и вступил в Иджеван. Пограничные части дашнакской армии не только не оказали сопротивления, но и перешли на сторону революционных сил. Трудящиеся Иджеванского района восторженно встретили повстанцев, в Иджеване была установлена Советская власть. В тот же день Революционный Комитет Армении опубликовал в Иджеване свою декларацию о провозглашении Армении Советской Социалистической Республикой.

Translation of bold parts, my CAPS: "In the middle of November 1920, in Baku, the Military-Revolutionary Committee of Armenia was established -- Sarkis KAsyan (chairman), Askayaz Mravyan, Saak Ter-Gabriyelyan, Alexander Bekzadyan, and others. In the end of November, the Military-Revolutionary Committee of Armenia relocated to Qazakh - ON THE BORDER WITH Armenia. Here the Armenian regiment, which was formed from insurgents, who RETREATED TO THE TERRITORY OF Soviet Azerbaijan after the defeat of May insurgency, was located. Early in the morning of 29 November 1920, the Revolutionary Committee of Armenia together with Armenian insurgents force CROSSED THE BORDER and came into Ijevan. BORDER troops of Dashnak army not only didn't resist, but switched to the side of revolutionary forces."

e) This is also confirmed by none other than the Dashnak Prime Minister, Hovhanes Kachaznuni in his book: "The Turks had already occupied Alexandropol. In the meantime the Armenian Bolsheviks at the head of the Red troops entered Itchevan and Dilijan".

(source: H.Kachaznuni. "Dashnaktsutsyun has nothing to do anymore". Originally published by Mhitaryan Publishing House, Vienna, 1923, in Armenian languaguage, translated into English, New York, Armenian Information Service, 1955, re-published in 2006, p. 52)

f) We should also note that both ADR and Georgia were the FIRST one's to be de facto recognized by the League of Nations on January 12, 1920 because they had more legitimacy and more stable borders -- Armenia was recognized LATER, and despite existing some 7 months longer than ADR, never achieved de jure recognition (which ADR would have had it been independent in November 1920). Here's from a Georgian historian Avtandil Menteshashvili [www.georgianweb.com/history/rus/avtandil/chapter2.html]:

"Министр иностранных дел Англии Дж. Керзон подчеркивал тогда: «Вопрос о признании Грузии связан и с признанием других закавказских республик, что в свою очередь связано с решением всего русского вопроса и, хоть и в меньшей степени, с условиями мирного договора с Турцией» (*73). В меморандуме МИД Великобритании от 24 декабря 1919 г. давались рекомендации своему правительству «продолжать воздерживаться от признания независимости Грузии и Азербайджана до тех пор, пока не определится окончательно положение генерала Деникина» (*74). 12 января 1920 г., когда стал ясен крах деникинцев, Верховный совет Антанты (за исключением США) признал де-факто независимость Грузии и Азербайджана, а впоследствии и Армении. Эти три республики по плану Антанты должны были служить буферами между РСФСР и другими странами Востока. 10 февраля 1920 г. главы делегаций Грузии и Азербайджана в Париже направили послу США во Франции пиьсмо. В нем говорилось: «Две закавказские республики – Грузия и Азербайджан получили как независимые государства признание «де-факто» Верховным советом союзнических держав в Париже, то есть Францией, Великобританией и Италией, а затем и Японией. Это признание «де-факто», безусловно, официальное и определенное, до сих пор не было подтверждено державой, которая в глазах народов закавказских республик является воплощением великих принципов свободы и справедливости, – Соединенными Штатами Америки. Американские миссии за последнее время множество раз посещали эти республики, получив всемерную информацию. Федеральному правительству хорошо известно желание закавказских народов наладить прочные связи с великой американской демократией». В заключение выражалось сожалиение по поводу такого непризнания со стороны США независимых Грузии и Азербайджана (*75).

So, here once again, we see that Armenia, from its foundation in May 1918, was a weak and small state, that could only dream and claim regions such as Qazakh, but not have any control over it. The only time Armenia received full control over Qazakh was temporarily, after ethnic cleansing and massacres of Azerbaijanis, from the end of March 1920 for a few months -- by September 1920, when it declared war on Turkey (and was quickly defeated by Kazim Karabekir Pasha by November 1920) and by which time Soviets had a fairly strong control over the entire Azerbaijan as far as Naxcivan (do you need proof of that?), Armenia must have relinquished its occupation. So here, even if we are generous, Armenia occupied all of Qazakh for about 5-6 months in 1920, that's it. By November 1920 -- when even Georgia occupied Lori region of Armenia (and Aivazovsky admitted that) -- and signed a humiliating Alexandropol Treaty with Turkey, Armenia was in no position to occupy anyone or anything. Hence, as all the evidence, most of it from ARMENIAN sources, proves, Qazakh was Azerbaijan's BEFORE 1920, and AFTER 1920.

Aivazovsky, if even after this definitive asnwer to your stonewalling you still do not agree to my compromise version, then you should just remove yourself from all future debates. --AdilBaguirov 07:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How much evidences should be presented to move ahead over obstacle created by Aivazovsky who presented only one source - Andersen, which is now obvious quite questionable. Adil have tens of sources.--Dacy69 14:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been several days now - no response from Aivazovsky, for obvious reasons -- my compromise version makes sense and is correct. This page needs to be unlocked immediately, and compromise version implemented. --AdilBaguirov 03:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to be patient. Artaxiad 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Categories: Talk archives

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.