Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:50, 14 February 2007

Azerbaijan Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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: 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: He is a Canadian historian of Scandinavian descent. I was told about both him and his website by Georgian editors here on Misplaced Pages. 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 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."

"after which on 2 December by the plenipotentiary representative of RSFSR in Armenia, comrade Legran there was an agreement signed with the representaive of Dashnak Armenia about announcing Armenia as the independent Soviet Socialist Republic . According to this agreement, until the call up of the Assembly of Soviet 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 :

"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" , 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." . 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". 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 Misplaced Pages. -- 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 Misplaced Pages. 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: 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.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

Anita L. Burdett, ed. (June 1, 2001). "Caucasian Boundaries. Documents and Maps. 1802–1946". Central Asian Survey. 20, No. 2: 229–249. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

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 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

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):

"after which on 2 December by the plenipotentiary representative of RSFSR in Armenia, comrade Legran there was an agreement signed with the representaive of Dashnak Armenia about announcing Armenia as the independent Soviet Socialist Republic . According to this agreement, until the call up of the Assembly of Soviet 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."

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 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) (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. . 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

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: -- 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

• Unassessed Azerbaijan articles
• Unknown-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles