Talk:Qazax District/Archive 1

message: 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 [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." 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Summary - finalizing facts against Aivazovsky's version of history and edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Credibility of Andrew Andersen and Neutrality of the Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Compromise proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  My 2¢ 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Andersen POV 

message: Why is it important to have the Armenian version of the city's name in the introduction? Parishan 05:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name