Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 19 discussion(s) to Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic/Archive 3, Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic/Archive 2) (bot |
|||
(387 intermediate revisions by 74 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|age=365|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|||
{{WikiProject_Azerbaijan}} |
|||
{{On this day|date1=2006-05-28|oldid1=55529469|date2=2007-05-28|oldid2=134183296|date3=2008-05-28|oldid3=215501615|date4=2010-04-28|oldid4=358867826|date5=2011-05-28|oldid5=431307890}} |
|||
{{WPFC}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|||
{{FAOL|Indonesian|Republik Demokratik Azerbaijan}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Azerbaijan|importance=top}} |
|||
{{Archive box|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Former countries}} |
|||
== Musavat references == |
|||
{{WikiProject Artsakh|importance=Low}} |
|||
I would like to attract the attention of administrators and visitors to this matter. Every time I edit a page, ranging from [[Musavat]], [[Azerbaijan Democratic Republic]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[History of the name Azerbaijan]] to [[Safavid Dynasty]], [[User:Azerbaijani]] keeps inserting "pan-Turkist and pan-Islamist Musavat" referencing a flag website that does not say so, and Armenian sources of Prof. Hovanissian, who is clearly a POV source in case of Azerbaijan. So, please, address the issue. My belief is that the quote is relevant only on [[Musavat]] page which gives a long account of nature of Musavat Party. So inserting this grossly misinterpreted and POV quotes on every page is clearly POV attack tactic. I made major contributions to the article with scholarly references few days ago, yet again this gross and out of context quote is inserted. I ask Azerbaijani to justify the placement of this quote with POV references on this page. [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
:You do not own wikipedia, and I can insert sourced information where ever it is relevant. Secondly, Adil baguirov asked me to put those sources in.[[User:Azerbaijani|Azerbaijani]] 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=aa2}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
| algo = old(365d) |
|||
| archive = Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
| counter = 3 |
|||
| maxarchivesize = 125K |
|||
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|||
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
}} |
|||
== Area and population == |
|||
I copy these excerpts from the post of Alan Kaim, owner of milliondollarbabies.com at the [[Talk:Azerbaijan]]: |
|||
Information about area and population must come from third part sources. [[Aydin Balayev]] of [http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=148210 Azerbaijan Press Agency] are not third patry sources. --[[User:Vacio|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#1E90FF;">'''va'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Vacio|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#FF8C00;">'''c'''</span>]][[User_talk:Vacio|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#1E90FF;">'''io'''</span>]] 16:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: ''None of my summaries are meant as reference material since I have not listed any particular sources, and this should be obvious''. |
|||
:Are you sure? We rely on the United States Government for information on that country's area and population, why should this be any different, especially when discussing a country that's been extinct for 90 years? |
|||
::Because: 1) ADR had no internationally recognized borders, 2) it had territorial disputes with two of its neighbors. 3) Unlike US, it is a historical state, so I think we should use information from historians without bias. --[[User:Vacio|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#1E90FF;">'''va'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Vacio|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#FF8C00;">'''c'''</span>]][[User_talk:Vacio|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#1E90FF;">'''io'''</span>]] 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::the United States is not a "historical state"? what?? [[Special:Contributions/50.111.29.145|50.111.29.145]] ([[User talk:50.111.29.145|talk]]) 23:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
NovaSkola, before making a revert, please read [[WP:NEWSORG]] which states: ''For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports.'' A news agency can not be a reliable source for such a disputable claim like the area of a historical state with no ''de jure'' borders, Not to speak about that it has to be from a neutral, third party source. --[[User:Vacio|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#1E90FF;">'''va'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Vacio|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#FF8C00;">'''c'''</span>]][[User_talk:Vacio|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#1E90FF;">'''io'''</span>]] 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: ''The only rational voice in the crowd seems to be Grandmaster, who stated that, "And as it was pointed out, sources like "milliondollarbabies.com" are not academic, and should not be used to support such allegations as those included in the article''." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijan#Etymology_and_usage] |
|||
:Vacio, [[Aydin Balayev]] is not Azeri Press Agency but is a renown Soviet historian, who is an expert on particular issue. His studies come from Soviet archives. The APA source just corroborates Balayev source. Moreover, you are not correct when stating ADR had no internationally recognized borders. Unlike [[Democratic Republic of Armenia]], Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was recognized de-facto in January 1920 by the Paris Peace Conference. [[User:Tuscumbia|<span style="color:#0000FF;"><strong>Tuscumbia</strong></span>]] ([[User talk:Tuscumbia|<span style="color:#DC143C;">''talk''</span>]]) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
As you can see from the above, the owner of the website objects to the use of his website as a reference in wikipedia and states that his resource is not meant as a reference material. He agreed with me that his website should not be used for such purposes. Despite that Azerbaijani keeps on including his claims with reference to that website. It is time to stop, or I will have to contact the website owner, so that he spoke with the wiki admins to put an end to this abuse. Hovanissian is also not acceptable as a reference in this particular article for evident bias. And Roshvald, which also was used as a source, does not support your claims. So Azerbaijani, please stop it already. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Vacio, actually it was you who claims in my page sources are "partisan" just due historian is Azerbaijani. APA is world known news agency and information is not biased and fake like ones you get in panarmenian.com, which once claimed absolutely hilarious and funny stuff that some users are in topics are hackers, even know it was me and there was no evidence of hacking or w/ever hurdy-gurdy they are claiming.--[[User:NovaSkola|NovaSkola]] ([[User talk:NovaSkola|talk]]) 21:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== more about musavat == |
|||
== Translation of Official Name == |
|||
first of all 6 sources that you mention is either biased or not profeesional or you distorted them. |
|||
as mentioned above by another user in some of this sorces there is not such references. million dollar babies is not a valid source to be cited, and please go to Rasulzade talkpage where a user clled Adil bagirov explained you that How Musavat is not panturkist and panislamist. and if you are not biased and if you think you are a fighter for a justice,''' I ask you to show a panislamist or panturkist clause or provision in its first and only covenant accepted in 1917.''' [[User:Elsanaturk|Elsanaturk]] 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
It is unclear what the official name of the country was. The Azerbaijani government translates the name as the '''Azerbaijan Democratic Republic ''' here https://meclis.gov.az/news-az.php?id=14&lang=en, the phrase 'Azərbaycan Xalq' is generaly translated as the 'Azerbaijani people' meaning it would be the '''Azerbaijani People's Republic ''' but it seems that the name could be more accurately translated as the '''Republic of the People of Azerbaijan ''' or the '''Republic of the Azerbaijani Nation'''. What are all of our thoughts? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kappasi|Kappasi]] ([[User talk:Kappasi#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kappasi|contribs]]) </span> |
|||
:No POV or OR. Your are obviously a sock/sockpuppeteer. You just removed information that is based on SIX sources, from authors such as: Jacob M. Landau, Firouzeh Mostashari, Aviel Roshwald, and Richard G. Hovannisian. |
|||
:As I understand, the official names in Azerbaijani and French/English languages were different. While Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti indeed literally translates as People's Republic, the name in other languages was Democratic Republic. I cannot say why it was decided to do like that, maybe because democracy means "rule of people", and it was translated into Azerbaijani like "people's republic". [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 14:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Nope, xalq cumhuriyyeti means people's republic, same in Turkish. Also "Azərbaycan Xalq" isn't "Azerbaijani people", it is gramatically incorrect. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 16:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Intro rewriting == |
|||
:Here are more sources: ''Disaster and Developement: The politics of Humanitarian Aid'' by Neil Middleton and Phil O'keefe P. 132 , ''The Armenian-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications'' by Michael P. Croissant P. 14 , ''Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region'' by R. Hrair Dekmejian & Hovann H. Simonian P. 63. '''Its not my fault that you refuse to accept facts, but I have brought an overwhelming amount of sources that you cannot deny.'''[[User:Azerbaijani|Azerbaijani]] 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Hello |
|||
::I am not a sockpuppet, I have only one wiki account, and if you have any evidence go and report me, i am waiting for your report! go! can you say me, will you ever edit and add smth neutral about Azerbaijan? in every page you are present you are distorting them. and again, '''SHOW ME A PANTURKIST CLAUSE OR PROVISION IN MUSAVAT COVENANT!'''. otherwise your biased persian and armenian scholars, out-of context citation can't prove anything. [[User:Elsanaturk|Elsanaturk]] 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
My proposal would be as follows: |
|||
:::do not take citations out of context just read this huge academic book covering Musavat's history in two volumes http://kitabxana.org/musavatoruclu.htm and have a look at this site http://isagambar.az/musavat-tarixi-gen.htm [[User:Elsanaturk|Elsanaturk]] 23:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
'''The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic[a] (abbreviated as ADR; Azerbaijani: آذربایجان خلق جومهوریتی, romanized: Azərbaycan Demokratik Cümhuriyyəti), was a short-lived republic in the South Caucasus.''' It was founded by the Azerbaijani National Council in Tiflis on 28 May 1918 after the collapse of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic.[8] Its established borders were with Russia to the north, the Democratic Republic of Georgia to the north-west, the Republic of Armenia to the west, and Iran to the south. It had a population of around 3 million.[9] As Baku was under Bolshevik control, Ganja acted as the temporary capital of the ADR. |
|||
The name of "Azerbaijan" was adopted by the leading Musavat party to foment Turkic nationalism in Iran.[10][11] Prior to the establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918, it was exclusively used to identify the adjacent region of contemporary northwestern Iran.[12][13][14] |
|||
:::Azerbaijani, please, refrain from attacking users by baselessly calling them sockpuppeteers. This is really non-constructive and does not contribute to improvement of Wiki articles. You seem to have made no contribution to this article in particular, but only involved in reverts, edit wars and insertion of a single irrelevant quote. Now: |
|||
::::1. Please, provide exact quotes from the articles you indicated, where it says that Musavat was pan-Turkist or pan-Islamist. Also, quotes from Armenian authors, such as Dekmejian and Simonian, as well as Hovanissian and Giragossian are not acceptable, as those are clearly POV and are very biased against Azerbaijan or anything related to it. This is told even by Dr. Kazemzadeh, indeed a top expert on ADR period. Michael Croissant, with all due respect to him, falls into the same category as those above mentioned. So your sources must be impartial, and must be scholarly. |
|||
::::2. The program of Musavat is posted on its Wiki page [[Musavat]], thanks to some contributors. No one denies that Musavat played with ideas of cultural Turkism (not pan-Turkism, Musavat did not aspire the creation of Turanic empire, but only revival of cultural Turkism ideas in Azerbaijan). Its program, again on [[Musavat]] page, clearly spells that it desires equal rights to all Muslim of the world, no where does it call for creation of Muslim empire either. |
|||
::: So your references to pan-Turkic or pan-Islamic do not hold water, as Musavat simply did not have a plan of creation of a super empire of Turkic or Islamic peoples. [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Under the ADR, a government system was developed in which a Parliament elected on the basis of universal, free, and proportionate representation was the supreme organ of state authority; the Council of Ministers was held responsible before it. Fatali Khan Khoyski became its first prime minister.[15] Besides the Musavat majority, Ahrar, Ittihad, Muslim Social Democrats as well as representatives of Armenian (21 out of 120 seats[8]), Russian, Polish, and Jewish minorities[16] gained seats in the parliament. Many members supported Pan-Islamist and Pan-Turkist ideas.[17] |
|||
== Musavat again and again == |
|||
Among the important accomplishments of the Parliament was the extension of suffrage to women, making Azerbaijan one of the first countries in the world, and the first majority-Muslim nation, to grant women equal political rights with men.[8] '''The ADR was also the second successful secular, democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds after the Crimean People's Republic.[18] The contemporary Republic of Azerbaijan regards itself as the legal successor to the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan rather than to the Azerbaijani SSR.[19]''' |
|||
Azerbaijani, I'll undo your edits untill you'll bring a panturkist or panislamist clause in Musavat Covenant of 1917 [[User:Elsanaturk|Elsanaturk]] 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I have brought many sources. YOu obviously have no respect for Wikipedia. You will be blocked again if you continue this way.[[User:Azerbaijani|Azerbaijani]] 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: You cannot block me! I can be blocked by administrators if I'll violate 3rr rule in this disputed content, but I have not violated, and do not think to do so. Aand again I'll undo your THAT edit until you'll bring any panturkist and/or panislamist clause in Musavat Covenant of 1917 <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Elsanaturk|Elsanaturk]] ([[User talk:Elsanaturk|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Elsanaturk|contribs]]) 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
Including a university is not significant enough for a country. Every country has its universities. Also, saying that is was the "first successful country etc." is overly positive I think. My proposal for just a republic would be much more fitting and NPOV . --[[Special:Contributions/217.149.166.11|217.149.166.11]] ([[User talk:217.149.166.11|talk]]) 09:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Edit warring == |
|||
:There was a long Talk page discussion in 2008 (long since archived) in which the view that the ADR was the first secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds had the strongest argument and the most reliable sources backing it up. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic/Archive_1#First_or_second |
|||
:Years later, some editors ignored that consensus and started claiming that the ADR was only the second or third such republic. In March 2021, a discussion took place on the Talk page in which the consensus was to describe the ADR as the first *successful* attempt at establishing a secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds. The word "successful" was added as a compromise because of the claim by some editors that the Crimean People's Republic, whose government did not rule over the entire population of Crimea (only over the Muslim citizens) and which lasted only about a month, was a secular democratic republic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic#First_or_third? I agree with the compromise that was achieved through consensus. |
|||
:I am pinging the editors who participated in the March 2021 discussion so that they can participate in this new discussion and consider your proposed edits: {{ping|ChillManChill}}, {{ping|Grandmaster}}, {{ping|Parishan}}, {{ping|Golden}} [[User:AuH2ORepublican|AuH2ORepublican]] ([[User talk:AuH2ORepublican|talk]]) 10:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks a lot AuH2O.--[[Special:Contributions/217.149.166.11|217.149.166.11]] ([[User talk:217.149.166.11|talk]]) 12:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think it is not a good lead, so I oppose. The name of Azerbaijan was certainly used to refer to both sides of Araks (see for example [https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1799149.pdf this]), and it was not second successful attempt, as was discussed before. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 10:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think the current one is not good either. You do not begin a page with "country was the first successful bla bla bla". This is not an advertisement. And Azerbaijan was certainly not used *by Turks* for anything north of the Aras before the Russians came along.[[Special:Contributions/217.149.166.11|217.149.166.11]] ([[User talk:217.149.166.11|talk]]) 13:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I do not believe that calling the ADR the "first successful secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds" can be described as "an advertisement." The word "successful" was selected not to praise the ADR, but to differentiate it from earlier, much shorter-lived efforts to establish secular republics in the Turkic and Muslim worlds. (Besides, how could one "advertise" for a government that fell a century ago?) And I agree with Grandmaster's comments overall. [[User:AuH2ORepublican|AuH2ORepublican]] ([[User talk:AuH2ORepublican|talk]]) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You do not seem to be familiar with Azerbaijani irredentism nowadays. The Azerbaijani state even views itself as the legal successor of the DR to justify its territorial claims against Armenia. Secondly, you just do not put the successful part in the first sentence, that is ridiculous. Should the USA article be "The United States is the first successful country with liberty and gun rights enshrined in its constitution"?? Also the ADR was short lived itself. We should not act as if it was in power from 100 years--[[Special:Contributions/217.149.166.11|217.149.166.11]] ([[User talk:217.149.166.11|talk]]) 23:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Also, I'd like for some one else to reply to me besides Grandmaster. They have accused me of cheating Wikipedia, and they try to undermine my suggestions on discussion pages. I do not appreciate it. {{ping|AuH2ORepublican}} Can we please have some other opinions too? Thanks a bunch![[Special:Contributions/217.149.166.11|217.149.166.11]] ([[User talk:217.149.166.11|talk]]) 13:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I already pinged the editors who participated in the prior discussion. If you wish to invite every editor who has edited the article in the past, say, six months, you are free to do so, although please note that most of them edited sections of the article unrelated to the issues that you brought up. I also would like to point out that you do not get to exclude Grandmaster from the discussion, nor the other, unnamed editors whom you claim "accuse[d you] of cheating Wikipedia." [[User:AuH2ORepublican|AuH2ORepublican]] ([[User talk:AuH2ORepublican|talk]]) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I also would like to point out that Grandmaster accusing me of socks and working against me in every discussion I open is not fair. Especially you as an administrator or something should not allow things like that. That is strategic bullying.[[Special:Contributions/217.149.166.11|217.149.166.11]] ([[User talk:217.149.166.11|talk]]) 23:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Now, Beshogur, a renowned irredentist, claims we don't have consensus on the non-controversial edits. We clearly do. The things I now edited were never up for discussion anyways. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&oldid=1061570027.[[Special:Contributions/217.149.166.11|217.149.166.11]] ([[User talk:217.149.166.11|talk]]) 14:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} where's the consensus? And please avoid rhetorics like {{tq|bla bla bla}} and stop calling me {{tq|a renowned irredentist}}. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 14:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh wow, "bla bla bla" was enough for the noticeboard, or? You have double standards and never even replied to my messages and questions.[[Special:Contributions/217.149.166.11|217.149.166.11]] ([[User talk:217.149.166.11|talk]]) 14:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Consensus == |
|||
Hello! I have protected this page after reports of edit warring on [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection]]. Apparently, one Elsanaturk is removing information justified by multiple sources, and continues to question the material even after being presented sources. I'd like to see Elsanaturk speak on his or her behalf. Other comments related to the matter would also be good. <span style="font-size:95%">—[[User talk:Messedrocker|Signed]], your friendly neighborhood '''[[User:Messedrocker|MessedRocker]]'''.</span> 04:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Hello |
|||
:I just want to say thanks, and also that this is not the first time these users simply remove heavily sourced information.[[User:Azerbaijani|Azerbaijani]] 05:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Opening another thread to garner consensus. See thread above to which everyone stopped responding instead of being productive.--[[Special:Contributions/217.149.166.11|217.149.166.11]] ([[User talk:217.149.166.11|talk]]) 15:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: Please check the first post on top of this page, Azerbaijani's quotes (those I checked so far before he added new ones) are irrelevant and do not support his claims. Moreover, owners of the resources he refers to personally object to such abuse of their material. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 08:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:At least 3 different users objected to your proposed edit. You have not addressed any of their concerns, and yet tried to introduce your version. That is not how [[WP:CONSENSUS]] works. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 15:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::That is incorrect. All of the sources say pan Turkist when referring to the Musavat party. You also admitted that hte Musavat party was pan Turkist![[User:Azerbaijani|Azerbaijani]] 15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I can't figure out what's exactly the disagreement over this recent edit? It isn't the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&diff=1061236789&oldid=1061201041 initial one] which was disagreed upon I believe, and for this one, your only disagreement seems to be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&diff=1062289465&oldid=1062281226&diffmode=source "no consensus"]. That isn't a valid disagrement reason, and just seems gaming the rules to stop new edits being introduced. If you'd be kind enough to explain in a couple words what exactly you disagree with this recent edit, it would be nice. Others are also free to join. [[User:ZaniGiovanni|ZaniGiovanni]] ([[User talk:ZaniGiovanni|talk]]) 15:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: To reach consensus for what? If it's for your proposed new introduction, you won't count with my support. My vote is for the initial sentence in the article to state that the ADR "was the first successful secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds." I also vote against describing the ADR as "short-lived," as such term is not precise and, in the context of the 1918-1920 period in the region, quite misleading. The ADR did not collapse after two years because the government no longer was supported by its citizens, or even because of an internal coup by a willful minority faction within its population; the ADR was invaded by the Soviet Union, which swallowed it up just as it did to so many other countries in Europe and Asia. [[User:AuH2ORepublican|AuH2ORepublican]] ([[User talk:AuH2ORepublican|talk]]) 05:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::: They don't. I said that Musavat initially supported pan-Turkic (not-Panturkist) ideas, but eventually became an Azerbaijani nationalist party. Moreover, I supported this by sources, which you now try to misinterpret. Also, please explain why you keep on adding milliondollarbabies.com back to the article? The owner of the website told you that you should not do that, he said that I was right by saying that it should not be used. Elsanaturk was absolutely right when he removed it from the article. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 16:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There are more sources than just the million dollar baby, and your still stuck on that? We can remove that one source, but that does not change the fact that this information will stay and that it is heavily sourced. The Musavat party was Pan Turkist, and Mahmud Rasulzadeh was a pan Turk. Dont forget that he spent the last years of his life involved in pan Turkist activity in Turkey.[[User:Azerbaijani|Azerbaijani]] 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Also, I "stopped responding" to the prior discussion because I gave my opinion on your proposal and saw no need to comment once you turned the discussion into a venue fir lobbing personal attacks against other editors just because they disagreed with you. Please try to keep things civil; getting suspended for personal attacks or edit-warring is not an effective strategy for obtaining a consensus. [[User:AuH2ORepublican|AuH2ORepublican]] ([[User talk:AuH2ORepublican|talk]]) 05:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
User "Azerbaijani". I said to you bring a clause from Musavat covenant, you did not bring, but you are holding your biased sources as a blind. instead I bring clauses from that covenanat which show that you are absolutely prejudiced and intentionally harm our articles. |
|||
:Whoa, I just saw that your IP account was blocked for two months for continued edit-warring. My comment about how getting blocked for inappropriate behavior was not a good strategy for obtaining a consensus was a reference to the 48-hour block from a few days ago; certainly, getting yourself blocked for two *months* is an even less productive strategy. You probably won't be reading this, but in case that you do, let me advise you that reacting to your block with "I have plenty of IP addresses. Do you think this will stop me? :)--217.149.166.11 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)" is not a good strategy for obtaining a consensus, either, particularly if you return under a different name or IP account before the two months have expired and are discovered and banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry. You should wait two months and, when you return from your suspension, maybe you should try (i) discussing matters in a polite and civilized manner and (ii) providing reliable sources that actually support your claims. [[User:AuH2ORepublican|AuH2ORepublican]] ([[User talk:AuH2ORepublican|talk]]) 06:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Covenant of the Party of the Turkish Federalists “Musavat” |
|||
(accepted in the party conference held on 26-31 October, 1917) |
|||
Sources: Balayev A. Azerbaydjanskoye natsional’no-demokraticheskoye dvijeniye. 1917-1920. B, 1990, pp 74-82; “Aydinlig” newspaper, 13 October, 1990. |
|||
== Azerbaijani or Turkish ? == |
|||
*Article 1: The form of the state of Russia should be a federative democratic republic based on principles of the national autonomy. |
|||
*Article 3: All ethnicities having territories of compact inhabiting n any part of Russia should receive national autonomy.Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkistan and Bashkortostan should receive territorial autonomy, Turks living along the Volga and the Crimean Turks should receive cultural autonomy in the case of impossibility of territorial autonomy. The Party considers as its sacred duty to support any non-Turkic ethnicities’ quests for autonomy and help them. |
|||
*Article 4: Ethnicities having no exact territory of compact inhabiting should receive national cultural autonomy. [[User:Elsanaturk|Elsanaturk]] 19:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
There is something to be known here. When the People's Republic of Azerbaijan was established, the official language was declared Turkish (Azerbaijan language). In 1930, the Turkish spoken in Azerbaijan was changed to the Azerbaijani language. I propose adding Turkish to my language section in parentheses. [[Special:Contributions/37.26.53.164|37.26.53.164]] ([[User talk:37.26.53.164|talk]]) 12:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== adding Hugh Pope's quote == |
|||
:A few sources which shed some light on things: |
|||
From: Hugh Pope, "Sons of the conquerors: the rise of the Turkic world", New York: The Overlook Press, 2006, ISBN-10 1-58567-804-X: |
|||
:* "''On 27 May 1918, the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (DRA) was declared with Ottoman military support. The rulers of the DRA refused to identify themselves as Tatar, which they rightly considered to be a Russian colonial definition. Instead, they defined the Turkic-speaking Muslim people of the southeast Caucasus as Turkic. In their native tongue they were Azerbaijani Turk or simply Turk, but with a broader meaning of the word. We understand the usage of this broader meaning from Russian texts of the same period where Tiurk or Tiurkskii (Turkic) was used. DRA officials also frequently used "Muslim" to identify the same group because the majority of the population still identified themselves by religion. Neighboring Iran did not welcome the DRA's adoption of the name of "Azerbaijan" for the country because it could also refer to Iranian Azerbaijan and implied a territorial claim. That is why the authorities in Baku also used these definitions with the adjective of "Transcaucasian" (Russian: Zakavkazskii)."'' -- Harun Yilmaz (2013) ''The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s''. ''Iranian Studies''. p. 514 |
|||
:* "''In April 1920, when the Red Army entered Baku, the Bolsheviks followed the designation of the previous nationalist government and accepted Turk in the native tongue and Tiurk in Russian as the name for the titular nation. Azerbaijan was kept as the name of the territory and the republic. What were the consecutive developments that induced the Bolsheviks to replace this Turkic definition by an Azerbaijani definition seventeen years later?"'' -- idem, p. 515 |
|||
:* "''A possible solution would have been to remove the ethno-linguistic term Turk and Turkicness from the definition of "Azerbaijani" identity. However, removing the Turkic element could turn the population into easy prey for the Iranian national identity that was being promoted by Tehran at the time. As the transformation of "Turkishness" in the 1930s into a national identity of a nation-state in Turkey produced an identity issue for the Azerbaijani Turkic population, the nation-building of Reza Shah in Iran also did so. "'' -- idem, p. 519 |
|||
:* "''The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)."'' -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14 |
|||
:* "''A group of Azerbaijani nationalist elites, led by M.A. Rasulzada, declared independence for the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) on 28 May 1918. After a century of Russian colonial rule, the emergent Azerbaijani nation established its first nation-state. Not only was it a new state but also it was a new nation. Because they previously had lacked a distinct national identity, the Azerbaijani Turks had been called “Caucasian Muslims” or “Tatars,” a common term used for the subject Muslim population in the Tsarist Russian empire (Мишиjeв, 1987, p. 159). The Azerbaijani identity and nation were new constructions of nationalists of the late 19th century, culminating in the establishment of the ADR. The life of the ADR was short, ending 2 years after its declaration as a result of the Soviet takeover in 1920. However, the emergent nation, deprived of its newly found state, did not cease to exist. Indeed, nation building has continued and has evolved in interaction with the Soviet nationalities policies and the establishment of the independent Republic of Azerbaijan in 1991."'' -- Ramin Ahmadoghlu. (2021). ''Secular nationalist revolution and the construction of the Azerbaijani identity, nation and state''. Volume27, Issue 2 |
|||
:* "''In other words, the initial design for Azerbaijan was a multiethnic country uniting Transcaucasian Muslims (including “Transcaucasian Tatars,” or Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Ajarians, Tats, Talysh, Ingilois, and others) with significant Christian minorities (including Georgians, Armenians, and Russians). Within the context of this project, the category “Azerbaijani” did not yet have a narrow ethnic or linguistic connotation and an Azerbaijani nation was made possible by including not only Azerbaijani Turks and, for example, Talysh but also Georgian Ingilois and—more problematic, but still feasible—even Azerbaijani Armenians (as a religious minority). The republic’s 1918 declaration of independence began with a reference to the “''peoples'' of Azerbaijan as the holders of sovereign rights.” In this regard, the young Azerbaijani political entity had the potential to be, and to some extent was, better suited to the incorporation of ethnic minorities than were the Georgian and Armenian nations."'' -- Artur Tsutsiev (2014). Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus. Yale University Press. p. 71 |
|||
:* "''They are ethnically close, and until 1937 the people of Azerbaijan were officially designated as Turkish. The term "Azeri" was imposed by Stalin's "ethnic engineers". -- Baryam Balci chapter: Turkey-Azerbaijan relations: from romanticism to realism". In: Alexander Agadjanian, Ansgar Jödicke, Evert van der Zweerde, eds. (2015). "Religion, Nation and Democracy in the South Caucasus". Routledge. p. 258 |
|||
:* "''Until 1937, Soviet publications and official documents referred to the titular nation of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic as Tiurk (Turkic) in Russian and Turk (Turkish and Turkic, as there are no separate words for these two concepts in Turkic tongues) in the local Turkic language. But as if a magic wand had touched the country in 1937, everyone began to define the titular nation as Azerbaijani. -- Harun Yilmaz (2013) ''The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s''. ''Iranian Studies''. p. 511 |
|||
:* "''In the 1770s, Turkic tribal groups from Kartli to Derbent were identified by, in particular, Gil’denshtedt (Puteshestvie po Kavkazu) using the overall category of Terekeme Tatars (as distinct from Kumyk Tatars). After the appearance of the term “Transcaucasia” in the 1830s the category “Transcaucasian Tatars” came gradually into use, generally for speakers of “Turkic-Azerbaijani languages” who populated the Russian provinces “beyond the Caucasus.” By the 1860s the qualification of the language of the Transcaucasian Tatars as a Turkic-Azerbaijani language, distinct from Kumyk, Nogai, or Crimean, was clearly being used as the basis for ethnic categorization. By the late nineteenth century “Transcaucasian Tatars” (sometimes called Azerbaijani Tatars as a designation for speakers of Tatar languages, i.e., Azerbaijanli-Turk) were still being distinguished from “Turks” (as a designation of speakers of Turkish or Osmanli-Turk). During the period of Azerbaijani independence (1918–1920), the first category evolved into simply “Turks,” which had been inherited by the early Soviet ethnic nomenclature (having in the process subsumed Osmanli Turks remaining within Soviet borders). Later, in 1921–1930, this category was slightly refined as “Azerbaijani Turks” (which also encompassed the Meskhetian Turkic-speaking population in Georgia) to match political realities. Finally, in 1939, it was transformed simply into “Azerbaijani,” a result that underscores not so much the linguistic distinction between the Anatolian (Osmanli) Turk and the Azeri Turk as the deterioration of Soviet-Turkish relations."'' -- Artur Tsutsiev (2014). Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus. Yale University Press. p. (note 150). |
|||
::Its indeed a bit more complex. - [[User:LouisAragon|LouisAragon]] ([[User talk:LouisAragon|talk]]) 16:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
<s>So what exactly does this epic summer have to do with our topic? [[User:Kergid|Kergid]] ([[User talk:Kergid|talk]]) 11:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)</s>'''<--- [[WP:CHECKUSER|CU]] blocked [[WP:SOCK|sock]] of [[User:Aydın memmedov2000]]''' |
|||
"[t]he Azeris did not surrender their brief independence of 1918-20 quickly or easily. As many as 20,000 died resisting what was effectively a Russian reconquest." (p. 116) --[[User:AdilBaguirov|AdilBaguirov]] 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Seems you didn't read the question by the IP nor the listed quotes. - [[User:LouisAragon|LouisAragon]] ([[User talk:LouisAragon|talk]]) 12:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Adil's additions == |
|||
<s>You emphasize too many places in your article, but my question was simple. There was no Azerbaijani language until 1930, it was referred to as Turkish. That's why the Azerbaijani language is written in the language section of the Azerbaijan Republic, which existed between 1918 and 1920? [[User:Kergid|Kergid]] ([[User talk:Kergid|talk]]) 14:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)</s>'''<--- [[WP:CHECKUSER|CU]] blocked [[WP:SOCK|sock]] of [[User:Aydın memmedov2000]]''' |
|||
I reverted your additions because its obvious POV whats your excuse for changing "Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian massacres in Ottoman Empire" thats very unusual. [[User:Artaxiad|Artaxiad]] 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Ah, ok, so you were the IP? Well, the sources I posted basically agree with your assertion, I just added them to shed some more light on it and expand on the background of the issue. Indeed, at the time, during the short-lived existence of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the word "Azerbaijan" was used as a designation for the state, whereas the nation's titular ethnicity and their language were most commonly known as "Turks" and "Turkish" respectively. As for the infobox, I guess one could change it into: |
|||
: That's not all you did. You restored sources like "milliondollarbabies.com" and others, so I roll it back. If you object to certain wording, change it, but do not add sources that should not be here. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:* ''"Turkish (later known as Azerbaijani or Azeri Turkic)"'' |
|||
:::Thats no excuse for a huge revert. [[User:Artaxiad|Artaxiad]] 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thoughts? - [[User:LouisAragon|LouisAragon]] ([[User talk:LouisAragon|talk]]) 15:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Although some of my edits, which [[user:Artaxiad]] for some reason reverted, have been restored, but not all. First, I don't understand why was this rv'ed: "However, despite Wilson's attitude, on January 12, 1920, the Allied Supreme Council extended ''de facto'' recognition to Azerbaijan, along with Georgia, and ahead of Armenia." Not only do I give a more precise date, 12 January, but this wording is preffered to "suddenly" -- why is it "suddenly", when delegations have been working for months to secure that de facto recognition? In native literature, they describe it as "finally", not "suddenly". |
|||
::<s>I agree with your opinion. [[User:Kergid|Kergid]] ([[User talk:Kergid|talk]]) 16:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)</s>'''<--- [[WP:CHECKUSER|CU]] blocked [[WP:SOCK|sock]] of [[User:Aydın memmedov2000]]''' |
|||
::When listing the language spoken in the short-lived republic, we should use the modern name of such language, which is "Azerbaijani," given that the language spoken in Azerbaijan during those years was exactly the same language as the Azerbaijani of today. Similarly, in the article for the [[Ukrainian People's Republic]], we say that the language spoken there was "Ukrainian" even though in that era the Russian Empire, for political reasons, had deemed Ukrainian to be a form of Russian and not its own language. Also, we need to be particularly careful not to use a term for Azerbaijani that today has a very different meaning, such as "Turkish." [[User:AuH2ORepublican|AuH2ORepublican]] ([[User talk:AuH2ORepublican|talk]]) 13:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Additionally, isn't it an overkill to cite 6 references about Musavat's Pan-whatever ideology? Especially having a "flag" website as reference, looks very much credible and scholarly. Not. :) |
|||
:::@[[User:Kergid|Kergid]] @[[User:LouisAragon|LouisAragon]] Seems like there is an obvious misunderstanding by both of you here. [[Azerbaijani language]] developed seperately from the [[Turkish language]], it is not a branch of Turkish. This addition would confuse editors, they might think that Azerbaijani is a sub branch of Turkish. |
|||
:::Additionally, the "i" at the word "Türki" is a relative suffix, equavelant to the "-ic" at the English language. [[User:BerkBerk68|<span style="color:#E30A17;">'''''Berk'''''</span><span style="color:#00B4CB;">'''''Berk'''''</span>]][[User talk:BerkBerk68|<sup><span style="color:#00AE65;">'''''68'''''</span></sup>]] 12:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Then, Mehmandarov, like Shikhlinsky, was a General (and both were full generals of artillery), and that is both a rank and a title, and should be mentioned, just like other honorific and educational titles and ranks are mentioned in English tradition: "President", "Dr", "Minister", "Secretary", "Prof", etc. Likewise, Shikhlinky was Mehmandarov's Deputy Minister in ADR -- that should be mentioned too. I.e., they were not ordinary generals, but the two highest ranked one's. |
|||
::::* "''[[Azerbaijani language]] developed seperately from the [[Turkish language]], it is not a branch of Turkish."'' |
|||
::::No one said anything about the fact that the two developed separately, nor did anyone claim Azerbaijani being a branch of Turkish. |
|||
Meanwhile, "Armenian genocide" is not relevant to the text and cannot apply to the massacre of Azerbaijanis in March 1918 in Baku. To begin with, neither the word genocide existed, nor have the Armenian casualties been high till then (e.g., even in 1919 article in the London Times, the leader of the Armenian delegation to Paris Peace Conference, Boghos Nubar, wrote about 300,000 deaths - and no mention of Turkish and Kurdish deaths, or Azerbaijani, for that matter), especially considering that Eastern Turkey was occupied by Russians, with the help of Armenians, until 1917 or so. Neither does Encyclopedia Britannica use that description -- they use my wording, "massacres in Ottoman Empire". Finally, and most importantly, that reasoning was NEVER given by Shaumyan, or any Bolshevik or even Dashnak leader! In other words, there is no factual, verifiable basis for this claim. And while there is a reference to p. 14 of Michael Croissant's book, he is not a historian, and it shows -- he writes: "most of them refugees who had fled the '''Turkish genocide''' in eastern Anatolia". As you can see, there is no mention of "Armenian genocide". And Prof. Swietochowski does not use the word "genocide" or 'genocidal' anywhere in his book either, according to a Google search. Hence it makes sense to change this POV to a NPOV wording. --[[User:AdilBaguirov|AdilBaguirov]] 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::* "''This addition would confuse editors, they might think that Azerbaijani is a sub branch of Turkish."'' |
|||
:Your edits are very POV, the text its self never said Armenian massacres in the ottoman empire POV yourself you have inserted.[[User:Artaxiad|Artaxiad]] 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't think so. The text within the brackets clearly explains the context, and the very first alinea of the body at the [[Azerbaijani language]] explains that it was changed from Turkish to Azerbaijani/Azeri under the Soviets. |
|||
::There is nothing POV about my edits -- but yours clearly are, as you admit (not that it matters) that both Swietochowski and Croissant don't use the word "Armenian genocide" or even genocidal. Neither did Shaumyan say this anywhere. --[[User:AdilBaguirov|adil]] 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::- [[User:LouisAragon|LouisAragon]] ([[User talk:LouisAragon|talk]]) 15:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I believe there's a confusion here as the sources and quotes both you and Kergid have provided are related to the demonyms of Azeris and not the name of the language, which appears to be what Kergid wants to change. — [[User:Golden|<span style="color:#0F52BA;">Golden</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Golden|<span style="font-size:82%"><span>''call me maybe?''</span></span>]]</sup> 15:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Once again, neither Swietochowski, nor Croissant use the word "Armenian genocide" -- and it would be completely inappropriate for 1918, especially since it were Armenians who militarily occupied Eastern Turkey at the time, and killed a great many Kurds and Turks, as well as Azerbaijanis. --[[User:AdilBaguirov|adil]] 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Here's a source for the language as well: |
|||
::::::* "''After the Russian Bolsheviks re-conquered the region in 1920-21, the newly formed Caucasian states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) were annexed to the Soviet Union and renamed, on 12 March 1922, The Transcaucasian Soviet Socialist Republic. Later they were granted separate political status among the Soviet Republics. Then, by the order of Joseph Stalin, the name of the formal language of Azerbaijan was changed from Turkish to Azeri. Both the adoption of Azerbaijan for the region and Azeri for the language of the new entity are historically and linguistically questionable "'' -- EI. (2011) [1987]. "[https://iranicaonline.org/articles/azerbaijan-index AZERBAIJAN]". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. III, Fasc. 2-3. pp. 205–257. |
|||
: I would like to see a source that claims that the massacre of Azerbaijanis in March was a “revenge for Armenian genocide’. I don’t see other sources agreeing with that. For example, Tadeusz Swietochowski says: |
|||
::::::The numerous [[WP:RS]] on this talk page show that neither the demonym of the country's titular ethnic group, nor their native language, were known as "Azerbaijani" at the time. - [[User:LouisAragon|LouisAragon]] ([[User talk:LouisAragon|talk]]) 19:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Azerbaijani is indeed Turkish, however this doesn't mean exclusively [[Turkish language]]. The term Turkic is relatively new in English. So that's simply an archaic version of "Turkic". So It should be redirected to [[Azerbaijani language]], just because the article mentions that it was called Turkish before. I would suggest: {{tq|Azerbaijani(a note explaining why it is called Turkish}}}}. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 13:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: ''Just as Turkey was poised to become the dominant power in the region, the Baku Dashnakist forces, which included many of the refugees from Anatolia, staged a sudden and unprovoked massacre of the city's Muslims. The debacle lasted from March 31 until April 2 and resulted in at least 3,000 fatalities, many of whom were Iranians. Armenian historians do not offer an explanation for the political calculations behind this move, which was bound to entail terrible retribution, and they hint rather at an uncontrollable emotional outburst. Such an interpretation would confirm the view of the weakness of the Armenian leadership, which had just concluded an agreement with the Muslims on neutrality in their coming confrontation with the Bolsheviks, and they proved to be unable to restrain the rank and file. Likewise, it would confirm the lack of coordination with the Armenian efforts at putting together the Transcaucasian Federation. The immediate beneficiary of the Baku March Days were the Bolsheviks, who seized the opportunity to institute in the city a dictatorship of the proletariat under the name of the Baku Commune. The local Sovnarkom (Council of People's Commissars) was headed by a prominent Armenian Bolshevik, Stepan Shaumian, who proclaimed its undivided loyalty and subordination to Soviet Russia. In the Azeri mind, the Baku Commune became the bitter symbol of the Bolshevik - Armenian collusion born out of the March Days bloodbath''. |
|||
:::{{ping|AuH2ORepublican}} Thank you for your comment. First of all, you should not post comments inbetween older responses, as it messes up the section's lay-out. Having said that, it seems that you did not pay attention to the given [[WP:RS]] at this talk page section. The language was ''originally'', without political interplay, in terms of <u>nomenclature</u>, known as Turkish. Later, for political reasons, under the Soviets, its name was changed to "Azerbaijani". The same goes for the country's titular ethnicity. Remember, we're talking about nomenclature here, "not" the actual development/speech/grammar/vocabulary etc. of the language, as what are present-day "Turkish" and "Azerbaijani" are indeed separate languages with a separate history of development. However, the political games played at the time regarding the language's name ''should'' be explained in this article per [[WP:DUE]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:VER]] amongst others. Whether in the infobox or in the body of the article. As for the Ukraine-Russia analogy, for the record, it is a flawed one for it is exactly the opposite in terms of chronology when compared to the Turkish-Azerbaijani naming issue. - [[User:LouisAragon|LouisAragon]] ([[User talk:LouisAragon|talk]]) 13:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|Beshogur}} Thank you for your comment as well. That could possibly do the trick. I think this article would benefit from expanatory text regarding the issue, perhaps in a "Demographics" section once this article gets expanded. - [[User:LouisAragon|LouisAragon]] ([[User talk:LouisAragon|talk]]) 13:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 06:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::"Turkish" is the term for those Turks residing in the country of Turkey (Asia Minor). TURKIC peoples are the various Turks from all the Turkic lands. When one speaks of language, "Turkish" is the derivative of the Ottoman/Seljuk tongue. Azerbaijani is a Turkic language from the Oghuz sub-branch spoken primarily by the Azerbaijani people, who live mainly in the Republic of Azerbaijan where the North Azerbaijani variety is spoken, and in the Azerbaijan region of Iran, where the South Azerbaijani variety is spoken. [[Special:Contributions/50.111.29.145|50.111.29.145]] ([[User talk:50.111.29.145|talk]]) 23:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tq|"Turkish" is the term for those Turks residing in the country of Turkey (Asia Minor). TURKIC peoples are the various Turks from all the Turkic lands. }} this is not true. Turkish is a right term as well, but Turkic gradually replaced Turkish with the increased influence of Soviet Turkology. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 15:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I removed the POV/OR sentence added by Hajji Piruz, claiming that ADR adopted its name from Iranian Azerbaijan. This sentence lacks any scholarly basis or source, never did ADR government make such claim nor there is evidence to prove so. [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] 16:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I have a source. I'll source it for sure later.[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 16:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Ok, I added and sourced a sentence saying when the nation got its name and by who.[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 20:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Etymology section comes first. I moved the etymology section above the recognition section.[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 18:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Harayarah is an obvious sock puppet or meat puppet, he joined simply to make reverts.[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Etymology section is absolutely irrelevant to this article. There’s an article about the name, that’s where it should be discussed. This article is not about the name of the country, it is about ADR in 1918. And the claim that the name was chosen by Musavat is baseless, it was selected by the Azeri members of Transcaucasian sejm, where Musavat were not a majority. It is a well known fact, so no need to add inaccurate and POV info to every article which has anything to do with Azerbaijan. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 07:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: Hi! As I am concerned about the Azeri issues, someone asked me to get involved in this discussion. As I see, the whole section about the etymology is deleted, but I think it is very relevant and this was the first time the name "Azerbaijan" was used for an entity in the Caucasus. Comparing this matter with the [[Macedonia naming dispute]] issue, that is an important matter. There may be two discussion in this topic: 1- What was the former name of that region 2- Do we have to mention this matter in the naming dispute?<br />Anyway , I think it's reasonable not to delete the whole section until more discussion .--[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] 16:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Alborz, this material is irrelevant on ADR page, which is related strictly to Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. The name Azerbaijan applied north of Araxes, in particular in the state of Azerbaijani Atabegs (Atabegan-e Azerbaijan) as well as in writings of Jean Chardin several centuries before 20th. Most importantly 1863 article by British Consul in Persia, Keith Abbott, designates territory north of Araxes as "Russian Azerbaijan", specifically indicating that it borders Caucasus Mountains in the North and extends to Baku and Caspian in the East. But in any case, etymology section is absolutely irrelevant here, so you're welcome to discuss these on three other pages where this same paragraph is inserted and is need of NPOV. [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] 06:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::This material is highly relevant as this was the first time an entity in the Caucasus was called Azerbaijan. This has everything to do with the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. I reverted the massive removal of information.[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 00:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I removed irrelevant info that Hajji Piruz keeps on adding in every article about Azerbaijan. Etymology has nothing to do with ADR. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:How is it not relevant, please explain. This being the first time that the term was used for a political entity in the Caucasus makes that section highly relevant. Do not remove sourced information.[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 14:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Hajji Piruz, the information you're trying to add back does not belong to this page. This is a page about ADR, not about [[History of the name Azerbaijan]]. Etymology of the name is irrelevant here, because this page is about a political entity which already existed with this name. And by the way, the name had a precedent in application by 1918 for some 55 years since the article by Keith Abbott in 1863. [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:* The Etymology and usage section is about the name of this entry: if you disagree with the text , we can talk about it , but deleting the whole section that discuss about the etymology of the entry , seems to be incorrect . |
|||
--[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:* And to add the fact that the [[Mammed Amin Rasulzade|Rasulzadeh]] himself and Esmael khan Zeyad khanof ( the representative of ADR to Tehran )admitted that the name was never used for the north of Arass river before that time period and they considered if there could be a change in that name as fallows : ( The newspaper IRAN , 6th Rajab 1337 [[Islamic calendar|AH]]) |
|||
::*Iran newspaper: " Since until now that was only the name of an important Iranian province why did you called this part Azerbaijan ? and why do you insist to use this name ?" <br />Esmail khan : " From historical point of view ,since the Baku was the temple of the fire-worshippers in the ancient time , then we chose this name for our new country " <br />Iran : "If we agree that Baku has been the fire-worshippers temple , and you are interested in using that word , then why do you insist in using the term Azerbaijan and not to use the word '''''AZARESTAN''''' ? " <br />Esmail Khan : " That's not a bad idea , and we can talk about this latter ..." |
|||
::In 15th Rajab ,[[Mammed Amin Rasulzade|Rasulzadeh]] wrote in that newspaper about that as : " The name Azerbaijan denotes a national meaning more than a geographical one . We consider ourselves as an ethnicity who talks with the Azerbaijan language that is a dialect of Turkish. The ethnics name is neither Arran nor Shirvan and not Moghan: that is Azerbaijan " --[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] 08:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: Is there any way to check that publication? And also, the name is not an important aspect of ADR, political struggle, military campaings against Bolsheviks and Dashnaks, international relations of the country are a lot more important. The name has been discussed in many other articles, there's even a special article on that topic. What is the point in dupilicating this info in every article about Azerbaijan? [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 09:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::: For checking the publication, you can use this book: "''Storm over Caucasus: A Glance at the Iranian regional relation with the Republics of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia in the first period of independence 1917-1921'' ", Kaveh Bayat (In Persian), ISBN 964 - 361 - 065 - 9, pp 109 - 111.<br /> About the necessity of etymology section in every countries entry in Wikipedia , I checked the following entries : [[Turkey]], [[Armenia]],[[Georgia (country)|Georgia]] and [[Iran]]: what's the difference here , not to mention the etymology ?( considering the fact that there where no naming controversy over naming that countries , but there is still a section about their name in Wikipedia ) ...--[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] 21:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Alborz, the section you're reinsert through a second revert now is irrelevant here. It's a non-neutral POV being inserted at [[Azerbaijani people]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[History of Azerbaijan]], [[History of the name Azerbaijan]] articles. How many articles, does the same [[WP:SOAP]] have to appear in? It's clear as a day that the name Azerbaijan applied north of Araxes river since 17th century due to traveller Chardin and through Keith Abbott since 1863 article. So how could the name be "chosen" in 1918, if it already appeared in scholarly publications prior to that date? [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Mentioning a dispute in one article, is not an indicator of it's irrelevancy in other ones. [[Macedonia naming dispute]] is exactly the similar controversy , and that is mentioned in many pages such as [[Macedonia (region)]],[[ Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union | EU & Macedonia]],[[ Enlargement of the European Union | EU enlargement]],[[Republic of Macedonia]],[[Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia]],[[Macedonians (ethnic group)]] and so many other pages that I'm not able to mention them all. But about the thing that you consider "clear", our information shows opposite. Ernest Orsolle in his book "Le Caucase et la Perse " , clearly states that (1885) and also [[George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston |lord Curzon]] in his book ''Persia and the Persian Question'' seems to be more credible than Abott , because of his higher rank and newer view ...--[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] 21:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Alborz, can you provide us with a quote from Lord Curzon via Ernest Orsolle and its relevance to this topic. And can you, please, explain how Viceroy of India and Undersecretary of State who only traveled to Persia for a year, would be more credible than Consul General of Britain in Persia writing for Royal Geographic Society. It would make sense that the second was probably more familiar with geography and history of the region than the first. |
|||
::The Macedonia articles claim that Macedonia region spanned to FYRM, Greek Macedonia and parts of Albania. In the same fashion, historical Azerbaijan spanned what's today Republic of Azerbaijan and South (Iranian) Azerbaijan. This fact is attested by Chardin and Abbott references. So if you insist on irrelevant etymology section to be included in every Azerbaijan-related article, then perhaps, we should NPOV it instead of presenting the position of only one side in this disputed issue. [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] 07:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: Lord Curzon was the [[State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs|head of British demlomacy]] and also especilized in the Iranian topic as to the point of writing a book about the Iran . In 2nd vol of the book ''Persia and the Persian Question'' he names under the chapther"Russia's annexation of Iranian lands" , the fallowing : " Baku, Derbent, Shirvan,Megrelia,Karabakh,Ganja,Shekin,Abkhazia,Mughan,Imeretia (?),Guria (?) andTalysh".Simply, He does not says "Northern part of Azerbaijan " ...And about Orsolle , the whole book is about his voyage to that region , but he clearly talks about Caucasus and Azerbaijan : as an example in page 305 ( Persian translation , ISBN 964-426-000-7 he says ( beginning of chapter 17 ):"Iranian area is 1647070 Km<sup>2</sup> and it's population is about 7655000 ....most of the country is uninhibited except the Azerbaijan that has many rivers that originate from the mountains and the region of ...." , all of the book is about travel in caucus (and Iran ),but he never says anything about Azerbaijan in north of the Arass river : only Caucus ...--[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::* And to add, in Abbot's quote: {{cquote|The country known to the Persians as Azerbaijan is divided between them and Russia, the latter Power possessing about five-eighths of the whole, which may be roughly stated to cover an area of about 80,000 square miles, or about the size of Great Britain; 50,000 square miles are therefore about the extent of the division belonging to Russia, and 30,000 of that which remains to Persia. |
|||
The Russian division is bounded on the north and north-east by the mountains of Caucasus, extending to the vicinity of Bakou on the Caspian. On the west it has the provinces of Imeritia, Mingrelia, Gooriel, and Ahkhiska (now belonging to Russia); on the east it has the Caspian Sea, and on the south the boundary is marked by the course of the River Arrass (Araxes) to near the 46 th parallel of longitude, thence by a conventional line across the plains of Moghan to the district of Talish, and by the small stream of Astura which flows to the Caspian through the latter country. In this area are contained the following territorial divisions: - Georgia or Goorjistan, comprising Kakhetty, Kartaliny, Somekhetty, Kasakh; the Mohammedan countries of Eriwan, Nakhshewan, Karabagh, Ghenja, Shirwan, Shekky, Shamachy, Bakou, Koobeh, Salian and a portion of Talish. Georgia is traversed by the River Koor (Cyrus), a stream of no commercial importance, since it is not navigable except by boats. .. The population of Russian Azerbaijan consists of mixed races... The country included in these boundaries and, perhaps a large part, if not all, of Russian Azerbaijan recognized as Medea Atropotena in ancient geography.}}<br /> He used the term Russian Azerbaijan to denote the present areas of the caucus including Azerbaijan , Armenia and Georgia and also claims that half of Atropatene was contained in the caucus.Abbot makes several huge mistakes. He claims Atropatene was equally shared between the Caucasus and Iran , where as no modern historian says this. That is is blatantly and historically false. He claims major areas of Georgia as Azerbaijan , no other map or source has done that. Megrelia is in northern Georgia : Mingrelia. No other map and source has done this. He claims all of Armenia , no other map has done that. The name Azerbaijani by itself is a ethnonym from the last century in the Caucusus. Even if Armenia had a large Azerbaijani speaking population, at that time they were not called Azerbaijani. He also claims that Russian Azerbaijan is bigger than Iranian Azerbaijan, we know this is not true as the Qajar had only 4 provinces in Iran and one of them was Azerbaijan . Also Mirza Jamal Qarabaghi, a local historian from Qarabagh does not consider part of the caucus as Azerbaijan . Also according to Wikipedia rules, it is up to scholars to summarize primary sources. Diakonoff being a contemporary scholar has much more weight.<br />Qajar's tended to call all of the North Western Iran "Azerbaijan" because they where all under authority of Azerbaijan Baiglarbagi that's the same for Khorasan that they called all regions of the North East Iran as Khorasan , regardless the history and geography : that may mislead some of the westerners to use same naming attitude , but that's not correct and reliable , because then all of the various regions of that place have to be called Azerbaijan , including Georgia and Armenia--[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*Also the same about Chardin: {{cquote|Media, which formerly ruled all Asia with an imperial dominion, at present makes but one part of a province, though the largest in the Persian empire, called Azerbeyan or Asapaican. It borders on the east upon the Caspian Sea and Hyrcania, on the south upon Parthia, on the west upon Araxes and the Upper Armenia, of which Assyria is a part, and on the north on Dagestan, which is that mountanious country that borders upon the Muscovite Cossacks, and part of Mount Taurus. The Persians affirm, that the name of Azerbeyan implies, the country of fire, by reason of the famous temple of fire which was there erected, where was kept that fire which the fire-worshippers hold to be a god. Nimrod is said first to have brought in this worship, and there is a certain sect called Guebres which still maintain it.}} |
|||
During Safavid Iran , because of the powerful centralism , the regional governors named big provinces with only one name and thus the province of Azerbaijan , that was a main peace of Iran , became neighbor of [[Parthia (satrapy)|Parthia]] that tends to be in N.E Iran, that is today some place between Iran and Turkmenistan. Then using Chardin to depict Azerbaijan boundaries is imprecise.--[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] 15:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: It does not matter what is precise and what is not. Making original research about sources is not allowed. We just quote it as it is, and both Abbot and Chardin call north of Araks Azerbaijan. That is undeniable fact, but it has nothing to do with ADR. The name section should be deleted from every article other than History of the name. The admin EI C deleted it, and that's the end of the story. Other articles about Azerbaijan also need a clean-up. --[[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Imprecisety was shown to stress on [[WP:UNDUE]].But about to mention and/or refer to the naming dispute page in the involved articles or not , that can be achieved via comparison with similar problems ( I mean [[Macedonia naming dispute]]) and consensus. Admins are always open to edit for a better edition and the discussion page is built for achieving this goal. --[[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] 06:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I have to disagree with some friends here not in terms of belief but in terms of editing Wikipedia. I thought a long time we decided that we should just keep it in one article [[history of the name Azerbaijan]]. There are differing opinions, but I do not think this back and forth argument is necessary for every article as Wikipedia requires one article per issue. A real Encyclopedia usually deals with one issue in one article anyway. --[[User:Ali doostzadeh|alidoostzadeh]] 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Yes, Ali is correct, but this has nothing to do with that agreement. This is about the Eytmology and usage section, which is highly relevant to the ADR. Once again, as with the other debates we have had regarding this issue, some parties to the dispute refuse to acknowledge the evidence, source, and arguments brought by others. This is a clear cut case: A) undue weight is being violated, B) WP:NPOV is being violated, C) Wikipedia NOR is being violated, and D) sourced information is being removed. |
|||
Once again, we keep hearing about Chardin and Abbot, what about the hundreds of other sources that say opposite? Not to mention that both these sources make mistakes, one in particular makes huge mistakes and the other is talking about Media, and that we have yet to see a single map... |
|||
Are we really going to have this discussion all over again? [[User:Thatcher131/Sandbox1]] it has already happened and the outcome was clear.[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 22:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: Well, if we consider the Ali's opinion as correct , then at least we may show the controversy in choosing this name for the Caucasian republic by referring to such a page ( or entry)in the section Etymology and usage : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_name_Azerbaijan#Azerbaijan_as_the_name_of_an_independent_republic naming controversy] [[User:Alborz Fallah|Alborz Fallah]] 08:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well the issue of naming as admins have concurred is to be done in one article. Alborz Jan, I disagree with the approach of putting this issue in every article. I think this way we can all concentrate on making better Wikipedia articles. --[[User:Ali doostzadeh|alidoostzadeh]] 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I removed the links to irrelevant articles such as Arran and Caucasian Albania. The link to History of the name is there and it is quite sufficient. --[[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 07:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Those links are highly relevant. A) It is a geograhpic name of Iranian origin, B) Arran was the name of the region prior to it being called Azerbaijan, and C) Caucasus ALbania is what it was known historically.[[User:Hajji Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 04:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: What does that all have to do with ADR? Stop bringing the name issue in every article about Azerbaijan. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 07:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Hajji Piruz has inserted irrelevant material here. The discussion and POVs about the name of Azerbaijan have absolutely no relevance to Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. The issue was brought by Hajji Piruz in every article related to Azerbaijan in general, further fueling conflict. [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] 16:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Armenia in east?== |
|||
Isnt Armenia is in west? Not in east? [[User:Mimihitam|Mimihitam]] ([[User talk:Mimihitam|talk]]) 01:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the note, also Georgia was forgotten, so corrected those now. [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] ([[User talk:Atabek|talk]]) 17:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==References== |
|||
The context in which the reference to Audrey Alstadt's book was used in this article is dubious. Page 2 of her book says: "The word Azerbaijan may have been formed from Atropaten, named for Atropat, a satrap of Alexander of Macedonia in 328 B.C.E.". Addressing that in the article. [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] ([[User talk:Atabek|talk]]) 13:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==First or second== |
|||
ADR was the first democratic and secular Muslim republic de-facto recognized by Allies and Soviet Russia. Crimean Republic was not, and the majority of Crimean Republic's population were not Muslims. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 15:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:1) De facto and de jure isn't the same; 2) The majority of population was not Muslim but all officials were Crimean Tatars, i. e. Muslims. Having Muslim authorities is more important here than having Muslim population.[[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: There was no such thing as Crimean Republic. It was called "Крымское краевое правительство", i.e. Crimean regional government, led by general Sulkevich, future Chief of Staff of Azerbaijani Army. It was not a republic, and [[Masey Sulkevich|Sulkevich]] became a head of this government on 25 June 1918, while Azerbaijan became independent on 28 May 1918. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 12:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Here's a source in Russian about that. [http://hronos.km.ru/organ/ru19170140.html] [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 12:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: Come on, there's an article in Wikipedia about Crimean People's Republic:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_People%27s_Republic] [[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 00:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Wikipedia articles cannot be references. Please cite a reliable source saying that Crimean republic was the first republic in the Muslim world. Here are the sources saying that ADR was the first one: |
|||
{{quotation|After the Transcaucasian Federation collapsed, Azerbaijani nationalists outside Baku formed the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (Azerbaijan Khalg Jumhuriyeti, 1918—20), the first republic in the Muslim world. |
|||
<br /> <br /> |
|||
Carter V. Findley. The Turks in World History. Oxford University Press US, 2005 |
|||
ISBN 0195177266, 9780195177268}} |
|||
{{quotation|Following the proclamation of independence, the next step in organizing the first republic in the Muslim world was to select a prime minister. To no one's surprise, the choice fell on Khan Khoiskii, who began his work by sending telegrams notifying foreign governments of the establishment of the Azerbaijani Republic with the interim capital in Ganja. |
|||
<br /> <br /> |
|||
Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. Columbia University Press, 1995. ISBN 0231070683, 9780231070683}} |
|||
{{quotation|The first modern republic in the Islamic world was the 'Azerbaijan Democratic |
|||
Republic' proclaimed in Ganja on 28/5/1918 (until May 1920); Turkish-Azerbaijani nationalism rejected a royalist system, since the latter would have been supported by a Persian princely dynasty. |
|||
<br /> <br /> |
|||
Reinhard Schulze. A Modern History of the Islamic World. I.B.Tauris, 2000. ISBN 1860648223, 9781860648229}} |
|||
{{quotation|The first true declaration of independence of a Russian Muslim territory took place in Azerbaijan. The dissolution of the Transcaucasian Federation (May 1918) - as a result of internal dissension between Georgians. Armenians and Azeris, and the setbacks suffered by the Ottoman army - led the Azerbaijani National Council (under the control of Mussavat) to declare the independence of 'Azerbaijan' on 28 May 1918, with Ganja as its capital (since Baku was in the hands of the Bolsheviks and the Armenian Dashnaks). This was not only the first independent Muslim republic, but it was also the first time that the name 'Azerbaijan' had been used to refer to a nation. The arrival of Ottoman troops under Nuri Pasha paradoxically served to accentuate the Azeris' feeling of difference in relation to their new Turkish big brother, who behaved condescendingly and was wary of formally recognising Azerbaijani independence. On 7 December 1918, after the departure of the Ottomans and occupation by Britain, Rassulzade declared in parliament that Azerbaijan was henceforth a nation unto itself. |
|||
<br /> <br /> |
|||
Olivier Roy, The New Central Asia: The Creation of Nations. London: ib Tauris, 2000. ISBN 0-8147-7554-3. pp. 43-44}} |
|||
So stop reverting, and cite sources that support your position. --[[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 05:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::http://www.cidct.org.ua/en/studii/2(2000)/6.html |
|||
{{quotation|This was the situation in November 1917 when the Moslem Executive Committee and its urban and district committees conducted elections to the Kurultay of the Crimean Tatar People. |
|||
The sessions of the Kurultay in the Khan's Palace in Bakhchisarai began on 28 November and continued into December. |
|||
The Moslem Executive Committee passed its full powers to the Kurultay, - the Parliament of the Crimean Tatar People - whose leaders were Ch. Chelbi-Dzhikan, D. Seydamet, A. Ozenbashli, A. Ayvazov and others. The Kyiv Central Council welcomed the creation of the Kurultay by telegram (14). |
|||
The Kurultay declared for the calling of an All-Crimean Constitutional Assembly and the creation of a democratic republic within the peninsula. It did not pretend to control of other ethnic groups in Crimea. D. Seydamet explained: "The Kurultay gives up entirely decisions about land, political, military, and financial questions to the compentency of the All-Crimean Constitutional Assembly" (15). On 14 December the Kurultay published "Crimean Tatar basis laws", in fact the first Crimean Tatar Constitution. |
|||
It stipulated the equality of all ethnic groups in the Crimean People's Republic, which should be created, and the election of a Crimean parliament - the All-Crimean Constitutional Assembly. This body should decide the general political, land, and financial questions for the whole population (16)}} <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 09:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::::http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ua_krtat.html#rep |
|||
:::::You must provide better sources than those; an academic source that says Crimean People's Republic became autonomous. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 10:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I can but they won't be in English.[[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Russian will do. I have many more sources saying that ADR was the first republic in the Muslim world, they are all academic publications. Wiki articles must rely on views, prevailing in the scholarly community. Websites of Crimean Tatar nationalists and online blogs are not reliable sources. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 08:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::As I have written, Azerbaijan was the second Muslim republic - so it is natural that a scholar who doesn't know about Crimean People's Republic (which hasn't been properly researched yet) thinks that Azerbaijan was the first.[[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 12:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Here is a Russian source (I think it would be difficult to regard it as biased since Russians often claim Crimea for themselves): http://www.moscow-crimea.ru/history/20vek/zarubiny/glava1_3.html[[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 12:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: But it does not support what you say. It says that the Crimean Republic was declared by Tatar Kurultay (Assembly), but never materialized and remained only on paper: ''Крымская Народная Республика не состоялась. Она осталась только в тексте конституции Курултая.'' So it does not say that there was actually a state called Crimean republic. --[[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 16:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Because Bolsheviks came. But they eventually came to Azerbaijan as well. http://www-ki.rada.crimea.ua/arhiv/1991/08/totalitarizm.html[[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::: Your sources only say one thing - Tatar leaders declared independence as Crimean Republic, but it never became a functioning state, as it had no control over most of the territory of Crimea, including its capital. It existed only on paper. You cannot compare it with ADR, which was a fully functioning state with its own parliament, army, embassies in other countries and even had a de-facto recognition from Allies. That's why all the sources say that ADR was the first republic in the Muslim world. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 05:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::If you read the sources thoroughly you would notice that Crimean People's Republic had Qurultay - parliament, and an army which tried to seize major Crimean cities in January 1918. And Ukrainian People's Republic de facto recognized Crimean People's Republic.[[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::: Yes, but it failed to become a state. Kurultay had no control over most of the territory of Crimea, so it was an unsuccessful attempt to create a state. Look also here: [http://www.hrono.ru/organ/ru19170130.html] That's why all the sources say that the first republic was ADR. Even your sources say that Crimean Tatar Republic existed only on paper and never became a functioning state. So far you provided no source saying that Crimean Republic was the first in the Muslim world. And I can cite a lot more sources in addition to those that I already did. According to the rules, the info must be verifiable. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 05:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::But when you say "pre-dating Republic of Turkey" - ADR ceased to be before the latter was created. And it had existed for less than two years. |
|||
::::::::::::::Crimean People's Republic was a failed state, yes, but that doesn't mean it was not a state at all.[[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::By the way, how and when was Parliament of ADR elected? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
While I knew the information was wrong, I did not want to be the first one to bring it up. Some users here are notorious for their retaliations. But since it was brought up, I will comment on it. I don't see the need to provide sources in Russian, when sources in English exist. In fact both claims put forward by Azeri nationalists, that Azerbaijan was the first Muslim state and that it was the first to let women vote have been recycled from what was the Crimean Tatar republic. In fact, not only did Ukraine recognize its independence, the Crimean Tatar National Government, which commanded both the Crimean Cavalry Regiment and Crimean Tatar infantry was able to extend its power over the entire Crimea except the military base of Sevastopol which was under the Bolshevik control. (source: National Movements and National Identity Among the Crimean Tatars, 1905-1916, by Hakan Kırımlı, BRILL, 1996). The delegates from whom the members of the government were chosen were chosen ''on the basis of a broad franchise of all adult male and female Tatars.'' (source: The Crimean Tatars, by Alan W. Fisher, Hoover Press, 1978) Definitely the first Muslim republic giving women the right to vote was Crimean Tataristan. It was also the first Muslim nation which from its own constitution gave equal right to women and men. (see parts of the constitution on that in The Crimean Tatars: The Diaspora Experience and the Forging of a Nation by Brian Glyn Williams, BRILL, 2001). The election in Crimean Tataristan was much better organized and electoral than the one in Azerbaijan, with several parties. (see the parties and the result of the election here Conflicting Loyalties and the State in Post-Soviet Russia and Eurasia, by Michael Waller, Bruno Coppieters, Routledge, 1998) Crimean Tataristan boders were better defined than Azerbaijan, it also included several ministries, a democratically elected government. Given that the League of Nations did not exist when the republic was formed and that the defeated nations recognition was what it took prior to it, Crimean Tataristan remains the fist Muslim republic and the first which gave women the right to vote. [[User:VartanM|VartanM]] ([[User talk:VartanM|talk]]) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Did you see all the sources above? If you think that Crimean Republic was the first one in the Muslim World, you need to cite a source that says so. So far I've seen none. I can cite another dozen of sources saying that ADR was the first one. You know the rules [[WP:V]] and [[WP:OR]]. Original research is not allowed. If you can support your claims with sources, then the relevant changes to the articles could be made. Otherwise it will be OR. As I said, Crimean Republic was not a state, it was proclaimed in Bahchisaray, but had no control over most of the territory of Crimea, including its capital, and no recognition from majority of population of the region. So as the sources say, it remained only on paper, but never materialized in real life. You cannot compare it with Azerbaijan. And Azerbaijani parliament was elected while the British occupational forces were stationed in Baku, it was quite a democratic procedure. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 04:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Also note the difference between Tatar Kurultay and Azerbaijani parliament. Kurulatay represented only people of Tatar ethnicity, Azerbaijani parliament represented the entire population of the country. It even had 2 Armenian fractions, one Dashnak and another one moderate. So ADR parliament was not a monoethnic assembly, it was a real legislative body representing people of all ethnicities. --[[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 04:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: VartanM, first of all, "Crimean Tataristan" is a made-up name, who else has used it except yourself? |
|||
:: Second of all, what criteria are you using when you call a republic "Muslim"? It is the Islam-based political system? But Crimea was not a theocratic state. Is it the main religion of the population? But Crimea was over 50% Eastern Orthodox, with ethnic Russians making up the majority of the population. Is it the year when the ruling party was formed? But [[Musavat]] was formed way earlier. I do not see a thing about the Crimean People's Republic that defines it as first anything in the Muslim world. It seemed more like a unifying body for the Crimean Tatar population; an ethnic rather than a nation-state governing establishment. In comparison, Azerbaijan was majority-Muslim in population, ruled by a party that had been formed under the name of ''Muslim Democratic Party'' (and whose power extended over the non-Azeri population, unlike the Kurultay's with regard to non-Crimean Tatars), and Islam was one of the three main parts of its national ideology, reflected in the Declaration of Independence. |
|||
:: What kind of 'democratically elected government' are you talking about, when voting, as you yourself quoted from the source, was only the prerogative of the Crimean Tatar minority? (Whereas in Azerbaijan, even the Dashnaks had represenation in Parliament, along with a wide variety of Azeri parties, not just one, as you said). And how was recognition by Ukraine a benefit, if Ukraine itself was not a recognised state until after the fall of CPR? Azerbaijan, at least, had seen recognition from several existing countries. [[User:Parishan|Parishan]] ([[User talk:Parishan|talk]]) 05:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Photographs== |
|||
Most of the photographs used in this article have no validity here. The entry is about the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, not about late-19th century Tzarist-period architecture in the TransCaucasus! The Parliament building photo can remain, becasue that's where their parliament met, but the rest should be removed. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 17:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 14:58, 18 February 2024
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Area and population
Information about area and population must come from third part sources. Aydin Balayev of Azerbaijan Press Agency are not third patry sources. --vacio 16:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure? We rely on the United States Government for information on that country's area and population, why should this be any different, especially when discussing a country that's been extinct for 90 years?
- Because: 1) ADR had no internationally recognized borders, 2) it had territorial disputes with two of its neighbors. 3) Unlike US, it is a historical state, so I think we should use information from historians without bias. --vacio 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- the United States is not a "historical state"? what?? 50.111.29.145 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
NovaSkola, before making a revert, please read WP:NEWSORG which states: For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. A news agency can not be a reliable source for such a disputable claim like the area of a historical state with no de jure borders, Not to speak about that it has to be from a neutral, third party source. --vacio 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Vacio, Aydin Balayev is not Azeri Press Agency but is a renown Soviet historian, who is an expert on particular issue. His studies come from Soviet archives. The APA source just corroborates Balayev source. Moreover, you are not correct when stating ADR had no internationally recognized borders. Unlike Democratic Republic of Armenia, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was recognized de-facto in January 1920 by the Paris Peace Conference. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Vacio, actually it was you who claims in my page sources are "partisan" just due historian is Azerbaijani. APA is world known news agency and information is not biased and fake like ones you get in panarmenian.com, which once claimed absolutely hilarious and funny stuff that some users are in topics are hackers, even know it was me and there was no evidence of hacking or w/ever hurdy-gurdy they are claiming.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Translation of Official Name
It is unclear what the official name of the country was. The Azerbaijani government translates the name as the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic here https://meclis.gov.az/news-az.php?id=14&lang=en, the phrase 'Azərbaycan Xalq' is generaly translated as the 'Azerbaijani people' meaning it would be the Azerbaijani People's Republic but it seems that the name could be more accurately translated as the Republic of the People of Azerbaijan or the Republic of the Azerbaijani Nation. What are all of our thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappasi (talk • contribs)
- As I understand, the official names in Azerbaijani and French/English languages were different. While Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti indeed literally translates as People's Republic, the name in other languages was Democratic Republic. I cannot say why it was decided to do like that, maybe because democracy means "rule of people", and it was translated into Azerbaijani like "people's republic". Grandmaster 14:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, xalq cumhuriyyeti means people's republic, same in Turkish. Also "Azərbaycan Xalq" isn't "Azerbaijani people", it is gramatically incorrect. Beshogur (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Intro rewriting
Hello
My proposal would be as follows:
The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic[a] (abbreviated as ADR; Azerbaijani: آذربایجان خلق جومهوریتی, romanized: Azərbaycan Demokratik Cümhuriyyəti), was a short-lived republic in the South Caucasus. It was founded by the Azerbaijani National Council in Tiflis on 28 May 1918 after the collapse of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic.[8] Its established borders were with Russia to the north, the Democratic Republic of Georgia to the north-west, the Republic of Armenia to the west, and Iran to the south. It had a population of around 3 million.[9] As Baku was under Bolshevik control, Ganja acted as the temporary capital of the ADR.
The name of "Azerbaijan" was adopted by the leading Musavat party to foment Turkic nationalism in Iran.[10][11] Prior to the establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918, it was exclusively used to identify the adjacent region of contemporary northwestern Iran.[12][13][14]
Under the ADR, a government system was developed in which a Parliament elected on the basis of universal, free, and proportionate representation was the supreme organ of state authority; the Council of Ministers was held responsible before it. Fatali Khan Khoyski became its first prime minister.[15] Besides the Musavat majority, Ahrar, Ittihad, Muslim Social Democrats as well as representatives of Armenian (21 out of 120 seats[8]), Russian, Polish, and Jewish minorities[16] gained seats in the parliament. Many members supported Pan-Islamist and Pan-Turkist ideas.[17]
Among the important accomplishments of the Parliament was the extension of suffrage to women, making Azerbaijan one of the first countries in the world, and the first majority-Muslim nation, to grant women equal political rights with men.[8] The ADR was also the second successful secular, democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds after the Crimean People's Republic.[18] The contemporary Republic of Azerbaijan regards itself as the legal successor to the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan rather than to the Azerbaijani SSR.[19]
Including a university is not significant enough for a country. Every country has its universities. Also, saying that is was the "first successful country etc." is overly positive I think. My proposal for just a republic would be much more fitting and NPOV . --217.149.166.11 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- There was a long Talk page discussion in 2008 (long since archived) in which the view that the ADR was the first secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds had the strongest argument and the most reliable sources backing it up. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic/Archive_1#First_or_second
- Years later, some editors ignored that consensus and started claiming that the ADR was only the second or third such republic. In March 2021, a discussion took place on the Talk page in which the consensus was to describe the ADR as the first *successful* attempt at establishing a secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds. The word "successful" was added as a compromise because of the claim by some editors that the Crimean People's Republic, whose government did not rule over the entire population of Crimea (only over the Muslim citizens) and which lasted only about a month, was a secular democratic republic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic#First_or_third? I agree with the compromise that was achieved through consensus.
- I am pinging the editors who participated in the March 2021 discussion so that they can participate in this new discussion and consider your proposed edits: @ChillManChill:, @Grandmaster:, @Parishan:, @Golden: AuH2ORepublican (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot AuH2O.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is not a good lead, so I oppose. The name of Azerbaijan was certainly used to refer to both sides of Araks (see for example this), and it was not second successful attempt, as was discussed before. Grandmaster 10:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think the current one is not good either. You do not begin a page with "country was the first successful bla bla bla". This is not an advertisement. And Azerbaijan was certainly not used *by Turks* for anything north of the Aras before the Russians came along.217.149.166.11 (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I do not believe that calling the ADR the "first successful secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds" can be described as "an advertisement." The word "successful" was selected not to praise the ADR, but to differentiate it from earlier, much shorter-lived efforts to establish secular republics in the Turkic and Muslim worlds. (Besides, how could one "advertise" for a government that fell a century ago?) And I agree with Grandmaster's comments overall. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- You do not seem to be familiar with Azerbaijani irredentism nowadays. The Azerbaijani state even views itself as the legal successor of the DR to justify its territorial claims against Armenia. Secondly, you just do not put the successful part in the first sentence, that is ridiculous. Should the USA article be "The United States is the first successful country with liberty and gun rights enshrined in its constitution"?? Also the ADR was short lived itself. We should not act as if it was in power from 100 years--217.149.166.11 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I do not believe that calling the ADR the "first successful secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds" can be described as "an advertisement." The word "successful" was selected not to praise the ADR, but to differentiate it from earlier, much shorter-lived efforts to establish secular republics in the Turkic and Muslim worlds. (Besides, how could one "advertise" for a government that fell a century ago?) And I agree with Grandmaster's comments overall. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I'd like for some one else to reply to me besides Grandmaster. They have accused me of cheating Wikipedia, and they try to undermine my suggestions on discussion pages. I do not appreciate it. @AuH2ORepublican: Can we please have some other opinions too? Thanks a bunch!217.149.166.11 (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I already pinged the editors who participated in the prior discussion. If you wish to invite every editor who has edited the article in the past, say, six months, you are free to do so, although please note that most of them edited sections of the article unrelated to the issues that you brought up. I also would like to point out that you do not get to exclude Grandmaster from the discussion, nor the other, unnamed editors whom you claim "accuse[d you] of cheating Wikipedia." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I also would like to point out that Grandmaster accusing me of socks and working against me in every discussion I open is not fair. Especially you as an administrator or something should not allow things like that. That is strategic bullying.217.149.166.11 (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I already pinged the editors who participated in the prior discussion. If you wish to invite every editor who has edited the article in the past, say, six months, you are free to do so, although please note that most of them edited sections of the article unrelated to the issues that you brought up. I also would like to point out that you do not get to exclude Grandmaster from the discussion, nor the other, unnamed editors whom you claim "accuse[d you] of cheating Wikipedia." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Now, Beshogur, a renowned irredentist, claims we don't have consensus on the non-controversial edits. We clearly do. The things I now edited were never up for discussion anyways. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&oldid=1061570027.217.149.166.11 (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think the current one is not good either. You do not begin a page with "country was the first successful bla bla bla". This is not an advertisement. And Azerbaijan was certainly not used *by Turks* for anything north of the Aras before the Russians came along.217.149.166.11 (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is not a good lead, so I oppose. The name of Azerbaijan was certainly used to refer to both sides of Araks (see for example this), and it was not second successful attempt, as was discussed before. Grandmaster 10:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot AuH2O.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
where's the consensus? And please avoid rhetorics like bla bla bla
and stop calling me a renowned irredentist
. Beshogur (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oh wow, "bla bla bla" was enough for the noticeboard, or? You have double standards and never even replied to my messages and questions.217.149.166.11 (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Consensus
Hello
Opening another thread to garner consensus. See thread above to which everyone stopped responding instead of being productive.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- At least 3 different users objected to your proposed edit. You have not addressed any of their concerns, and yet tried to introduce your version. That is not how WP:CONSENSUS works. Grandmaster 15:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- I can't figure out what's exactly the disagreement over this recent edit? It isn't the initial one which was disagreed upon I believe, and for this one, your only disagreement seems to be "no consensus". That isn't a valid disagrement reason, and just seems gaming the rules to stop new edits being introduced. If you'd be kind enough to explain in a couple words what exactly you disagree with this recent edit, it would be nice. Others are also free to join. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- To reach consensus for what? If it's for your proposed new introduction, you won't count with my support. My vote is for the initial sentence in the article to state that the ADR "was the first successful secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds." I also vote against describing the ADR as "short-lived," as such term is not precise and, in the context of the 1918-1920 period in the region, quite misleading. The ADR did not collapse after two years because the government no longer was supported by its citizens, or even because of an internal coup by a willful minority faction within its population; the ADR was invaded by the Soviet Union, which swallowed it up just as it did to so many other countries in Europe and Asia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I "stopped responding" to the prior discussion because I gave my opinion on your proposal and saw no need to comment once you turned the discussion into a venue fir lobbing personal attacks against other editors just because they disagreed with you. Please try to keep things civil; getting suspended for personal attacks or edit-warring is not an effective strategy for obtaining a consensus. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Whoa, I just saw that your IP account was blocked for two months for continued edit-warring. My comment about how getting blocked for inappropriate behavior was not a good strategy for obtaining a consensus was a reference to the 48-hour block from a few days ago; certainly, getting yourself blocked for two *months* is an even less productive strategy. You probably won't be reading this, but in case that you do, let me advise you that reacting to your block with "I have plenty of IP addresses. Do you think this will stop me? :)--217.149.166.11 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)" is not a good strategy for obtaining a consensus, either, particularly if you return under a different name or IP account before the two months have expired and are discovered and banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry. You should wait two months and, when you return from your suspension, maybe you should try (i) discussing matters in a polite and civilized manner and (ii) providing reliable sources that actually support your claims. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Azerbaijani or Turkish ?
There is something to be known here. When the People's Republic of Azerbaijan was established, the official language was declared Turkish (Azerbaijan language). In 1930, the Turkish spoken in Azerbaijan was changed to the Azerbaijani language. I propose adding Turkish to my language section in parentheses. 37.26.53.164 (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- A few sources which shed some light on things:
- "On 27 May 1918, the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (DRA) was declared with Ottoman military support. The rulers of the DRA refused to identify themselves as Tatar, which they rightly considered to be a Russian colonial definition. Instead, they defined the Turkic-speaking Muslim people of the southeast Caucasus as Turkic. In their native tongue they were Azerbaijani Turk or simply Turk, but with a broader meaning of the word. We understand the usage of this broader meaning from Russian texts of the same period where Tiurk or Tiurkskii (Turkic) was used. DRA officials also frequently used "Muslim" to identify the same group because the majority of the population still identified themselves by religion. Neighboring Iran did not welcome the DRA's adoption of the name of "Azerbaijan" for the country because it could also refer to Iranian Azerbaijan and implied a territorial claim. That is why the authorities in Baku also used these definitions with the adjective of "Transcaucasian" (Russian: Zakavkazskii)." -- Harun Yilmaz (2013) The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s. Iranian Studies. p. 514
- "In April 1920, when the Red Army entered Baku, the Bolsheviks followed the designation of the previous nationalist government and accepted Turk in the native tongue and Tiurk in Russian as the name for the titular nation. Azerbaijan was kept as the name of the territory and the republic. What were the consecutive developments that induced the Bolsheviks to replace this Turkic definition by an Azerbaijani definition seventeen years later?" -- idem, p. 515
- "A possible solution would have been to remove the ethno-linguistic term Turk and Turkicness from the definition of "Azerbaijani" identity. However, removing the Turkic element could turn the population into easy prey for the Iranian national identity that was being promoted by Tehran at the time. As the transformation of "Turkishness" in the 1930s into a national identity of a nation-state in Turkey produced an identity issue for the Azerbaijani Turkic population, the nation-building of Reza Shah in Iran also did so. " -- idem, p. 519
- "The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14
- "A group of Azerbaijani nationalist elites, led by M.A. Rasulzada, declared independence for the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) on 28 May 1918. After a century of Russian colonial rule, the emergent Azerbaijani nation established its first nation-state. Not only was it a new state but also it was a new nation. Because they previously had lacked a distinct national identity, the Azerbaijani Turks had been called “Caucasian Muslims” or “Tatars,” a common term used for the subject Muslim population in the Tsarist Russian empire (Мишиjeв, 1987, p. 159). The Azerbaijani identity and nation were new constructions of nationalists of the late 19th century, culminating in the establishment of the ADR. The life of the ADR was short, ending 2 years after its declaration as a result of the Soviet takeover in 1920. However, the emergent nation, deprived of its newly found state, did not cease to exist. Indeed, nation building has continued and has evolved in interaction with the Soviet nationalities policies and the establishment of the independent Republic of Azerbaijan in 1991." -- Ramin Ahmadoghlu. (2021). Secular nationalist revolution and the construction of the Azerbaijani identity, nation and state. Volume27, Issue 2
- "In other words, the initial design for Azerbaijan was a multiethnic country uniting Transcaucasian Muslims (including “Transcaucasian Tatars,” or Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Ajarians, Tats, Talysh, Ingilois, and others) with significant Christian minorities (including Georgians, Armenians, and Russians). Within the context of this project, the category “Azerbaijani” did not yet have a narrow ethnic or linguistic connotation and an Azerbaijani nation was made possible by including not only Azerbaijani Turks and, for example, Talysh but also Georgian Ingilois and—more problematic, but still feasible—even Azerbaijani Armenians (as a religious minority). The republic’s 1918 declaration of independence began with a reference to the “peoples of Azerbaijan as the holders of sovereign rights.” In this regard, the young Azerbaijani political entity had the potential to be, and to some extent was, better suited to the incorporation of ethnic minorities than were the Georgian and Armenian nations." -- Artur Tsutsiev (2014). Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus. Yale University Press. p. 71
- "They are ethnically close, and until 1937 the people of Azerbaijan were officially designated as Turkish. The term "Azeri" was imposed by Stalin's "ethnic engineers". -- Baryam Balci chapter: Turkey-Azerbaijan relations: from romanticism to realism". In: Alexander Agadjanian, Ansgar Jödicke, Evert van der Zweerde, eds. (2015). "Religion, Nation and Democracy in the South Caucasus". Routledge. p. 258
- "Until 1937, Soviet publications and official documents referred to the titular nation of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic as Tiurk (Turkic) in Russian and Turk (Turkish and Turkic, as there are no separate words for these two concepts in Turkic tongues) in the local Turkic language. But as if a magic wand had touched the country in 1937, everyone began to define the titular nation as Azerbaijani. -- Harun Yilmaz (2013) The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s. Iranian Studies. p. 511
- "In the 1770s, Turkic tribal groups from Kartli to Derbent were identified by, in particular, Gil’denshtedt (Puteshestvie po Kavkazu) using the overall category of Terekeme Tatars (as distinct from Kumyk Tatars). After the appearance of the term “Transcaucasia” in the 1830s the category “Transcaucasian Tatars” came gradually into use, generally for speakers of “Turkic-Azerbaijani languages” who populated the Russian provinces “beyond the Caucasus.” By the 1860s the qualification of the language of the Transcaucasian Tatars as a Turkic-Azerbaijani language, distinct from Kumyk, Nogai, or Crimean, was clearly being used as the basis for ethnic categorization. By the late nineteenth century “Transcaucasian Tatars” (sometimes called Azerbaijani Tatars as a designation for speakers of Tatar languages, i.e., Azerbaijanli-Turk) were still being distinguished from “Turks” (as a designation of speakers of Turkish or Osmanli-Turk). During the period of Azerbaijani independence (1918–1920), the first category evolved into simply “Turks,” which had been inherited by the early Soviet ethnic nomenclature (having in the process subsumed Osmanli Turks remaining within Soviet borders). Later, in 1921–1930, this category was slightly refined as “Azerbaijani Turks” (which also encompassed the Meskhetian Turkic-speaking population in Georgia) to match political realities. Finally, in 1939, it was transformed simply into “Azerbaijani,” a result that underscores not so much the linguistic distinction between the Anatolian (Osmanli) Turk and the Azeri Turk as the deterioration of Soviet-Turkish relations." -- Artur Tsutsiev (2014). Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus. Yale University Press. p. (note 150).
- Its indeed a bit more complex. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
So what exactly does this epic summer have to do with our topic? Kergid (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000
- Seems you didn't read the question by the IP nor the listed quotes. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
You emphasize too many places in your article, but my question was simple. There was no Azerbaijani language until 1930, it was referred to as Turkish. That's why the Azerbaijani language is written in the language section of the Azerbaijan Republic, which existed between 1918 and 1920? Kergid (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000
- Ah, ok, so you were the IP? Well, the sources I posted basically agree with your assertion, I just added them to shed some more light on it and expand on the background of the issue. Indeed, at the time, during the short-lived existence of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the word "Azerbaijan" was used as a designation for the state, whereas the nation's titular ethnicity and their language were most commonly known as "Turks" and "Turkish" respectively. As for the infobox, I guess one could change it into:
- "Turkish (later known as Azerbaijani or Azeri Turkic)"
- Thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with your opinion. Kergid (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000- When listing the language spoken in the short-lived republic, we should use the modern name of such language, which is "Azerbaijani," given that the language spoken in Azerbaijan during those years was exactly the same language as the Azerbaijani of today. Similarly, in the article for the Ukrainian People's Republic, we say that the language spoken there was "Ukrainian" even though in that era the Russian Empire, for political reasons, had deemed Ukrainian to be a form of Russian and not its own language. Also, we need to be particularly careful not to use a term for Azerbaijani that today has a very different meaning, such as "Turkish." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Kergid @LouisAragon Seems like there is an obvious misunderstanding by both of you here. Azerbaijani language developed seperately from the Turkish language, it is not a branch of Turkish. This addition would confuse editors, they might think that Azerbaijani is a sub branch of Turkish.
- Additionally, the "i" at the word "Türki" is a relative suffix, equavelant to the "-ic" at the English language. BerkBerk68 12:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Azerbaijani language developed seperately from the Turkish language, it is not a branch of Turkish."
- No one said anything about the fact that the two developed separately, nor did anyone claim Azerbaijani being a branch of Turkish.
- "This addition would confuse editors, they might think that Azerbaijani is a sub branch of Turkish."
- I don't think so. The text within the brackets clearly explains the context, and the very first alinea of the body at the Azerbaijani language explains that it was changed from Turkish to Azerbaijani/Azeri under the Soviets.
- - LouisAragon (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- I believe there's a confusion here as the sources and quotes both you and Kergid have provided are related to the demonyms of Azeris and not the name of the language, which appears to be what Kergid wants to change. — Golden call me maybe? 15:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Here's a source for the language as well:
- "After the Russian Bolsheviks re-conquered the region in 1920-21, the newly formed Caucasian states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) were annexed to the Soviet Union and renamed, on 12 March 1922, The Transcaucasian Soviet Socialist Republic. Later they were granted separate political status among the Soviet Republics. Then, by the order of Joseph Stalin, the name of the formal language of Azerbaijan was changed from Turkish to Azeri. Both the adoption of Azerbaijan for the region and Azeri for the language of the new entity are historically and linguistically questionable " -- EI. (2011) [1987]. "AZERBAIJAN". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. III, Fasc. 2-3. pp. 205–257.
- The numerous WP:RS on this talk page show that neither the demonym of the country's titular ethnic group, nor their native language, were known as "Azerbaijani" at the time. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Here's a source for the language as well:
- I believe there's a confusion here as the sources and quotes both you and Kergid have provided are related to the demonyms of Azeris and not the name of the language, which appears to be what Kergid wants to change. — Golden call me maybe? 15:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Azerbaijani is indeed Turkish, however this doesn't mean exclusively Turkish language. The term Turkic is relatively new in English. So that's simply an archaic version of "Turkic". So It should be redirected to Azerbaijani language, just because the article mentions that it was called Turkish before. I would suggest:
Azerbaijani(a note explaining why it is called Turkish
}}. Beshogur (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)- @AuH2ORepublican: Thank you for your comment. First of all, you should not post comments inbetween older responses, as it messes up the section's lay-out. Having said that, it seems that you did not pay attention to the given WP:RS at this talk page section. The language was originally, without political interplay, in terms of nomenclature, known as Turkish. Later, for political reasons, under the Soviets, its name was changed to "Azerbaijani". The same goes for the country's titular ethnicity. Remember, we're talking about nomenclature here, "not" the actual development/speech/grammar/vocabulary etc. of the language, as what are present-day "Turkish" and "Azerbaijani" are indeed separate languages with a separate history of development. However, the political games played at the time regarding the language's name should be explained in this article per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:VER amongst others. Whether in the infobox or in the body of the article. As for the Ukraine-Russia analogy, for the record, it is a flawed one for it is exactly the opposite in terms of chronology when compared to the Turkish-Azerbaijani naming issue. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Beshogur: Thank you for your comment as well. That could possibly do the trick. I think this article would benefit from expanatory text regarding the issue, perhaps in a "Demographics" section once this article gets expanded. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Turkish" is the term for those Turks residing in the country of Turkey (Asia Minor). TURKIC peoples are the various Turks from all the Turkic lands. When one speaks of language, "Turkish" is the derivative of the Ottoman/Seljuk tongue. Azerbaijani is a Turkic language from the Oghuz sub-branch spoken primarily by the Azerbaijani people, who live mainly in the Republic of Azerbaijan where the North Azerbaijani variety is spoken, and in the Azerbaijan region of Iran, where the South Azerbaijani variety is spoken. 50.111.29.145 (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
"Turkish" is the term for those Turks residing in the country of Turkey (Asia Minor). TURKIC peoples are the various Turks from all the Turkic lands.
this is not true. Turkish is a right term as well, but Turkic gradually replaced Turkish with the increased influence of Soviet Turkology. Beshogur (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @AuH2ORepublican: Thank you for your comment. First of all, you should not post comments inbetween older responses, as it messes up the section's lay-out. Having said that, it seems that you did not pay attention to the given WP:RS at this talk page section. The language was originally, without political interplay, in terms of nomenclature, known as Turkish. Later, for political reasons, under the Soviets, its name was changed to "Azerbaijani". The same goes for the country's titular ethnicity. Remember, we're talking about nomenclature here, "not" the actual development/speech/grammar/vocabulary etc. of the language, as what are present-day "Turkish" and "Azerbaijani" are indeed separate languages with a separate history of development. However, the political games played at the time regarding the language's name should be explained in this article per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:VER amongst others. Whether in the infobox or in the body of the article. As for the Ukraine-Russia analogy, for the record, it is a flawed one for it is exactly the opposite in terms of chronology when compared to the Turkish-Azerbaijani naming issue. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)