Grandmaster (talk | contribs) |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 19 discussion(s) to Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic/Archive 3, Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic/Archive 2) (bot |
||
(207 intermediate revisions by 66 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header|age=365|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
||
{{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}} |
|||
{{WikiProject_Azerbaijan|class=B|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|||
{{WPFC |
|||
{{WikiProject Azerbaijan|importance=top}} |
|||
|small= |
|||
{{WikiProject Former countries}} |
|||
|nested= |
|||
{{WikiProject Artsakh|importance=Low}} |
|||
|class=B |
|||
|HRE-taskforce= |
|||
|GOV-taskforce= |
|||
|A-Class= |
|||
|peer-review= yes |
|||
|old-peer-review= |
|||
|collaboration-candidate= |
|||
|current-collaboration= |
|||
|past-collaboration= |
|||
|attention= |
|||
|structureneeded= |
|||
|flagneeded= |
|||
|coatneeded= |
|||
|mapneeded= |
|||
|infoboxneeded= |
|||
<!-- B-Class checklist --> |
|||
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all |
|||
major points are appropriately cited. --> |
|||
|B-Class-1=yes |
|||
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and |
|||
does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|||
|B-Class-2=yes |
|||
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including |
|||
a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|||
|B-Class-3=yes |
|||
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |
|||
|B-Class-4=yes |
|||
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, |
|||
such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|||
|B-Class-5=yes |
|||
<!-- Portals --> |
|||
|portal1-name= |
|||
|portal1-link= |
|||
|portal2-name= |
|||
|portal2-link= |
|||
|portal3-name= |
|||
|portal3-link= |
|||
|portal4-name= |
|||
|portal4-link= |
|||
|portal5-name= |
|||
|portal5-link= |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=aa2}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
== Musavat references == |
|||
| algo = old(365d) |
|||
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) |
|||
| archive = Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
: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) |
|||
| counter = 3 |
|||
| maxarchivesize = 125K |
|||
I copy these excerpts from the post of Alan Kaim, owner of milliondollarbabies.com at the [[Talk:Azerbaijan]]: |
|||
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|||
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
: ''None of my summaries are meant as reference material since I have not listed any particular sources, and this should be obvious''. |
|||
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
: ''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] |
|||
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) |
|||
== more about musavat == |
|||
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) |
|||
: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. |
|||
: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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
== Musavat again and again == |
|||
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 --> |
|||
== Edit warring == |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
:: 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) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
:::: 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) |
|||
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. |
|||
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. |
|||
*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) |
|||
== adding Hugh Pope's quote == |
|||
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: |
|||
"[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) |
|||
== Adil's additions == |
|||
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) |
|||
: 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) |
|||
:::Thats no excuse for a huge revert. [[User:Artaxiad|Artaxiad]] 19:07, 24 March 2007 (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". |
|||
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. :) |
|||
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. |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
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) |
|||
: 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: |
|||
: ''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''. |
|||
: [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 06:17, 27 March 2007 (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) |
|||
::: Ukraine was recognised later - what does it matter? It doesn't mean that this state didn't exist at all before the recognition.[[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 09:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: It does matter in the sense that it (the recognition) doesn't matter. :) Ukraine had not declared its full independence until [[25 January]] [[1918]]. Before that it existed as an autonomous polity within Bolshevik Russia, not as a state. See the article [[Ukrainian People's Republic]]. And I am yet to hear, what exactly qualifies CPR as a Muslim state. [[User:Parishan|Parishan]] ([[User talk:Parishan|talk]]) 09:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It is obvious: the republic was proclaimed by Crimean Tatars. Qurultay and Directorate consisted of Tatars only. Noman Celebicikhan was a Crimean Tatar. The anthem was written in their language and the flag was designed by them. It was a republic of Crimean Tatars - Muslims. And the fact they considered other ethnicities equal with themselves doesn't change that. The majority of population was non-Muslim, but we're talking about the state (i. e. about authorities) and not about the country.[[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 23:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The ethnicity of the political elite does not automatically spread onto the cultural characteristic of the state, especially if that elite does not control the population outside of its own ethnic domain. Current President of Moldova is an ethnic Russian, so is the Prime Minister, but that does not make Moldova a Russian state. Please also comment on Grandmaster's quotes. [[User:Parishan|Parishan]] ([[User talk:Parishan|talk]]) 00:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
And this is from declaration by Tatar Kurultay: |
|||
{{quotation|If we convoke a Tatar national constituent assembly or 'Kurultay' then it is only in order to explain ourselves and reveal to others the will of the Tatar nationality, however, the voice of the Tatars is still not the voice of the entire Crimea. For this to occur it is necessary to convene an all-Crimean constituent assembly, which should include the participation of all peoples inhabiting the Crimea. |
|||
<br /> <br /> |
|||
Brian Glyn Williams. Crimean Tatars: The Diaspora Experience and the Forging of a Nation. BRILL, 2001, p. 341}} |
|||
So they admitted that Kurultay represented only Tatar people, who were not the majority of population of Crimea, and said that to decide the future of Crimea it was necessary to convene an all-Crimean constituent assembly with participation of all peoples inhabiting the Crimea. So Kurultay was not the authority for the entire Crimea, as they themselves admitted. --[[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 05:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
And yet another quote: |
|||
{{quotation|But republicanism, often confused with democracy, began to exercise an increasing fascination, and during the twentieth century republicanism — and with it republican forms of government — developed rapidly. The earliest republics were those established in the Muslim territories of the fallen Russian Empire, when the temporary relaxation of pressure from the capital after the revolutions of 1917 allowed a brief interval of local independence and experimentation. In May 1918, after the dissolution of the short-lived Trans-Caucasian Federation, the Azerbaijani members of the Trans-Caucasian Parliament declared Azerbaijan an independent republic — the first Muslim republic in modern times. It was of brief duration and in April 1920 was conquered by the Red Army and reconstituted as a Soviet republic. The same pattern was followed by other Turkic and Muslim peoples of the Russian Empire, whose short-lived national republics were all in due course taken over and reconstituted as Soviet republics or regions within the USSR. The first Muslim republic to be established outside the Russian Empire seems to have been the Tripolitanian Republic, proclaimed in November 1918. It was later incorporated in the Italian colony of Libya. The first independent republic that remained both independent and a republic was that of Turkey, established on 29 October 1923. |
|||
<br /> <br /> |
|||
Bernard Lewis. From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East. Oxford University Press US, 2004. ISBN 0195173368, 9780195173369}} |
|||
There are more. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 05:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Crimean Tatars were never recognized as a state neither de-jure nor de-facto. They're not even recognized as territorial autonomy, but merely have cultural autonomy within Ukraine. Hence, as said quite a few times before, I can declare a republic in my backyard, does not mean much if it's not recognized by anyone as an entity. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 06:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I offer you a compromise. "ADR, the first successful attempt to create a Muslim republic (Crimean People's Republic had been proclaimed in 1917 but failed to become an effective state)". And the same regarding women's suffrage - leave present version adding: "(Crimean People's Republic had done that earlier but never managed to organize any elections)". |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 09:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think it would work that way. After all, the current version is what all the sources say. I would suggest that in the article about Crimean republic you include a line like "CPR was the first attempt to establish a republic in the Muslim world". In that case there will be no questions. But this article I believe should be left as it is. --[[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 12:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Then this way: "ADR was the first successful attempt...(see also Crimean People's Republic)". |
|||
"The first to allow suffrage... (see also Crimean People's Republic)".[[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::According to the given sources the Crimean People's Republic never really achieved independence and its also important to note that the vast majority of the so called Crimean People's Republic was not Muslim but Orthodox Christian. Every major encyclopedia indicates Azerbaijan Democratic Republic as the first democratic and secular in the Muslim world. So the Crimean People's Republic really has no legal ground for its claimings. [[User:Baku87|Baku87]] ([[User talk:Baku87|talk]]) 11:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree with Grandmaster regarding the compromise as he has a valid point [[User:Baku87|Baku87]] ([[User talk:Baku87|talk]]) 11:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: "Never really achieved independence" - that's why I suggest you write "ADR was the first successful attempt". And Crimean People's Republic was in fact Muslim because nobody except Muslims supported it. I agree it was "less a state" that ADR but you tend to completely ignore it which is wrong either. And the sources don't say about Crimean People's Republic just because their authors have never heard about it. Still, it is their problem, not that of the Crimea.[[Special:Contributions/77.122.107.222|77.122.107.222]] ([[User talk:77.122.107.222|talk]]) 18:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Quote: ''"First successful attempt to establish a democratic and secular republic".'' In what way was it "democratic"? Were elections ever held? And in what way was it "successful", given that most of its energy was spent in wars against its neighbours, and wars against its own people, and that it only lasted 3 years? [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, the parliament of ADR was democratically elected, it even had 2 Armenian fractions, one of them representing Dashnaks. As for successfulness, it was as successful, as the neighboring Armenia was, which spent most of its energy on wars with Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. But this Crimea thing because of which this line appeared there does not make much sense to me. Crimean Republic was not even a state, it did not exercise its authority on most of the territory of the Crimea. According to sources, ADR was the first republic in the Muslim world. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 12:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I would say that neither the Azerbaijan or Armenian republics were successful. If there were elections involving a mass electorate (as opposed to one involving delegates or cummunity leaders) when did it occur? If there was no such election it isn't correct to use the word "democratic" as a description of its parliament (though obviously the word Democratic should continue to be used as the country's title - a country can call itself by whatever name it wants). [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 17:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Yes, there was such election. Only after such elections were conducted the British occupational forces transferred power to ADR and withdrew from the country. I think the book by Tadeusz Swietochowski is the best source about the history of Azerbaijan, and ADR specifically. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 19:04, 11 December 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) |
|||
:The parliament photo needs to be replaced, in 1918 the parliament was located in a different building. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 12:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Isn't that the same building that is on some of the Azerbaijan stamps of that period? I assumed that it was the parliament building for that reason, but I have no source that says it was. BTW, a picture of some of those stamps would be a suitable illustration for the article. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 17:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::The building on the picture was built in 1948. ADR parliament was located in another building, which is now occupied by the Institute of Ancient Manuscripts. I agree, the stamps would be suitable illustrations for this article. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've replaced it with a stamp image that was already on Wikipedia. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Maps made by Baku87 == |
|||
[[File:Azerbaijan map comparison.jpg|thumb|right|200px]] |
|||
[[File:Azeri lost lands.jpg|thumb|right|200px]] |
|||
Copied from [[User_talk:Moreschi#Baku87]]: |
|||
''He recently created two maps [[:File:Azerbaijan map comparison.jpg]] and [[:File:Azeri lost lands.jpg]] and inserted them into two articles. I removed both when I noticed it and today he re-added one of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan&diff=prev&oldid=267610081 rv vandalism by Eupator]. I also noticed another imaginary map that he craetd and inserted: File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg The maps that he created are displaying territories claimed by the ADR and DRA as part of ADR (Karabakh), territories which were in total and recognized control of DRA (like Nakhichevan and Zangezur) as part of ADR etc. This is highly disruptive and provocative. --<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)'' |
|||
:''Reference for actual state of the region at the time: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/The_First_Armenian_Republic_1918-1920.gif --<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 19:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)'' |
|||
::''On what ground do you accuse these maps of being imaginary? Its based on sources and historical maps. Your personal ambitions are invaled reasons to remove these maps. [[User:Baku87|Baku87]] ([[User talk:Baku87|talk]]) 17:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)'' |
|||
:::''It cannot be based on credible sources and accurate historical maps. It is a work of propaganda. Comparison with the map cited by Eupator clearly shows how your map has distorted reality to a serious extent. For many of the distortions, there is not the slightest doubt of their existence. For example, and to take a detail that has nothing to do with Armenia or Azerbaijan, your 1918 map has the present-day borders of Turkey and Georgia; those borders were different in 1918. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 01:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)'' |
|||
::::''But how do you know that Eupator's map is accurate? The thing is that in 1920 neither Armenia, nor Azerbaijan had internationally recognized borders. The issue was to be discussed at the Paris Peace Conference, but it never happened, as by that time Soviet Russia started moving into the region. So both maps represent wishful thinking by the leaders of the 2 states. For instance, Armenia had no control over Nakhichevan, yet Eupator's map shows it as a part of Armenia. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)'' |
|||
::::::''I mentioned the errors in the borders of Turkey and Georgia to avoid getting bogged down in discussion over Armenia and Azerbaijan. You surely are not disputing the existence of those errors? And at least Eupator's map marks territory as being disputed, unlike Baku's map. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 17:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)'' |
|||
:::::''You speak of credible sources but if Azeri sources are to be regarded inreliable then why is it that Armenian sources are welcomed? Your trying to apply double-standards here. I'll give you some examples in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia Armenia] article there are a few maps: The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armenianmediterian.gif first] map comes directly from an Armenian websource; armenica.org; you can even note the Armenica.org label in the lower-right corner. And the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ArmenianOblast.jpg second] map which as you note from the lower-right corner is also from the Armenian source; Armenica.org. I can name you a few more maps from Armenian sources such as: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ErevanKhanate.gif A] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armenian4thcenturies.gif B] both again from Armenica.org and by this I also want to note just how legit are the copyrights in the last 4 maps really? So why is it that you can demand the removal of my map which is based on a Azeri source but still insist on keeping the Armenian-sources maps? This is highly unfair and even shows double-standards. [[User:Baku87|Baku87]] ([[User talk:Baku87|talk]]) 13:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)'' |
|||
::::::''The comparison is improper. Those maps of Armenica.org are reprinted from "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" of the American scholar Robert Hewsen. However it is not the problem where the maps come from. The boundaries of Armenia in the 4th c., the Erivan Khanate, the Armenian Oblast are not contested. The Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan was not de-jure recognised and had no de-jure or de-facto existing boundaries as the two other short-lived republics of the TRanscaucasia. --[[User:Vacio|Vacio]] ([[User talk:Vacio|talk]]) 06:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)'' |
|||
::::::: ''Armenia had no de-jure recognition, and Azerbaijan did have de-facto borders, which included Nakhichevan. So the maps of Armenica are incorrect. And the map of Azerbaijan also has a source: [http://books.google.com/books?id=JLs1eG8YPS8C&pg=PA21&dq=#PPA20-IA1,M1] So there's no reason for deletion of Azerbaijani map, it as good as that of Armenia. Btw, I think we should continue this discussion elsewhere and not waste space at Moreschi's talk. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 09:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)'' |
|||
Neither Armenia (DRA) nor Azerbaijan (ADR) had de-jure borders in 1918-1920. The self-invented maps of Baku87 are not acceptable because they show [[Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic#Territorial_disputes|territories which were disputed]] between Azerbajian and Armenia, and between Georgia and Azerbaijan, as part of the latter. The [http://books.google.com/books?id=JLs1eG8YPS8C&pg=PA21&dq=#PPA20-IA1,M1 source] Grandmaster refers to says absolutely nothing about the de-facto borders of ADR that those maps could be based on it. --[[User:Vacio|Vacio]] ([[User talk:Vacio|talk]]) 11:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/The_First_Armenian_Republic_1918-1920.gif Eupator's map] doesnt show the disputed areas of Naxcivan and Zangezur, if this comes from Armenica.org its certainly questionable how objective this source really is. You have nominated both the maps of ADR for deletion while you perfectly know we are discussing their usage here and yet the Armenian version is not nominated for deletion, does this mean that map is perfectly acceptable for you? [[User:Baku87|Baku87]] ([[User talk:Baku87|talk]]) 19:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::The given Grandmaster is very real and we can base a new map upon [http://books.google.com/books?id=JLs1eG8YPS8C&pg=PA21&dq=#PPA20-IA1,M1 this source] and note that these are de-facto borders border of ADR. [[User:Baku87|Baku87]] ([[User talk:Baku87|talk]]) 19:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Off topic! That map shows the WW1 period - territory ceded to Turkey (NOT Azerbaijan!). Those treaties became void after Turkey's surrender. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 22:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
How come [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/The_First_Armenian_Republic_1918-1920.gif Armenica map] is acceptable and the map created by Baku87 is not? It has a reliable source too. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Where is there a proposal to use the armenica.org map? I don't see one. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 18:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::See [[Democratic Republic of Armenia]]. The map is used there. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::As far as I know the maps of Armenica.org are copies from R. Hewsen's "Atlas". If indeed the map of DRA in quiestion corresponds to that of Hewsen, it is reliable. Anyhow the upload and use of it not be an argument to use the maps created by Baku87. The latter are nominated for deletion in accordance with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR#Original_images WP rules]. Also, I can't find in the source, Baku87 and Grandmaster refer to, a clear statement as if Gegharkunik, Syunik, Vayots Dzor, Tavush, Nagorno-Karabakh, Nakhichevan, Belakan-Zakatala were de-facto under Azerbaijani rule in 1918-1920. --[[User:Vacio|Vacio]] ([[User talk:Vacio|talk]]) 06:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you look carefully at this map: [http://books.google.com/books?id=JLs1eG8YPS8C&pg=PA21&dq=#PPA20-IA1,M1], you'll see that it includes both Zangezur and Nakhichevan. And Hewsen is not a specialist on modern history, he specializes on ancient one. In any case, the map supported by a reliable source cannot be removed, so the map by Baku87 must remain. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 06:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Please, take a look at the Map of Armenia as defined by President Woodrow Wilson, or so called Wilsonian map of Armenia, cited by the Armenian source - [http://www.armeniapedia.org/images/d/dd/Wilsonian.jpg]. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 07:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:By nominating every ADR map for deletion while its still being discussed here and yet not doing anything about the [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/The_First_Armenian_Republic_1918-1920.gif Armenica.org] map versionl; Its pretty clear that Vacio is POV and leading an anti-Azerbaijan campaign here. There are clear sources for this map and thus is simply cannot be removed. [[User:Baku87|Baku87]] ([[User talk:Baku87|talk]]) 13:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The "Armenica.org map" appears to be based entirely on map 229 "The First Armenian Republic 1918-1920" on page 236 of Hewsen's Atlas of Historical Armenia. Map 229 also indicates the existence of the "Arasdayan Republic" on the territory of Nakhichevan with the words "26th Jan 1919 - 19 May 1919, then passed to Armenia". Map 226 in the same volume shows the internal provinces of the Armenian Republic - all of Nakhichevan and Zanzegour are within its bounderies and they are not in the parts of the map that are indicated as claimed by Armenia but not held by it. Maps 230, 231 and 232 show the Armenian, Georgian and Azeri territorial claims respectively. Based on the Hewsen maps, the map produced by Baku matches neither the actual territory controlled by Azerbaijan in 1918-1920, or the territory claimed by Azerbiajan and not held by it. It is, as I wrote earlier, '''a work of propaganda'''. Azeri territorial claims against Georgia are not shown on Baku's map, presumably because Azerbaijan currently enjoys reasonable diplomatic relations with Georgia. Also not shown are Azeri claims on what is now Turkish territory, for the same reason. Nor are the extreme nature of those claims (they extend all the way to the Black Sea and include most of Armenia) indicated - I guess because they would appear to readers of the article to be laughably extreme. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Hewsen's map is inaccurate. He is an expert on ancient history, but not on modern one. He probably mentioned there, which sources he used, and they are most probably the Armenian ones. Zangezur together with Karabakh was placed under Azerbaijani jurisdiction by the British command. Thus, Armenia could not control it either de-jure or de-facto. See: |
|||
{{quotation|Upon the Ottoman withdrawal, General Andranik made an attempt to extend Armenian rule over this disputed territory, but on December 1 Thomson asked him to cease his military operations. Furthermore, as of mid-January 1919, <u>the British general put Nagorno-Karabagh together with the neighboring Zangezur uezd under provisional Azerbaijani administration</u>. Armenian reactions became even more heated when Thomson confirmed the nomination of Khosrow Sultanov as governor of the two areas. Thomson's comment was that the British occupation was not an opportunity for revenge. |
|||
<br /> <br /> |
|||
For all the protests that greeted him, Sultanov succeeded over the next several months in getting the Armenian Assembly in Nagorno Karabagh to formally accept Azerbaijani rule, an act that recognized the realities of geography, economy, and transportation that linked this ethnic enclave with Azerbaijan rather than with Armenia beyond the mountains. This major breakthrough remained subject to some conditions restricting the size and deplacement of Azerbaijani garrisons in peacetime. |
|||
<br /> <br /> |
|||
Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683}} |
|||
:Furthermore, if you read here: [http://hronos.km.ru/sobyt/1919arm.html] you'll see that within one month the regular army of Azerbaijan republic kicked the Armenian army out of Nakhchivan. Thus, Armenia had no control over the region. The map from atlas (which I haven't seen so far, btw) conflicts other maps and sources, and therefore is not reliable. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 07:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Conflicts between sources and maps is a matter-of-course given that there were no stable de-facto borders at the time. The map of Hewsen however corresponds largely to [http://books.google.com/books?id=cozSOSsv7ZsC&pg=PR12&dq=Azerbaijan+Democratic+Republic&output=html&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1 this map] of Tadeusz Swietochowskimap whom you quoted above. As for Karabakh, it was never de-jure or de-facto part of the ADR, the provisional agrement between the Karabakh Assembly stated that it's definitive status would be determined in the Paris Peace Conference. Furthermore: |
|||
{{Quotation| |
|||
In August 1919, the Karabagh National Council entered into a provisional treaty agreement with the Azerbaijani government. Despite signing the Agreement, the Azerbaijani government continuously violated the terms of the treaty. This culminated in March 1920 with the Azerbaijanis' massacre of Armenians in Karabagh's former capital, Shushi, in which it is estimated that more than 20,000 Armenians were killed. In this light, the Ninth Karabagh Assembly nullified the treaty in whole and pronounced union with Armenia. |
|||
From 1918 to 1920 Nagorno Karabagh possessed all necessary attributes of statehood, including an army and legitimate authorities. The League of Nations and the leading world powers recognized the disputed status of Nagorno Karabagh. The League of Nations neither recognized the sovereignty of the Azerbaijan Republic over Karabagh nor accepted the Azerbaijan Republic as its member-state. |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
''The Nagorno Karabagh Crisis:A Blueprint for Resolution''. A Memorandum Prepared by the [[Public International Law & Policy Group]]. May 2000}} |
|||
::Btw. now I see what Baku87 actually tried to do: removing [[:File:AzerbaijanDemocraticRepublicMap.png|a map]] from the article which shows the aforecited regiones as disputed areas between ADR and DRA with [[:File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg|a self-made one]] which shows them as implicitly part of ADR [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&diff=next&oldid=253779045 ]. Subsequently placing [[:File:Azeri lost lands.jpg|an other]] self-made map in the Azerbaijan article which shows the same areas as "Azeri lost lands". --[[User:Vacio|Vacio]] ([[User talk:Vacio|talk]]) 10:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Furthermore, general Thomson was not authorized to decide the status of Zangezur or Nagorno-Karabakh. And the motivations underlying the attempts of the British Mission to solve territoral disputes: |
|||
{{Quotation|Arslanian quotes |
|||
General George Milne, responsible for British military operations in South Caucasia, |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
''They [the local nationalities] are certainly not worth the life of one British soldier. The Georgians are merely disguised Bolsheviks … The Armenians are what the Armenians have always been, a despicable race. The best are the inhabitants of Azerbaijan, though they are in reality uncivilized.'' |
|||
<br /> |
|||
It therefore does not seem far-fetched that the awarding of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan, |
|||
while intended only as a temporary phenomenon, was caused by British condescension for |
|||
Armenians. |
|||
<br /><br /> |
|||
Svante E. Cornell. The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. Report no. 46, Department of East European Studies, Uppsala University, 1999 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
::::--[[User:Vacio|Vacio]] ([[User talk:Vacio|talk]]) 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Get your facts straight this map is not merely self made but based upon [http://books.google.com/books?id=cozSOSsv7ZsC&pg=PR12&dq=Azerbaijan+Democratic+Republic&output=html&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1 source] which you keep ignoring. ADR was de-facto regonized by several allies states, we can mention this in the map? [[User:Baku87|Baku87]] ([[User talk:Baku87|talk]]) 13:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::The map in that source is very different actually. Your map is just fascist regurgitation.--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 13:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Mind [[WP:Civil]]. And here are more maps: [http://books.google.com/books?id=JLs1eG8YPS8C&pg=PA21&dq=#PPA20-IA1,M1], or this one [http://books.google.com/books?id=sZVN2MwWZVAC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=] [http://books.google.com/books?id=RBNDaEFGJrsC&pg=PP15&dq=] [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 13:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Don't you dare quote me wikipolicy. I already commented about those links of yours in the deletion page.--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 15:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I feel uncomfortable with your sinsulting language towards me Eupator. This map is provided by sources which are provided in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic_1918-1920_Map.jpg map summary]. But I will note them again [http://books.google.com/books?id=sZVN2MwWZVAC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=#PPA88,M1 ] [http://books.google.com/books?id=RBNDaEFGJrsC&pg=PP15&dq= ] So this map is allowed for usage. [[User:Baku87|Baku87]] ([[User talk:Baku87|talk]]) 11:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::This has already been answered by Eupator. And even if it was true (which it is not), you would probably have a copyright problem, wouldn't you ? [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 13:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::You cant just spam and try to pro-long its usage, there are no copyright issues. It is you who has to reach a consensus to remove it, not the other way around. [[User:Baku87|Baku87]] ([[User talk:Baku87|talk]]) 14:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Funny reasonning. Either the map is unsupported by these two sources (and you still have to answer on what has been said on this), or what you have done is a close derivative work and therefore raises copyright issues. [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 14:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Here's the source: [http://books.google.com/books?id=sZVN2MwWZVAC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=] Now stop reverting, please. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 15:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:As I said on the talk page of this map, [http://books.google.com/books?id=sZVN2MwWZVAC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=#PPA88,M1 this source] cannot support the map : you directly see that Armenia SW and NE boundaries are not the same. Some people are clearly inserting an inaccurate file here. [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 15:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Users like GM and Baku/Baki are living in the realm of fantasy land. That's why there are crap articles on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia that identify the city of [[Artashat]] as a part of "[http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q%C9%99m%C9%99rli Western Azerbaijan]" and similarly don't even mention a [http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nax%C3%A7%C4%B1van_Muxtar_Respublikas%C4%B1 single word] about the Armenian presence (i.e., kingdoms) in Nakhichevan unless it pertains to the mass "migration" of the 19th century. This fabricated map requires a speedy delete lest the English Wikipedia begins to repeat the same nonsense on the Azeri Wiki.--[[User:MarshallBagramyan|Marshal Bagramyan]] ([[User talk:MarshallBagramyan|talk]]) 16:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
For your information: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 23#File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg]]. [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::This isn't fair. Doesn't [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_First_Armenian_Republic_1918-1920.gif this map] violate the same justifications you claim above? [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
How so? Robert Hewsen created the map. His work has been cited dozens of times on Wikipedia articles, with the backing of Armenian and Azeri users. Does anyone care to explain how Hewsen, a historian, or more accurately a cartographer, loses his credibility here? --[[User:MarshallBagramyan|Marshal Bagramyan]] ([[User talk:MarshallBagramyan|talk]]) 01:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Hewsen is an expert on ancient history of the region, but not the modern one. He never published any work about the history of the region in the 20th century, as far as I know. And [[WP:Civil]] is a good rule to observe. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 06:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
That has to be the lamest excuse I have heard. I'll make sure to mention that the whimsical little diddy to the mediators next time they come into arbitrate conflicts. And don't you dare patronize me again.--[[User:MarshallBagramyan|Marshal Bagramyan]] ([[User talk:MarshallBagramyan|talk]]) 07:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I have to say, I find the non-CIA-type map, with the different colors and explanations of things, far more useful than the one that is being editwarred. Having said that, I am now unable to protect the article to end this war. I will find someone to do it for me. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I found someone. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 00:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The map that is presently included in the article is nothing but a self-made map, taken from some personal website. It is not supported by any reliable source. The map of Baku87 at least relied on published third party sources. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 06:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I do not want to go into a discussion of the origins of the map currently included in the article, but I can confirm that this map matches in main essentials the map of the Azerbaijan Republic in 1918-1920 published in Artur Tsutsiev, ''Atlas of Ethnopolitical History of the Caucasus (1774-2004)'', "Evropa" Publishing House, Moscow, 2006, map 18, p. 54. For copyright reasons I cannot upload Tsusiev's map to Commons, but I will be pleased to e-mail a file with a scanned copy to any interested Wikipedian for perusal. The map is in Russian with a detailed legend, and perhaps a skilled cartographer will be able to use it as a basis for drawing a new properly sourced map. --[[User:Zlerman|Zlerman]] ([[User talk:Zlerman|talk]]) 06:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::The book by Tsutsiev is a very weak source. For instance, it claims that [[Mughan Soviet Republic]] was proclaimed by Talysh people, while it was in fact proclaimed by the Russian colonists in Mughan, etc. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 07:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::We are digressing, but this is what Tsutsiev writes about the Mughan Soviet Republic (p. 55): "In spring 1919 the Talysh-Mughan Soviet Republic is created here, whose 'national base' is the Russian and Talysh population." I do not not think that your statement above is consistent with this quote from Tsutsiev. --[[User:Zlerman|Zlerman]] ([[User talk:Zlerman|talk]]) 07:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Compare with memoirs of Dunsterville, and you'll see that he is wrong. It was not even called "Talysh-Mughan Soviet Republic" back in 1919, so Tsutsiev has no idea what he is talking about. But the thing is that the map by Baku87 is suppoted by 3 third party sources: [http://books.google.com/books?id=JLs1eG8YPS8C&pg=PA21&dq=#PPA20-IA1,M1] [http://books.google.com/books?id=sZVN2MwWZVAC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=] [http://books.google.com/books?id=RBNDaEFGJrsC&pg=PP15&dq=] Plus, the map that is presently included in the article, also contradicts the map of Armenian Republic: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_First_Armenian_Republic_1918-1920.gif] which claims Nakhichevan as part of Armenia, while in fact Armenia never had any control over the region. So we have a number of confliting maps, and I see no reason why the map of ADR created by Baku87 should be removed despite being supported by a number of reliable sources, while the other ones kept. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 07:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It is those weak sources that you post that do not match Baku87's map. There is no inconsistency between Hewsen's and Andersen's map, Andersen's map is just more detailed. The legend on the latter clearly states "Lost to Armenia by 30.04.1920".--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 11:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::That's inaccurate information. Armenia never had any control over the region. Even Hovanissian admits that. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
So the map taken from a POV blogger "''Copyright © 2006 Andrew Andersen [http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/The%20Caucasus/azerbaijan.htm Atlas of Conflicts]''", fired from his teaching position for racism, is more reliable now? [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 22:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Let's try this from a different direction: What part of the Andersen map is incorrect? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::The one that shows disputed areas. Nakhichevan, Qazakh, and even Karabakh were under stable control of Azerbaijan. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well that's a good one to start with. =p However, according to all three articles, it seems no one really had stable control over the full regions before the Soviets rolled in. How do you reconcile that with the three articles? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 06:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's a totally inaccurate information from Grandmaster, Nakhichevan and Karabakh were never under stable Azerbaijani controll. --[[User:Vacio|Vacio]] ([[User talk:Vacio|talk]]) 06:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There is something partly wrong with the "Lost to Armenia by 30.04.1920" part of the caption on the Andersen map. Some of the indicated territory was actually lost '''by''' Armenia by 30.04.1920. But on the whole the Andersen map does successfully illustrate the complexity and the nuances of the reality on the ground (which the Baku87 map deliberately doesn't do). [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 17:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Golbez, are you trying to mediate again? :) Anyways, the map in question is against this map [http://www.armeniapedia.org/images/d/dd/Wilsonian.jpg], claimed by Armeniapedia to be made by State Department. And yes, there is nothing to try from "different angle here". Andersen is not a scholar, he is a blogger. He tried to teach but was fired from his job at University of Victoria for anti-Muslim racism. Every single one of his maps is biased pro-Armenian and non-neutral. His other maps are also disputed by at least one party in Caucasus, and hence NOT neutral by definition. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::I think I gave up my ability to mediate this one when I said I didn't like Baku's map. =p And if we're going to say "the author is not a scholar and not neutral", then I think we can throw out Baku's map as well, yes? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 18:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Golbez, it's impossible to mediate on a subject where one can't be neutral. And seem's like Baku's map was actually even a bit more favorable to Armenian POV than Wilsonian one on Armeniapedia? :) Andersen map is out of question, we have this problem all over Wikipedia, he is unscholarly, unreliable and non-neutral. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 19:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::So is Baku. Delete both! Let's make our own! I'm good at mapmaking, I daresay even neutral mapmaking. Feed me sources and we'll see what I can do. :) Gosh, wouldn't that be amazing? The first map of the pre-Soviet Caucasus formed by consensus from all sides? (... hey, I'm in a good mood, winter's over here finally, I can be optimistic!) Not that I'm a scholar but I come with absolutely no nationalist or even scholarly baggage; I know nothing about pre-Soviet Azerbaijan and Armenia. I am a blank slate. Write on me. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::You're in a good mood and Atabəy is telling jokes (his map of Wilsonian Armenia doesn't have an Eastern border). Life is beautiful ^^ [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Golbez, congratulations on becoming a scholar and I am excited for your optimism, truly. But before we entrust you with a monumental task of map-making over the never-delineated ADR-DRA border, accepting your claim of a neutral "blank slate", can I check on one minor, just very tiny detail. Back in December 2007, while trying to "mediate", you were quoted, saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=179379239#Golbez_and_VartanM "Azeris should stop acting like raving maniacs", or especially, "To say that the Azeris are far less helpful than the Armenians doesn't mean I support the Armenians - it just means they express their positions a lot better"], As far as I recall, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=179232951&oldid=179231555 you were asked to stop "mediating" by admins] after that. Now, have you reviewed your position, as Avruch suggested [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=179232951&oldid=179231555]? Because, honestly speaking, the neutrality means understanding everyone's position equally well, not understanding one better (or with sympathy), which is still the case with your position on the map issue. |
|||
Nakhchivan, Zangezur and Karabakh were not under Armenian control during ADR. Khosrov Sultanov was appointed the Governor in Shusha when Ottomans left in December 1918, here is referenced information [http://books.google.com/books?id=ff2zOZYaZx0C&pg=PA72]. In fact, NK Armenians even signed an agreement recognizing Azerbaijani jurisdiction as well, in the same reference quoting Swietochowski. The fact of control, is also affirmed by Armenian reference [http://books.google.com/books?id=OUlnYdOHJ3wC&pg=PA125]. So were Britons in support of Azerbaijani jurisdiction over Karabakh, as Tom De Waal [http://books.google.com/books?id=pletup86PMQC&pg=PA128 suggests], and the Wilsonian map from State Department clearly shows that half of present-day Armenia has Azerbaijan label over it, and Wilson laid Armenian claims primarily on Eastern Anatolia. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I didn't say I was a scholar; however, I have scholarly faith in the collective effort of us all using reputable sources. If I were saying I was a scholar, I would have just made it. :P As for the comments above, I don't withdraw them, but I realize they were also out of line. I don't know why, but back then, in my experience people representing the Azeri point of view seemed to take the issue extremely personally, more personally than those representing the Armenian point of view. Maybe AA2 has fixed that a bit by pruning the more radical elements from both sides. Avruch (not "admins") suggested I withdrew, and if I recall, I generally did, though not because of him; thanks to AA2, I haven't really had or wanted to insert myself into the fight neary as much. Just a few blocks here and there. According to the history of [[Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh]], I didn't engage in any form of mediation from December 2007 (when Avruch made his comment) until an outburst in June 2008. And not much after that. (Though I did do some in [[Talk:Shusha]]) And I don't really consider this mediation, I'm trying to be an avenue for all sides to help make a map. Give me sources, give me feedback, and I'll do what I can. I'm not really trying to mediate a conflict; by your own logic, both maps must go. I think Baku's map should go, and if Andersen's map is inaccurate, it should go too. I'm just trying to make a map. Like my map of the provinces of Nagorno-Karabakh; so far as I know, both sides like it, as it represents the claims from both sides. (though it is outdated, considering the NKR is apparently administering the occupied rayons, and it lacks a line of control) As for your second paragraph, And my admitted slight sympathy for Karabakh is irrelevant, since that has entirely to do with their present situation; I don't care who owned or controlled or claimed them before the Soviet Union came across, as that should be simple fact to look up. ... but as we all know, if that were the case, then there'd be little to fight over. So I have to look over the sources, and see who seems reputable to a neutral observer. So maybe it is mediation. But in this case, it's not over an article. It's over a new creation. Nothing to get riled over. No harm in trying. I come to it clean, ready to accept evidence and arguments from either side. |
|||
:... In the meantime, I suppose I should start drawing an outline of the region. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 04:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::The thing is that Baku87's map is supported by at least 3 third party sources, so it is not his invention. The reason why some people representing the Armenian POV want it deleted is because it contradcits the territorial claims of Armenia. If Baku87's map should go, then so should this one: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/The_First_Armenian_Republic_1918-1920.gif] I know that its supporters will say that it comes from a reliable source, but so does Baku87's map. The truth is that neither Armenia, nor Georgia or Azerbaijan had internationally recognized borders at the time, as they all had only de-facto recognition. Therefore any map depicting borders is represeneting the POV of one of the sides. The general idea of Andersen is correct, but implementation is not. He uses sources very selectively, and generally is very pro-Armenian. I wrote him and asked him a couple of questions, but he never responded to me. So ideally there should be one map, showing the territories disputed, and the territories not claimed by anyone other than the state that controlled it, and such map should be used in all articles about 1918 - 1920. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 06:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::"Therefore any map depicting borders is represeneting the POV of one of the sides. " So you will changing your "strong keep" vote, then? =p When you say the 'general idea' is correct, what do you mean? The idea of trying to show the nuances? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 07:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Grandmaster, which ''third party sources'' do you mean? Baku87 contends that his map is based on [http://books.google.com/books?id=cozSOSsv7ZsC&pg=PR12&dq=Azerbaijan+Democratic+Republic&output=html&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1 this map] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAzerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&diff=272258548&oldid=271543433 ]) which however shows quite different boundaries. I guess you mean these two maps ([http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=&id=sZVN2MwWZVAC&output=html ][http://books.google.com/books?pg=PP15&dq=&id=RBNDaEFGJrsC&output=html ]), the first of which is ''Official map Issued by the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic'' and the second ''Official map of the Azebaijan Democratic Republic 1920''. I don't think that they are ''third party sources''. Anyhow, let's compare the latter with Baku87s map. The caption of the first reads: |
|||
::::* [[Baku Governorate]] |
|||
::::* [[Elisabethpol Governorate]] |
|||
::::* Part of [[Erivan Governorate]] |
|||
::::* [[Zaqatala |Zaqatala Province]] |
|||
::::Gentlemen, do you know what those three Governorates were? Administrative divisions of the Russian Empire untill 1917. Therefore when one looks at the ''Official map of the Azebaijan Democratic Republic 1920'', he immediately knows that it shows areas '''claimed''' by the ADR. The CIA-like map of Baku87 makes the impression that they were '''owned''' by the ADR, given the fact that CIA maps show internationally recognized borders of states. Moreover, the ''Official map'' shows the [[Iğdır Province|Sumalu Province]] as ''Disputed Area with Armenia'' and [[Kvemo Kartli]] with a part of [[Kakheti]] as ''Disputed Area with Georgia''. Thus it does '''not''' support the map of Baku87 even if the latter should represent the official map of the ADR. --[[User:Vacio|Vacio]] ([[User talk:Vacio|talk]]) 08:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Map!== |
|||
So I've decided to work on a map. Really, it had to be done eventually, since it dovetails into my eventual work to make a map of the territorial evolution of Russia. So a simple question: Is [[:File:Gubernias_del_Caucaso.png]] an accurate representation of the governorates? I haven't been able to find any other maps of the governorates, but I'm guessing their borders were probably not very fluid and therefore not a point of conflict. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 07:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Maybe what is needed is map showing the overlapping territorial claims of all three republics. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 04:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oh, absolutely, that's what I was thinking, but first I need to know the situation before it all split up. The Russian governorates, etc. And then I need to know which were claimed by whom and when. It's not going to be an easy project. It will be a complex map. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 05:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::I wonder if the map might become too complicated if you start to show the Russian governorates. I'm not sure if the governorates/oblasts had any strong bearing on what the various territorial claims were - the Russians don't seem to have defined these governorates/oblasts according to their ethnic populations - in fact, in some places they had a divide and rule policy. There is a set of three (small scale, unfortunately) maps in Hewsen's "Armenia an Historical Atlas" which illustrates the territories that each country was laying claim to - "claimed in Paris, 1919" according to the maps keys, so they would appear to be official claims. In most cases the territorial claims don't follow the former provincial boundaries. The only common factors between them are the international borders with the Ottoman and Persian empires - i.e the maps and the claims deal only with the division of territory within the former Russian empire. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 17:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's not necessarily that I wanted to show the governorates; I just wanted a good starting point for the map, since particular governorates were claimed by particular governments. So it would be a way of creating the baseline for the map, but not necessarily something that would be in the final product. And yes, I was wondering as well if the Ottoman or Persian borders changed at all, very helpful that they did not. I knew Persian but I wasn't sure about the Ottoman borders. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Azerbaijan was an ally of the Ottoman Empire, and was supported by it, so it did not have any territorial claims against the Ottoman Empire. In fact, for much of the territory claimed by Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan was actually acting as a proxy for Turkey, as a way of maintaining Turkish control over those territories even though Turkey was by then defeated. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The borders of the governorates are shown on this map: [http://books.google.com/books?id=RBNDaEFGJrsC&pg=PP15&dq=] You can see that the territories of Azerbaijan that were formerly within a particular governorate are highlighted in different colors. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Golbez, you admitted above that you have sympathies, hence your "mediation" is unwarranted by one side which you're trying to mediate. You can, of course, spend your time preparing maps, however, these would not be deeded neutral regardless of content, simply because you're not impartial in the treatment of conflict in first place. |
|||
:In general, I don't see any resolution to map issue on ADR or DRA page. The border was never delineated, two countries never recognized each other, neither their borders were recognized by outside world. So any attempt to depict it would be POV, unless we just let Azerbaijani claim map to be on ADR page, and Armenian claimed map to be on DRA page. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 01:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, they would be deeded neutral if everyone decided to help and everyone signed off on the product. If you choose not to be involved, then please don't harp on about it not being neutral; if you don't like it, it will be entirely your fault. I hope to accommodate every single view here. And actually it is quite possible to make a map; just mark the disputed areas as disputed. Yes? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::And my minor "sympathies" only apply to the post-Soviet era, not the pre- or Soviet era. If you're going to call me out on my minor admitted sympathies, at least get them right. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 16:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::First, I think we should keep the official map of Azerbaijan in 1918, it is a historical document. Second, we can create another map reflecting the territorial claims. We can do it by taking the map of ADR, putting it together with the map of DRA [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_First_Armenian_Republic_1918-1920.gif] and highlighting the overlapping areas. It can be used in addition to the official maps in both articles, and maybe even the one for Georgia, if no one minds. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 07:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::If that map is going to be included in the article it must clearly state that it is the official map of ADR otherwise it's just going to inflame more edit wars. Currently there isn't a single map of DRA that shows all of its official borders, Hewsen's map does not depict the full extent of DRA's borders in the east but a new one should be uploaded shortly.--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 15:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I think both should be labeled as the official maps of the countries. Third party sources are contradictory about which territories those 2 countries actually controlled. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 06:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The article can be unprotected now. The map was kept. A better version of that map will be available shortly. Hopefully, there will be another one showing territorial disputes for inclusion in both articles. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 06:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The map was kept, but it will not be included in this article without consensus. My demands are: first, an official map of the ADR must not have misleading layout, in particluar it must not be a pseudo-CIA map. Second, it must be exactly coinciding with the official map it represents, selectively use of various maps is not acceptable. |
|||
::::::And for Golbez, here an offical map of the DRA ([http://books.google.com/books?id=gQxjQCiEgFUC&pg=PA305&dq=%22R%C3%A9publique+Arm%C3%A9nienne%22&lr=&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES&output=html ]). Please also note that unlike Azerbaijan, Armenian had de-jure borders in 1920 recognized by the Treaty of Sevres ([http://www.armeniangenocide.com/photos/data/500/map-armenia-sevres-rep-1920-soviet.jpg ] [http://www.hipkiss.org/data/maps/london-geographical-institute_the-peoples-atlas_1920_europe-after-the-great-war-1919_3992_3012_600.jpg ][http://www.hipkiss.org/data/maps/london-geographical-institute_the-peoples-atlas_1920_asia-south-western_3992_3012_600.jpg ]). --[[User:Vacio|Vacio]] ([[User talk:Vacio|talk]]) 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::There's no consensus for inclusion of Hewsen's map in the article about DRA, but it is there. So I see no reason why this article should not have a map based on 3 reliable sources. As for the Treaty of Sevres, it never came to effect and was soon annulled and replaced with the [[Treaty of Lausanne]]. It was not worth more than the the paper it was written on. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I think it says a lot that neither of the maps, the Armenian Republic or Azerbaijan republic, are available on the internet in their original form as presented to the Paris peace conference. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 16:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Interesting comment; it inspired me, and I may have found a single copy of the one for Armenia on Google Books, [http://books.google.com/books?id=0dZfCXeL2AEC&pg=PA220&dq=paris+peace+conference+map+armenia&lr=&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=W2C1Sf2BH5XWNoHlvN0P#PPA220,M1]. Haven't hunted for one of the ADR yet. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 18:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Looks like that may be it. Why, given its importance, has nobody placed it and the accompanying booklet on the web?? BTW, here is the equivalent one produced by the Kurdish delegation. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Memorandum_on_the_Claims_of_the_Kurd_People_1.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Memorandum_on_the_claims_of_the_kurd_people_2.jpg [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Kurds were different. Unlike ADR and DRA, which both had de-facto recognition from the allies, Kurds were represented not as a state, but as people. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 06:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I was just posting it as an example of what we really need for Azerbaijan, Armenian and Georgia. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I've vaguely started; here's my notes so far: |
|||
*Governorates: |
|||
**Chernomore: Claimed by DRG, now part of Russia |
|||
**Kutaisi: Claimed by DRG, now western Georgia |
|||
**Tiflis: Claimed by DRG, now eastern Georgia |
|||
**Erivan: Claimed by DRA, now Armenia and Nakhichevan |
|||
**Elizavetpol: Claimed by ADR, now western Azerbaijan and Zangezur in Armenia |
|||
**Baku: Claimed by ADR, now the eastern half of Azerbaijan |
|||
**Zaqatali Okrug: Claimed by DRG, now the northern leg of Azerbaijan |
|||
**Kars Oblast: Claimed by ADR and DRG, now nearly entirely part of Turkey |
|||
**Batum Oblast: Claimed by DRG, now Adjara and part of Turkey |
|||
**Sukhumi Oblast: Claimed by DRG, now equivalent to Abkhazia |
|||
That's why I wanted to know the governorates, so I could create a basic baseline to work from. So, now that I've figured all that out, let's discuss ... Let's start simple. Baku Governorate. This was claimed without any challenge by the ADR, yes? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 11:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:ADR pre-draft 1.png|right|thumb]] |
|||
:Here's the basic outline with borders and governorates, and nothing else. The colors mean nothing except as a very basic guideline. So I guess the next step is finding sources saying what governorates were claimed by which countries - I want every inch of this map sourced. Then the next step is finding the actual line of control in places like Elizabethpol and Kars. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::The map is nice to look at, but I think you are going down the wrong road here. The governorates do not have any bearing on the ''overlapping'' claims of the various parties, nor was there such a thing as a fixed line of control. What time-period are you proposing to show on this map - 1918, 1919, 1920? And how are you going to confront the arguments of POV bias if you chose the situation, say, in 1918 rather than 1919 or 1920? I think what is needed is either a single map (or three separate maps) showing the claims of each party, and showing the modern borders. you want I can scan and upload the 3 maps from the "Armenian an Historical Atlas" showing the claims [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not even sure the governorates will be in the final version; as I said, they are just a crutch for me to stand on to find out the general idea of the borders of the day. (And it's useful for things like Zakatala) And I was hoping for all three time periods, with shifting lines if needed; if it becomes too complex then I'll split it accordingly, and make a 'fuzzy' version for the infobox (i.e. solid lines where there was solid control, fuzzy area for permanent dispute). So let's start with 1918, right after independence. I want to know what areas the countries claimed, what they actually controlled, and what was actively disputed. (i.e. a country may have claimed an area that it didn't control, but made no military move to actually control it) I'm not sure if this is going to be a successful project anyway but we can at least try. :) As for modern borders, eh, I guess for this region that makes sense, since the reverberations are still making an impact. Any input would help. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 00:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Honestly, I think what you are proposing doing is going to be too complex. Maybe it would be feasable if it were an animated Flash map, with a scroll-bar to control the time period, but that sort of thing can't be used on Wikipedia (and would take ages to create anyway). Let's think more about what the map is going to be used for. OK, we can't have a Baku87-type map showing Azerbaijan (or Armenia or Georgia) with fixed borders as if it controlled everything it claimed ownership of, because the borders weren't static and what they each controlled fell far short of what they each claimed. But I don't think you can feasibly create a map that shows the amount of detail you are proposing showing. I'll scan those 3 maps tomorrow and post them somewhere - I've only a photocopy of the page but even in B&W it is OK for showing the extent of the claims. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 01:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Before I go any further, I need to find out where the current Andersen map is incorrect. Note: Him 'not being a scholar' or him being 'racist' has nothing to do with the accuracy of the map. If it turns out it is, in fact, correct (the only time I recall an inaccuracy being pointed out was quickly refuted, since GM said all three areas were under solid control of Azerbaijan, and other sources disagree...) then there's no point for this project. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 01:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::The Andersen map doesn't show all of the territorial claims, nor even all of the territory disputed over by armed forces. And who controls what will depend on the time period. For example, from what I can gather, in 1918, after the breakup of the Transcaucasian Federation, Ottoman Turkey invaded and occupied Nakhchivan, but (after its surrender) was required to withdraw to the 1914 border. However, Turkey together with Azerbaijan set up a proxy regime there called the Aras Republic, Armenian forces then advanced and gained control of all of Nakhchivan to start with, but later lost control of most of it to Azerbaijan, then regained control of most (or all) of it again in 1920. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 02:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Golbez, do you have non-Armenian sources proving that Karabakh or, especially, Nakhchivan, were under Armenian control during 1918-1920? Just as a clarification, to avoid further confusion, I am responding to you as to a party representing the position of one of the sides on the map conflict, not as to the mapmaker or mediator. Thanks. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::If you aren't speaking to me as me being a mapmaker, then we have nothing to discuss pertaining to the map, do we. But because I'm charitable, a response: I have no sources at all so far, that's why I've been hoping you fine people will supply me with some. I'm concerned that if I start picking them, I'll run into a preference bias and pick what appears to be the best or most comprehensive but in reality is constructed by someone totally biased. That's why I have you biased folks, to filter it for me! --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 02:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think the best way of doing it is to take the official maps of ADR and DRA, put them together and highlight the overlapping areas. You have the official ADR map. The new map should be called "territorial disputes in the South Caucasus". --[[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Status check == |
|||
I protected this article based on a request at [[WP:RFPP]]. It has been about a month, and I wanted to check on the progress here. The talk page has been quiet for 10 days. Is there any consensus on the map issue yet? I understand that this whole subject area is one in which there is some disagreement, and that it applies to more than one article. Still, I'd just as soon permit editing here if things have calmed down. [[User:Xymmax|<b>Xymmax</b>]] [[User_talk:Xymmax|<small><sup>So let it be written</sup></small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Xymmax|<small><sub>So let it be done</sub></small>]] 15:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Since there's been no response I assume things have quieted down. Unprotected. [[User:Xymmax|<b>Xymmax</b>]] [[User_talk:Xymmax|<small><sup>So let it be written</sup></small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Xymmax|<small><sub>So let it be done</sub></small>]] 03:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Unfortunately, the disputed map is still on the page. And here is an interesting reference from 1920 New York Times issue, in light of prior discussion that Karabakh and Zangezur were NOT under control of Armenia during 1918-1920: |
|||
* [http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A0CE3DF1E31E433A25757C0A96E9C946195D6CF ''"The two provinces in question are largely inhabited by Armenians, according to this statement", says the Near East Relief "but have never been under the Government of Republic of Armenia"''] |
|||
thus could not be legally "disputed" between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The provinces were under control of Azerbaijan and acknowledge so by Ottoman Turks and later British forces under Allied Powers in the region. |
|||
Moreover, the current map, pushed by POV and edit warring of one side, and invented by Andrew Andersen, a blogger, claims "Republic of Azerbaijan: 1919-1920". Though Republic of Azerbaijan existed from 1918 till 1920, not from 1919. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Area and population == |
|||
:Atabek don't be lazy and quote the whole thing. |
|||
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) |
|||
::Doubt Armenia is Invaded. |
|||
: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) |
|||
::Near East Relief Officials Explain Reports of Red Moves There. |
|||
: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) |
|||
::Reports of Bolshevist penetration to Armenia, which have emanated recently from Constantinople, are discredited by the Near East Relief, 1 Madison Avenue, which yesterday issued a statement showing why it considered the reports to be misleading. Word has come of the invasion of Armenia through the Provinces of Karabakh and Zangezoor, where the Bolshevists set up Soviet governments. |
|||
: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) |
|||
::"The two provinces in question are largely inhabited by Armenians, according to this statement," says the Near East Relief, "but have never been under the Government or Republic of Armenia. They consist of a mountainous region, which is said to be the richest mineral district of the Near East, known to possess gold, copper, sulphur, iron and zinc mines, but which is cut off from contact with the rest of the Armenian Republic by '''lack of roads and means of communication'''." |
|||
== Translation of Official Name == |
|||
::Published: August 4, 1920 Copyright © The New York Times |
|||
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> |
|||
:If there were no roads and means of communication that would mean that Armenian inhabited Zangezur and Karabakh were not under control of Azerbaijan either. P.S you get a "B-" for not replacing the map with Baku87's imaginary map. [[User:VartanM|VartanM]] ([[User talk:VartanM|talk]]) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: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) |
|||
::You missed the contradiction. It says ''"is cut off from contact with the rest of the Armenian Republic",'' if there is a "rest of" then the writer is saying that Zangezur and Karabakh ''were'' parts of the Armenian Republic! [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 21:06, 27 March 2009 (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 == |
|||
I added a new version of the official map. It is described as the official map of ADR, i.e. representing the official position of the country. We may need to have another map showing the lands claimed by both Armenia and Azerbaijan for use in the articles about the ADR and DRA. I'll see if I can get such a map. --[[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 11:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:So you think you can add a map just because the map says "Map of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic" on it! It does not represent anything resembling reality. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 21:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually I was in favor of including an official map from back then so long as it had a caption on the image itself clearly stating that it's a product of ADR's wet dreams. But wtf is this? This is clearly a modern, irredentist concuction.--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yeah, an official map, regardless of 'reality', would be very useful. Example: The map of the Republic of China as Taipei sees it. However, I don't know if what was put up was either an official map or directly based off one. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 22:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Hello |
|||
Meowy, VartanM, Eupator - the reference from NY Times says the territory was '''NOT under the Government of Armenia'''. That's a factual statement made by Near East Relief based on contemporary information. Whether Near East Relief thought it was cut off from rest of Armenia or whether it thought that Armenia spread from Pacific to Atlantic embracing Eurasian continent is irrelevant as Near East Relief was not an authoritative body to make such conclusions. I am not sure why you keep pushing the same map, which has no relevance and is already deemed POV. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 02:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
My proposal would be as follows: |
|||
::Atabek, "not under the Government of Armenia" isn't equal to "under Government of Azerbaijan". [[User:VartanM|VartanM]] ([[User talk:VartanM|talk]]) 07:23, 28 March 2009 (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. |
|||
:::Besides, this text from the NY Times has a context and reading the entire thing from top to bottom and adding a little knowledge of the period in question will help you see the entire picture. This is from August 1920, just few days before to the Treaty of Sevres. Wilson prepared the map of Armenia and could not secure any American mandates for Armenia and never drew any borders for the East because he did not know the full extent of Bolshevik expansion. Recognition of eastern border would mean a clash with the Russian army which was advancing. Not being able to have the full support for an American mandate the US never signed the treaty for those same exact reasons (not ignoring the Kemalist advance from the West and Armenia being sandwiched). The NY Times was playing in the hand of the US government by dismissing an invasion of Armenia by claiming that those invaded territories were never controlled by the Armenian government anyways and decreasing the size of Armenia which they needed to secure, they were backpedaling before they totally ignored the mandate they have promised. Those Russian advances during the negotiations killed everything. This is the reason why you are not allowed to use primary sources because they are open to interpretation, and those interpretations are left for the secondary sources make. [[User:VartanM|VartanM]] ([[User talk:VartanM|talk]]) 08:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
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] |
|||
:The map included by me is based on this source: [http://books.google.com/books?id=RBNDaEFGJrsC&pg=PP15&dq=] It says that this map was made by Information department of Azerbaijani MFA in 1919. I described it as an official map of ADR. Whether or not it was accurate is another issue. I don't mind inclusion of another map showing the territorial disputes in Transcaucasia. I already proposed that we use both the official maps of ADR and DRA, and another one showing where they overlap. --[[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 06:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::The date looks more like 1990 rather than 1919. I very much doubt that map was made in 1919 with a mix of Russian and English captions.--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 15:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Reverted back to Xymmax version, until a consensus is reached. [[User:VartanM|VartanM]] ([[User talk:VartanM|talk]]) 07:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Consensus on what? The map was kept and is Ok for use in wikiarticles. No one seeks a consensus for use of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_First_Armenian_Republic_1918-1920.gif this map] in DRA article, even though Tsutsiyev considers it to be far from any reality, same as ADR map: [http://www.caucasica.org/analytics/detail.php?ID=1145]. However the map of ADR is a historical document, and thus is a valuable info. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 07:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry but I don't remember any vote on that particular map. [[User:VartanM|VartanM]] ([[User talk:VartanM|talk]]) 08:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::It is an improved version of Bak87's map. If you prefer the original map by Baku87, we can use it.--[[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 13:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
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]''' |
|||
Exactly, VartanM, if NY Times/Near East Relief says Karabakh and Zangezur were not under government of Armenia, and you claim that it does not mean it was under Azerbaijan (although there was no one else in between), then the map by Andersen is false by default, as the territory could not have been disputed in any case. In this condition, the only neutral and meaningful step is to remove Andersen map, as it's simply an indoctrination, just like his other maps in Wikipedia. He is not a scholar but a blogger sympathetic of Armenia and hateful of Muslims. So I am not sure why your solution is to return the same map, while disputing the facts? Why can't you just keep it without the map until the consensus is reached, if you believe your edit is neutral? [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 23:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:The NY Times article does sayy that Karabakh and Zangezur are part of Armenia. It says they are "cut off from contact with the rest of the Armenian Republic", if there is a "rest of" then the writer is saying that Zangezur and Karabakh were parts of the Armenian Republic. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 01:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::To be precise, it says that those two regions never were a part of Armenia: |
|||
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) |
|||
:: ''The two provinces in question are largely inhabited by Armenians, according to this statement," says the Near East Relief, "but have never been under the Government or Republic of Armenia.'' |
|||
: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 == |
|||
::--[[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 10:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::And also, I don't think it is a good idea to remove the map supported by 3 reliable sources and replace it with a map by some Andrew Anderson, who is not a published scholar, but a person who maintains a website. --[[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 10:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::It also says they are "cut off from contact with ''the rest of'' the Armenian Republic" - as I said earlier, the article contradicts itself. I'm not going to rehash your Andrew Andersen hangups again. If you are claiming that there are '''specific inaccuracies''' in that map that make it unsuitable for use, then please state them. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 20:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Hello |
|||
Meowy, just because a map is the "best available for Wikipedia" doesn't mean it should be used if there are genuine concerns with it. We don't put something up that many people think may be false just because there's no other option. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:What "genuine concerns"? What '''specific inaccuracies''' arethere in that map that make it unsuitable for use? [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::And how is your map progressing, if at all, btw? Did you download the three territorial claims maps? [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 20:07, 4 April 2009 (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) |
|||
It's probably best not to include any map at this point since there isn't one that all sides agree on.--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 21:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree. The map in DRA is no good either, even if it was created by Hewsen, who is an expert on ancient history. It contradicts others sources, such as Hovanissian, NYT, etc. NYT clearly says that Zangezur never been under the Government or Republic of Armenia. The part about "the rest" is just a bad choice of words by the editors. I think as a compromise it is better to create a map that showed all 3 regions as claimed by both countries, and include official maps alongside with them. --[[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 07:04, 5 April 2009 (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) |
|||
I think we already agreed that no map should appear until consensus is achieved. Moreover, the map, as proven by facts from NY Times 1920 article, is an invention of blogger Andersen. So Meowy, please, discuss and achieve consensus, before reinserting a piece of POV invention into the page. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 07:14, 5 April 2009 (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) |
|||
:The map by Anderson is not inaccurate, Vartan explained the context of the NY Times news just above and as usual you did not read what he wrote. You brought this NY Times report on 26 March and [http://www.today.az/news/politics/51169.html here] Adil's friends news page we have this info on 29 March, including with Baku87's prepared map. And thanks again for the cherry picking, here's another [http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C01E2DB103DE533A25755C2A9619C946195D6CF example] from the same news source claiming Karabakh to be part of Armenia. This was what was [http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D0DEED61638E13ABC4950DFB1668382609EDE reported] months prior by those relief organizations. Again, Karabakh in Armenia. [http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9407E6D61131E433A25751C0A96E9C946195D6CF Here] it writes about the penetration of Armenia by the Bolsheviks when it speaks about Karabakh and Zankezour. It also provides a context. - [[User:Fedayee|Fedayee]] ([[User talk:Fedayee|talk]]) 02:36, 6 April 2009 (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) |
|||
:: [http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C01E2DB103DE533A25755C2A9619C946195D6CF This report] of 24 July, claiming Karabakh to be part of Armenia, is refuted by [http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A0CE3DF1E31E433A25757C0A96E9C946195D6CF this one] of 4 August, saying that Karabakh and Zangezur have never been under the Government of Republic of Armenia. And again, Andersen is not a published source. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::And for the same reason you still insist on "treaty of Kurekchay"? Double standards. [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 05:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Which same reason? [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 09:27, 6 April 2009 (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. [[User:AuH2ORepublican|AuH2ORepublican]] ([[User talk:AuH2ORepublican|talk]]) 06:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Vartan above explained the context, also the article that you use uses the words ''the rest'' which contradicts your insinuations. One more information, if you checked the rest of the articles, one of those present the claims of the Azerbaijan republic at the conference, which according to the article was as far as the Black Sea. In short, I don't see how you can use NY archives, when they support Anderson's map and support the fact that the maps you guys have been using are inaccurate, as even the claims of the Azerbaijan republic of the time are not accurate since the NY archives support what Meowy has been saying and other authors about their claims being as West as the Black Sea. - [[User:Fedayee|Fedayee]] ([[User talk:Fedayee|talk]]) 15:53, 8 April 2009 (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. [[Special:Contributions/37.26.53.164|37.26.53.164]] ([[User talk:37.26.53.164|talk]]) 12:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==MAP== |
|||
I am not sure what negotiation is being tried here. Anderson map is out of question, it's a non-neutral nonsense (along with anything else this blogger published) trying to draw border which did not exist and was never demarcated. The most meaningful thing is to insert Azerbaijani-claimed map on ADR page, and Armenian-claimed map on DRA page and be through with it, instead of engaging in argument over things that cannot be proven. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 15:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm fine with a map that depicts official (emphasis added) Azeri claims regardless of relaity but that map goes well beyond ADR's claims which is why I removed it. --<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::[[Ministry of National Security of Azerbaijan]] published the map in its site, [http://www.mns.gov.az/museum1_az.html here] is the source and you can find the map [http://www.mns.gov.az/qalereya/muzey/adr-stend1.jpg here]. Its also been added that this map was published by the Azeri intel agency, so it should be enough. [[User:Baku87|Baku87]] ([[User talk:Baku87|talk]]) 15:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::And that makes it what? (For people who know about Azeri official sources, that would be a guarantee that there is barely a line on it that is accurate!) There are only two sort of maps that are acceptable - one that shows the complete extent of the territorial claims of Azerbaijan during the existence of the republic, or one that indicates the (often fluctuating) territory it actually controlled. The map that Atabəy and Baku87 want inserted is neither of those - it is a work of propaganda, a fiction. So far, only the Andersen map has come close to being acceptable for the latter purpose (indicating the fluctuating territory). [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm still sceptical about this map, the source that Baku presented in support is a barely discernible map hanging in some museum. Surely there is an actual map of some sort of the period within a government site. I don't read Azeri otherwise I would have looked for it myself.--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 18:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's a work of fiction. It deliberately doesn't make an accurate attempt to distinguish between territory claimed, and territory Azerbaijan actually controlled. The "Disputed Area with Armenia" caption suggest actual physical dispute - which is inaccurate as Azeri armed forces were never in this region. And of course the light green "half of Irvan province" and much of the dark green "Zangezur" and "Karabakh" was under actual dispute (and fluctuating control) by the armed forces of both Armenia and Azerbaijan - something the key ignores, deceptively indicating that those areas were under the "borders of Azeri Rep.". [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 01:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It is the official map published by Azerbaijani MFA in 1919. No one says that it is an accurate presentation of situation, just that this was the official map, representing the position of ADR. Also, the map in the article about DRA is not accurate too, but none of the people objecting to inclusion of this map objects to the inclusion of Hewsen's map. I suggested to create a new map, showing the territories claimed by both countries, but no progress on this so far. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Just to be sure I'm reading you right, you don't mean the one being put into the article is the official map, right? Just that it's ''based on'' an official map, among other sources. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 05:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Re: a map "showing the territories claimed by both countries", I suggested that to Golbez ages ago when he said he was working on a map - "Maybe what is needed is map showing the overlapping territorial claims of all three republics" - but nothing seems to have come of it. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 15:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I'm a busy/lazy person. All things in time. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:A few sources which shed some light on things: |
|||
I mean that the official maps for both countries can be kept, as historical documents, but in addition to them we can take the 2 official maps, put them together and mark the overlapping areas in a different colors to show the areas in dispute. This would be a second map that could be used in both articles. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 12:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:* "''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 |
|||
:Except that this map is not an official map. Nobody has been able to provide a single government map that depicts borders and claims that are even remotely akin to this map. This map represents modern irredentist propaganda.--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 14:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:* "''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 |
|||
:Also if this was an official map, it would not have included disputed territories. In addition, if those territories are disputed, than that means that the rest are not right. But we all know that it wasn't the case. This alone proves that the map itself is an irredentist concoction not an official map of ADR.--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 00:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:* "''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 |
|||
::I posted this link a few times on this page, and it is included in the map description: [http://books.google.com/books?id=RBNDaEFGJrsC&pg=PP15&dq=] Read what it says in description and legend. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 04:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:* "''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 |
|||
:::The map you are placing in the article is not that one. The map you are placing in the article may be ''based'' on it, but that does not make it the official map you continue to claim it is. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 06:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:* "''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]]''' |
|||
''The young republic declares, in an elaborate statement prepared by its delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, that its natural boundaries extend all the way across the Caucasus to Batum on the Black Sea and that its population, under the law of self-determination, would amount to nearly 5,000,000, and its territory to 130,000 square kilometers. Its spokesmen also admit that they hope to see the day when the adjoining province of northwest Persia of the same name and practically the same ethnographic makeup will be allowed to add its 2,000,000 inhabitants to the Azerbaijan Republic.'' (New York Times, "Land of Eternal Fires. So the Little Republic of Azerbaidjan Is Called--Its Territorial Dispute with Armenia,"October 19, 1919.) |
|||
: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) |
|||
Those were what was claimed by Azerbaijan (dismissing the map you want introduced), [http://books.google.com/books?id=RBNDaEFGJrsC&pg=PP15&dq= this map is not credible]. As mentioned, the fact that it claims 'disputed' shows that this map was created after the claims. It comes from a Soviet Azerbaijan source and by now we all know about Hewsen's warnings on using such obscure material. In fact, the map is supposed to represent the Azerbaijani claims; disputed means both claims merged. If that map indeed represents the Azerbaijani claims, everything disputed would be in an Azerbaijani map... part of Azerbaijan. On the other side, everything claimed by Armenians would be part of Armenia in a map prepared by the Armenians and not marked as disputed. The word disputed would only be used by the third party presenting the claims made by at least two parties for the same land. The fact that the words are used and there are buffer territories shows and exposes this map as being an irredentist one. |
|||
<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]]''' |
|||
In fact, the official claims of Azerbaijan, as shown above, included territories now part of Turkey... these are not brought up now because of the good relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan. Instead we have another creation replacing the other one which dismisses entirely the claims Azerbaijan had. - [[User:Fedayee|Fedayee]] ([[User talk:Fedayee|talk]]) 21:52, 12 May 2009 (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: |
|||
:The map is from 1919. The source is provided. Muslim people of Kars wanted to join Azerbaijan, and so wanted even Muslims of North Caucasus. That does not mean that Azerbaijan officially claimed those lands. Armenia on the other hand wanted the territories from Black to Caspian sea, and Hewsen's map of 1920 Armenia is not accurate. Armenia never had control over Nakhichevan, and even Richard Hovanissian admits that. So what's wrong with inclusion of the map representing the official claims of Azerbaijan, especially considering that we have a similar one included for Armenia? [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 12:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:* ''"Turkish (later known as Azerbaijani or Azeri Turkic)"'' |
|||
:Thoughts? - [[User:LouisAragon|LouisAragon]] ([[User talk:LouisAragon|talk]]) 15:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::<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) |
|||
:::@[[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) |
|||
::::* "''[[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. |
|||
::::- [[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) |
|||
::::::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. |
|||
::::::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) |
|||
:::{{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) |
|||
:::"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) |
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)