![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Can anyone please explain, why is it so important to include into this article the opinion of a Russian chauvinist Denikin about the Republic of Azerbaijan? Obviously, he was bitter that he failed to eliminate the independent Azerbaijan and Georgian Republics and bring them back under the control of Russian empire. I think that such articles should include opinions of neutral people, which Denikin never was. Grandmaster 11:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not see a point of indicating that ADR allowed woman to vote. Indeed, no elections took place in Azerbajan between 1918-20 as the parlament was assembled - not elected. Elections were planned, I believe, but did not take place. Please provide reference for the indication that women should vote was supported by ADR government, or if there was a legislation of any sort, with regards to this. Reference to Russian Uchreditelnoe sobranie probably is not applicable to Azerbaijan. Abdulnr 21:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Also - we can eliminate a long quote from Denikin i think it is irrelevant.
Where is the map of ADR? That map was presented at the Paris Peace Conference, it was recognized de facto by the League of Nations and de jure by a number of states, put out by a legitimate and democratic government. And it is reprinted in various publications [3] And why is the infobox about some dispute there? -- AdilBaguirov 06:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Both Georgia and ADR had a military and partnership agreement signed in 1919, which shows that their relations were very friendly and constructive. Indeed, both had to work out differences on their claims to certain territories. But those differences are normal -- to this day all countries have to clearly demarkate their borders and have special commissions working for many years and trading parcels of territories (e.g., Georgia-Russia, Azerbaijan-Russia). Also, the overlapping territories were not as extensive and large as in case with Armenia's claims on both republics (Armenia waged war on both republics, ADR and Georgia). Also, all territories in ADR map had predominant or substantial Azerbaijani population. At that time ethno-national composition of territories was more important, especially since all those countries were self-determining for the first time. And once more, the ADR map is the offical map - it is from archives, it is published, and was accepted on ADR's application, and recognized as ADR's de facto borders. There is also an important fact - the Georgia map says that Zakatala and some other lands was in "stable Georgian control by Oct 1920". Well, by April 1920, Azerbaijan was invaded by Bolsheviks, and ADR officially ceased to exist on April 27-28, 1920. Thus, it's possible that in the ensuing chaos Georgia had control of those territories -- indeed, many Azerbaijanis, who were either majority or substantial in those territories, preferred capitalist and Europe-oriented Georgia, than bolshevik Russia. -- AdilBaguirov 08:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, our Georgian counterparts on Wikipedia have turned me on to a website called Atlas of Conflicts (the source for the map as seen on the DRG article). The page presents a fairly accurate history of the territorial disputes in the Caucasus during World War I. I replaced the Armenian map I made (based on Hewsen's work) with the one used on their website. Alas, they did not have one for Azerbaijan, though. So for now, we have to continue using the Paris Peace Conference map. Although I am not opposed to displaying the map (as it is a historical document), I noted when captioning it that it does not accurately depict its territorial disputes or areas of administration with other countries in the region. In other words, the map the ADR presented at the Paris Peace Conference was, as Grandmaster said, "wishful thinking" showing most of their territorial disputes unanimously solved even though this was not the case. -- Clevelander 19:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Grandmaster, could you please provide an internet link to Tadeusz Swietochowski's and Firuz Kazemzadeh's relevant texts?
If there is no such internet page, can you provide the relevant paragraphs here for both authors? Smith's "12,000 people" was misquoted here as "12,000 men," so I would like to see the paragraphs from these sources. Especially when the Azeri source provided by Plato states that the source is ADR's official Azeri newspaper:
Once the dust from the March 18th massacre cleared, an estimated 12,000 civilians had been murdered in their homes and in the streets of Baku. [Source: "Azerbaijan" newspaper - the official organ of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic government].
http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai102_folder/102_articles/102_overview_alakbarov.html
And if these authors cite sources for the facts included in the article, could you mention them too. Thanks in advance.-- TigranTheGreat 20:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why u continue to "share" the responsability of March genocide in equal way, the massacre was done by the Dashnaks; Bolsheviks as well as other pro-Russia parties were of course in the middle of the fights but 90% of the killings were done by the Armenian militiamen. Every source can confirm you this thing. You use the tactic of putting the Bolsheviks before so it seems that the Bols. did most of the crime and the Dashnaks played a minor part, while it was exatly the contrary. The reason of this "tactic" is clearly to defend the Dashnaks, I don't know for what reason. I know it's difficult to follow the Dashnaks, let me think.. first they were with the Czar and white armies, then stabbed Whites in the back and switched side to the Reds, then they stabbed Reds in the back and switched side for Brits and then .. and then.. and then..very coherent persons. ( Plato77 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
I put Bolsheviks before Dashnaks only in the list of the political parties, and only because Bolsheviks were the rulers of Baku. I am not defending Dashnaks, but clearly if we have 6-7 political parties fighting the Muslims, clearly it wasn't *just* the Dashnaks, while your edits tend to state that. Yes, it was shared. You are trying to blame everything on Armenians. The sources (the verifiable ones--Smith, HRW, Walker), all say that all the groups engaged in "confrontation," not just one sided massacre. Yes, civilians were killed, but we are mentioning that anyway.-- TigranTheGreat 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No, u wrote "All the non-Azeri political groups of the city joined the Bolsheviks against the Muslims: Bolsheviks, Dashnaks .." Don't u see how absurd is this sentence? Bolsehviks joined the Bolsheviks? And why not to say Bolsheviks joined the Dashnak as actually was? And for your information Bosheviks weren't the "rulers" of Baku, despite the Soviet head was Shaumyan ( an armenian! How strange..) they were in minority in the Baku Soviet government, their intent was to exlude violently the azeri parties like Musavat and Ittihad and in this they have a common goal with the Dashnaks. And indeed when these two parties were out, majority was held by Dashnaks and SRs and right for this reason when Dashnaks asked for british intervation the Bolsheviks were in minority and left Baku. If they were the "rulers" how could they be in minority and to be kicked off by the Dashnkas then? If you continue to change the text I'll put the POV tag in the section.( Plato77 21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
No, Plato, read carefully. I wrote (actually I modified, the two sentences were written by you) "All joined Bolsheviks against Muslims: Bolshevics etc etc for the first time joined together." So, the second part states all the groups that joined together. Dashnaks joined bolsheviks since bolsheviks were the rulers of the city. Majority doesn't matter--they held the de-facto authority of the city (and yes, Shaumyan, a Bolshevik, was the head of the Soviet). At any rate, Dashnaks themselves weren't a majority, as you admitted yourself, so it can't be that everyone else joined the Dashnaks. It wasn't Dashnaks who kicked Bolsheviks out, it was everyone else together. You are giving too much power to Dashnaks.-- TigranTheGreat 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to get to the bottom of dispute-
1)Bolshevik allied with Dashnak party to come to powerwas establish power after Muslim league refused to recognize the authorities 2) Bolshevik ships bombarded muslim quarter for several days. Many dead, hospital in Chemberekend bombed Heavy fighting near the Old City - downtown demolished and gutted (Ismailiyya, etc) 3) Some of the worst atrocities in the central Muslim quarter commited by Dashnaks - Russian forces did not commit murder and rape at this scale - they were more organized force rather than militia. So it is not a whitewash. 4) Stepan Shahumyan tried "stop" the massacres - at least this is his reply to pleas of fellow Bolsheviks (Narimanov, et al). Would appreciate if our armenian friends shed more light on this I will try to assemble more sources on this later this month. abdulnr 21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"3) Some of the worst atrocities in the central Muslim quarter commited by Dashnaks - Russian forces did not commit murder and rape at this scale - they were more organized force rather than militia."
abdulnr said exatly what I wanted to say, that's why I think this section is "too soft" with the Dashnaks.
(
Plato77
21:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
It is indeed soft - Smith tells that Baku March massacre was most bloody event of the Russian revolution and no whitewashing will help to stop. The following sources I have I need to get translated here - memoirs of N, Narimanov; Shahumyan letters, report on disarming "Wild division" that led to conflict. Truth is that muslims did not have ammunition and supplies to engage in fighting, whereas Dashnaks were all supplied with arms by retreating Russian troops. It is hard for Armenians to accept that for once they were perpetrating massacres. abdulnr 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
False, Dashnaks did most of the atrocities, the brother of my greatgranfather was killed by these armenian militiamen who even stolen his house. And it is not a question of "leftists" and "rightists", it was a question of "non-muslims" against "muslims". In fact azeri leftists were on muslim side and also russian-armenian rightists were on bolshevik side. It has nothing to do with politics, but with ethnic cleansing, non-azeri forces committed a genocide against muslims. Forget the "left" and the "right", it has nothing to do with it. Musavat itself was a progressive party, not conservative. ( Plato77 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
Neither for your sarcasm, how likeable you are.. ( Plato77 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
No it is not impossible.. as you know in 1918 (should look at 1897 census) Azeris were only the largest minority at 30-40% in Baku, with Armenians not far behind. with lesser number of Russians et all. Situation not too dissimilar to Lebanon in 80s. You must have not been to Baku - there was compact area of Armenian-populated district called Armenikend where the raids were orchestrated. This argument does not stand. Also I dislike juggling human figures as if they are nothing - but as I have no objection for you opening the site on Army of Islam massacre in Sept, 18. I can not call science fiction something that people lived through abdulnr 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate your restrait in this matter!! To remind of the issue here - we are disputing role of the Dashnak militial in the events of March 1918. As to your comment, i don't see this as unlikely - The large migration of Armenian population to Baku(mainly from Karabakh) occured since 1860s. Armenians contributed large proportion of population in every large city in the Caucasus. In Tbilisi they were the majority. abdulnr 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but what sources do they cite? Particularly Karimzadeh for the 12,000 figure? The Azeri author from Plato's Azeri site, for example, says that the source is the official Azeri paper of the Azeri Republic. What does Karimzadeh say?-- TigranTheGreat 08:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Then you should also mention the source of 3,500 figure abdulnr 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
So the only reference we have is from the above authors on 12,000. In any other circumstance this woild be put in as a source (one of the sources). Read for instance Sabra and Shatila or Karantina massacre... . Lets stop this juggling of human figures. abdulnr 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Abdul, this is not about juggling human figures, it's about being accurate. We Armenian editors could use elevated figures (such as 2 million, found in some sources) on the Armenian Genocide page, but we didn't do it--we look at various figures, and evaluate sources. Yes, in any other circumstance we would use a figure contained in a source. But in this circumstance, we have wildly differing numbers--HRW says 3 - 3.5 thousand, the Tadeush dude gives the same estimate, Smith never says that the 12,000 were Muslims (perhaps because he knows the figure has Azeri source). Karimzadeh doesn't use a source, while we have evidence (even by Azeri scholars) stating that the sources is the official Azeri claim. Clearly, this is not the usual circumstance, and we can't use 12,000 as a neutral estimate. If we use it, we need state that it comes from the estimate by Azerbaijani government. And if we do that, we also need to provide the Armenian estimate for the Armenian massacre in September, which is 30,000. And none of that "revenge" stuff, which is POV. The September massacre was part of the ongoing Armenian Genocide--Enver was massacring Armenians everywhere on his way to Baku, and Baku wasn't an exception. But, I am willing not to mention the Armenian Genocide, if we exclude the revenge stuff.
And we should neither portray the massacre as one sided nor lay the whole blame on Dashnaks. Smith, Walker, and others make it clear that Muslim militia was armed, barrickaded in the city, and ready to fight. They also confirm that this was a two sided conflict, and all the leftists forces joined the Bolsheviks in the fights. -- TigranTheGreat 02:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion the question should not be focoused on the numbers, but on the fact that Dashanks clearly did a massacre taking advantage of the caothic situation. The Muslims just wanted peace and even accepted the Soviet's condition in order to avoid a carnage because the Musavat militiamen couldn't resist too much against well equipped and well trained Bolshevik Red Guards and Menshevik People's Guard who even had artillery. And in fact they decided to give up only when the Russian forces started to bomb the muslim quarters, and they surrended because these bombings could kill civilians. The compromise found was that even Dashanaks had to disarm, Bolsheviks and other parties agreed, Muslims trusted on Shaumyan words and gave their weapons to the Soviet's authorities. At that point the Dashnaks, who didn't accepted these terms, took advantage of these situation and started the massacre with Shaumyan apparently doing nothing to stop them. At the third day of the Dashnak slaughterhouse, the vice-chairmen of the Soviet, a georgian socialist named Dzhaparidze and a commissar, a russian bolshevik named Petrov saw that Dashnaks went too far and threated them saying that if they wouldn't stop the killings, the Red Guards and People Guards would have attacked the armenian quarters. Only then Dashnaks ceased the massacre. Dzhaparidze and Petrov acted probably on their initiative because the unstability could damage russian interests in the aerea and Shaumyan was doin' almost nothing. Lenin himself was angry with Shaumyan for these events, because his task was just to steal oil and send it to Russia and not to create instability on the region.( Plato77 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC))
You are talking only about the first part of the events who were the fights between pro-Russia Soviet forces vs Muslim militia ignoring what happened later. Let's start again from the beginning. If you read the letter between Narimanov and Shaumyan, you 'll see that the condition for the surrender of the Muslim militiamen to the Soviet forces was that also the Dashnaks has to disarm. And they accepted and went to the Hummet Party ( Muslim marxists close to bolsheviks but pro-Azeri, Narimanov's party ) offices to give disciplinately all the weapons they have. The problem is that after this, when the fights were ended, Dashnak didn't accept the fact they should be disarmed and went on disarmed muslim starting thew massacre. Shaumyan had the task to disarm them but he didn't do and in fact Narimanov was very angry with him because he broke the pact. After a lot of massacres were commited Dzhaparidze and Petrov threated the Dashnaks imposing them to cease the carnage.
Cronology is this one:
1) Bolsheviks, SRs, Mensheviks and so on attack the Muslims.
2) Muslims oppose resestance but they have to give up when Red guards start to bomb the Muslim quarters
3) they found a compromise, Soviet power will be recongized and they'll give all the weapons to it, but at the conditions Dashnaks will be disarmed. This solution was found thanks to Narimanov. Shaumyan ( the head of the Soviet ) agrees.
4) Muslims give all their weapons to Soviet authorities
5) Dashnaks don't disarm and Shaumyan doesn't disarm them.
6) Dashnaks attack the Muslims doing the massacres.
7) Dzhaparidze managed to stop them. ( Plato77 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC))
It's a POV recount of the events (i.e. "Muslims were peaceful, Armenians wanted to kill them"), we should be neutral, as both sides incurred losses and used violence against the other. Indeed sources confirm this. This is from Smith:
Мартовские события начались, по версии мусульманской стороны, когда Бакинский Совет без законных к тому оснований разоружил небольшую группу почётного караула молодого Тагиева и запер её на корабле. Мусульманское население Баку восприняло весть об этом как оскорбление убитого горем Тагиева-отца и новую провокацию: это положило начало конфронтации. Вести о том, что большевистские и армянские отряды только что провели ряд жестоких обысков и арестов в Шемахе, еще больше накалили обстановку. 31 марта многотысячная толпа мусульман собралась у входа в штаб-квартиру Мусульманского благотворительного общества в Баку и потребовала, чтобы почётному караулу было возвращено оружие. Советы проявили сдержанность и выразили готовность вступить в переговоры при посредничестве “Гуммета” и “Мусавата”. Но вооружённые мусульманские отряды уже стремились к конфликту. [4]
To paraphrase (and note, this is the *Muslim* version), Bolsheviks disarmed an Azeri guard, Muslims tooks this as an insult, and this started the confrontation. News about brutal searches by Bolsheviks and Armenians in other areas of Azerbaijan further heated up the situation. Many thousands of Muslims went to some headquarters and demanded return of weapons. Soviets were ready to compromise. But Armed Muslims were aiming for a conflict.
Here is more:
Мартовские события для Расулзаде были национальной войной, развязанной российскими большевиками против беззащитного азербайджанского народа. В стычках и погроме погибло не менее 12 000 человек. ... Именно так воспринимает их “Мусават”, обвиняя не только большевиков и дашнаков, но и самих себя, бессильных лидеров разъярённых масс.
I.e. for Rasulzade (the Tatar leader), the March events were a national war, started by Russian bolsheviks against defenseless Azeri people. In confrontations (i.e. fights) and pogroms, no less than 12000 died. Musavat blames this not only on Bolsheviks and Dashnaks, but on itself.
Here is from CJ Walker:
A mass meeting was held in the courtyard of a Baku mosque: return the crew's arms to them.
Then shooting started in the streets; civil war – known as the 'March days' – was soon raging in Baku. Allied with the Bolsheviks were all the other parties – Mensheviks, Dashnaks, Kadets, Social Revolutionaries. The Bolsheviks saw the Musavat defiance as counter-revolution; the Dashnaks in less ideological terms. The shooting intensified in early April, and vast mobs ran riot, killing, burning, pillaging. The two sides that laid into one another with special vigour were the Armenians and the Azerbaijani Tatars, the Armenians having the edge over the Tatars in ferocity.
So, the Muslims started the fights. They were aiming to fight. A bunch of political parties (including Bolsheviks) participated in the civil war. True, Dashnaks were among the, but were not the only ones. And maybe Dashnaks were more ferocious than Muslims, but the violence was mutual. Neither HRW, nor Smith, nor Walker say anything about Dashnaks starting and conducting the whole massacre.-- TigranTheGreat 23:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
He already did--it comes from the "Claims of the Delegation of the Republic of Caucasian Azerbaijan Presented to the Peace Conference in Paris," published in Paris in 1919, page 18. Even the Azeri Dr. from the Azeri website states that it comes from ADR's government. Therefore, we will include it in the article (i.e. that 12,000 is Azeri estimate) when it gets unprotected, along with the 30,000 number claimed by Armenian sources for the September massacre.
And by the way, since on the Nakhichevan page you argued that Menteshashvili's numbers shouldn't be included unless verified by primary source data--the same applies to Karimzadeh's figures. Since he is the only one giving the figure, and since its unsourced, and since we have evidence that it came from Azeri sources, it can't be included, unless it's stated as an Azeri claim.-- TigranTheGreat 02:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Menteshasvhili refers to a Russian journal. Kazimzadeh's number is unsourced. And we have sources stating that the number came from Azeri claims. So, we will delete the number. Or we will report it as Azeri claim. Along with the upped Armenian claims.-- TigranTheGreat 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Menteshashivili does no such thing (with respect to the statistics itself). Karimzadeh is not the final word on the number. We never use single source for a fact, we compare sources and come up with an answer. Karimzadeh's number is unsourced and disputed (by HRW). We have 3 sources (two Western, including McCarthy, and one Azeri--the Dr.) who state that the number came from the ADR's official claims. We can't ignore them and instead choose one unsourced, secondary, and disputed information. The Azeri website doesn't claim 25,000, it claims that an "Armenian" named Avanes Apresyan wrote it in his book--I have never heard of the guy, it's a question whether he or his book even exist (they were even brought up by Turks on the Armenian Genocide page and refuted by Fadix), neither he nor the site are reputable to include him.-- TigranTheGreat 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to present imaginary Azeri losses such as 12,000, you are more than welcome to do so if you identify them as Azeri source. Your site didn't claim that the number was 25,000. Unlike in Walker's case, we do have sources stating that Karimzadeh's reported number came from Azeri side. If you want to keep the number, we should state it as Azeri claim.-- TigranTheGreat 00:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
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. Atabek 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I copy these excerpts from the post of Alan Kaim, owner of milliondollarbabies.com at the Talk:Azerbaijan:
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. Grandmaster 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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. Elsanaturk 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Azerbaijani, I'll undo your edits untill you'll bring a panturkist or panislamist clause in Musavat Covenant of 1917 Elsanaturk 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:22, 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.
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) -- AdilBaguirov 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your additions because its obvious POV whats your excuse for changing "Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian massacres in Ottoman Empire" thats very unusual. Artaxiad 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, isn't it an overkill to cite 6 references about Musavat's Pan-whatever ideology? Especially having a "flag" website as reference, looks very much credible and scholarly. Not. :)
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. -- AdilBaguirov 08:57, 20 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. -- adil 06:05, 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. Atabek 16:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Harayarah is an obvious sock puppet or meat puppet, he joined simply to make reverts. Hajji Piruz 18:19, 14 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. Grandmaster 08:28, 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. Atabek 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Alborz Fallah 08:08, 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? Atabek 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | 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. |
” |
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.
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--
Alborz Fallah
15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | 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 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.-- Alborz Fallah 15:59, 14 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. Hajji Piruz 22:08, 15 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. -- Grandmaster 07:56, 19 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. Atabek 16:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Isnt Armenia is in west? Not in east? Mimihitam ( talk) 01:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
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. Atabek ( talk) 13:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
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. Atabəy ( talk) 15:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
1) De jure Soveiet Russia i.e. Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) was internationaly recognased as international legal entity and named USSR only after 1 February 1924, therefor before 1 February 1924 RSFSR was legaly unauthorized to recognise another state or conclude any contract or agreement with other states. 2) De jure non of Allies countries legaly recognised ADR and its borders. Michaeloff ( talk)
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:
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.
Carter V. Findley. The Turks in World History. Oxford University Press US, 2005ISBN 0195177266, 9780195177268
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.
Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. Columbia University Press, 1995. ISBN 0231070683, 9780231070683
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.
Reinhard Schulze. A Modern History of the Islamic World. I.B.Tauris, 2000. ISBN 1860648223, 9781860648229
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.
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. -- Grandmaster ( talk) 05:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.107.222 ( talk) 09:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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. VartanM ( talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
And this is from declaration by Tatar Kurultay:
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.
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. -- Grandmaster ( talk) 05:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
And yet another quote:
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.
Bernard Lewis. From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East. Oxford University Press US, 2004. ISBN 0195173368, 9780195173369
There are more. Grandmaster ( talk) 05:45, 22 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)". 77.122.107.222 ( talk) 09:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
"The first to allow suffrage... (see also Crimean People's Republic)". 77.122.107.222 ( talk) 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
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. Meowy 17:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Can anyone please explain, why is it so important to include into this article the opinion of a Russian chauvinist Denikin about the Republic of Azerbaijan? Obviously, he was bitter that he failed to eliminate the independent Azerbaijan and Georgian Republics and bring them back under the control of Russian empire. I think that such articles should include opinions of neutral people, which Denikin never was. Grandmaster 11:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not see a point of indicating that ADR allowed woman to vote. Indeed, no elections took place in Azerbajan between 1918-20 as the parlament was assembled - not elected. Elections were planned, I believe, but did not take place. Please provide reference for the indication that women should vote was supported by ADR government, or if there was a legislation of any sort, with regards to this. Reference to Russian Uchreditelnoe sobranie probably is not applicable to Azerbaijan. Abdulnr 21:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Also - we can eliminate a long quote from Denikin i think it is irrelevant.
Where is the map of ADR? That map was presented at the Paris Peace Conference, it was recognized de facto by the League of Nations and de jure by a number of states, put out by a legitimate and democratic government. And it is reprinted in various publications [3] And why is the infobox about some dispute there? -- AdilBaguirov 06:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Both Georgia and ADR had a military and partnership agreement signed in 1919, which shows that their relations were very friendly and constructive. Indeed, both had to work out differences on their claims to certain territories. But those differences are normal -- to this day all countries have to clearly demarkate their borders and have special commissions working for many years and trading parcels of territories (e.g., Georgia-Russia, Azerbaijan-Russia). Also, the overlapping territories were not as extensive and large as in case with Armenia's claims on both republics (Armenia waged war on both republics, ADR and Georgia). Also, all territories in ADR map had predominant or substantial Azerbaijani population. At that time ethno-national composition of territories was more important, especially since all those countries were self-determining for the first time. And once more, the ADR map is the offical map - it is from archives, it is published, and was accepted on ADR's application, and recognized as ADR's de facto borders. There is also an important fact - the Georgia map says that Zakatala and some other lands was in "stable Georgian control by Oct 1920". Well, by April 1920, Azerbaijan was invaded by Bolsheviks, and ADR officially ceased to exist on April 27-28, 1920. Thus, it's possible that in the ensuing chaos Georgia had control of those territories -- indeed, many Azerbaijanis, who were either majority or substantial in those territories, preferred capitalist and Europe-oriented Georgia, than bolshevik Russia. -- AdilBaguirov 08:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, our Georgian counterparts on Wikipedia have turned me on to a website called Atlas of Conflicts (the source for the map as seen on the DRG article). The page presents a fairly accurate history of the territorial disputes in the Caucasus during World War I. I replaced the Armenian map I made (based on Hewsen's work) with the one used on their website. Alas, they did not have one for Azerbaijan, though. So for now, we have to continue using the Paris Peace Conference map. Although I am not opposed to displaying the map (as it is a historical document), I noted when captioning it that it does not accurately depict its territorial disputes or areas of administration with other countries in the region. In other words, the map the ADR presented at the Paris Peace Conference was, as Grandmaster said, "wishful thinking" showing most of their territorial disputes unanimously solved even though this was not the case. -- Clevelander 19:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Grandmaster, could you please provide an internet link to Tadeusz Swietochowski's and Firuz Kazemzadeh's relevant texts?
If there is no such internet page, can you provide the relevant paragraphs here for both authors? Smith's "12,000 people" was misquoted here as "12,000 men," so I would like to see the paragraphs from these sources. Especially when the Azeri source provided by Plato states that the source is ADR's official Azeri newspaper:
Once the dust from the March 18th massacre cleared, an estimated 12,000 civilians had been murdered in their homes and in the streets of Baku. [Source: "Azerbaijan" newspaper - the official organ of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic government].
http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai102_folder/102_articles/102_overview_alakbarov.html
And if these authors cite sources for the facts included in the article, could you mention them too. Thanks in advance.-- TigranTheGreat 20:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why u continue to "share" the responsability of March genocide in equal way, the massacre was done by the Dashnaks; Bolsheviks as well as other pro-Russia parties were of course in the middle of the fights but 90% of the killings were done by the Armenian militiamen. Every source can confirm you this thing. You use the tactic of putting the Bolsheviks before so it seems that the Bols. did most of the crime and the Dashnaks played a minor part, while it was exatly the contrary. The reason of this "tactic" is clearly to defend the Dashnaks, I don't know for what reason. I know it's difficult to follow the Dashnaks, let me think.. first they were with the Czar and white armies, then stabbed Whites in the back and switched side to the Reds, then they stabbed Reds in the back and switched side for Brits and then .. and then.. and then..very coherent persons. ( Plato77 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
I put Bolsheviks before Dashnaks only in the list of the political parties, and only because Bolsheviks were the rulers of Baku. I am not defending Dashnaks, but clearly if we have 6-7 political parties fighting the Muslims, clearly it wasn't *just* the Dashnaks, while your edits tend to state that. Yes, it was shared. You are trying to blame everything on Armenians. The sources (the verifiable ones--Smith, HRW, Walker), all say that all the groups engaged in "confrontation," not just one sided massacre. Yes, civilians were killed, but we are mentioning that anyway.-- TigranTheGreat 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No, u wrote "All the non-Azeri political groups of the city joined the Bolsheviks against the Muslims: Bolsheviks, Dashnaks .." Don't u see how absurd is this sentence? Bolsehviks joined the Bolsheviks? And why not to say Bolsheviks joined the Dashnak as actually was? And for your information Bosheviks weren't the "rulers" of Baku, despite the Soviet head was Shaumyan ( an armenian! How strange..) they were in minority in the Baku Soviet government, their intent was to exlude violently the azeri parties like Musavat and Ittihad and in this they have a common goal with the Dashnaks. And indeed when these two parties were out, majority was held by Dashnaks and SRs and right for this reason when Dashnaks asked for british intervation the Bolsheviks were in minority and left Baku. If they were the "rulers" how could they be in minority and to be kicked off by the Dashnkas then? If you continue to change the text I'll put the POV tag in the section.( Plato77 21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
No, Plato, read carefully. I wrote (actually I modified, the two sentences were written by you) "All joined Bolsheviks against Muslims: Bolshevics etc etc for the first time joined together." So, the second part states all the groups that joined together. Dashnaks joined bolsheviks since bolsheviks were the rulers of the city. Majority doesn't matter--they held the de-facto authority of the city (and yes, Shaumyan, a Bolshevik, was the head of the Soviet). At any rate, Dashnaks themselves weren't a majority, as you admitted yourself, so it can't be that everyone else joined the Dashnaks. It wasn't Dashnaks who kicked Bolsheviks out, it was everyone else together. You are giving too much power to Dashnaks.-- TigranTheGreat 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to get to the bottom of dispute-
1)Bolshevik allied with Dashnak party to come to powerwas establish power after Muslim league refused to recognize the authorities 2) Bolshevik ships bombarded muslim quarter for several days. Many dead, hospital in Chemberekend bombed Heavy fighting near the Old City - downtown demolished and gutted (Ismailiyya, etc) 3) Some of the worst atrocities in the central Muslim quarter commited by Dashnaks - Russian forces did not commit murder and rape at this scale - they were more organized force rather than militia. So it is not a whitewash. 4) Stepan Shahumyan tried "stop" the massacres - at least this is his reply to pleas of fellow Bolsheviks (Narimanov, et al). Would appreciate if our armenian friends shed more light on this I will try to assemble more sources on this later this month. abdulnr 21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"3) Some of the worst atrocities in the central Muslim quarter commited by Dashnaks - Russian forces did not commit murder and rape at this scale - they were more organized force rather than militia."
abdulnr said exatly what I wanted to say, that's why I think this section is "too soft" with the Dashnaks.
(
Plato77
21:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
It is indeed soft - Smith tells that Baku March massacre was most bloody event of the Russian revolution and no whitewashing will help to stop. The following sources I have I need to get translated here - memoirs of N, Narimanov; Shahumyan letters, report on disarming "Wild division" that led to conflict. Truth is that muslims did not have ammunition and supplies to engage in fighting, whereas Dashnaks were all supplied with arms by retreating Russian troops. It is hard for Armenians to accept that for once they were perpetrating massacres. abdulnr 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
False, Dashnaks did most of the atrocities, the brother of my greatgranfather was killed by these armenian militiamen who even stolen his house. And it is not a question of "leftists" and "rightists", it was a question of "non-muslims" against "muslims". In fact azeri leftists were on muslim side and also russian-armenian rightists were on bolshevik side. It has nothing to do with politics, but with ethnic cleansing, non-azeri forces committed a genocide against muslims. Forget the "left" and the "right", it has nothing to do with it. Musavat itself was a progressive party, not conservative. ( Plato77 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
Neither for your sarcasm, how likeable you are.. ( Plato77 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
No it is not impossible.. as you know in 1918 (should look at 1897 census) Azeris were only the largest minority at 30-40% in Baku, with Armenians not far behind. with lesser number of Russians et all. Situation not too dissimilar to Lebanon in 80s. You must have not been to Baku - there was compact area of Armenian-populated district called Armenikend where the raids were orchestrated. This argument does not stand. Also I dislike juggling human figures as if they are nothing - but as I have no objection for you opening the site on Army of Islam massacre in Sept, 18. I can not call science fiction something that people lived through abdulnr 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate your restrait in this matter!! To remind of the issue here - we are disputing role of the Dashnak militial in the events of March 1918. As to your comment, i don't see this as unlikely - The large migration of Armenian population to Baku(mainly from Karabakh) occured since 1860s. Armenians contributed large proportion of population in every large city in the Caucasus. In Tbilisi they were the majority. abdulnr 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but what sources do they cite? Particularly Karimzadeh for the 12,000 figure? The Azeri author from Plato's Azeri site, for example, says that the source is the official Azeri paper of the Azeri Republic. What does Karimzadeh say?-- TigranTheGreat 08:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Then you should also mention the source of 3,500 figure abdulnr 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
So the only reference we have is from the above authors on 12,000. In any other circumstance this woild be put in as a source (one of the sources). Read for instance Sabra and Shatila or Karantina massacre... . Lets stop this juggling of human figures. abdulnr 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Abdul, this is not about juggling human figures, it's about being accurate. We Armenian editors could use elevated figures (such as 2 million, found in some sources) on the Armenian Genocide page, but we didn't do it--we look at various figures, and evaluate sources. Yes, in any other circumstance we would use a figure contained in a source. But in this circumstance, we have wildly differing numbers--HRW says 3 - 3.5 thousand, the Tadeush dude gives the same estimate, Smith never says that the 12,000 were Muslims (perhaps because he knows the figure has Azeri source). Karimzadeh doesn't use a source, while we have evidence (even by Azeri scholars) stating that the sources is the official Azeri claim. Clearly, this is not the usual circumstance, and we can't use 12,000 as a neutral estimate. If we use it, we need state that it comes from the estimate by Azerbaijani government. And if we do that, we also need to provide the Armenian estimate for the Armenian massacre in September, which is 30,000. And none of that "revenge" stuff, which is POV. The September massacre was part of the ongoing Armenian Genocide--Enver was massacring Armenians everywhere on his way to Baku, and Baku wasn't an exception. But, I am willing not to mention the Armenian Genocide, if we exclude the revenge stuff.
And we should neither portray the massacre as one sided nor lay the whole blame on Dashnaks. Smith, Walker, and others make it clear that Muslim militia was armed, barrickaded in the city, and ready to fight. They also confirm that this was a two sided conflict, and all the leftists forces joined the Bolsheviks in the fights. -- TigranTheGreat 02:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion the question should not be focoused on the numbers, but on the fact that Dashanks clearly did a massacre taking advantage of the caothic situation. The Muslims just wanted peace and even accepted the Soviet's condition in order to avoid a carnage because the Musavat militiamen couldn't resist too much against well equipped and well trained Bolshevik Red Guards and Menshevik People's Guard who even had artillery. And in fact they decided to give up only when the Russian forces started to bomb the muslim quarters, and they surrended because these bombings could kill civilians. The compromise found was that even Dashanaks had to disarm, Bolsheviks and other parties agreed, Muslims trusted on Shaumyan words and gave their weapons to the Soviet's authorities. At that point the Dashnaks, who didn't accepted these terms, took advantage of these situation and started the massacre with Shaumyan apparently doing nothing to stop them. At the third day of the Dashnak slaughterhouse, the vice-chairmen of the Soviet, a georgian socialist named Dzhaparidze and a commissar, a russian bolshevik named Petrov saw that Dashnaks went too far and threated them saying that if they wouldn't stop the killings, the Red Guards and People Guards would have attacked the armenian quarters. Only then Dashnaks ceased the massacre. Dzhaparidze and Petrov acted probably on their initiative because the unstability could damage russian interests in the aerea and Shaumyan was doin' almost nothing. Lenin himself was angry with Shaumyan for these events, because his task was just to steal oil and send it to Russia and not to create instability on the region.( Plato77 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC))
You are talking only about the first part of the events who were the fights between pro-Russia Soviet forces vs Muslim militia ignoring what happened later. Let's start again from the beginning. If you read the letter between Narimanov and Shaumyan, you 'll see that the condition for the surrender of the Muslim militiamen to the Soviet forces was that also the Dashnaks has to disarm. And they accepted and went to the Hummet Party ( Muslim marxists close to bolsheviks but pro-Azeri, Narimanov's party ) offices to give disciplinately all the weapons they have. The problem is that after this, when the fights were ended, Dashnak didn't accept the fact they should be disarmed and went on disarmed muslim starting thew massacre. Shaumyan had the task to disarm them but he didn't do and in fact Narimanov was very angry with him because he broke the pact. After a lot of massacres were commited Dzhaparidze and Petrov threated the Dashnaks imposing them to cease the carnage.
Cronology is this one:
1) Bolsheviks, SRs, Mensheviks and so on attack the Muslims.
2) Muslims oppose resestance but they have to give up when Red guards start to bomb the Muslim quarters
3) they found a compromise, Soviet power will be recongized and they'll give all the weapons to it, but at the conditions Dashnaks will be disarmed. This solution was found thanks to Narimanov. Shaumyan ( the head of the Soviet ) agrees.
4) Muslims give all their weapons to Soviet authorities
5) Dashnaks don't disarm and Shaumyan doesn't disarm them.
6) Dashnaks attack the Muslims doing the massacres.
7) Dzhaparidze managed to stop them. ( Plato77 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC))
It's a POV recount of the events (i.e. "Muslims were peaceful, Armenians wanted to kill them"), we should be neutral, as both sides incurred losses and used violence against the other. Indeed sources confirm this. This is from Smith:
Мартовские события начались, по версии мусульманской стороны, когда Бакинский Совет без законных к тому оснований разоружил небольшую группу почётного караула молодого Тагиева и запер её на корабле. Мусульманское население Баку восприняло весть об этом как оскорбление убитого горем Тагиева-отца и новую провокацию: это положило начало конфронтации. Вести о том, что большевистские и армянские отряды только что провели ряд жестоких обысков и арестов в Шемахе, еще больше накалили обстановку. 31 марта многотысячная толпа мусульман собралась у входа в штаб-квартиру Мусульманского благотворительного общества в Баку и потребовала, чтобы почётному караулу было возвращено оружие. Советы проявили сдержанность и выразили готовность вступить в переговоры при посредничестве “Гуммета” и “Мусавата”. Но вооружённые мусульманские отряды уже стремились к конфликту. [4]
To paraphrase (and note, this is the *Muslim* version), Bolsheviks disarmed an Azeri guard, Muslims tooks this as an insult, and this started the confrontation. News about brutal searches by Bolsheviks and Armenians in other areas of Azerbaijan further heated up the situation. Many thousands of Muslims went to some headquarters and demanded return of weapons. Soviets were ready to compromise. But Armed Muslims were aiming for a conflict.
Here is more:
Мартовские события для Расулзаде были национальной войной, развязанной российскими большевиками против беззащитного азербайджанского народа. В стычках и погроме погибло не менее 12 000 человек. ... Именно так воспринимает их “Мусават”, обвиняя не только большевиков и дашнаков, но и самих себя, бессильных лидеров разъярённых масс.
I.e. for Rasulzade (the Tatar leader), the March events were a national war, started by Russian bolsheviks against defenseless Azeri people. In confrontations (i.e. fights) and pogroms, no less than 12000 died. Musavat blames this not only on Bolsheviks and Dashnaks, but on itself.
Here is from CJ Walker:
A mass meeting was held in the courtyard of a Baku mosque: return the crew's arms to them.
Then shooting started in the streets; civil war – known as the 'March days' – was soon raging in Baku. Allied with the Bolsheviks were all the other parties – Mensheviks, Dashnaks, Kadets, Social Revolutionaries. The Bolsheviks saw the Musavat defiance as counter-revolution; the Dashnaks in less ideological terms. The shooting intensified in early April, and vast mobs ran riot, killing, burning, pillaging. The two sides that laid into one another with special vigour were the Armenians and the Azerbaijani Tatars, the Armenians having the edge over the Tatars in ferocity.
So, the Muslims started the fights. They were aiming to fight. A bunch of political parties (including Bolsheviks) participated in the civil war. True, Dashnaks were among the, but were not the only ones. And maybe Dashnaks were more ferocious than Muslims, but the violence was mutual. Neither HRW, nor Smith, nor Walker say anything about Dashnaks starting and conducting the whole massacre.-- TigranTheGreat 23:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
He already did--it comes from the "Claims of the Delegation of the Republic of Caucasian Azerbaijan Presented to the Peace Conference in Paris," published in Paris in 1919, page 18. Even the Azeri Dr. from the Azeri website states that it comes from ADR's government. Therefore, we will include it in the article (i.e. that 12,000 is Azeri estimate) when it gets unprotected, along with the 30,000 number claimed by Armenian sources for the September massacre.
And by the way, since on the Nakhichevan page you argued that Menteshashvili's numbers shouldn't be included unless verified by primary source data--the same applies to Karimzadeh's figures. Since he is the only one giving the figure, and since its unsourced, and since we have evidence that it came from Azeri sources, it can't be included, unless it's stated as an Azeri claim.-- TigranTheGreat 02:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Menteshasvhili refers to a Russian journal. Kazimzadeh's number is unsourced. And we have sources stating that the number came from Azeri claims. So, we will delete the number. Or we will report it as Azeri claim. Along with the upped Armenian claims.-- TigranTheGreat 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Menteshashivili does no such thing (with respect to the statistics itself). Karimzadeh is not the final word on the number. We never use single source for a fact, we compare sources and come up with an answer. Karimzadeh's number is unsourced and disputed (by HRW). We have 3 sources (two Western, including McCarthy, and one Azeri--the Dr.) who state that the number came from the ADR's official claims. We can't ignore them and instead choose one unsourced, secondary, and disputed information. The Azeri website doesn't claim 25,000, it claims that an "Armenian" named Avanes Apresyan wrote it in his book--I have never heard of the guy, it's a question whether he or his book even exist (they were even brought up by Turks on the Armenian Genocide page and refuted by Fadix), neither he nor the site are reputable to include him.-- TigranTheGreat 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to present imaginary Azeri losses such as 12,000, you are more than welcome to do so if you identify them as Azeri source. Your site didn't claim that the number was 25,000. Unlike in Walker's case, we do have sources stating that Karimzadeh's reported number came from Azeri side. If you want to keep the number, we should state it as Azeri claim.-- TigranTheGreat 00:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
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. Atabek 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I copy these excerpts from the post of Alan Kaim, owner of milliondollarbabies.com at the Talk:Azerbaijan:
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. Grandmaster 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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. Elsanaturk 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Azerbaijani, I'll undo your edits untill you'll bring a panturkist or panislamist clause in Musavat Covenant of 1917 Elsanaturk 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:22, 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.
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) -- AdilBaguirov 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your additions because its obvious POV whats your excuse for changing "Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian massacres in Ottoman Empire" thats very unusual. Artaxiad 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, isn't it an overkill to cite 6 references about Musavat's Pan-whatever ideology? Especially having a "flag" website as reference, looks very much credible and scholarly. Not. :)
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. -- AdilBaguirov 08:57, 20 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. -- adil 06:05, 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. Atabek 16:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Harayarah is an obvious sock puppet or meat puppet, he joined simply to make reverts. Hajji Piruz 18:19, 14 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. Grandmaster 08:28, 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. Atabek 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Alborz Fallah 08:08, 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? Atabek 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | 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. |
” |
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.
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--
Alborz Fallah
15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | 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 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.-- Alborz Fallah 15:59, 14 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. Hajji Piruz 22:08, 15 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. -- Grandmaster 07:56, 19 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. Atabek 16:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Isnt Armenia is in west? Not in east? Mimihitam ( talk) 01:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
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. Atabek ( talk) 13:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
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. Atabəy ( talk) 15:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
1) De jure Soveiet Russia i.e. Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) was internationaly recognased as international legal entity and named USSR only after 1 February 1924, therefor before 1 February 1924 RSFSR was legaly unauthorized to recognise another state or conclude any contract or agreement with other states. 2) De jure non of Allies countries legaly recognised ADR and its borders. Michaeloff ( talk)
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:
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.
Carter V. Findley. The Turks in World History. Oxford University Press US, 2005ISBN 0195177266, 9780195177268
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.
Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. Columbia University Press, 1995. ISBN 0231070683, 9780231070683
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.
Reinhard Schulze. A Modern History of the Islamic World. I.B.Tauris, 2000. ISBN 1860648223, 9781860648229
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.
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. -- Grandmaster ( talk) 05:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.107.222 ( talk) 09:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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. VartanM ( talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
And this is from declaration by Tatar Kurultay:
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.
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. -- Grandmaster ( talk) 05:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
And yet another quote:
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.
Bernard Lewis. From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East. Oxford University Press US, 2004. ISBN 0195173368, 9780195173369
There are more. Grandmaster ( talk) 05:45, 22 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)". 77.122.107.222 ( talk) 09:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
"The first to allow suffrage... (see also Crimean People's Republic)". 77.122.107.222 ( talk) 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
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. Meowy 17:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)