Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Meowy (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 4 April 2009 (→Status check). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Azerbaijan B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Former countries (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries

Musavat references

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)

You do not own wikipedia, and I can insert sourced information where ever it is relevant. Secondly, Adil baguirov asked me to put those sources in.Azerbaijani 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I copy these excerpts from the post of Alan Kaim, owner of milliondollarbabies.com at the Talk:Azerbaijan:

None of my summaries are meant as reference material since I have not listed any particular sources, and this should be obvious.

The only rational voice in the crowd seems to be Grandmaster, who stated that, "And as it was pointed out, sources like "milliondollarbabies.com" are not academic, and should not be used to support such allegations as those included in the article."

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)

more about musavat

first of all 6 sources that you mention is either biased or not profeesional or you distorted them. as mentioned above by another user in some of this sorces there is not such references. million dollar babies is not a valid source to be cited, and please go to Rasulzade talkpage where a user clled Adil bagirov explained you that How Musavat is not panturkist and panislamist. and if you are not biased and if you think you are a fighter for a justice, I ask you to show a panislamist or panturkist clause or provision in its first and only covenant accepted in 1917. Elsanaturk 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No POV or OR. Your are obviously a sock/sockpuppeteer. You just removed information that is based on SIX sources, from authors such as: Jacob M. Landau, Firouzeh Mostashari, Aviel Roshwald, and Richard G. Hovannisian.

Here are more sources: Disaster and Developement: The politics of Humanitarian Aid by Neil Middleton and Phil O'keefe P. 132 , The Armenian-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications by Michael P. Croissant P. 14 , Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region by R. Hrair Dekmejian & Hovann H. Simonian P. 63. Its not my fault that you refuse to accept facts, but I have brought an overwhelming amount of sources that you cannot deny.Azerbaijani 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, I have only one wiki account, and if you have any evidence go and report me, i am waiting for your report! go! can you say me, will you ever edit and add smth neutral about Azerbaijan? in every page you are present you are distorting them. and again, SHOW ME A PANTURKIST CLAUSE OR PROVISION IN MUSAVAT COVENANT!. otherwise your biased persian and armenian scholars, out-of context citation can't prove anything. Elsanaturk 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

do not take citations out of context just read this huge academic book covering Musavat's history in two volumes http://kitabxana.org/musavatoruclu.htm and have a look at this site http://isagambar.az/musavat-tarixi-gen.htm Elsanaturk 23:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, please, refrain from attacking users by baselessly calling them sockpuppeteers. This is really non-constructive and does not contribute to improvement of Wiki articles. You seem to have made no contribution to this article in particular, but only involved in reverts, edit wars and insertion of a single irrelevant quote. Now:

1. Please, provide exact quotes from the articles you indicated, where it says that Musavat was pan-Turkist or pan-Islamist. Also, quotes from Armenian authors, such as Dekmejian and Simonian, as well as Hovanissian and Giragossian are not acceptable, as those are clearly POV and are very biased against Azerbaijan or anything related to it. This is told even by Dr. Kazemzadeh, indeed a top expert on ADR period. Michael Croissant, with all due respect to him, falls into the same category as those above mentioned. So your sources must be impartial, and must be scholarly.

2. The program of Musavat is posted on its Wiki page Musavat, thanks to some contributors. No one denies that Musavat played with ideas of cultural Turkism (not pan-Turkism, Musavat did not aspire the creation of Turanic empire, but only revival of cultural Turkism ideas in Azerbaijan). Its program, again on Musavat page, clearly spells that it desires equal rights to all Muslim of the world, no where does it call for creation of Muslim empire either.

So your references to pan-Turkic or pan-Islamic do not hold water, as Musavat simply did not have a plan of creation of a super empire of Turkic or Islamic peoples. Atabek 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Musavat again and again

Azerbaijani, I'll undo your edits untill you'll bring a panturkist or panislamist clause in Musavat Covenant of 1917 Elsanaturk 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have brought many sources. YOu obviously have no respect for Misplaced Pages. You will be blocked again if you continue this way.Azerbaijani 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot block me! I can be blocked by administrators if I'll violate 3rr rule in this disputed content, but I have not violated, and do not think to do so. Aand again I'll undo your THAT edit until you'll bring any panturkist and/or panislamist clause in Musavat Covenant of 1917 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elsanaturk (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Edit warring

Hello! I have protected this page after reports of edit warring on Misplaced Pages: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)

I just want to say thanks, and also that this is not the first time these users simply remove heavily sourced information.Azerbaijani 05:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check the first post on top of this page, Azerbaijani's quotes (those I checked so far before he added new ones) are irrelevant and do not support his claims. Moreover, owners of the resources he refers to personally object to such abuse of their material. Grandmaster 08:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. All of the sources say pan Turkist when referring to the Musavat party. You also admitted that hte Musavat party was pan Turkist!Azerbaijani 15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

They don't. I said that Musavat initially supported pan-Turkic (not-Panturkist) ideas, but eventually became an Azerbaijani nationalist party. Moreover, I supported this by sources, which you now try to misinterpret. Also, please explain why you keep on adding milliondollarbabies.com back to the article? The owner of the website told you that you should not do that, he said that I was right by saying that it should not be used. Elsanaturk was absolutely right when he removed it from the article. Grandmaster 16:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are more sources than just the million dollar baby, and your still stuck on that? We can remove that one source, but that does not change the fact that this information will stay and that it is heavily sourced. The Musavat party was Pan Turkist, and Mahmud Rasulzadeh was a pan Turk. Dont forget that he spent the last years of his life involved in pan Turkist activity in Turkey.Azerbaijani 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User "Azerbaijani". I said to you bring a clause from Musavat covenant, you did not bring, but you are holding your biased sources as a blind. instead I bring clauses from that covenanat which show that you are absolutely prejudiced and intentionally harm our articles.

Covenant of the Party of the Turkish Federalists “Musavat” (accepted in the party conference held on 26-31 October, 1917) Sources: Balayev A. Azerbaydjanskoye natsional’no-demokraticheskoye dvijeniye. 1917-1920. B, 1990, pp 74-82; “Aydinlig” newspaper, 13 October, 1990.

• Article 1: The form of the state of Russia should be a federative democratic republic based on principles of the national autonomy.
• Article 3: All ethnicities having territories of compact inhabiting n any part of Russia should receive national autonomy.Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkistan and Bashkortostan should receive territorial autonomy, Turks living along the Volga and the Crimean Turks should receive cultural autonomy in the case of impossibility of territorial autonomy. The Party considers as its sacred duty to support any non-Turkic ethnicities’ quests for autonomy and help them.
• Article 4: Ethnicities having no exact territory of compact inhabiting should receive national cultural autonomy. Elsanaturk 19:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

adding Hugh Pope's quote

From: Hugh Pope, "Sons of the conquerors: the rise of the Turkic world", New York: The Overlook Press, 2006, ISBN-10 1-58567-804-X:

"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)

Adil's additions

I reverted your additions because its obvious POV whats your excuse for changing "Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian massacres in Ottoman Empire" thats very unusual. Artaxiad 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not all you did. You restored sources like "milliondollarbabies.com" and others, so I roll it back. If you object to certain wording, change it, but do not add sources that should not be here. Grandmaster 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats no excuse for a huge revert. Artaxiad 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Although some of my edits, which user:Artaxiad for some reason reverted, have been restored, but not all. First, I don't understand why was this rv'ed: "However, despite Wilson's attitude, on January 12, 1920, the Allied Supreme Council extended de facto recognition to Azerbaijan, along with Georgia, and ahead of Armenia." Not only do I give a more precise date, 12 January, but this wording is preffered to "suddenly" -- why is it "suddenly", when delegations have been working for months to secure that de facto recognition? In native literature, they describe it as "finally", not "suddenly".

Additionally, isn't it an overkill to cite 6 references about Musavat's Pan-whatever ideology? Especially having a "flag" website as reference, looks very much credible and scholarly. Not. :)

Then, Mehmandarov, like Shikhlinsky, was a General (and both were full generals of artillery), and that is both a rank and a title, and should be mentioned, just like other honorific and educational titles and ranks are mentioned in English tradition: "President", "Dr", "Minister", "Secretary", "Prof", etc. Likewise, Shikhlinky was Mehmandarov's Deputy Minister in ADR -- that should be mentioned too. I.e., they were not ordinary generals, but the two highest ranked one's.

Meanwhile, "Armenian genocide" is not relevant to the text and cannot apply to the massacre of Azerbaijanis in March 1918 in Baku. To begin with, neither the word genocide existed, nor have the Armenian casualties been high till then (e.g., even in 1919 article in the London Times, the leader of the Armenian delegation to Paris Peace Conference, Boghos Nubar, wrote about 300,000 deaths - and no mention of Turkish and Kurdish deaths, or Azerbaijani, for that matter), especially considering that Eastern Turkey was occupied by Russians, with the help of Armenians, until 1917 or so. Neither does Encyclopedia Britannica use that description -- they use my wording, "massacres in Ottoman Empire". Finally, and most importantly, that reasoning was NEVER given by Shaumyan, or any Bolshevik or even Dashnak leader! In other words, there is no factual, verifiable basis for this claim. And while there is a reference to p. 14 of Michael Croissant's book, he is not a historian, and it shows -- he writes: "most of them refugees who had fled the Turkish genocide in eastern Anatolia". As you can see, there is no mention of "Armenian genocide". And Prof. Swietochowski does not use the word "genocide" or 'genocidal' anywhere in his book either, according to a Google search. Hence it makes sense to change this POV to a NPOV wording. --AdilBaguirov 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are very POV, the text its self never said Armenian massacres in the ottoman empire POV yourself you have inserted.Artaxiad 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing POV about my edits -- but yours clearly are, as you admit (not that it matters) that both Swietochowski and Croissant don't use the word "Armenian genocide" or even genocidal. Neither did Shaumyan say this anywhere. --adil 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, neither Swietochowski, nor Croissant use the word "Armenian genocide" -- and it would be completely inappropriate for 1918, especially since it were Armenians who militarily occupied Eastern Turkey at the time, and killed a great many Kurds and Turks, as well as Azerbaijanis. --adil 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a source that claims that the massacre of Azerbaijanis in March was a “revenge for Armenian genocide’. I don’t see other sources agreeing with that. For example, Tadeusz Swietochowski says:

Just as Turkey was poised to become the dominant power in the region, the Baku Dashnakist forces, which included many of the refugees from Anatolia, staged a sudden and unprovoked massacre of the city's Muslims. The debacle lasted from March 31 until April 2 and resulted in at least 3,000 fatalities, many of whom were Iranians. Armenian historians do not offer an explanation for the political calculations behind this move, which was bound to entail terrible retribution, and they hint rather at an uncontrollable emotional outburst. Such an interpretation would confirm the view of the weakness of the Armenian leadership, which had just concluded an agreement with the Muslims on neutrality in their coming confrontation with the Bolsheviks, and they proved to be unable to restrain the rank and file. Likewise, it would confirm the lack of coordination with the Armenian efforts at putting together the Transcaucasian Federation. The immediate beneficiary of the Baku March Days were the Bolsheviks, who seized the opportunity to institute in the city a dictatorship of the proletariat under the name of the Baku Commune. The local Sovnarkom (Council of People's Commissars) was headed by a prominent Armenian Bolshevik, Stepan Shaumian, who proclaimed its undivided loyalty and subordination to Soviet Russia. In the Azeri mind, the Baku Commune became the bitter symbol of the Bolshevik - Armenian collusion born out of the March Days bloodbath.

Grandmaster 06:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the POV/OR sentence added by Hajji Piruz, claiming that ADR adopted its name from Iranian Azerbaijan. This sentence lacks any scholarly basis or source, never did ADR government make such claim nor there is evidence to prove so. Atabek 16:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a source. I'll source it for sure later.Hajji Piruz 16:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I added and sourced a sentence saying when the nation got its name and by who.Hajji Piruz 20:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology section comes first. I moved the etymology section above the recognition section.Hajji Piruz 18:54, 7 August 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)

Etymology section is absolutely irrelevant to this article. There’s an article about the name, that’s where it should be discussed. This article is not about the name of the country, it is about ADR in 1918. And the claim that the name was chosen by Musavat is baseless, it was selected by the Azeri members of Transcaucasian sejm, where Musavat were not a majority. It is a well known fact, so no need to add inaccurate and POV info to every article which has anything to do with Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 07:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! As I am concerned about the Azeri issues, someone asked me to get involved in this discussion. As I see, the whole section about the etymology is deleted, but I think it is very relevant and this was the first time the name "Azerbaijan" was used for an entity in the Caucasus. Comparing this matter with the Macedonia naming dispute issue, that is an important matter. There may be two discussion in this topic: 1- What was the former name of that region 2- Do we have to mention this matter in the naming dispute?
Anyway , I think it's reasonable not to delete the whole section until more discussion .--Alborz Fallah 16:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alborz, this material is irrelevant on ADR page, which is related strictly to Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. The name Azerbaijan applied north of Araxes, in particular in the state of Azerbaijani Atabegs (Atabegan-e Azerbaijan) as well as in writings of Jean Chardin several centuries before 20th. Most importantly 1863 article by British Consul in Persia, Keith Abbott, designates territory north of Araxes as "Russian Azerbaijan", specifically indicating that it borders Caucasus Mountains in the North and extends to Baku and Caspian in the East. But in any case, etymology section is absolutely irrelevant here, so you're welcome to discuss these on three other pages where this same paragraph is inserted and is need of NPOV. Atabek 06:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This material is highly relevant as this was the first time an entity in the Caucasus was called Azerbaijan. This has everything to do with the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. I reverted the massive removal of information.Hajji Piruz 00:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed irrelevant info that Hajji Piruz keeps on adding in every article about Azerbaijan. Etymology has nothing to do with ADR. Grandmaster 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it not relevant, please explain. This being the first time that the term was used for a political entity in the Caucasus makes that section highly relevant. Do not remove sourced information.Hajji Piruz 14:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz, the information you're trying to add back does not belong to this page. This is a page about ADR, not about History of the name Azerbaijan. Etymology of the name is irrelevant here, because this page is about a political entity which already existed with this name. And by the way, the name had a precedent in application by 1918 for some 55 years since the article by Keith Abbott in 1863. Atabek 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Etymology and usage section is about the name of this entry: if you disagree with the text , we can talk about it , but deleting the whole section that discuss about the etymology of the entry , seems to be incorrect .

--Alborz Fallah 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• And to add the fact that the Rasulzadeh himself and Esmael khan Zeyad khanof ( the representative of ADR to Tehran )admitted that the name was never used for the north of Arass river before that time period and they considered if there could be a change in that name as fallows : ( The newspaper IRAN , 6th Rajab 1337 AH)

• Iran newspaper: " Since until now that was only the name of an important Iranian province why did you called this part Azerbaijan ? and why do you insist to use this name ?"
  Esmail khan : " From historical point of view ,since the Baku was the temple of the fire-worshippers in the ancient time , then we chose this name for our new country "
  Iran : "If we agree that Baku has been the fire-worshippers temple , and you are interested in using that word , then why do you insist in using the term Azerbaijan and not to use the word AZARESTAN ? "
  Esmail Khan : " That's not a bad idea , and we can talk about this latter ..."

In 15th Rajab ,Rasulzadeh wrote in that newspaper about that as : " The name Azerbaijan denotes a national meaning more than a geographical one . We consider ourselves as an ethnicity who talks with the Azerbaijan language that is a dialect of Turkish. The ethnics name is neither Arran nor Shirvan and not Moghan: that is Azerbaijan " --Alborz Fallah 08:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to check that publication? And also, the name is not an important aspect of ADR, political struggle, military campaings against Bolsheviks and Dashnaks, international relations of the country are a lot more important. The name has been discussed in many other articles, there's even a special article on that topic. What is the point in dupilicating this info in every article about Azerbaijan? Grandmaster 09:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For checking the publication, you can use this book: "Storm over Caucasus: A Glance at the Iranian regional relation with the Republics of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia in the first period of independence 1917-1921 ", Kaveh Bayat (In Persian), ISBN 964 - 361 - 065 - 9, pp 109 - 111.
About the necessity of etymology section in every countries entry in Misplaced Pages , I checked the following entries : Turkey, Armenia,Georgia and Iran: what's the difference here , not to mention the etymology ?( considering the fact that there where no naming controversy over naming that countries , but there is still a section about their name in Misplaced Pages ) ...--Alborz Fallah 21:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Alborz, the section you're reinsert through a second revert now is irrelevant here. It's a non-neutral POV being inserted at Azerbaijani people, Azerbaijan, History of Azerbaijan, History of the name Azerbaijan articles. How many articles, does the same WP:SOAP have to appear in? It's clear as a day that the name Azerbaijan applied north of Araxes river since 17th century due to traveller Chardin and through Keith Abbott since 1863 article. So how could the name be "chosen" in 1918, if it already appeared in scholarly publications prior to that date? Atabek 15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning a dispute in one article, is not an indicator of it's irrelevancy in other ones. Macedonia naming dispute is exactly the similar controversy , and that is mentioned in many pages such as Macedonia (region), EU & Macedonia, EU enlargement,Republic of Macedonia,Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia,Macedonians (ethnic group) and so many other pages that I'm not able to mention them all. But about the thing that you consider "clear", our information shows opposite. Ernest Orsolle in his book "Le Caucase et la Perse " , clearly states that (1885) and also lord Curzon in his book Persia and the Persian Question seems to be more credible than Abott , because of his higher rank and newer view ...--Alborz Fallah 21:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Alborz, can you provide us with a quote from Lord Curzon via Ernest Orsolle and its relevance to this topic. And can you, please, explain how Viceroy of India and Undersecretary of State who only traveled to Persia for a year, would be more credible than Consul General of Britain in Persia writing for Royal Geographic Society. It would make sense that the second was probably more familiar with geography and history of the region than the first.

The Macedonia articles claim that Macedonia region spanned to FYRM, Greek Macedonia and parts of Albania. In the same fashion, historical Azerbaijan spanned what's today Republic of Azerbaijan and South (Iranian) Azerbaijan. This fact is attested by Chardin and Abbott references. So if you insist on irrelevant etymology section to be included in every Azerbaijan-related article, then perhaps, we should NPOV it instead of presenting the position of only one side in this disputed issue. Atabek 07:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lord Curzon was the head of British demlomacy and also especilized in the Iranian topic as to the point of writing a book about the Iran . In 2nd vol of the book Persia and the Persian Question he names under the chapther"Russia's annexation of Iranian lands" , the fallowing : " Baku, Derbent, Shirvan,Megrelia,Karabakh,Ganja,Shekin,Abkhazia,Mughan,Imeretia (?),Guria (?) andTalysh".Simply, He does not says "Northern part of Azerbaijan " ...And about Orsolle , the whole book is about his voyage to that region , but he clearly talks about Caucasus and Azerbaijan : as an example in page 305 ( Persian translation , ISBN 964-426-000-7 he says ( beginning of chapter 17 ):"Iranian area is 1647070 Km and it's population is about 7655000 ....most of the country is uninhibited except the Azerbaijan that has many rivers that originate from the mountains and the region of ...." , all of the book is about travel in caucus (and Iran ),but he never says anything about Azerbaijan in north of the Arass river : only Caucus ...--Alborz Fallah 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• And to add, in Abbot's quote:

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Also the same about Chardin:

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)

It does not matter what is precise and what is not. Making original research about sources is not allowed. We just quote it as it is, and both Abbot and Chardin call north of Araks Azerbaijan. That is undeniable fact, but it has nothing to do with ADR. The name section should be deleted from every article other than History of the name. The admin EI C deleted it, and that's the end of the story. Other articles about Azerbaijan also need a clean-up. --Grandmaster 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Imprecisety was shown to stress on WP:UNDUE.But about to mention and/or refer to the naming dispute page in the involved articles or not , that can be achieved via comparison with similar problems ( I mean Macedonia naming dispute) and consensus. Admins are always open to edit for a better edition and the discussion page is built for achieving this goal. --Alborz Fallah 06:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with some friends here not in terms of belief but in terms of editing Misplaced Pages. I thought a long time we decided that we should just keep it in one article history of the name Azerbaijan. There are differing opinions, but I do not think this back and forth argument is necessary for every article as Misplaced Pages requires one article per issue. A real Encyclopedia usually deals with one issue in one article anyway. --alidoostzadeh 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ali is correct, but this has nothing to do with that agreement. This is about the Eytmology and usage section, which is highly relevant to the ADR. Once again, as with the other debates we have had regarding this issue, some parties to the dispute refuse to acknowledge the evidence, source, and arguments brought by others. This is a clear cut case: A) undue weight is being violated, B) WP:NPOV is being violated, C) Misplaced Pages 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)

Well, if we consider the Ali's opinion as correct , then at least we may show the controversy in choosing this name for the Caucasian republic by referring to such a page ( or entry)in the section Etymology and usage : naming controversy Alborz Fallah 08:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the issue of naming as admins have concurred is to be done in one article. Alborz Jan, I disagree with the approach of putting this issue in every article. I think this way we can all concentrate on making better Misplaced Pages articles. --alidoostzadeh 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the links to irrelevant articles such as Arran and Caucasian Albania. The link to History of the name is there and it is quite sufficient. --Grandmaster 07:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Those links are highly relevant. A) It is a geograhpic name of Iranian origin, B) Arran was the name of the region prior to it being called Azerbaijan, and C) Caucasus ALbania is what it was known historically.Hajji Piruz 04:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What does that all have to do with ADR? Stop bringing the name issue in every article about Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 07:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz has inserted irrelevant material here. The discussion and POVs about the name of Azerbaijan have absolutely no relevance to Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. The issue was brought by Hajji Piruz in every article related to Azerbaijan in general, further fueling conflict. Atabek 16:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenia in east?

Isnt Armenia is in west? Not in east? Mimihitam (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, also Georgia was forgotten, so corrected those now. Atabek (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

References

The context in which the reference to Audrey Alstadt's book was used in this article is dubious. Page 2 of her book says: "The word Azerbaijan may have been formed from Atropaten, named for Atropat, a satrap of Alexander of Macedonia in 328 B.C.E.". Addressing that in the article. Atabek (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

First or second

ADR was the first democratic and secular Muslim republic de-facto recognized by Allies and Soviet Russia. Crimean Republic was not, and the majority of Crimean Republic's population were not Muslims. Atabəy (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

1) De facto and de jure isn't the same; 2) The majority of population was not Muslim but all officials were Crimean Tatars, i. e. Muslims. Having Muslim authorities is more important here than having Muslim population.77.122.107.222 (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no such thing as Crimean Republic. It was called "Крымское краевое правительство", i.e. Crimean regional government, led by general Sulkevich, future Chief of Staff of Azerbaijani Army. It was not a republic, and Sulkevich became a head of this government on 25 June 1918, while Azerbaijan became independent on 28 May 1918. Grandmaster (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source in Russian about that. Grandmaster (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on, there's an article in Misplaced Pages about Crimean People's Republic: 77.122.107.222 (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 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, 2005

ISBN 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)

http://www.cidct.org.ua/en/studii/2(2000)/6.html

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)

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ua_krtat.html#rep

You must provide better sources than those; an academic source that says Crimean People's Republic became autonomous. John Vandenberg 10:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I can but they won't be in English.77.122.107.222 (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian will do. I have many more sources saying that ADR was the first republic in the Muslim world, they are all academic publications. Wiki articles must rely on views, prevailing in the scholarly community. Websites of Crimean Tatar nationalists and online blogs are not reliable sources. Grandmaster (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I have written, Azerbaijan was the second Muslim republic - so it is natural that a scholar who doesn't know about Crimean People's Republic (which hasn't been properly researched yet) thinks that Azerbaijan was the first.77.122.107.222 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a Russian source (I think it would be difficult to regard it as biased since Russians often claim Crimea for themselves): http://www.moscow-crimea.ru/history/20vek/zarubiny/glava1_3.html77.122.107.222 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

But it does not support what you say. It says that the Crimean Republic was declared by Tatar Kurultay (Assembly), but never materialized and remained only on paper: Крымская Народная Республика не состоялась. Она осталась только в тексте конституции Курултая. So it does not say that there was actually a state called Crimean republic. --Grandmaster (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Because Bolsheviks came. But they eventually came to Azerbaijan as well. http://www-ki.rada.crimea.ua/arhiv/1991/08/totalitarizm.html77.122.107.222 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your sources only say one thing - Tatar leaders declared independence as Crimean Republic, but it never became a functioning state, as it had no control over most of the territory of Crimea, including its capital. It existed only on paper. You cannot compare it with ADR, which was a fully functioning state with its own parliament, army, embassies in other countries and even had a de-facto recognition from Allies. That's why all the sources say that ADR was the first republic in the Muslim world. Grandmaster (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read the sources thoroughly you would notice that Crimean People's Republic had Qurultay - parliament, and an army which tried to seize major Crimean cities in January 1918. And Ukrainian People's Republic de facto recognized Crimean People's Republic.77.122.107.222 (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it failed to become a state. Kurultay had no control over most of the territory of Crimea, so it was an unsuccessful attempt to create a state. Look also here: That's why all the sources say that the first republic was ADR. Even your sources say that Crimean Tatar Republic existed only on paper and never became a functioning state. So far you provided no source saying that Crimean Republic was the first in the Muslim world. And I can cite a lot more sources in addition to those that I already did. According to the rules, the info must be verifiable. Grandmaster (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

But when you say "pre-dating Republic of Turkey" - ADR ceased to be before the latter was created. And it had existed for less than two years.

Crimean People's Republic was a failed state, yes, but that doesn't mean it was not a state at all.77.122.107.222 (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how and when was Parliament of ADR elected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.107.222 (talk) 13:38, 21 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)

Did you see all the sources above? If you think that Crimean Republic was the first one in the Muslim World, you need to cite a source that says so. So far I've seen none. I can cite another dozen of sources saying that ADR was the first one. You know the rules WP:V and WP:OR. Original research is not allowed. If you can support your claims with sources, then the relevant changes to the articles could be made. Otherwise it will be OR. As I said, Crimean Republic was not a state, it was proclaimed in Bahchisaray, but had no control over most of the territory of Crimea, including its capital, and no recognition from majority of population of the region. So as the sources say, it remained only on paper, but never materialized in real life. You cannot compare it with Azerbaijan. And Azerbaijani parliament was elected while the British occupational forces were stationed in Baku, it was quite a democratic procedure. Grandmaster (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Also note the difference between Tatar Kurultay and Azerbaijani parliament. Kurulatay represented only people of Tatar ethnicity, Azerbaijani parliament represented the entire population of the country. It even had 2 Armenian fractions, one Dashnak and another one moderate. So ADR parliament was not a monoethnic assembly, it was a real legislative body representing people of all ethnicities. --Grandmaster (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, first of all, "Crimean Tataristan" is a made-up name, who else has used it except yourself?

Second of all, what criteria are you using when you call a republic "Muslim"? It is the Islam-based political system? But Crimea was not a theocratic state. Is it the main religion of the population? But Crimea was over 50% Eastern Orthodox, with ethnic Russians making up the majority of the population. Is it the year when the ruling party was formed? But Musavat was formed way earlier. I do not see a thing about the Crimean People's Republic that defines it as first anything in the Muslim world. It seemed more like a unifying body for the Crimean Tatar population; an ethnic rather than a nation-state governing establishment. In comparison, Azerbaijan was majority-Muslim in population, ruled by a party that had been formed under the name of Muslim Democratic Party (and whose power extended over the non-Azeri population, unlike the Kurultay's with regard to non-Crimean Tatars), and Islam was one of the three main parts of its national ideology, reflected in the Declaration of Independence.

What kind of 'democratically elected government' are you talking about, when voting, as you yourself quoted from the source, was only the prerogative of the Crimean Tatar minority? (Whereas in Azerbaijan, even the Dashnaks had represenation in Parliament, along with a wide variety of Azeri parties, not just one, as you said). And how was recognition by Ukraine a benefit, if Ukraine itself was not a recognised state until after the fall of CPR? Azerbaijan, at least, had seen recognition from several existing countries. Parishan (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine was recognised later - what does it matter? It doesn't mean that this state didn't exist at all before the recognition.77.122.107.222 (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It does matter in the sense that it (the recognition) doesn't matter. :) Ukraine had not declared its full independence until 25 January 1918. Before that it existed as an autonomous polity within Bolshevik Russia, not as a state. See the article Ukrainian People's Republic. And I am yet to hear, what exactly qualifies CPR as a Muslim state. Parishan (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious: the republic was proclaimed by Crimean Tatars. Qurultay and Directorate consisted of Tatars only. Noman Celebicikhan was a Crimean Tatar. The anthem was written in their language and the flag was designed by them. It was a republic of Crimean Tatars - Muslims. And the fact they considered other ethnicities equal with themselves doesn't change that. The majority of population was non-Muslim, but we're talking about the state (i. e. about authorities) and not about the country.77.122.107.222 (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The ethnicity of the political elite does not automatically spread onto the cultural characteristic of the state, especially if that elite does not control the population outside of its own ethnic domain. Current President of Moldova is an ethnic Russian, so is the Prime Minister, but that does not make Moldova a Russian state. Please also comment on Grandmaster's quotes. Parishan (talk) 00:35, 23 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)

Crimean Tatars were never recognized as a state neither de-jure nor de-facto. They're not even recognized as territorial autonomy, but merely have cultural autonomy within Ukraine. Hence, as said quite a few times before, I can declare a republic in my backyard, does not mean much if it's not recognized by anyone as an entity. Atabəy (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I offer you a compromise. "ADR, the first successful attempt to create a Muslim republic (Crimean People's Republic had been proclaimed in 1917 but failed to become an effective state)". And the same regarding women's suffrage - leave present version adding: "(Crimean People's Republic had done that earlier but never managed to organize any elections)". 77.122.107.222 (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would work that way. After all, the current version is what all the sources say. I would suggest that in the article about Crimean republic you include a line like "CPR was the first attempt to establish a republic in the Muslim world". In that case there will be no questions. But this article I believe should be left as it is. --Grandmaster (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Then this way: "ADR was the first successful attempt...(see also Crimean People's Republic)".

"The first to allow suffrage... (see also Crimean People's Republic)".77.122.107.222 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the given sources the Crimean People's Republic never really achieved independence and its also important to note that the vast majority of the so called Crimean People's Republic was not Muslim but Orthodox Christian. Every major encyclopedia indicates Azerbaijan Democratic Republic as the first democratic and secular in the Muslim world. So the Crimean People's Republic really has no legal ground for its claimings. Baku87 (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster regarding the compromise as he has a valid point Baku87 (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Never really achieved independence" - that's why I suggest you write "ADR was the first successful attempt". And Crimean People's Republic was in fact Muslim because nobody except Muslims supported it. I agree it was "less a state" that ADR but you tend to completely ignore it which is wrong either. And the sources don't say about Crimean People's Republic just because their authors have never heard about it. Still, it is their problem, not that of the Crimea.77.122.107.222 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "First successful attempt to establish a democratic and secular republic". In what way was it "democratic"? Were elections ever held? And in what way was it "successful", given that most of its energy was spent in wars against its neighbours, and wars against its own people, and that it only lasted 3 years? Meowy 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the parliament of ADR was democratically elected, it even had 2 Armenian fractions, one of them representing Dashnaks. As for successfulness, it was as successful, as the neighboring Armenia was, which spent most of its energy on wars with Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. But this Crimea thing because of which this line appeared there does not make much sense to me. Crimean Republic was not even a state, it did not exercise its authority on most of the territory of the Crimea. According to sources, ADR was the first republic in the Muslim world. Grandmaster (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that neither the Azerbaijan or Armenian republics were successful. If there were elections involving a mass electorate (as opposed to one involving delegates or cummunity leaders) when did it occur? If there was no such election it isn't correct to use the word "democratic" as a description of its parliament (though obviously the word Democratic should continue to be used as the country's title - a country can call itself by whatever name it wants). Meowy 17:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was such election. Only after such elections were conducted the British occupational forces transferred power to ADR and withdrew from the country. I think the book by Tadeusz Swietochowski is the best source about the history of Azerbaijan, and ADR specifically. Grandmaster (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

Most of the photographs used in this article have no validity here. The entry is about the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, not about late-19th century Tzarist-period architecture in the TransCaucasus! The Parliament building photo can remain, becasue that's where their parliament met, but the rest should be removed. Meowy 17:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The parliament photo needs to be replaced, in 1918 the parliament was located in a different building. Grandmaster (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the same building that is on some of the Azerbaijan stamps of that period? I assumed that it was the parliament building for that reason, but I have no source that says it was. BTW, a picture of some of those stamps would be a suitable illustration for the article. Meowy 17:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The building on the picture was built in 1948. ADR parliament was located in another building, which is now occupied by the Institute of Ancient Manuscripts. I agree, the stamps would be suitable illustrations for this article. Grandmaster (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a stamp image that was already on Misplaced Pages. Meowy 15:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Maps made by Baku87

Copied from User_talk:Moreschi#Baku87:

He recently created two maps File:Azerbaijan map comparison.jpg and File:Azeri lost lands.jpg and inserted them into two articles. I removed both when I noticed it and today he re-added one of them rv vandalism by Eupator. I also noticed another imaginary map that he craetd and inserted: File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg The maps that he created are displaying territories claimed by the ADR and DRA as part of ADR (Karabakh), territories which were in total and recognized control of DRA (like Nakhichevan and Zangezur) as part of ADR etc. This is highly disruptive and provocative. -- Ευπάτωρ 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference for actual state of the region at the time: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/The_First_Armenian_Republic_1918-1920.gif -- Ευπάτωρ 19:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On what ground do you accuse these maps of being imaginary? Its based on sources and historical maps. Your personal ambitions are invaled reasons to remove these maps. Baku87 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It cannot be based on credible sources and accurate historical maps. It is a work of propaganda. Comparison with the map cited by Eupator clearly shows how your map has distorted reality to a serious extent. For many of the distortions, there is not the slightest doubt of their existence. For example, and to take a detail that has nothing to do with Armenia or Azerbaijan, your 1918 map has the present-day borders of Turkey and Georgia; those borders were different in 1918. Meowy 01:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But how do you know that Eupator's map is accurate? The thing is that in 1920 neither Armenia, nor Azerbaijan had internationally recognized borders. The issue was to be discussed at the Paris Peace Conference, but it never happened, as by that time Soviet Russia started moving into the region. So both maps represent wishful thinking by the leaders of the 2 states. For instance, Armenia had no control over Nakhichevan, yet Eupator's map shows it as a part of Armenia. Grandmaster 05:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the errors in the borders of Turkey and Georgia to avoid getting bogged down in discussion over Armenia and Azerbaijan. You surely are not disputing the existence of those errors? And at least Eupator's map marks territory as being disputed, unlike Baku's map. Meowy 17:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You speak of credible sources but if Azeri sources are to be regarded inreliable then why is it that Armenian sources are welcomed? Your trying to apply double-standards here. I'll give you some examples in the Armenia article there are a few maps: The first map comes directly from an Armenian websource; armenica.org; you can even note the Armenica.org label in the lower-right corner. And the second map which as you note from the lower-right corner is also from the Armenian source; Armenica.org. I can name you a few more maps from Armenian sources such as: A and B both again from Armenica.org and by this I also want to note just how legit are the copyrights in the last 4 maps really? So why is it that you can demand the removal of my map which is based on a Azeri source but still insist on keeping the Armenian-sources maps? This is highly unfair and even shows double-standards. Baku87 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The comparison is improper. Those maps of Armenica.org are reprinted from "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" of the American scholar Robert Hewsen. However it is not the problem where the maps come from. The boundaries of Armenia in the 4th c., the Erivan Khanate, the Armenian Oblast are not contested. The Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan was not de-jure recognised and had no de-jure or de-facto existing boundaries as the two other short-lived republics of the TRanscaucasia. --Vacio (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Armenia had no de-jure recognition, and Azerbaijan did have de-facto borders, which included Nakhichevan. So the maps of Armenica are incorrect. And the map of Azerbaijan also has a source: So there's no reason for deletion of Azerbaijani map, it as good as that of Armenia. Btw, I think we should continue this discussion elsewhere and not waste space at Moreschi's talk. Grandmaster 09:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither Armenia (DRA) nor Azerbaijan (ADR) had de-jure borders in 1918-1920. The self-invented maps of Baku87 are not acceptable because they show territories which were disputed between Azerbajian and Armenia, and between Georgia and Azerbaijan, as part of the latter. The source Grandmaster refers to says absolutely nothing about the de-facto borders of ADR that those maps could be based on it. --Vacio (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Eupator's map doesnt show the disputed areas of Naxcivan and Zangezur, if this comes from Armenica.org its certainly questionable how objective this source really is. You have nominated both the maps of ADR for deletion while you perfectly know we are discussing their usage here and yet the Armenian version is not nominated for deletion, does this mean that map is perfectly acceptable for you? Baku87 (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The given Grandmaster is very real and we can base a new map upon this source and note that these are de-facto borders border of ADR. Baku87 (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Off topic! That map shows the WW1 period - territory ceded to Turkey (NOT Azerbaijan!). Those treaties became void after Turkey's surrender. Meowy 22:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How come Armenica map is acceptable and the map created by Baku87 is not? It has a reliable source too. Grandmaster 05:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is there a proposal to use the armenica.org map? I don't see one. Meowy 18:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

See Democratic Republic of Armenia. The map is used there. Grandmaster 05:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the maps of Armenica.org are copies from R. Hewsen's "Atlas". If indeed the map of DRA in quiestion corresponds to that of Hewsen, it is reliable. Anyhow the upload and use of it not be an argument to use the maps created by Baku87. The latter are nominated for deletion in accordance with WP rules. Also, I can't find in the source, Baku87 and Grandmaster refer to, a clear statement as if Gegharkunik, Syunik, Vayots Dzor, Tavush, Nagorno-Karabakh, Nakhichevan, Belakan-Zakatala were de-facto under Azerbaijani rule in 1918-1920. --Vacio (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look carefully at this map: , you'll see that it includes both Zangezur and Nakhichevan. And Hewsen is not a specialist on modern history, he specializes on ancient one. In any case, the map supported by a reliable source cannot be removed, so the map by Baku87 must remain. Grandmaster 06:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, take a look at the Map of Armenia as defined by President Woodrow Wilson, or so called Wilsonian map of Armenia, cited by the Armenian source - . Atabəy (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

By nominating every ADR map for deletion while its still being discussed here and yet not doing anything about the Armenica.org map versionl; Its pretty clear that Vacio is POV and leading an anti-Azerbaijan campaign here. There are clear sources for this map and thus is simply cannot be removed. Baku87 (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Armenica.org map" appears to be based entirely on map 229 "The First Armenian Republic 1918-1920" on page 236 of Hewsen's Atlas of Historical Armenia. Map 229 also indicates the existence of the "Arasdayan Republic" on the territory of Nakhichevan with the words "26th Jan 1919 - 19 May 1919, then passed to Armenia". Map 226 in the same volume shows the internal provinces of the Armenian Republic - all of Nakhichevan and Zanzegour are within its bounderies and they are not in the parts of the map that are indicated as claimed by Armenia but not held by it. Maps 230, 231 and 232 show the Armenian, Georgian and Azeri territorial claims respectively. Based on the Hewsen maps, the map produced by Baku matches neither the actual territory controlled by Azerbaijan in 1918-1920, or the territory claimed by Azerbiajan and not held by it. It is, as I wrote earlier, a work of propaganda. Azeri territorial claims against Georgia are not shown on Baku's map, presumably because Azerbaijan currently enjoys reasonable diplomatic relations with Georgia. Also not shown are Azeri claims on what is now Turkish territory, for the same reason. Nor are the extreme nature of those claims (they extend all the way to the Black Sea and include most of Armenia) indicated - I guess because they would appear to readers of the article to be laughably extreme. Meowy 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hewsen's map is inaccurate. He is an expert on ancient history, but not on modern one. He probably mentioned there, which sources he used, and they are most probably the Armenian ones. Zangezur together with Karabakh was placed under Azerbaijani jurisdiction by the British command. Thus, Armenia could not control it either de-jure or de-facto. See:

Upon the Ottoman withdrawal, General Andranik made an attempt to extend Armenian rule over this disputed territory, but on December 1 Thomson asked him to cease his military operations. Furthermore, as of mid-January 1919, the British general put Nagorno-Karabagh together with the neighboring Zangezur uezd under provisional Azerbaijani administration. Armenian reactions became even more heated when Thomson confirmed the nomination of Khosrow Sultanov as governor of the two areas. Thomson's comment was that the British occupation was not an opportunity for revenge.

For all the protests that greeted him, Sultanov succeeded over the next several months in getting the Armenian Assembly in Nagorno Karabagh to formally accept Azerbaijani rule, an act that recognized the realities of geography, economy, and transportation that linked this ethnic enclave with Azerbaijan rather than with Armenia beyond the mountains. This major breakthrough remained subject to some conditions restricting the size and deplacement of Azerbaijani garrisons in peacetime.

Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683

Furthermore, if you read here: you'll see that within one month the regular army of Azerbaijan republic kicked the Armenian army out of Nakhchivan. Thus, Armenia had no control over the region. The map from atlas (which I haven't seen so far, btw) conflicts other maps and sources, and therefore is not reliable. Grandmaster 07:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts between sources and maps is a matter-of-course given that there were no stable de-facto borders at the time. The map of Hewsen however corresponds largely to this map of Tadeusz Swietochowskimap whom you quoted above. As for Karabakh, it was never de-jure or de-facto part of the ADR, the provisional agrement between the Karabakh Assembly stated that it's definitive status would be determined in the Paris Peace Conference. Furthermore:

In August 1919, the Karabagh National Council entered into a provisional treaty agreement with the Azerbaijani government. Despite signing the Agreement, the Azerbaijani government continuously violated the terms of the treaty. This culminated in March 1920 with the Azerbaijanis' massacre of Armenians in Karabagh's former capital, Shushi, in which it is estimated that more than 20,000 Armenians were killed. In this light, the Ninth Karabagh Assembly nullified the treaty in whole and pronounced union with Armenia. From 1918 to 1920 Nagorno Karabagh possessed all necessary attributes of statehood, including an army and legitimate authorities. The League of Nations and the leading world powers recognized the disputed status of Nagorno Karabagh. The League of Nations neither recognized the sovereignty of the Azerbaijan Republic over Karabagh nor accepted the Azerbaijan Republic as its member-state.

The Nagorno Karabagh Crisis:A Blueprint for Resolution. A Memorandum Prepared by the Public International Law & Policy Group. May 2000

Btw. now I see what Baku87 actually tried to do: removing a map from the article which shows the aforecited regiones as disputed areas between ADR and DRA with a self-made one which shows them as implicitly part of ADR . Subsequently placing an other self-made map in the Azerbaijan article which shows the same areas as "Azeri lost lands". --Vacio (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, general Thomson was not authorized to decide the status of Zangezur or Nagorno-Karabakh. And the motivations underlying the attempts of the British Mission to solve territoral disputes:

Arslanian quotes

General George Milne, responsible for British military operations in South Caucasia,

They are certainly not worth the life of one British soldier. The Georgians are merely disguised Bolsheviks … The Armenians are what the Armenians have always been, a despicable race. The best are the inhabitants of Azerbaijan, though they are in reality uncivilized.
It therefore does not seem far-fetched that the awarding of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan, while intended only as a temporary phenomenon, was caused by British condescension for Armenians.

Svante E. Cornell. The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. Report no. 46, Department of East European Studies, Uppsala University, 1999

--Vacio (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Get your facts straight this map is not merely self made but based upon source which you keep ignoring. ADR was de-facto regonized by several allies states, we can mention this in the map? Baku87 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The map in that source is very different actually. Your map is just fascist regurgitation.-- Ευπάτωρ 13:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mind WP:Civil. And here are more maps: , or this one Grandmaster 13:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't you dare quote me wikipolicy. I already commented about those links of yours in the deletion page.-- Ευπάτωρ 15:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable with your sinsulting language towards me Eupator. This map is provided by sources which are provided in the map summary. But I will note them again So this map is allowed for usage. Baku87 (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This has already been answered by Eupator. And even if it was true (which it is not), you would probably have a copyright problem, wouldn't you ? Sardur (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You cant just spam and try to pro-long its usage, there are no copyright issues. It is you who has to reach a consensus to remove it, not the other way around. Baku87 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny reasonning. Either the map is unsupported by these two sources (and you still have to answer on what has been said on this), or what you have done is a close derivative work and therefore raises copyright issues. Sardur (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the source: Now stop reverting, please. Grandmaster 15:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page of this map, this source cannot support the map : you directly see that Armenia SW and NE boundaries are not the same. Some people are clearly inserting an inaccurate file here. Sardur (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Users like GM and Baku/Baki are living in the realm of fantasy land. That's why there are crap articles on the Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages that identify the city of Artashat as a part of "Western Azerbaijan" and similarly don't even mention a single word about the Armenian presence (i.e., kingdoms) in Nakhichevan unless it pertains to the mass "migration" of the 19th century. This fabricated map requires a speedy delete lest the English Misplaced Pages begins to repeat the same nonsense on the Azeri Wiki.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For your information: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 23#File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg. Sardur (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't fair. Doesn't this map violate the same justifications you claim above? Atabəy (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How so? Robert Hewsen created the map. His work has been cited dozens of times on Misplaced Pages articles, with the backing of Armenian and Azeri users. Does anyone care to explain how Hewsen, a historian, or more accurately a cartographer, loses his credibility here? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hewsen is an expert on ancient history of the region, but not the modern one. He never published any work about the history of the region in the 20th century, as far as I know. And WP:Civil is a good rule to observe. Grandmaster 06:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That has to be the lamest excuse I have heard. I'll make sure to mention that the whimsical little diddy to the mediators next time they come into arbitrate conflicts. And don't you dare patronize me again.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I find the non-CIA-type map, with the different colors and explanations of things, far more useful than the one that is being editwarred. Having said that, I am now unable to protect the article to end this war. I will find someone to do it for me. --Golbez (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I found someone. --Golbez (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The map that is presently included in the article is nothing but a self-made map, taken from some personal website. It is not supported by any reliable source. The map of Baku87 at least relied on published third party sources. Grandmaster 06:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to go into a discussion of the origins of the map currently included in the article, but I can confirm that this map matches in main essentials the map of the Azerbaijan Republic in 1918-1920 published in Artur Tsutsiev, Atlas of Ethnopolitical History of the Caucasus (1774-2004), "Evropa" Publishing House, Moscow, 2006, map 18, p. 54. For copyright reasons I cannot upload Tsusiev's map to Commons, but I will be pleased to e-mail a file with a scanned copy to any interested Wikipedian for perusal. The map is in Russian with a detailed legend, and perhaps a skilled cartographer will be able to use it as a basis for drawing a new properly sourced map. --Zlerman (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The book by Tsutsiev is a very weak source. For instance, it claims that Mughan Soviet Republic was proclaimed by Talysh people, while it was in fact proclaimed by the Russian colonists in Mughan, etc. Grandmaster 07:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We are digressing, but this is what Tsutsiev writes about the Mughan Soviet Republic (p. 55): "In spring 1919 the Talysh-Mughan Soviet Republic is created here, whose 'national base' is the Russian and Talysh population." I do not not think that your statement above is consistent with this quote from Tsutsiev. --Zlerman (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Compare with memoirs of Dunsterville, and you'll see that he is wrong. It was not even called "Talysh-Mughan Soviet Republic" back in 1919, so Tsutsiev has no idea what he is talking about. But the thing is that the map by Baku87 is suppoted by 3 third party sources: Plus, the map that is presently included in the article, also contradicts the map of Armenian Republic: which claims Nakhichevan as part of Armenia, while in fact Armenia never had any control over the region. So we have a number of confliting maps, and I see no reason why the map of ADR created by Baku87 should be removed despite being supported by a number of reliable sources, while the other ones kept. Grandmaster 07:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is those weak sources that you post that do not match Baku87's map. There is no inconsistency between Hewsen's and Andersen's map, Andersen's map is just more detailed. The legend on the latter clearly states "Lost to Armenia by 30.04.1920".-- Ευπάτωρ 11:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's inaccurate information. Armenia never had any control over the region. Even Hovanissian admits that. Grandmaster 05:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So the map taken from a POV blogger "Copyright © 2006 Andrew Andersen Atlas of Conflicts", fired from his teaching position for racism, is more reliable now? Atabəy (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this from a different direction: What part of the Andersen map is incorrect? --Golbez (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The one that shows disputed areas. Nakhichevan, Qazakh, and even Karabakh were under stable control of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a good one to start with. =p However, according to all three articles, it seems no one really had stable control over the full regions before the Soviets rolled in. How do you reconcile that with the three articles? --Golbez (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a totally inaccurate information from Grandmaster, Nakhichevan and Karabakh were never under stable Azerbaijani controll. --Vacio (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is something partly wrong with the "Lost to Armenia by 30.04.1920" part of the caption on the Andersen map. Some of the indicated territory was actually lost by Armenia by 30.04.1920. But on the whole the Andersen map does successfully illustrate the complexity and the nuances of the reality on the ground (which the Baku87 map deliberately doesn't do). Meowy 17:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Golbez, are you trying to mediate again? :) Anyways, the map in question is against this map , claimed by Armeniapedia to be made by State Department. And yes, there is nothing to try from "different angle here". Andersen is not a scholar, he is a blogger. He tried to teach but was fired from his job at University of Victoria for anti-Muslim racism. Every single one of his maps is biased pro-Armenian and non-neutral. His other maps are also disputed by at least one party in Caucasus, and hence NOT neutral by definition. Atabəy (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I gave up my ability to mediate this one when I said I didn't like Baku's map. =p And if we're going to say "the author is not a scholar and not neutral", then I think we can throw out Baku's map as well, yes? --Golbez (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Golbez, it's impossible to mediate on a subject where one can't be neutral. And seem's like Baku's map was actually even a bit more favorable to Armenian POV than Wilsonian one on Armeniapedia? :) Andersen map is out of question, we have this problem all over Misplaced Pages, he is unscholarly, unreliable and non-neutral. Atabəy (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So is Baku. Delete both! Let's make our own! I'm good at mapmaking, I daresay even neutral mapmaking. Feed me sources and we'll see what I can do. :) Gosh, wouldn't that be amazing? The first map of the pre-Soviet Caucasus formed by consensus from all sides? (... hey, I'm in a good mood, winter's over here finally, I can be optimistic!) Not that I'm a scholar but I come with absolutely no nationalist or even scholarly baggage; I know nothing about pre-Soviet Azerbaijan and Armenia. I am a blank slate. Write on me. --Golbez (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're in a good mood and Atabəy is telling jokes (his map of Wilsonian Armenia doesn't have an Eastern border). Life is beautiful ^^ Sardur (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Golbez, congratulations on becoming a scholar and I am excited for your optimism, truly. But before we entrust you with a monumental task of map-making over the never-delineated ADR-DRA border, accepting your claim of a neutral "blank slate", can I check on one minor, just very tiny detail. Back in December 2007, while trying to "mediate", you were quoted, saying "Azeris should stop acting like raving maniacs", or especially, "To say that the Azeris are far less helpful than the Armenians doesn't mean I support the Armenians - it just means they express their positions a lot better", As far as I recall, you were asked to stop "mediating" by admins after that. Now, have you reviewed your position, as Avruch suggested ? Because, honestly speaking, the neutrality means understanding everyone's position equally well, not understanding one better (or with sympathy), which is still the case with your position on the map issue.

Nakhchivan, Zangezur and Karabakh were not under Armenian control during ADR. Khosrov Sultanov was appointed the Governor in Shusha when Ottomans left in December 1918, here is referenced information . In fact, NK Armenians even signed an agreement recognizing Azerbaijani jurisdiction as well, in the same reference quoting Swietochowski. The fact of control, is also affirmed by Armenian reference . So were Britons in support of Azerbaijani jurisdiction over Karabakh, as Tom De Waal suggests, and the Wilsonian map from State Department clearly shows that half of present-day Armenia has Azerbaijan label over it, and Wilson laid Armenian claims primarily on Eastern Anatolia. Atabəy (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I was a scholar; however, I have scholarly faith in the collective effort of us all using reputable sources. If I were saying I was a scholar, I would have just made it. :P As for the comments above, I don't withdraw them, but I realize they were also out of line. I don't know why, but back then, in my experience people representing the Azeri point of view seemed to take the issue extremely personally, more personally than those representing the Armenian point of view. Maybe AA2 has fixed that a bit by pruning the more radical elements from both sides. Avruch (not "admins") suggested I withdrew, and if I recall, I generally did, though not because of him; thanks to AA2, I haven't really had or wanted to insert myself into the fight neary as much. Just a few blocks here and there. According to the history of Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, I didn't engage in any form of mediation from December 2007 (when Avruch made his comment) until an outburst in June 2008. And not much after that. (Though I did do some in Talk:Shusha) And I don't really consider this mediation, I'm trying to be an avenue for all sides to help make a map. Give me sources, give me feedback, and I'll do what I can. I'm not really trying to mediate a conflict; by your own logic, both maps must go. I think Baku's map should go, and if Andersen's map is inaccurate, it should go too. I'm just trying to make a map. Like my map of the provinces of Nagorno-Karabakh; so far as I know, both sides like it, as it represents the claims from both sides. (though it is outdated, considering the NKR is apparently administering the occupied rayons, and it lacks a line of control) As for your second paragraph, And my admitted slight sympathy for Karabakh is irrelevant, since that has entirely to do with their present situation; I don't care who owned or controlled or claimed them before the Soviet Union came across, as that should be simple fact to look up. ... but as we all know, if that were the case, then there'd be little to fight over. So I have to look over the sources, and see who seems reputable to a neutral observer. So maybe it is mediation. But in this case, it's not over an article. It's over a new creation. Nothing to get riled over. No harm in trying. I come to it clean, ready to accept evidence and arguments from either side.

... In the meantime, I suppose I should start drawing an outline of the region. --Golbez (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that Baku87's map is supported by at least 3 third party sources, so it is not his invention. The reason why some people representing the Armenian POV want it deleted is because it contradcits the territorial claims of Armenia. If Baku87's map should go, then so should this one: I know that its supporters will say that it comes from a reliable source, but so does Baku87's map. The truth is that neither Armenia, nor Georgia or Azerbaijan had internationally recognized borders at the time, as they all had only de-facto recognition. Therefore any map depicting borders is represeneting the POV of one of the sides. The general idea of Andersen is correct, but implementation is not. He uses sources very selectively, and generally is very pro-Armenian. I wrote him and asked him a couple of questions, but he never responded to me. So ideally there should be one map, showing the territories disputed, and the territories not claimed by anyone other than the state that controlled it, and such map should be used in all articles about 1918 - 1920. Grandmaster 06:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Therefore any map depicting borders is represeneting the POV of one of the sides. " So you will changing your "strong keep" vote, then? =p When you say the 'general idea' is correct, what do you mean? The idea of trying to show the nuances? --Golbez (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, which third party sources do you mean? Baku87 contends that his map is based on this map () which however shows quite different boundaries. I guess you mean these two maps (), the first of which is Official map Issued by the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and the second Official map of the Azebaijan Democratic Republic 1920. I don't think that they are third party sources. Anyhow, let's compare the latter with Baku87s map. The caption of the first reads:

• Baku Governorate
• Elisabethpol Governorate
• Part of Erivan Governorate
• Zaqatala Province

Gentlemen, do you know what those three Governorates were? Administrative divisions of the Russian Empire untill 1917. Therefore when one looks at the Official map of the Azebaijan Democratic Republic 1920, he immediately knows that it shows areas claimed by the ADR. The CIA-like map of Baku87 makes the impression that they were owned by the ADR, given the fact that CIA maps show internationally recognized borders of states. Moreover, the Official map shows the Sumalu Province as Disputed Area with Armenia and Kvemo Kartli with a part of Kakheti as Disputed Area with Georgia. Thus it does not support the map of Baku87 even if the latter should represent the official map of the ADR. --Vacio (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Map!

So I've decided to work on a map. Really, it had to be done eventually, since it dovetails into my eventual work to make a map of the territorial evolution of Russia. So a simple question: Is File:Gubernias_del_Caucaso.png an accurate representation of the governorates? I haven't been able to find any other maps of the governorates, but I'm guessing their borders were probably not very fluid and therefore not a point of conflict. --Golbez (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe what is needed is map showing the overlapping territorial claims of all three republics. Meowy 04:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, that's what I was thinking, but first I need to know the situation before it all split up. The Russian governorates, etc. And then I need to know which were claimed by whom and when. It's not going to be an easy project. It will be a complex map. --Golbez (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the map might become too complicated if you start to show the Russian governorates. I'm not sure if the governorates/oblasts had any strong bearing on what the various territorial claims were - the Russians don't seem to have defined these governorates/oblasts according to their ethnic populations - in fact, in some places they had a divide and rule policy. There is a set of three (small scale, unfortunately) maps in Hewsen's "Armenia an Historical Atlas" which illustrates the territories that each country was laying claim to - "claimed in Paris, 1919" according to the maps keys, so they would appear to be official claims. In most cases the territorial claims don't follow the former provincial boundaries. The only common factors between them are the international borders with the Ottoman and Persian empires - i.e the maps and the claims deal only with the division of territory within the former Russian empire. Meowy 17:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily that I wanted to show the governorates; I just wanted a good starting point for the map, since particular governorates were claimed by particular governments. So it would be a way of creating the baseline for the map, but not necessarily something that would be in the final product. And yes, I was wondering as well if the Ottoman or Persian borders changed at all, very helpful that they did not. I knew Persian but I wasn't sure about the Ottoman borders. --Golbez (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan was an ally of the Ottoman Empire, and was supported by it, so it did not have any territorial claims against the Ottoman Empire. In fact, for much of the territory claimed by Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan was actually acting as a proxy for Turkey, as a way of maintaining Turkish control over those territories even though Turkey was by then defeated. Meowy 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The borders of the governorates are shown on this map: You can see that the territories of Azerbaijan that were formerly within a particular governorate are highlighted in different colors. Grandmaster 06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Golbez, you admitted above that you have sympathies, hence your "mediation" is unwarranted by one side which you're trying to mediate. You can, of course, spend your time preparing maps, however, these would not be deeded neutral regardless of content, simply because you're not impartial in the treatment of conflict in first place.

In general, I don't see any resolution to map issue on ADR or DRA page. The border was never delineated, two countries never recognized each other, neither their borders were recognized by outside world. So any attempt to depict it would be POV, unless we just let Azerbaijani claim map to be on ADR page, and Armenian claimed map to be on DRA page. Atabəy (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they would be deeded neutral if everyone decided to help and everyone signed off on the product. If you choose not to be involved, then please don't harp on about it not being neutral; if you don't like it, it will be entirely your fault. I hope to accommodate every single view here. And actually it is quite possible to make a map; just mark the disputed areas as disputed. Yes? --Golbez (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And my minor "sympathies" only apply to the post-Soviet era, not the pre- or Soviet era. If you're going to call me out on my minor admitted sympathies, at least get them right. --Golbez (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I think we should keep the official map of Azerbaijan in 1918, it is a historical document. Second, we can create another map reflecting the territorial claims. We can do it by taking the map of ADR, putting it together with the map of DRA and highlighting the overlapping areas. It can be used in addition to the official maps in both articles, and maybe even the one for Georgia, if no one minds. Grandmaster 07:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If that map is going to be included in the article it must clearly state that it is the official map of ADR otherwise it's just going to inflame more edit wars. Currently there isn't a single map of DRA that shows all of its official borders, Hewsen's map does not depict the full extent of DRA's borders in the east but a new one should be uploaded shortly.-- Ευπάτωρ 15:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think both should be labeled as the official maps of the countries. Third party sources are contradictory about which territories those 2 countries actually controlled. Grandmaster 06:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article can be unprotected now. The map was kept. A better version of that map will be available shortly. Hopefully, there will be another one showing territorial disputes for inclusion in both articles. Grandmaster 06:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The map was kept, but it will not be included in this article without consensus. My demands are: first, an official map of the ADR must not have misleading layout, in particluar it must not be a pseudo-CIA map. Second, it must be exactly coinciding with the official map it represents, selectively use of various maps is not acceptable.

And for Golbez, here an offical map of the DRA (). Please also note that unlike Azerbaijan, Armenian had de-jure borders in 1920 recognized by the Treaty of Sevres ( ). --Vacio (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus for inclusion of Hewsen's map in the article about DRA, but it is there. So I see no reason why this article should not have a map based on 3 reliable sources. As for the Treaty of Sevres, it never came to effect and was soon annulled and replaced with the Treaty of Lausanne. It was not worth more than the the paper it was written on. Grandmaster 05:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it says a lot that neither of the maps, the Armenian Republic or Azerbaijan republic, are available on the internet in their original form as presented to the Paris peace conference. Meowy 16:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting comment; it inspired me, and I may have found a single copy of the one for Armenia on Google Books, . Haven't hunted for one of the ADR yet. --Golbez (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that may be it. Why, given its importance, has nobody placed it and the accompanying booklet on the web?? BTW, here is the equivalent one produced by the Kurdish delegation. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Memorandum_on_the_Claims_of_the_Kurd_People_1.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Memorandum_on_the_claims_of_the_kurd_people_2.jpg Meowy 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kurds were different. Unlike ADR and DRA, which both had de-facto recognition from the allies, Kurds were represented not as a state, but as people. Grandmaster 06:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just posting it as an example of what we really need for Azerbaijan, Armenian and Georgia. Meowy 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've vaguely started; here's my notes so far:

• Governorates:
  • Chernomore: Claimed by DRG, now part of Russia
  • Kutaisi: Claimed by DRG, now western Georgia
  • Tiflis: Claimed by DRG, now eastern Georgia
  • Erivan: Claimed by DRA, now Armenia and Nakhichevan
  • Elizavetpol: Claimed by ADR, now western Azerbaijan and Zangezur in Armenia
  • Baku: Claimed by ADR, now the eastern half of Azerbaijan
  • Zaqatali Okrug: Claimed by DRG, now the northern leg of Azerbaijan
  • Kars Oblast: Claimed by ADR and DRG, now nearly entirely part of Turkey
  • Batum Oblast: Claimed by DRG, now Adjara and part of Turkey
  • Sukhumi Oblast: Claimed by DRG, now equivalent to Abkhazia

That's why I wanted to know the governorates, so I could create a basic baseline to work from. So, now that I've figured all that out, let's discuss ... Let's start simple. Baku Governorate. This was claimed without any challenge by the ADR, yes? --Golbez (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the basic outline with borders and governorates, and nothing else. The colors mean nothing except as a very basic guideline. So I guess the next step is finding sources saying what governorates were claimed by which countries - I want every inch of this map sourced. Then the next step is finding the actual line of control in places like Elizabethpol and Kars. --Golbez (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The map is nice to look at, but I think you are going down the wrong road here. The governorates do not have any bearing on the overlapping claims of the various parties, nor was there such a thing as a fixed line of control. What time-period are you proposing to show on this map - 1918, 1919, 1920? And how are you going to confront the arguments of POV bias if you chose the situation, say, in 1918 rather than 1919 or 1920? I think what is needed is either a single map (or three separate maps) showing the claims of each party, and showing the modern borders. you want I can scan and upload the 3 maps from the "Armenian an Historical Atlas" showing the claims Meowy 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure the governorates will be in the final version; as I said, they are just a crutch for me to stand on to find out the general idea of the borders of the day. (And it's useful for things like Zakatala) And I was hoping for all three time periods, with shifting lines if needed; if it becomes too complex then I'll split it accordingly, and make a 'fuzzy' version for the infobox (i.e. solid lines where there was solid control, fuzzy area for permanent dispute). So let's start with 1918, right after independence. I want to know what areas the countries claimed, what they actually controlled, and what was actively disputed. (i.e. a country may have claimed an area that it didn't control, but made no military move to actually control it) I'm not sure if this is going to be a successful project anyway but we can at least try. :) As for modern borders, eh, I guess for this region that makes sense, since the reverberations are still making an impact. Any input would help. --Golbez (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think what you are proposing doing is going to be too complex. Maybe it would be feasable if it were an animated Flash map, with a scroll-bar to control the time period, but that sort of thing can't be used on Misplaced Pages (and would take ages to create anyway). Let's think more about what the map is going to be used for. OK, we can't have a Baku87-type map showing Azerbaijan (or Armenia or Georgia) with fixed borders as if it controlled everything it claimed ownership of, because the borders weren't static and what they each controlled fell far short of what they each claimed. But I don't think you can feasibly create a map that shows the amount of detail you are proposing showing. I'll scan those 3 maps tomorrow and post them somewhere - I've only a photocopy of the page but even in B&W it is OK for showing the extent of the claims. Meowy 01:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Before I go any further, I need to find out where the current Andersen map is incorrect. Note: Him 'not being a scholar' or him being 'racist' has nothing to do with the accuracy of the map. If it turns out it is, in fact, correct (the only time I recall an inaccuracy being pointed out was quickly refuted, since GM said all three areas were under solid control of Azerbaijan, and other sources disagree...) then there's no point for this project. --Golbez (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Andersen map doesn't show all of the territorial claims, nor even all of the territory disputed over by armed forces. And who controls what will depend on the time period. For example, from what I can gather, in 1918, after the breakup of the Transcaucasian Federation, Ottoman Turkey invaded and occupied Nakhchivan, but (after its surrender) was required to withdraw to the 1914 border. However, Turkey together with Azerbaijan set up a proxy regime there called the Aras Republic, Armenian forces then advanced and gained control of all of Nakhchivan to start with, but later lost control of most of it to Azerbaijan, then regained control of most (or all) of it again in 1920. Meowy 02:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Golbez, do you have non-Armenian sources proving that Karabakh or, especially, Nakhchivan, were under Armenian control during 1918-1920? Just as a clarification, to avoid further confusion, I am responding to you as to a party representing the position of one of the sides on the map conflict, not as to the mapmaker or mediator. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you aren't speaking to me as me being a mapmaker, then we have nothing to discuss pertaining to the map, do we. But because I'm charitable, a response: I have no sources at all so far, that's why I've been hoping you fine people will supply me with some. I'm concerned that if I start picking them, I'll run into a preference bias and pick what appears to be the best or most comprehensive but in reality is constructed by someone totally biased. That's why I have you biased folks, to filter it for me! --Golbez (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way of doing it is to take the official maps of ADR and DRA, put them together and highlight the overlapping areas. You have the official ADR map. The new map should be called "territorial disputes in the South Caucasus". --Grandmaster 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Status check

I protected this article based on a request at WP:RFPP. It has been about a month, and I wanted to check on the progress here. The talk page has been quiet for 10 days. Is there any consensus on the map issue yet? I understand that this whole subject area is one in which there is some disagreement, and that it applies to more than one article. Still, I'd just as soon permit editing here if things have calmed down. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 15:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there's been no response I assume things have quieted down. Unprotected. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 03:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the disputed map is still on the page. And here is an interesting reference from 1920 New York Times issue, in light of prior discussion that Karabakh and Zangezur were NOT under control of Armenia during 1918-1920:

• "The two provinces in question are largely inhabited by Armenians, according to this statement", says the Near East Relief "but have never been under the Government of Republic of Armenia"

thus could not be legally "disputed" between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The provinces were under control of Azerbaijan and acknowledge so by Ottoman Turks and later British forces under Allied Powers in the region.

Moreover, the current map, pushed by POV and edit warring of one side, and invented by Andrew Andersen, a blogger, claims "Republic of Azerbaijan: 1919-1920". Though Republic of Azerbaijan existed from 1918 till 1920, not from 1919. Atabəy (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Atabek don't be lazy and quote the whole thing.

Doubt Armenia is Invaded.

Near East Relief Officials Explain Reports of Red Moves There.

Reports of Bolshevist penetration to Armenia, which have emanated recently from Constantinople, are discredited by the Near East Relief, 1 Madison Avenue, which yesterday issued a statement showing why it considered the reports to be misleading. Word has come of the invasion of Armenia through the Provinces of Karabakh and Zangezoor, where the Bolshevists set up Soviet governments.

"The two provinces in question are largely inhabited by Armenians, according to this statement," says the Near East Relief, "but have never been under the Government or Republic of Armenia. They consist of a mountainous region, which is said to be the richest mineral district of the Near East, known to possess gold, copper, sulphur, iron and zinc mines, but which is cut off from contact with the rest of the Armenian Republic by lack of roads and means of communication."

Published: August 4, 1920 Copyright © The New York Times

If there were no roads and means of communication that would mean that Armenian inhabited Zangezur and Karabakh were not under control of Azerbaijan either. P.S you get a "B-" for not replacing the map with Baku87's imaginary map. VartanM (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You missed the contradiction. It says "is cut off from contact with the rest of the Armenian Republic", if there is a "rest of" then the writer is saying that Zangezur and Karabakh were parts of the Armenian Republic! Meowy 21:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a new version of the official map. It is described as the official map of ADR, i.e. representing the official position of the country. We may need to have another map showing the lands claimed by both Armenia and Azerbaijan for use in the articles about the ADR and DRA. I'll see if I can get such a map. --Grandmaster 11:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So you think you can add a map just because the map says "Map of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic" on it! It does not represent anything resembling reality. Meowy 21:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was in favor of including an official map from back then so long as it had a caption on the image itself clearly stating that it's a product of ADR's wet dreams. But wtf is this? This is clearly a modern, irredentist concuction.-- Ευπάτωρ 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, an official map, regardless of 'reality', would be very useful. Example: The map of the Republic of China as Taipei sees it. However, I don't know if what was put up was either an official map or directly based off one. --Golbez (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, VartanM, Eupator - the reference from NY Times says the territory was NOT under the Government of Armenia. That's a factual statement made by Near East Relief based on contemporary information. Whether Near East Relief thought it was cut off from rest of Armenia or whether it thought that Armenia spread from Pacific to Atlantic embracing Eurasian continent is irrelevant as Near East Relief was not an authoritative body to make such conclusions. I am not sure why you keep pushing the same map, which has no relevance and is already deemed POV. Atabəy (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Atabek, "not under the Government of Armenia" isn't equal to "under Government of Azerbaijan". VartanM (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides, this text from the NY Times has a context and reading the entire thing from top to bottom and adding a little knowledge of the period in question will help you see the entire picture. This is from August 1920, just few days before to the Treaty of Sevres. Wilson prepared the map of Armenia and could not secure any American mandates for Armenia and never drew any borders for the East because he did not know the full extent of Bolshevik expansion. Recognition of eastern border would mean a clash with the Russian army which was advancing. Not being able to have the full support for an American mandate the US never signed the treaty for those same exact reasons (not ignoring the Kemalist advance from the West and Armenia being sandwiched). The NY Times was playing in the hand of the US government by dismissing an invasion of Armenia by claiming that those invaded territories were never controlled by the Armenian government anyways and decreasing the size of Armenia which they needed to secure, they were backpedaling before they totally ignored the mandate they have promised. Those Russian advances during the negotiations killed everything. This is the reason why you are not allowed to use primary sources because they are open to interpretation, and those interpretations are left for the secondary sources make. VartanM (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The map included by me is based on this source: It says that this map was made by Information department of Azerbaijani MFA in 1919. I described it as an official map of ADR. Whether or not it was accurate is another issue. I don't mind inclusion of another map showing the territorial disputes in Transcaucasia. I already proposed that we use both the official maps of ADR and DRA, and another one showing where they overlap. --Grandmaster 06:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The date looks more like 1990 rather than 1919. I very much doubt that map was made in 1919 with a mix of Russian and English captions.-- Ευπάτωρ 15:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted back to Xymmax version, until a consensus is reached. VartanM (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on what? The map was kept and is Ok for use in wikiarticles. No one seeks a consensus for use of this map in DRA article, even though Tsutsiyev considers it to be far from any reality, same as ADR map: . However the map of ADR is a historical document, and thus is a valuable info. Grandmaster 07:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't remember any vote on that particular map. VartanM (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an improved version of Bak87's map. If you prefer the original map by Baku87, we can use it.--Grandmaster 13:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, VartanM, if NY Times/Near East Relief says Karabakh and Zangezur were not under government of Armenia, and you claim that it does not mean it was under Azerbaijan (although there was no one else in between), then the map by Andersen is false by default, as the territory could not have been disputed in any case. In this condition, the only neutral and meaningful step is to remove Andersen map, as it's simply an indoctrination, just like his other maps in Misplaced Pages. He is not a scholar but a blogger sympathetic of Armenia and hateful of Muslims. So I am not sure why your solution is to return the same map, while disputing the facts? Why can't you just keep it without the map until the consensus is reached, if you believe your edit is neutral? Atabəy (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The NY Times article does sayy that Karabakh and Zangezur are part of Armenia. It says they are "cut off from contact with the rest of the Armenian Republic", if there is a "rest of" then the writer is saying that Zangezur and Karabakh were parts of the Armenian Republic. Meowy 01:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, it says that those two regions never were a part of Armenia:

The two provinces in question are largely inhabited by Armenians, according to this statement," says the Near East Relief, "but have never been under the Government or Republic of Armenia.

--Grandmaster 10:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And also, I don't think it is a good idea to remove the map supported by 3 reliable sources and replace it with a map by some Andrew Anderson, who is not a published scholar, but a person who maintains a website. --Grandmaster 10:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It also says they are "cut off from contact with the rest of the Armenian Republic" - as I said earlier, the article contradicts itself. I'm not going to rehash your Andrew Andersen hangups again. If you are claiming that there are specific inaccuracies in that map that make it unsuitable for use, then please state them. Meowy 20:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, just because a map is the "best available for Misplaced Pages" doesn't mean it should be used if there are genuine concerns with it. We don't put something up that many people think may be false just because there's no other option. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• B-Class Azerbaijan articles
• Top-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles