Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
An editor has requested that a coat of arms image be added to this article and placed within the infobox.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Azerbaijan Democratic Republic is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh
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. --Ευπάτωρ19:46, 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. Meowy01:53, 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. Grandmaster05:49, 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. Meowy17:08, 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. Grandmaster09:57, 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)
Off topic! That map shows the WW1 period - territory ceded to Turkey (NOT Azerbaijan!). Those treaties became void after Turkey's surrender. Meowy22:14, 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. Grandmaster06:30, 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. Meowy21:24, 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. Grandmaster07:38, 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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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. Grandmaster06:40, 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)
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. Grandmaster06:25, 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)
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. Grandmaster07:49, 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".--Ευπάτωρ11:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
That's inaccurate information. Armenia never had any control over the region. Even Hovanissian admits that. Grandmaster05:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The one that shows disputed areas. Nakhichevan, Qazakh, and even Karabakh were under stable control of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster05:43, 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). Meowy17:01, 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)
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.
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. Grandmaster06:38, 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:
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. Meowy04:01, 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. Meowy17:20, 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. Meowy16:34, 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. Grandmaster06:29, 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. Grandmaster07:07, 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.--Ευπάτωρ15:35, 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. Grandmaster06:17, 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. Grandmaster06:32, 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. Grandmaster05:59, 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. Meowy16:43, 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)
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. Grandmaster06:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I was just posting it as an example of what we really need for Azerbaijan, Armenian and Georgia. Meowy01:05, 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 Meowy00:18, 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. Meowy01:02, 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. Meowy02:51, 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". --Grandmaster10:43, 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. XymmaxSo let it be done15:38, 23 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:
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."
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! Meowy21:06, 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. --Grandmaster11:11, 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. Meowy21:12, 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.--Ευπάτωρ21:29, 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)
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. --Grandmaster06:30, 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.--Ευπάτωρ15:05, 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. Grandmaster07:31, 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. Meowy01:37, 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.
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. --Grandmaster10:26, 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. Meowy20:04, 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)
What "genuine concerns"? What specific inaccuracies arethere in that map that make it unsuitable for use? Meowy20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
And how is your map progressing, if at all, btw? Did you download the three territorial claims maps? Meowy20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It's probably best not to include any map at this point since there isn't one that all sides agree on.--Ευπάτωρ21:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The map in DRA is no good either, even if it was created by Hewsen, who is an expert on ancient history. It contradicts others sources, such as Hovanissian, NYT, etc. NYT clearly says that Zangezur never been under the Government or Republic of Armenia. The part about "the rest" is just a bad choice of words by the editors. I think as a compromise it is better to create a map that showed all 3 regions as claimed by both countries, and include official maps alongside with them. --Grandmaster07:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we already agreed that no map should appear until consensus is achieved. Moreover, the map, as proven by facts from NY Times 1920 article, is an invention of blogger Andersen. So Meowy, please, discuss and achieve consensus, before reinserting a piece of POV invention into the page. Atabəy (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The map by Anderson is not inaccurate, Vartan explained the context of the NY Times news just above and as usual you did not read what he wrote. You brought this NY Times report on 26 March and here Adil's friends news page we have this info on 29 March, including with Baku87's prepared map. And thanks again for the cherry picking, here's another example from the same news source claiming Karabakh to be part of Armenia. This was what was reported months prior by those relief organizations. Again, Karabakh in Armenia. Here it writes about the penetration of Armenia by the Bolsheviks when it speaks about Karabakh and Zankezour. It also provides a context. - Fedayee (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This report of 24 July, claiming Karabakh to be part of Armenia, is refuted by this one of 4 August, saying that Karabakh and Zangezur have never been under the Government of Republic of Armenia. And again, Andersen is not a published source. Grandmaster05:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Vartan above explained the context, also the article that you use uses the words the rest which contradicts your insinuations. One more information, if you checked the rest of the articles, one of those present the claims of the Azerbaijan republic at the conference, which according to the article was as far as the Black Sea. In short, I don't see how you can use NY archives, when they support Anderson's map and support the fact that the maps you guys have been using are inaccurate, as even the claims of the Azerbaijan republic of the time are not accurate since the NY archives support what Meowy has been saying and other authors about their claims being as West as the Black Sea. - Fedayee (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
these sentences are russia propoganda: 'In 1920 Soviet government established a strong relationship with the new Turkish government headed by Mustafa Kemal. The Soviets were ready to supply Turkey with armaments to get in change Turkish military support in Azerbaijan. Turkey particularly suggested using military bodies formed in Dagestan to occupy Baku and to avoid exploding its petrol storage reservoirs. Turkish support played an important role and attracted to the Bolsheviks the sympathies of the Muslim population in Azerbaijan.' resource:russian
MAP
I am not sure what negotiation is being tried here. Anderson map is out of question, it's a non-neutral nonsense (along with anything else this blogger published) trying to draw border which did not exist and was never demarcated. The most meaningful thing is to insert Azerbaijani-claimed map on ADR page, and Armenian-claimed map on DRA page and be through with it, instead of engaging in argument over things that cannot be proven. Atabəy (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with a map that depicts official (emphasis added) Azeri claims regardless of relaity but that map goes well beyond ADR's claims which is why I removed it. --Ευπάτωρ15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
And that makes it what? (For people who know about Azeri official sources, that would be a guarantee that there is barely a line on it that is accurate!) There are only two sort of maps that are acceptable - one that shows the complete extent of the territorial claims of Azerbaijan during the existence of the republic, or one that indicates the (often fluctuating) territory it actually controlled. The map that Atabəy and Baku87 want inserted is neither of those - it is a work of propaganda, a fiction. So far, only the Andersen map has come close to being acceptable for the latter purpose (indicating the fluctuating territory). Meowy16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm still sceptical about this map, the source that Baku presented in support is a barely discernible map hanging in some museum. Surely there is an actual map of some sort of the period within a government site. I don't read Azeri otherwise I would have looked for it myself.--Ευπάτωρ18:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a work of fiction. It deliberately doesn't make an accurate attempt to distinguish between territory claimed, and territory Azerbaijan actually controlled. The "Disputed Area with Armenia" caption suggest actual physical dispute - which is inaccurate as Azeri armed forces were never in this region. And of course the light green "half of Irvan province" and much of the dark green "Zangezur" and "Karabakh" was under actual dispute (and fluctuating control) by the armed forces of both Armenia and Azerbaijan - something the key ignores, deceptively indicating that those areas were under the "borders of Azeri Rep.". Meowy01:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It is the official map published by Azerbaijani MFA in 1919. No one says that it is an accurate presentation of situation, just that this was the official map, representing the position of ADR. Also, the map in the article about DRA is not accurate too, but none of the people objecting to inclusion of this map objects to the inclusion of Hewsen's map. I suggested to create a new map, showing the territories claimed by both countries, but no progress on this so far. Grandmaster05:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to be sure I'm reading you right, you don't mean the one being put into the article is the official map, right? Just that it's based on an official map, among other sources. --Golbez (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: a map "showing the territories claimed by both countries", I suggested that to Golbez ages ago when he said he was working on a map - "Maybe what is needed is map showing the overlapping territorial claims of all three republics" - but nothing seems to have come of it. Meowy15:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I mean that the official maps for both countries can be kept, as historical documents, but in addition to them we can take the 2 official maps, put them together and mark the overlapping areas in a different colors to show the areas in dispute. This would be a second map that could be used in both articles. Grandmaster12:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Except that this map is not an official map. Nobody has been able to provide a single government map that depicts borders and claims that are even remotely akin to this map. This map represents modern irredentist propaganda.--Ευπάτωρ14:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Also if this was an official map, it would not have included disputed territories. In addition, if those territories are disputed, than that means that the rest are not right. But we all know that it wasn't the case. This alone proves that the map itself is an irredentist concoction not an official map of ADR.--Ευπάτωρ00:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I posted this link a few times on this page, and it is included in the map description: Read what it says in description and legend. Grandmaster04:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The map you are placing in the article is not that one. The map you are placing in the article may be based on it, but that does not make it the official map you continue to claim it is. --Golbez (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The young republic declares, in an elaborate statement prepared by its delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, that its natural boundaries extend all the way across the Caucasus to Batum on the Black Sea and that its population, under the law of self-determination, would amount to nearly 5,000,000, and its territory to 130,000 square kilometers. Its spokesmen also admit that they hope to see the day when the adjoining province of northwest Persia of the same name and practically the same ethnographic makeup will be allowed to add its 2,000,000 inhabitants to the Azerbaijan Republic. (New York Times, "Land of Eternal Fires. So the Little Republic of Azerbaidjan Is Called--Its Territorial Dispute with Armenia,"October 19, 1919.)
Those were what was claimed by Azerbaijan (dismissing the map you want introduced), this map is not credible. As mentioned, the fact that it claims 'disputed' shows that this map was created after the claims. It comes from a Soviet Azerbaijan source and by now we all know about Hewsen's warnings on using such obscure material. In fact, the map is supposed to represent the Azerbaijani claims; disputed means both claims merged. If that map indeed represents the Azerbaijani claims, everything disputed would be in an Azerbaijani map... part of Azerbaijan. On the other side, everything claimed by Armenians would be part of Armenia in a map prepared by the Armenians and not marked as disputed. The word disputed would only be used by the third party presenting the claims made by at least two parties for the same land. The fact that the words are used and there are buffer territories shows and exposes this map as being an irredentist one.
In fact, the official claims of Azerbaijan, as shown above, included territories now part of Turkey... these are not brought up now because of the good relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan. Instead we have another creation replacing the other one which dismisses entirely the claims Azerbaijan had. - Fedayee (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The map is from 1920. It says on it that it was published by Azerbaijan republic, not Azerbaijan SSR. Muslim people of Kars wanted to join Azerbaijan, and so wanted even Muslims of North Caucasus. That does not mean that Azerbaijan officially claimed those lands. Armenia on the other hand wanted the territories from Black to Caspian sea, and Hewsen's map of 1920 Armenia is not accurate. Armenia never had control over Nakhichevan, and even Richard Hovanissian admits that. So what's wrong with inclusion of the map representing the official claims of Azerbaijan, especially considering that we have a similar one included for Armenia? Grandmaster12:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
At least you've stopped the canard about it being the 'official map'. A 'map representing the official claims' is much better. Yes, it's semantics. Yes, it matters. --Golbez (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
From the wording in the NYT article, it seems clear that Azerbaijan did officially claim those lands: the "republic declares, in an elaborate statement prepared by its delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, that its natural boundaries extend all the way across the Caucasus to Batum on the Black Sea." Meowy20:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
They did claim Batumi. And Igdir, and Kars, and Ardahan, and Artvin, and a lot more besides. Meowy22:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
No they did not claim it on any map, document or statement. Please kindly provide an official reference by an ADR official to prove otherwise. Also, the ADR map is official, not official claims, which is POV. It was official, because it was released officially, because it was presented at the Peace Conference in Paris, because ADR was de facto recognized, and because the majority population of those contiguous to the rest of Azerbaijan lands were Muslims who wanted to be with/in ADR. --Goldorack (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an inability to read what been said above? The map is a work of fiction. I have already supplied Golbez with a map that is based on the ADR map presented at the Paris Peace Conference, and it is not at all similar to the map you falsely claim is "official". It is not "official" and it does not represent the "official claims". Meowy15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
the map is the official map of ADR as it was presented at the Paris Peace Conference in 1920 (there is also a copy of a map presented in 1919, when the peace talks began, in French . The fact that it also includes shaded territories on which Azerbaijanis were majority, is normal for a post-war post-colonization peace conference in Paris where new borders are being drawn and decided upon - the map was presented before the de facto and de jure recognition, and as we know, ADR was de facto recognized by the League of Nations in January 1920, one week before Armenia, in the non-shaded borders. So the map is official both as 1) denoting the territories that ADR considered its own and got de facto recognition for from the League of Nations (and de jure from several individual states), and as 2) denoting lands that ADR claimed that should be it's own, or at least, for educational purposes to show former Russian empire lands where it had legitimate claims due to majority of population. The map should stay in the box, but of course we can change the wording to make it more precise. --Goldorack (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The image page itself says that it is a creation based on four different maps. You can say it's based on an official map, but stop calling it a scan of the actual official map. --Golbez (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
did I ever call it a "scan of an actual official map"? I never said so. All I said is that it is an official map, that can be used in Misplaced Pages, albeit we can change the caption or its legend to give more precise information (which I also proposed, supported, and never opposed - just for the record). Also, who said it is a creation based on four different maps? Here's the translated into English map that was originally done in Russian in 1920, on which it is based and , the 4-5 sources listed in the map above are RS sources that have/use the same map in their books. --Goldorack (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The current map is grossly inaccurate and should be removed until a factually accurate one has been created. Serouj (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The map has a source. It is based on 4 reliable sources. It cannot be removed, as it represents the official position of ADR. Also, Golbez, if I ask the creator to make it on the basis of just one map, the official one, will it be acceptable to you? Grandmaster04:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The map is ridiculous to say the least. The Syunik region was completely under Armenian control as was the area of Vayots Dzor and teh area around Lake Sevan. The map shown on the Misplaced Pages page should not be that of the ADR's "official position" but what was factually accurate at the time. Serouj (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The map in the article about Armenia shows Nakhichevan as part of it, while DRA never had a control over the region. Obviously, it represents the official position of DRA, and not reality. If it is Ok for the article about DRA to demonstrate the official position of the country, why is it not Ok here? Grandmaster06:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case, then both should be removed. The issue of the Armenian map should be raised in the DRA article. Serouj (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is a more accurate map of both, showing the areas in dispute that were partially controlled by Armenia. File:DRGMap.pngA more accurate map of ADR and DRA. Serouj (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Serouj, we already have a discussion over the irrendentist maps by blogger Andrew Andersen. What I am questioning though is if you're opposed to showing maps on DRA and ADR page, why are you removing the map on ADR page, while reinstating the irrendentist unrecognized map on DRA page? Atabəy (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I've removed them both. We should use the map I cited above as a basis for both country's maps. For the Armenia map, particular attention needs to be paid to Nakhichevan which was under de facto Azeri control. For the Azeri map, Syunik, Vayots Dzor, and Lake Sevan region need to be taken care to show that they were under Armenian control. Serouj (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It is good that both maps are removed. They were subject to criticism: The question is now what to use instead? I think we need to create a new map which would show territories claimed by both countries. Grandmaster19:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we should distinguish between territories that are "claimed" and territories that were under "control" by the respective parties. Azerbaijan may claim all of Armenia; and Armenia may claim all of Azerbaijan. I don't know how useful it would be to include such maps; if they are included, then they should take second place to maps that shows the territories under actual control by each. Serouj (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
In September 2008 I visited Azerbaijan, when I was in Gabala I visited the regional history museum, about Azerbaijani History, they had interesting things about Caucasian Albania and also about Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, I took a photo of the map of ADR there, see the photo to the right. I hope this can be of any use. RetlawSnellac (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I already provided Golbez with a scan of that map. Or, rather, I provided him with a url to a scan of the map - whether he downloaded it or not I don't know. His "oohh neat" comment suggests he didn't. Meowy18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If you mean the ones you put on Rapidshare, I got those, though they aren't identical to this one. The "ooh, neat" was more like "You got an actual photo of it from an actual museum, neat. And it's kind of pretty, too." --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
But you wrote "this is a good example of what the ADR claimed" - when actually it is not, and the whole point of the discussion here is that it is not accurate in showing the ADR territorial claims (the map in that museum being essentially the same as the one posted earlier in this discussion ). Meowy21:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
... but ... if the map - which is in a museum and appears to be vintage - is not showing the ADR's claims, then what IS it showing? --Golbez (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Good question. This map is a forgery. Note the 1920. you're telling me the makers of this map in 1920 predicted that the borders they claim to represent ADR wont last beyond 1920? The presence of that date proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the map is of a later creation. This later revision might have something to do with the fact that the actual borders claimed by ADR (extending to the Black Sea) also included parts of modern Turkey which today is the closest ally of Azerbaijan.--Ευπάτωρ02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You can clearly see the borders of DRA and ADR in the Wilsonian map. The map of ADR is also presented in that mussuem photo and many other sources presented already and yet we see no source for the so called Armenian version of Azerbaijan in 1920, which is supposed to fantasticly expands from the Black Sea to Caspian Sea in hope to turn ADR into a joke, much like the Greater Armenia map. Neftchi (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If you had bothered to read earlier posts you would have seen that the Black Sea to Caspain Sea claims of Azerbaijan were clearly detailed in that 1919 NY Times article, quote "The young republic declares, in an elaborate statement prepared by its delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, that its natural boundaries extend all the way across the Caucasus to Batum on the Black Sea". The joke is Atabey attempting to make out that his tiny thumbnail maps were the same maps used by that delegation at the Paris conference! Meowy21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The NY Times article seems to be much like this one in which MSNBC claims Azerbaijan to be a central asian republic. So why shouldn't we stick at this one also, considering for a journalist collecting information about a topic now is billion time easier than it would be in 1918... Zitterbewegung04:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
??? You think a 2009 TV news report "seems to be much like" a 1919 newspaper article? What are you on about? What are you on? Meowy 16:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC
In one line comment you used 6 question marks. I can imagine you shouting at your pc's screen. If you calm down and read the comment once again, you will have the answer for your question(s). Also, most probably according to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 you must not remove the map unless there is a consensus here. I am out of this discussion. Zitterbewegung17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You were never in this discussion! Placing strange, off-topic messages does not count towards being in a discussion. You cannot insert the map here or anywhere until you disprove the evidence that the map is a fake. Meowy01:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It is funny that the article Democratic Republic of Armenia doesn't have any map showing its borders. Seems such map would overlap with the one that you are removing from this article. By the way, the official map issued by the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic can be found in The Azerbaijani Turks: power and identity under Russian rule By Audrey L. Altstadt ISBN0-8179-9182-4 p.88. It is precisely the map which you removed from the article. Zitterbewegung02:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Look at the borders of DRA and ADR in the Wilsonian map and its worth mentioning that the ADR map is provided by several sources. The dubious statement that ADR claimed borders from Caspian Sea to Black Sea is mixed with the nationalist-Armenian dream of Greater Armenia.Neftchi (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The farcical map that you and other users have been incessantly trying to insert by citing a mish-mashing of partisan sources is naturally unacceptable. The map perhaps can be moved below to show what Azerbaijan's territorial claims were (although it has carefully omitted Batum and Kars as well) but even then, it has its own share of problems: for some reason the Azerbaijani orthography is being used in areas which never were a part of Azerbaijan to begin with (Iravan, instead of Yerevan; Lake Gokcha, for Lake Sevan; Gorus, for Goris, etc.)
The most wisest move would have been to have used Robert Hewsen's map found in Armenia: A Historical Atlas (found here , a source which is heavily used throughout English Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, users such as Grandmaster have long practiced an absurd game of double standards: Robert Hewsen is only correct when he speaks about ancient history; when it comes to modern history, he's an Armenian nationalist and cannot be trusted. Third party opinion might be useful to finally put this issue to rest. In the meantime, that fake map of Azerbaijan should not be added again.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone just added it back without a summary; I deleted it because I figure it's still disputed. I apologize for not having worked on a map, but I'm just one person. Is there still a dispute about the map? --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That was a transwiki move, and I also reverted on WP:fr. This map is a PoV forgery, as has been explained here. Sardur (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That map completely ignores the political situation of the time, and simply shows what Azerbaijanis claimed. You are assuming that Azerbaijan controlled all of the regions it claimed. That map is simply a proposal for the Azerbaijani state, issued by the government of Azerbaijan. Using this map is like Armenians using Wilsonian Armenia (simple because Armenians claimed it). At least my map for the democratic republic of armenia shows more than simply what Armenia claimed. It shows the regions that were under Armenian control, and the regions under Azerbaijani control. Please be objective. Kentronhayastan (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The map is backed by sources, you cannot remove it. Unlike the map of Armenia, which is based on original research, it is now alloed. Neftchi (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kentronhayastan, check the maps at Democratic Republic of Armenia page which show the claimed not recognized territory of DRA. There is no verifiable record that DRA was in control of claimed territories, whilst Azerbaijan most definitely was, as British recognized the ADR authority over Karabakh, Nakhchivan and other areas claimed by Armenians.Atabəy (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
You would think that after so much discussion, all of which appears to have been ignored by those wishing fake maps of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic to be placed in the article, someone would have had the initiative to obtain a copy of the only real map that shows Azerbaijan's territorial claims, that map being the map Azerbaijan submitted to the Paris Peace Conference. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I restored the map, as there appears to be one on DRA page. If the one there exists, there is no reason why this one should be removed. Atabəy (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
THe difference is that the maps in the DRA article are based on reality, and even include an actual period map (http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Armenia_1919.jpg). The same cannot be said for the maps on this article. If you are genuinely interested in getting a real map for this article, why don't you try to obtain a scan of the equivalent Azerbaijani Paris Peace Conference map? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Why in the text it's written, that Azerbaijan Democratic Republic had 2,000,000 population, and in the infobox is written, that Azerbaijan Democratic Republic had 4 million population.Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The map on Democratic Republic of Armenia doesn't pretend that Armenians controlled all of what it claimed. It attributes the territories Azerbaijan claimed and controlled to Azerbaijan. However, the Azerbaijani map doesn't. The Azerbaijani map pretends that all of what the "D.R. Azerbaijan" claimed was safely under Azerbaijani control. Please be fair. Remember, Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijan governments were recognized, but the borders we're still being discussed and warred over when the Soviet Union absorbed the South Caucasus. For this reason, we mustn't be biased and portray maps that fancy our political agenda, but rather, portray the political/territorial situation of the time. Please understand this.Kentronhayastan (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Kentronhayastan, the map attributed to Democratic Republic of Armenia claims borders of Armenia (indicated in yellow) in the same exact way as Azerbaijan Democratic Republic map claims the borders of Azerbaijan (indicated in red). There is no difference in interpretation, hence either both maps should be present or both maps should be removed from the relevant pages. Since the maps exists on DRA page, I do not see the reason for your removal from ADR page. Atabəy (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
And by the way, there is a neutral map of Sevres treaty, which clearly shows the territory of Azerbaijan and which is closer to Azerbaijani-claimed map rather than Armenian-claimed one. You may also check the famous Wilsonian map which indicates extents of Azerbaijan over all territories it claimed. Moreover, Armenian Republic had no control of Karabakh, Nakhchivan and half of Erivan governorate, in fact current Armenian capital, Irevan was grated to Armenian Republic based on the decision of Azerbaijani government on May 29, 1918, to establish a capital. Atabəy (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Adil Khan Ziatkhan
In the section about Persia , the name of the representative of Azerbaijan to the Iran is given as "Adil Khan Ziatkhan" . He is one of the members of Javad khan Ziyad oghlu Qajar family (the khan of Ganja khanate)and his name should be written as Adil Khan Ziyad khan (or Ziyadkhanouv) with a link to Javad Khan clan . The family members of Javad Khan has very good image in Iran and choosing him was a positive sign to Iran . After the Russian recapture of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic , Iran did anything to save Adil Khan and Ismail khan from soviet execution and saved Adil khan , but Ismail khan (brother of Adil khan who was former member of Russian parliament ) has been executed by Soviets .Adil Khan remained in Iran .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Unrelaible?
Vacio, first of all, explain your deletion of two sources. Secondly, if you are so concerned about reliablity of sources, you can:
express your concern here instead of removing the square mileage of the territory of ADR;
start by removing unreliable sources in Democratic Republic of Armenia. Sources 3 and 4 in that article are quite attractive.
Are you sure? We rely on the United States Government for information on that country's area and population, why should this be any different, especially when discussing a country that's been extinct for 90 years?
Because: 1) ADR had no internationally recognized borders, 2) it had territorial disputes with two of its neighbors. 3) Unlike US, it is a historical state, so I think we should use information from historians without bias. --vacio16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
NovaSkola, before making a revert, please read WP:NEWSORG which states: For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. A news agency can not be a reliable source for such a disputable claim like the area of a historical state with no de jure borders, Not to speak about that it has to be from a neutral, third party source. --vacio18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Vacio, Aydin Balayev is not Azeri Press Agency but is a renown Soviet historian, who is an expert on particular issue. His studies come from Soviet archives. The APA source just corroborates Balayev source. Moreover, you are not correct when stating ADR had no internationally recognized borders. Unlike Democratic Republic of Armenia, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was recognized de-facto in January 1920 by the Paris Peace Conference. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Vacio, actually it was you who claims in my page sources are "partisan" just due historian is Azerbaijani. APA is world known news agency and information is not biased and fake like ones you get in panarmenian.com, which once claimed absolutely hilarious and funny stuff that some users are in topics are hackers, even know it was me and there was no evidence of hacking or w/ever hurdy-gurdy they are claiming.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I replaced the picture of 1920 to the more appropriate for this period picture (army of Azerbaijan in 1918). In this section we don't describe the events of 1920. And the picture of the destroyed part of the city in 1920 is not related to the section about "Establishment". Please don't revert and don't try to start edit war. First try to reach consensus. --Interfase (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Source regarding the red flag with white crescent
Can anyone provide a source to back the claim up that the initial ADR flag, represented this flag? It was added on all Misplaced Pages languages (incl. here on this article) by a certain user not too long ago, but he has not cited/added any source that confirm that this was in fact the first ADR flag. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It's insertion also contradicts the current content of the various articles it had been placed in, so I think it should not remain in this article for much longer without a source to back it up. I would delete it from the article and place it here instead. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
First flag of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (till November 9, 1918)
And its back , with a source. But the source as currently presented doesn't seem sufficient. The page number is unclear (is the C 188 in Cyrillic referring to the page number), and if the source really is a record of legislation passed (as its title suggests), then that particular bit of legislation would have a proper record or reference number (such as a date, or citation number). The claim being made for this flag goes against other sources, so strong sourcing is needed to back up the claim, stronger than what is currently presented (and which is being presented without any talk page engagement or even an edit summary). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
This which is very dubious as a RS, but which is probably accurate for this piece of content, says that the flag in question is actually the Ottoman flag, flown by combined Ottoman and ethnic Tatar (Azeri) forces as part of the Caucasian Islamic army during WW1. From page 11: "...on June 21, 1918 the government established the national flag of the Azerbaijan Republic a flag of the Ottoman Empire" ... "The acceptance of the Turkish flag by Azerbaijan, being at the stage of state formation then, can be explained by a difficult historical, political and military situation created in Ganja during that period." Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, the "C" means "page" (abbreviation of "страница" - stranitsa; page).
- I concur that better sources are really needed. I mean, this would be a pretty big deal if the ADR basically accepted an Ottoman flag for several months, to put it euphemistically. One would expect at least numerous reliable sources to be backing this up, other than literally only Azerbaijan-published sources, wouldn't they? And that on top of your already mentioned concerns. I made a brief search, and I couldn't find anything myself about this. With respect to English-language sources, so far only that confirmed non-RS PDF file seems to be backing up the claim, which is simply and obviously not enough. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Map of Azerbaijan proposed at the Paris Peace Conference is NOT the same as the real territories of the country. Check the maps proposed at the Paris Peace Conference by Armenia and Georgia.
Use a real map.
~~
Conventional and native names
It would be good if there could be a consensus on what the name of the country was. This is a fairly basic fact that should not be constantly changing in the article over the years. There have been numerous changes, almost always without an edit summary, citation, or talk page discussion. Maybe someone knowledgeable could help explain the various terms, and we could make a decsion about how best to present them in the lead sentence and infobox?
There are two English terms used, "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic", and "People's Republic of Azerbaijan". What is the difference? There are two Roman-script terms that correspond to those, Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası and Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti, but previously the article has sometimes used them interchangeably. Finally there are at least two Perso-Arabic script representations.
I looked through the article's history so I could get a sense of what has happened in the past, and what has been stable. Unfortunately it didn't really clarify much for me, and it's kind of long so I collapsed it, but you can read it if you like:
Extended content
The infobox has parameters "conventional_long_name" and "native_name". These were first added to the article back in November 2006: , as "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic" and Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası, as had been previously above the infobox. However, the lead sentence at the time used Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti as the translation of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. There was no explanation as to the discrepancy.
The "native_name" was changed two months later to Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti, still with "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic", matching the lead sentence: . It stayed this way for a couple of years, until April 2009, when it was changed here: , to "conventional_long_name = People's Republic of Azerbaijan / Azerbaijan Democratic Republic" and "native_name = Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti / Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikasi". The lead sentence remained unchanged, giving two contradicting translations. This situation was stable for about five years.
In September 2014: the lead sentence was changed from Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti to اظریجن خلق جومحریت, and then to آذربایجان خلق جمهوریتی, and the "native_name" changed to اظریجن خلق جومحریت ظریجن دێمکرتک رێسپوبلکس and then آذربایجان خلق رسپوبلیکاسی آذربایجان خلق جمهوریتی. In December 2014, the "native_name" was removed: , and then the lead sentence was changed to Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası by Nicat49.
In March 2015, another now-blocked editor removed "People's Republic of Azerbaijan" from the "conventional_long_name", and added Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası as the "native_name": . In December 2015, LouisAragon added آذربایجان جومهوریتی to "native_name" and the lead sentence: .
There were more changes in February 2016, ending with the "native_name" as "Azərbaycan Xalq CümhuriyyətiAzərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası آذربایجان جومهوریتی", and the lead sentence being "Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası - آذربایجان دمکراتیک جومهوریتی}}) also known as Azerbaijan People's Republic' (Template:Lang-az.
In May 2017, Starwarsalp removed the Perso-Arabic script: . There were more changes in July: , , leaving "native_name" as آذربایجان خلق جومهوریتی Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası. This was relatively stable until November 2019.
In the past week or so, Aqşin Abbaslı has twice changed "native_name" to آذربایجان خلق جومهوریتی Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti: , , again without any explanation.
Vif12vf, I saw that you've reverted the edit that Aqşin Abbaslı made: . I wonder if you could take a moment to describe what you think is the problem with the edit? Aqşin Abbaslı keeps repeating the same edit - and various other editors keep reverting it - so it would be good if someone could help explain the reason why it keeps being reverted. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Well there are two reasons. Firstly, the native name used in the infobox needs to match the one used in the lede of the article and it is important to standardize the romanization to a single form, which is likelly what the editor that originally added this had in mind. Secondly, the category for historical turkic states usually do not cover republic or any other countries whose excistence are primarily during the 1900's. There may be several reasons for this, such as increased independent identities and the fact that some historians believe that the 1900s as a whole are too recent to be considered history. Some also consider the azeris to be a "middle product" between turks and persians which, if true, would mean that the azeris might not be 100% turkic, though this is still debated. Regardless of my reasons though, as several established editors have reverted these edits, they might require concensus on this page before being reinstated, preferably with the two cases separate! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Vif12vf, thanks for the explanation. I have a couple of questions. I believe that "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic" is the most common name in English, so it's correct that it should be the title of the article, and I agree that it should be matched in the infobox as the "conventional long name". The first sentence also gives an alternative name, "Azerbaijan People's Republic". It's not entirely clear to me whether one or the other (or both), and in which script(s), should be considered the "native name". It would be nice if there was some explanation of this in the article, which there is not. I'm not sure what you mean by "standardize the romanization to a single form" - there are two different names, and three different scripts... The editor who originally added it didn't add a perso-arabic script version; that was not added until a flurry of changes about eight years later. What I do see is that آذربایجان خلق جومهوریتی currently in the infobox transliterates to Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti. So it seems to me that Aqşin Abbaslı's edit changing the text below it to reflect that is not unreasonable, though not necessarily the best solution. Finding what reliable sources say about it would be ideal.
About the category, I don't see that Aqşin Abbaslı has made any edits about that, and yes, that would be a separate issue. I'd like to address here the ongoing disputes and repeated changes about which name(s) to use, and the lack of consensus about it. --IamNotU (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
on the historicity of name of Azerbaijan
I removed some content which claimed that the lands north of Aras river historically were not called Azerbaijan and this naming was done for pure political reasons. The first two references didn't imply the claim and the latter three references were from anti-Azerbaijani historians.
Instead, I provided references from original and prestigious books on medieval history of middle east: Tarikh Ar Rusul Wal Mulook Tarikh E Tabari and Evliya Çelebi seyahatnamesi.
The links are provided to the original books in archive.org.
The first reference is from the renowned medieval historian Al-Tabari, is in Arabic and is written in 10th century during the Abbasid Caliphate. In the referenced page it is clearly mentioned that Derbent(in modern-day republic of Dagestan, Russia) is in Azerbaijan.
The second Reference is written by eminent ottoman traveler Evliya Çelebi in 17th century and is in Ottoman Turkish. In the referenced pages it is mentioned several times that Karabagh is a part of Azerbaijan.
These original material show without a doubt that the lands beyond the Aras were called Azerbaijan for centuries before the establishment of ADR and debunks the claims of aforementioned historians. --Farzin.az (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
All WP:RS references, which you tried to remove, are modern academic sources published by well-known publishers. Labeling them as "anti-Azerbaijani historians" won't get you far on Misplaced Pages. Your Tabari and Celebi sources on the other hand are severely outdated primary sources, and are not even verifiable to the general audience as they're written in Arabic and Ottoman Turkish, respectively. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Prior to the ADR established in 1918, what sovereign, independent state used the word Azerbaijan in its name? Yes, there was the region in northwestern Iran, but in that region there didn't exist a country called Azerbaijan. There was no "Azerbaijan Khanate", there was the Tabriz Khanate, the Urmia Khanate, the Ardabil Khanate, etc. but none of those states ever coalesced to form a united Azerbaijan Khanate. And the Shirvanshahs, the dynasty that ruled the region for centuries, from the Abbasids (800s) to the Safavids (1500s), never called the land they were ruling Azerbaijan, instead, they called it Shirvan. My point is that the last state to use the name Azerbaijan was the province Adurbadagan in the Sasanian Empire in Late Antiquity. Oghuz Turks didn't begin settling the region until the 1000s with the arrival of the Seljuks, so prior to the Turkic invasions of the 11th century, the region was inhabited by Arabs and Iranians. And even after the Seljuk conquest of 1066 and the ensuing Turkification of the region, no Turkic country called itself Azerbaijan, instead, the name Azerbaijan was used for historical purposes until 1918. So how am I wrong to say that no Azerbaijani-speaking state with Azerbaijan in its name existed from 1066 until 1918? Epitome of Creativity (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic is the first secular Democratic Republic in the Islamic world (and the Turkic world). Many credible sources confirm that. Whereas there's not enough evidence for the existence of the so-called Crimean Tratar Republic and the other. And even if there is, they are still irrelevant here because they didn't even last for 3 weeks. ChillManChill (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
And moreover, the Crimean People's Republic was an constituent republic of the Russian Democratic Federative Republic that
just wanted much more autonomy. They never really declared independence in the first place. ChillManChill (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
You have provided no reliable sources for your assertion (no, saying "many credible sources" does not count), and merely have edit-warred despite receiving a warning about your behavior (and then accusing me of edit-warring for reverting your edit until the Talk discussion plays itself out. You can't decide arbitrarily that if you post something on the Talk page and no one responds in 6 days that you're free to make whatever POV edits you wish. I know that you are new to Misplaced Pages, but you should take the rules (and the warnings that you receive) seriously.
Leaving that aside, let's talk about your claim itself. The issue of whether the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic ("ADR") was the first (or second, or third) secular democratic state in the Muslim and Turkic world has been discussed on this articke and its Talk page for at least 13 years. There was a long Talk page discussion in 2008 (long since archived) in which, in my opinion, your view that the ADR was the first had the strongest argument and the most reliable sources backing it up. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic/Archive_1#First_or_second
However, the editing community went on to accept the edit that the ADR was the second such state, and later that it was only the third. I am pinging @Grandmaster:, who was the main proponent of the "first state" view in tbe 2008 discussion and provided reliable sources for his position that are still cited in the article (and who is still an active editor), to see if he remembers how many years ago the article came to say that the ADR was the second, and then the third, secular democratic Muslim and Turkic state. The article has provided that the ADR was the "third" such state since at least 2017, and had declared thst it was the "second" such state for several years before that.
Given that among the objections to accepting the other claimants to being the first such state was that their attempts were thwarted within a few weeks, I was thinking of suggesting that we end the controversy by modifying the ADR's description as the first *successful* such state, since the ADR managed to exist for a couple of years before the Soviet Union did to it the same thing that it previously had done to the prior nascent states. However, I see that Grandmaster argued against such compromise in 2008, and I would like to hear from him on the matter. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Since I also participated in the 2008 discussion, I would like to add my two cents. At the time, Grandmaster and I insisted that in the case of the Crimean People's Republic, one could not speak of a state as the Crimean Kurultay only claimed to represent the Muslim population of Crimea (see the archived discussions for sources). This falls short of the definition of a state, which ought to be able to effectively control its own territory (and Muslims formed only a third of Crimea's population at the time). The democratic nature of the Kurultay is not being questioned but no one has been able to provide any proof as to the Crimean People's Republic being in fact a state. The same goes for Idel-Ural, which declared itself merely an autonomous entity within the Russian Federation (here is the scan of the proclamation), which once again does not qualify it as a state. Azerbaijan is thus the only Muslim-majority establishment from 1918 that can claim statehood as the first democracy. Parishan (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. It does sound like the article never should have stated that the ADR was the second or third secular democratic republic in the Muslim and Turkic world. Do you know why the article was later edited in such manner, and why such edits stayed in place for so many years? The sources cited in the article point to ADR having been the first such state, but the article was edited to say "second" and later "third" such state without adding any new sources, so I thought that there may have been some later discussion. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, back then there was a discussion about ADR being or not being first republic in Muslim world. Some editors referred to other short-lived republics in Russia that also declared independence around that time. But neither of those were successful states, and none of them exist as independent states now. I cited in that discussion multiple academic sources to support the fact that ADR was the first republic in Muslim world. We agreed to add the word "successful" as a compromise, but no academic sources were cited in support of other states being first in Muslim world. Indeed, as noted by Parishan, Crimean People's Republic only represented Crimean Tatar people, and not the entire population of the region. So no other country can claim being first republic in Muslim world in terms of a functioning state. Grandmaster17:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@Parishan: and @Grandmaster:, thank you for your input. What would you suggest that we do with the initial sentence of the article to prevent claims that earlier, short-lived Islamic or Turkic "states" were both secular and democratic? Would adding "successful," as Grandmaster mentioned had been adopted as a compromise (and, I assume, subsequently shelved when the article was edited to change the ADR to "second" and, later, "third"), be acceptable to you?
From the arguments provided by Parishan and Grandmaster, it seems to me that adding "successful" and keeping it as the "first state" would solve the problem. — CuriousGolden(T·C)05:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I think adding "successful" would work as a compromise, if there's still an argument about which state was the first Muslim republic. But is there still an argument about that, or just some random person changing "first" to "second" or "third" and citing no sources in support of that claim? Grandmaster17:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The article appears to have said "third" for several years, and prior to that "second" for several more, prior to the recent edit that changed it to "first," so I assume that the controversy is still alive and that it isn't merely a random person changing it to "second" or "third" once in a while. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Given that the "first," "second" or "third" controversy still rages on Misplaced Pages, and that there appears to be a consensus in this discussion to put the issue to bed by adding "successful" to the description of the ADR (among editors participating in the discussion, four support the compromise (which, for the record, is not inconsistent with the view that the ADR also was the first secular Muslim republic (whether successful or not), but merely avoids controversy by asding "successful" and making it an incontrovertible statement), I will edit the article by adding the word "successful." This should forestall attempts from editors to change the designation to "second" or "third." Thank you all for participating in this discussion. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the sentence should just stay as it is. As Parishan already stated, The Crimean people's republic's muslim population at the time (and even now) was a minority and the Idel-Ural republic merely declared itself an autonomous state, not an independent republic. ChillManChill (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
It is unclear what the official name of the country was. The Azerbaijani government translates the name as the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic here https://meclis.gov.az/news-az.php?id=14&lang=en, the phrase 'Azərbaycan Xalq' is generaly translated as the 'Azerbaijani people' meaning it would be the Azerbaijani People's Republic but it seems that the name could be more accurately translated as the Republic of the People of Azerbaijan or the Republic of the Azerbaijani Nation. What are all of our thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappasi (talk • contribs)
As I understand, the official names in Azerbaijani and French/English languages were different. While Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti indeed literally translates as People's Republic, the name in other languages was Democratic Republic. I cannot say why it was decided to do like that, maybe because democracy means "rule of people", and it was translated into Azerbaijani like "people's republic". Grandmaster14:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Nope, xalq cumhuriyyeti means people's republic, same in Turkish. Also "Azərbaycan Xalq" isn't "Azerbaijani people", it is gramatically incorrect. Beshogur (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Intro rewriting
Hello
My proposal would be as follows:
The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (abbreviated as ADR; Azerbaijani: آذربایجان خلق جومهوریتی, romanized: Azərbaycan Demokratik Cümhuriyyəti), was a short-lived republic in the South Caucasus. It was founded by the Azerbaijani National Council in Tiflis on 28 May 1918 after the collapse of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic. Its established borders were with Russia to the north, the Democratic Republic of Georgia to the north-west, the Republic of Armenia to the west, and Iran to the south. It had a population of around 3 million. As Baku was under Bolshevik control, Ganja acted as the temporary capital of the ADR.
The name of "Azerbaijan" was adopted by the leading Musavat party to foment Turkic nationalism in Iran. Prior to the establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918, it was exclusively used to identify the adjacent region of contemporary northwestern Iran.
Under the ADR, a government system was developed in which a Parliament elected on the basis of universal, free, and proportionate representation was the supreme organ of state authority; the Council of Ministers was held responsible before it. Fatali Khan Khoyski became its first prime minister. Besides the Musavat majority, Ahrar, Ittihad, Muslim Social Democrats as well as representatives of Armenian (21 out of 120 seats), Russian, Polish, and Jewish minorities gained seats in the parliament. Many members supported Pan-Islamist and Pan-Turkist ideas.
Among the important accomplishments of the Parliament was the extension of suffrage to women, making Azerbaijan one of the first countries in the world, and the first majority-Muslim nation, to grant women equal political rights with men. The ADR was also the second successful secular, democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds after the Crimean People's Republic. The contemporary Republic of Azerbaijan regards itself as the legal successor to the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan rather than to the Azerbaijani SSR.
Including a university is not significant enough for a country. Every country has its universities. Also, saying that is was the "first successful country etc." is overly positive I think. My proposal for just a republic would be much more fitting and NPOV . --217.149.166.11 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Years later, some editors ignored that consensus and started claiming that the ADR was only the second or third such republic. In March 2021, a discussion took place on the Talk page in which the consensus was to describe the ADR as the first *successful* attempt at establishing a secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds. The word "successful" was added as a compromise because of the claim by some editors that the Crimean People's Republic, whose government did not rule over the entire population of Crimea (only over the Muslim citizens) and which lasted only about a month, was a secular democratic republic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic#First_or_third? I agree with the compromise that was achieved through consensus.
I think it is not a good lead, so I oppose. The name of Azerbaijan was certainly used to refer to both sides of Araks (see for example this), and it was not second successful attempt, as was discussed before. Grandmaster10:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the current one is not good either. You do not begin a page with "country was the first successful bla bla bla". This is not an advertisement. And Azerbaijan was certainly not used *by Turks* for anything north of the Aras before the Russians came along.217.149.166.11 (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I do not believe that calling the ADR the "first successful secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds" can be described as "an advertisement." The word "successful" was selected not to praise the ADR, but to differentiate it from earlier, much shorter-lived efforts to establish secular republics in the Turkic and Muslim worlds. (Besides, how could one "advertise" for a government that fell a century ago?) And I agree with Grandmaster's comments overall. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
You do not seem to be familiar with Azerbaijani irredentism nowadays. The Azerbaijani state even views itself as the legal successor of the DR to justify its territorial claims against Armenia. Secondly, you just do not put the successful part in the first sentence, that is ridiculous. Should the USA article be "The United States is the first successful country with liberty and gun rights enshrined in its constitution"?? Also the ADR was short lived itself. We should not act as if it was in power from 100 years--217.149.166.11 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, I'd like for some one else to reply to me besides Grandmaster. They have accused me of cheating Misplaced Pages, and they try to undermine my suggestions on discussion pages. I do not appreciate it. @AuH2ORepublican: Can we please have some other opinions too? Thanks a bunch!217.149.166.11 (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I already pinged the editors who participated in the prior discussion. If you wish to invite every editor who has edited the article in the past, say, six months, you are free to do so, although please note that most of them edited sections of the article unrelated to the issues that you brought up. I also would like to point out that you do not get to exclude Grandmaster from the discussion, nor the other, unnamed editors whom you claim "accuse of cheating Misplaced Pages." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I also would like to point out that Grandmaster accusing me of socks and working against me in every discussion I open is not fair. Especially you as an administrator or something should not allow things like that. That is strategic bullying.217.149.166.11 (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
At least 3 different users objected to your proposed edit. You have not addressed any of their concerns, and yet tried to introduce your version. That is not how WP:CONSENSUS works. Grandmaster15:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I can't figure out what's exactly the disagreement over this recent edit? It isn't the initial one which was disagreed upon I believe, and for this one, your only disagreement seems to be "no consensus". That isn't a valid disagrement reason, and just seems gaming the rules to stop new edits being introduced. If you'd be kind enough to explain in a couple words what exactly you disagree with this recent edit, it would be nice. Others are also free to join. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
To reach consensus for what? If it's for your proposed new introduction, you won't count with my support. My vote is for the initial sentence in the article to state that the ADR "was the first successful secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds." I also vote against describing the ADR as "short-lived," as such term is not precise and, in the context of the 1918-1920 period in the region, quite misleading. The ADR did not collapse after two years because the government no longer was supported by its citizens, or even because of an internal coup by a willful minority faction within its population; the ADR was invaded by the Soviet Union, which swallowed it up just as it did to so many other countries in Europe and Asia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, I "stopped responding" to the prior discussion because I gave my opinion on your proposal and saw no need to comment once you turned the discussion into a venue fir lobbing personal attacks against other editors just because they disagreed with you. Please try to keep things civil; getting suspended for personal attacks or edit-warring is not an effective strategy for obtaining a consensus. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Whoa, I just saw that your IP account was blocked for two months for continued edit-warring. My comment about how getting blocked for inappropriate behavior was not a good strategy for obtaining a consensus was a reference to the 48-hour block from a few days ago; certainly, getting yourself blocked for two *months* is an even less productive strategy. You probably won't be reading this, but in case that you do, let me advise you that reacting to your block with "I have plenty of IP addresses. Do you think this will stop me? :)--217.149.166.11 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)" is not a good strategy for obtaining a consensus, either, particularly if you return under a different name or IP account before the two months have expired and are discovered and banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry. You should wait two months and, when you return from your suspension, maybe you should try (i) discussing matters in a polite and civilized manner and (ii) providing reliable sources that actually support your claims. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Azerbaijani or Turkish ?
There is something to be known here. When the People's Republic of Azerbaijan was established, the official language was declared Turkish (Azerbaijan language). In 1930, the Turkish spoken in Azerbaijan was changed to the Azerbaijani language. I propose adding Turkish to my language section in parentheses. 37.26.53.164 (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
A few sources which shed some light on things:
"On 27 May 1918, the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (DRA) was declared with Ottoman military support. The rulers of the DRA refused to identify themselves as Tatar, which they rightly considered to be a Russian colonial definition. Instead, they defined the Turkic-speaking Muslim people of the southeast Caucasus as Turkic. In their native tongue they were Azerbaijani Turk or simply Turk, but with a broader meaning of the word. We understand the usage of this broader meaning from Russian texts of the same period where Tiurk or Tiurkskii (Turkic) was used. DRA officials also frequently used "Muslim" to identify the same group because the majority of the population still identified themselves by religion. Neighboring Iran did not welcome the DRA's adoption of the name of "Azerbaijan" for the country because it could also refer to Iranian Azerbaijan and implied a territorial claim. That is why the authorities in Baku also used these definitions with the adjective of "Transcaucasian" (Russian: Zakavkazskii)." -- Harun Yilmaz (2013) The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s. Iranian Studies. p. 514
"In April 1920, when the Red Army entered Baku, the Bolsheviks followed the designation of the previous nationalist government and accepted Turk in the native tongue and Tiurk in Russian as the name for the titular nation. Azerbaijan was kept as the name of the territory and the republic. What were the consecutive developments that induced the Bolsheviks to replace this Turkic definition by an Azerbaijani definition seventeen years later?" -- idem, p. 515
"A possible solution would have been to remove the ethno-linguistic term Turk and Turkicness from the definition of "Azerbaijani" identity. However, removing the Turkic element could turn the population into easy prey for the Iranian national identity that was being promoted by Tehran at the time. As the transformation of "Turkishness" in the 1930s into a national identity of a nation-state in Turkey produced an identity issue for the Azerbaijani Turkic population, the nation-building of Reza Shah in Iran also did so. " -- idem, p. 519
"The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14
"A group of Azerbaijani nationalist elites, led by M.A. Rasulzada, declared independence for the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) on 28 May 1918. After a century of Russian colonial rule, the emergent Azerbaijani nation established its first nation-state. Not only was it a new state but also it was a new nation. Because they previously had lacked a distinct national identity, the Azerbaijani Turks had been called “Caucasian Muslims” or “Tatars,” a common term used for the subject Muslim population in the Tsarist Russian empire (Мишиjeв, 1987, p. 159). The Azerbaijani identity and nation were new constructions of nationalists of the late 19th century, culminating in the establishment of the ADR. The life of the ADR was short, ending 2 years after its declaration as a result of the Soviet takeover in 1920. However, the emergent nation, deprived of its newly found state, did not cease to exist. Indeed, nation building has continued and has evolved in interaction with the Soviet nationalities policies and the establishment of the independent Republic of Azerbaijan in 1991." -- Ramin Ahmadoghlu. (2021). Secular nationalist revolution and the construction of the Azerbaijani identity, nation and state. Volume27, Issue 2
"In other words, the initial design for Azerbaijan was a multiethnic country uniting Transcaucasian Muslims (including “Transcaucasian Tatars,” or Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Ajarians, Tats, Talysh, Ingilois, and others) with significant Christian minorities (including Georgians, Armenians, and Russians). Within the context of this project, the category “Azerbaijani” did not yet have a narrow ethnic or linguistic connotation and an Azerbaijani nation was made possible by including not only Azerbaijani Turks and, for example, Talysh but also Georgian Ingilois and—more problematic, but still feasible—even Azerbaijani Armenians (as a religious minority). The republic’s 1918 declaration of independence began with a reference to the “peoples of Azerbaijan as the holders of sovereign rights.” In this regard, the young Azerbaijani political entity had the potential to be, and to some extent was, better suited to the incorporation of ethnic minorities than were the Georgian and Armenian nations." -- Artur Tsutsiev (2014). Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus. Yale University Press. p. 71
"They are ethnically close, and until 1937 the people of Azerbaijan were officially designated as Turkish. The term "Azeri" was imposed by Stalin's "ethnic engineers". -- Baryam Balci chapter: Turkey-Azerbaijan relations: from romanticism to realism". In: Alexander Agadjanian, Ansgar Jödicke, Evert van der Zweerde, eds. (2015). "Religion, Nation and Democracy in the South Caucasus". Routledge. p. 258
"Until 1937, Soviet publications and official documents referred to the titular nation of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic as Tiurk (Turkic) in Russian and Turk (Turkish and Turkic, as there are no separate words for these two concepts in Turkic tongues) in the local Turkic language. But as if a magic wand had touched the country in 1937, everyone began to define the titular nation as Azerbaijani. -- Harun Yilmaz (2013) The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s. Iranian Studies. p. 511
"In the 1770s, Turkic tribal groups from Kartli to Derbent were identified by, in particular, Gil’denshtedt (Puteshestvie po Kavkazu) using the overall category of Terekeme Tatars (as distinct from Kumyk Tatars). After the appearance of the term “Transcaucasia” in the 1830s the category “Transcaucasian Tatars” came gradually into use, generally for speakers of “Turkic-Azerbaijani languages” who populated the Russian provinces “beyond the Caucasus.” By the 1860s the qualification of the language of the Transcaucasian Tatars as a Turkic-Azerbaijani language, distinct from Kumyk, Nogai, or Crimean, was clearly being used as the basis for ethnic categorization. By the late nineteenth century “Transcaucasian Tatars” (sometimes called Azerbaijani Tatars as a designation for speakers of Tatar languages, i.e., Azerbaijanli-Turk) were still being distinguished from “Turks” (as a designation of speakers of Turkish or Osmanli-Turk). During the period of Azerbaijani independence (1918–1920), the first category evolved into simply “Turks,” which had been inherited by the early Soviet ethnic nomenclature (having in the process subsumed Osmanli Turks remaining within Soviet borders). Later, in 1921–1930, this category was slightly refined as “Azerbaijani Turks” (which also encompassed the Meskhetian Turkic-speaking population in Georgia) to match political realities. Finally, in 1939, it was transformed simply into “Azerbaijani,” a result that underscores not so much the linguistic distinction between the Anatolian (Osmanli) Turk and the Azeri Turk as the deterioration of Soviet-Turkish relations." -- Artur Tsutsiev (2014). Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus. Yale University Press. p. (note 150).
You emphasize too many places in your article, but my question was simple. There was no Azerbaijani language until 1930, it was referred to as Turkish. That's why the Azerbaijani language is written in the language section of the Azerbaijan Republic, which existed between 1918 and 1920? Kergid (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000
Ah, ok, so you were the IP? Well, the sources I posted basically agree with your assertion, I just added them to shed some more light on it and expand on the background of the issue. Indeed, at the time, during the short-lived existence of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the word "Azerbaijan" was used as a designation for the state, whereas the nation's titular ethnicity and their language were most commonly known as "Turks" and "Turkish" respectively. As for the infobox, I guess one could change it into:
"Turkish (later known as Azerbaijani or Azeri Turkic)"
When listing the language spoken in the short-lived republic, we should use the modern name of such language, which is "Azerbaijani," given that the language spoken in Azerbaijan during those years was exactly the same language as the Azerbaijani of today. Similarly, in the article for the Ukrainian People's Republic, we say that the language spoken there was "Ukrainian" even though in that era the Russian Empire, for political reasons, had deemed Ukrainian to be a form of Russian and not its own language. Also, we need to be particularly careful not to use a term for Azerbaijani that today has a very different meaning, such as "Turkish." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Kergid @LouisAragon Seems like there is an obvious misunderstanding by both of you here. Azerbaijani language developed seperately from the Turkish language, it is not a branch of Turkish. This addition would confuse editors, they might think that Azerbaijani is a sub branch of Turkish.
Additionally, the "i" at the word "Türki" is a relative suffix, equavelant to the "-ic" at the English language. BerkBerk12:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
No one said anything about the fact that the two developed separately, nor did anyone claim Azerbaijani being a branch of Turkish.
"This addition would confuse editors, they might think that Azerbaijani is a sub branch of Turkish."
I don't think so. The text within the brackets clearly explains the context, and the very first alinea of the body at the Azerbaijani language explains that it was changed from Turkish to Azerbaijani/Azeri under the Soviets.
I believe there's a confusion here as the sources and quotes both you and Kergid have provided are related to the demonyms of Azeris and not the name of the language, which appears to be what Kergid wants to change. — Golden15:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Here's a source for the language as well:
"After the Russian Bolsheviks re-conquered the region in 1920-21, the newly formed Caucasian states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) were annexed to the Soviet Union and renamed, on 12 March 1922, The Transcaucasian Soviet Socialist Republic. Later they were granted separate political status among the Soviet Republics. Then, by the order of Joseph Stalin, the name of the formal language of Azerbaijan was changed from Turkish to Azeri. Both the adoption of Azerbaijan for the region and Azeri for the language of the new entity are historically and linguistically questionable " -- EI. (2011) . "AZERBAIJAN". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. III, Fasc. 2-3. pp. 205–257.
The numerous WP:RS on this talk page show that neither the demonym of the country's titular ethnic group, nor their native language, were known as "Azerbaijani" at the time. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Azerbaijani is indeed Turkish, however this doesn't mean exclusively Turkish language. The term Turkic is relatively new in English. So that's simply an archaic version of "Turkic". So It should be redirected to Azerbaijani language, just because the article mentions that it was called Turkish before. I would suggest: Azerbaijani. Beshogur (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg)
