Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic/Archive 1

Old discussions
Can anyone please explain, why is it so important to include into this article the opinion of a Russian chauvinist Denikin about the Republic of Azerbaijan? Obviously, he was bitter that he failed to eliminate the independent Azerbaijan and Georgian Republics and bring them back under the control of Russian empire. I think that such articles should include opinions of neutral people, which Denikin never was. Grandmaster 11:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not see a point of indicating that ADR allowed woman to vote. Indeed, no elections took place in Azerbajan between 1918-20 as the parlament was assembled - not elected. Elections were planned, I believe, but did not take place. Please provide reference for the indication that women should vote was supported by ADR government, or if there was a legislation of any sort, with regards to this. Reference to Russian Uchreditelnoe sobranie probably is not applicable to Azerbaijan. Abdulnr 21:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Also - we can eliminate a long quote from Denikin i think it is irrelevant.


 * The fact that also women could vote ( even if, as you rightly say, no election took place in ADR ) was decided on July 21, 1919, as you can read for example in this site (July 21. Men and women both guaranteed the right to vote) and in this other one (For the first time, women had right to vote too.) About Denikin quote, I think it can be useful because in this way the reader can hear also "another bell", but anyway if you both think it is irrelevant, feel free to eliminate it, I won't oppose. Wish you all a happy new year dear friends. Best regards ;) (Virgilio 01:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC))


 * In my opinion we should keep in the article the indication that women had a right to vote in Azerbaijan, while in many western countries they were not allowed to do so. As for Denikin quote, I don’t mind “another bell”, but it should come from someone unbiased, unlike Denikin, who tried to eliminate independent Azerbaijan, but failed. I wish you too happy and successful New Year. Sincere regards, Grandmaster 09:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Map
Where is the map of ADR? That map was presented at the Paris Peace Conference, it was recognized de facto by the League of Nations and de jure by a number of states, put out by a legitimate and democratic government. And it is reprinted in various publications And why is the infobox about some dispute there? --AdilBaguirov 06:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Guys, if we put this "contradicts" box, we should place the same on the Armenia page too, for consistency and even-approach. --AdilBaguirov 22:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, I wonder what the source of their map is and why they consider it to be accurate. Grandmaster 09:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Adil if the contradict box is added here then it should also be added to the Armenian article. Baku87 18:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87


 * The ADR's map also contradicts the one of the Democratic Republic of Georgia. A coincidence? -- Clevelander 22:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the text to say that this is the map of the Republic of Azerbaijan as presented to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. I think this should end the dispute, no one can say that ADR did not present this map to Paris Peace Conference. Grandmaster 05:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Both Georgia and ADR had a military and partnership agreement signed in 1919, which shows that their relations were very friendly and constructive. Indeed, both had to work out differences on their claims to certain territories. But those differences are normal -- to this day all countries have to clearly demarkate their borders and have special commissions working for many years and trading parcels of territories (e.g., Georgia-Russia, Azerbaijan-Russia). Also, the overlapping territories were not as extensive and large as in case with Armenia's claims on both republics (Armenia waged war on both republics, ADR and Georgia). Also, all territories in ADR map had predominant or substantial Azerbaijani population. At that time ethno-national composition of territories was more important, especially since all those countries were self-determining for the first time. And once more, the ADR map is the offical map - it is from archives, it is published, and was accepted on ADR's application, and recognized as ADR's de facto borders. There is also an important fact - the Georgia map says that Zakatala and some other lands was in "stable Georgian control by Oct 1920". Well, by April 1920, Azerbaijan was invaded by Bolsheviks, and ADR officially ceased to exist on April 27-28, 1920. Thus, it's possible that in the ensuing chaos Georgia had control of those territories -- indeed, many Azerbaijanis, who were either majority or substantial in those territories, preferred capitalist and Europe-oriented Georgia, than bolshevik Russia. --AdilBaguirov 08:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with AdilBaguirov well said! Baku87 13:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, but there's still no explanation as to why your map neglects to show Zaqatala as a disputed territory with Georgia and why Lori is shown shown as disputed between Georgia and Azerbaijan and not between Georgia and Armenia. I think that all maps (like Grandmaster said) represent wishful thinking.  Someday, we'll iron all this out, but for now, all three maps clearly contradict one another and it should be left like this. -- Clevelander 20:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Map issue solved
Okay, our Georgian counterparts on Wikipedia have turned me on to a website called Atlas of Conflicts (the source for the map as seen on the DRG article). The page presents a fairly accurate history of the territorial disputes in the Caucasus during World War I. I replaced the Armenian map I made (based on Hewsen's work) with the one used on their website. Alas, they did not have one for Azerbaijan, though. So for now, we have to continue using the Paris Peace Conference map. Although I am not opposed to displaying the map (as it is a historical document), I noted when captioning it that it does not accurately depict its territorial disputes or areas of administration with other countries in the region. In other words, the map the ADR presented at the Paris Peace Conference was, as Grandmaster said, "wishful thinking" showing most of their territorial disputes unanimously solved even though this was not the case. -- Clevelander 19:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

March Events.
Grandmaster, could you please provide an internet link to Tadeusz Swietochowski's and Firuz Kazemzadeh's relevant texts?

If there is no such internet page, can you provide the relevant paragraphs here for both authors? Smith's "12,000 people" was misquoted here as "12,000 men," so I would like to see the paragraphs from these sources. Especially when the Azeri source provided by Plato states that the source is ADR's official Azeri newspaper:

''Once the dust from the March 18th massacre cleared, an estimated 12,000 civilians had been murdered in their homes and in the streets of Baku. [Source: "Azerbaijan" newspaper - the official organ of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic government].''

http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai102_folder/102_articles/102_overview_alakbarov.html

And if these authors cite sources for the facts included in the article, could you mention them too. Thanks in advance.--TigranTheGreat 20:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why u continue to "share" the responsability of March genocide in equal way, the massacre was done by the Dashnaks; Bolsheviks as well as other pro-Russia parties were of course in the middle of the fights but 90% of the killings were done by the Armenian militiamen. Every source can confirm you this thing. You use the tactic of putting the Bolsheviks before so it seems that the Bols. did most of the crime and the Dashnaks played a minor part, while it was exatly the contrary. The reason of this "tactic" is clearly to defend the Dashnaks, I don't know for what reason. I know it's difficult to follow the Dashnaks, let me think.. first they were with the Czar and white armies, then stabbed Whites in the back and switched side to the Reds, then they stabbed Reds in the back and switched side for Brits and then .. and then.. and then..very coherent persons. (Plato77 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

I put Bolsheviks before Dashnaks only in the list of the political parties, and only because Bolsheviks were the rulers of Baku. I am not defending Dashnaks, but clearly if we have 6-7 political parties fighting the Muslims, clearly it wasn't *just* the Dashnaks, while your edits tend to state that. Yes, it was shared. You are trying to blame everything on Armenians. The sources (the verifiable ones--Smith, HRW, Walker), all say that all the groups engaged in "confrontation," not just one sided massacre. Yes, civilians were killed, but we are mentioning that anyway.--TigranTheGreat 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, u wrote "All the non-Azeri political groups of the city joined the Bolsheviks against the Muslims: Bolsheviks, Dashnaks .." Don't u see how absurd is this sentence? Bolsehviks joined the Bolsheviks? And why not to say Bolsheviks joined the Dashnak as actually was? And for your information Bosheviks weren't the "rulers" of Baku, despite the Soviet head was Shaumyan ( an armenian! How strange..) they were in minority in the Baku Soviet government, their intent was to exlude violently the azeri parties like Musavat and Ittihad and in this they have a common goal with the Dashnaks. And indeed when these two parties were out, majority was held by Dashnaks and SRs and right for this reason when Dashnaks asked for british intervation the Bolsheviks were in minority and left Baku. If they were the "rulers" how could they be in minority and to be kicked off by the Dashnkas then? If you continue to change the text I'll put the POV tag in the section.(Plato77 21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

No, Plato, read carefully. I wrote (actually I modified, the two sentences were written by you) "All joined Bolsheviks against Muslims: Bolshevics etc etc for the first time joined together." So, the second part states all the groups that joined together. Dashnaks joined bolsheviks since bolsheviks were the rulers of the city. Majority doesn't matter--they held the de-facto authority of the city (and yes, Shaumyan, a Bolshevik, was the head of the Soviet). At any rate, Dashnaks themselves weren't a majority, as you admitted yourself, so it can't be that everyone else joined the Dashnaks. It wasn't Dashnaks who kicked Bolsheviks out, it was everyone else together. You are giving too much power to Dashnaks.--TigranTheGreat 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to get to the bottom of dispute-

1)Bolshevik allied with Dashnak party to come to powerwas establish power after Muslim league refused to recognize the authorities 2) Bolshevik ships bombarded muslim quarter for several days. Many dead, hospital in Chemberekend bombed Heavy fighting near the Old City - downtown demolished and gutted (Ismailiyya, etc) 3) Some of the worst atrocities in the central Muslim quarter commited by Dashnaks - Russian forces did not commit murder and rape at this scale - they were more organized force rather than militia. So it is not a whitewash. 4) Stepan Shahumyan tried "stop" the massacres - at least this is his reply to pleas of fellow Bolsheviks (Narimanov, et al). Would appreciate if our armenian friends shed more light on this I will try to assemble more sources on this later this month. abdulnr 21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"3) Some of the worst atrocities in the central Muslim quarter commited by Dashnaks - Russian forces did not commit murder and rape at this scale - they were more organized force rather than militia." abdulnr said exatly what I wanted to say, that's why I think this section is "too soft" with the Dashnaks. (Plato77 21:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

It is indeed soft - Smith tells that Baku March massacre was most bloody event of the Russian revolution and no whitewashing will help to stop. The following sources I have I need to get translated here - memoirs of N, Narimanov; Shahumyan letters, report on disarming "Wild division" that led to conflict. Truth is that muslims did not have ammunition and supplies to engage in fighting, whereas Dashnaks were all supplied with arms by retreating Russian troops. It is hard for Armenians to accept that for once they were perpetrating massacres. abdulnr 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is impossible for Dashnaks to have had such a role as they didn't have the support or the numbers. Some of them cooperated with other leftists against Islamist militia. That's all. Far more Armenians were massacred than Azeris when the Army of Islam showed up to join their Turanist/Islamist friends.--Eupator 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

False, Dashnaks did most of the atrocities, the brother of my greatgranfather was killed by these armenian militiamen who even stolen his house. And it is not a question of "leftists" and "rightists", it was a question of "non-muslims" against "muslims". In fact azeri leftists were on muslim side and also russian-armenian rightists were on bolshevik side. It has nothing to do with politics, but with ethnic cleansing, non-azeri forces committed a genocide against muslims. Forget the "left" and the "right", it has nothing to do with it. Musavat itself was a progressive party, not conservative. (Plato77 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC))


 * Science-fiction has its place, it's not here.--Eupator 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither for your sarcasm, how likeable you are.. (Plato77 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

No it is not impossible.. as you know in 1918 (should look at 1897 census) Azeris were only the largest minority at 30-40% in Baku, with Armenians not far behind. with lesser number of Russians et all. Situation not too dissimilar to Lebanon in 80s. You must have not been to Baku - there was compact area of Armenian-populated district called Armenikend where the raids were orchestrated. This argument does not stand. Also I dislike juggling human figures as if they are nothing - but as I have no objection for you opening the site on Army of Islam massacre in Sept, 18. I can not call science fiction something that people lived through abdulnr 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How I wish it were so, maybe we would have had at least a quarter of our lands today. Sadly if they couldn't get rid of Tatar invaders on their own homeland or in places were they were a majority I find it highly unlikely that they would do so in Baku. Anyway, we're not supposed to be discussing our personal thoughts here.--Eupator 22:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate your restrait in this matter!! To remind of the issue here - we are disputing role of the Dashnak militial in the events of March 1918. As to your comment, i don't see this as unlikely - The large migration of Armenian population to Baku(mainly from Karabakh) occured since 1860s. Armenians contributed large proportion of population in every large city in the Caucasus. In Tbilisi they were the majority. abdulnr 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some sources on Baku March massacre:


 * Just as Turkey was poised to become the dominant power in the region, the Baku Dashnakist forces, which included many of the refugees from Anatolia, staged a sudden and unprovoked massacre of the city's Muslims. The debacle lasted from March 31 until April 2 and resulted in at least 3,000 fatalities, many of whom were Iranians.


 * Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683 Grandmaster 05:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The truth is that the Armenians, under the guise of Bolshevism, rushed on the Muslims and massacred during a few frightful days more than 12,000 people, many of whom were old men, women, and children


 * Firuz Kazemzadeh. The Struggle for Transcaucasia, 1917-1921 Grandmaster 05:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but what sources do they cite? Particularly Karimzadeh for the 12,000 figure? The Azeri author from Plato's Azeri site, for example, says that the source is the official Azeri paper of the Azeri Republic. What does Karimzadeh say?--TigranTheGreat 08:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither Smith nor Kazemzadeh cite their sources, but they provide the number of 12,000, which should remain in the article. Btw, Walker also refers to Kazemzadeh to describe March massacre. Swietochowski refers to Shaumian, who was actually responsible for staging the massacre. Not the best source, but since Swietochowski is a reputable source, we include it in the article as well. Grandmaster 09:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The next day, on 19 March/1 April, Bolsheviks decided to use artillery against Azerbaijani residential quarters. Shelling forced immediate capitulation and the acceptance of the soviet’s ultimatum: unconditional recognition of the soviet’s power and withdrawal of “Muslim” forces from the city, in return for which Armenian forces were also to be withdrawn. Armenians expressed dissatisfaction with these “mild terms”.


 * After the Azerbaijani representatives accepted the terms, the Dashnaks took to “looting, burning and killing in the Muslim sections of the city”. By Shaumian’s estimate, more than 3,000 were killed during two days. The Armenian soldiers became more brutal as resistance subsided, and for a day and a half they looted, burned and killed. Thousands of Azerbaijani Turks fled the city. The British vice consul in the Baku, Major A. E. R. MacDonnell, wrote, “not a single Musulman of any importance remained”.


 * Audrey L. Altstadt. The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity Under Russian Rule. ISBN: 0817991816


 * As you can see, the sources place the blame for the massacre on the Armenian Dashnak forces. Grandmaster 09:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have things to do in the upcomming weeks so I wont waste my time answering what [I qualify] nonesense. Few notes, I have already provided the sources of the 12,000, you know I did it, so I can not assume good faith here. It comes from the Azeris delegation at the Peace conference, published under "Claims of the Delegation of the Republic of Caucasian Azerbaijan Presented to the Peace Conference in Paris" published in Paris in 1919, the figure comes from page 18, the source is known, so it is logical to quote the original source. Second, I also provided the figure from the investigation, also, the minima range is not 3000, but 2000, it is from the only commission, which British Consul Stevens cite, which was 2,000 Azeris. Also, your own source, which is Smith in his Anatomy of a Rumour: Murder Scandal, the Musavat Party and Narratives of the Russian Revolution in Baku, 1917-20 (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 211-240 ) place things in context which is quite different than the version you are trying to sell.--Fad (ix) 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Smith is more credible as a source than Altstadt, while Altstadt hasn't published any paper about this specific event, Smith did.--Fad (ix) 16:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In light of Fadix's response I will agree to include the 12, 000 figure if we mention where it originated from (Azeri delegation at the Paris Peace Conference).--Eupator 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you should also mention the source of 3,500 figure abdulnr 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably modern authors figures.--Fad (ix) 19:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The source of 12,000 are Smith and Kazemzadeh. The article is properly referenced. Grandmaster 18:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite right, what you are proposing is to construct a credibility over something by using secondary sources and supressing its origin. The first time the 12,000 has ever been used was at the peace conference. McCarthy for this time around was honest enought to source that figure. Also, Kazemzadeh while not directly implicit at least leave readers evidence themselves as what the origine of the figures were(again, from the Azeris delegation). This is not about the interpretation of history according to authors, but rather a figure and its origine. This figure is not from Smith neither from Kazemzadeh, the origine should have precedence. I am again amazed once more about your uses of human tragedy to slap Armenians.--Fad (ix) 19:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So the only reference we have is from the above authors on 12,000. In any other circumstance this woild be put in as a source (one of the sources). Read for instance Sabra and Shatila or Karantina massacre... . Lets stop this juggling of human figures. abdulnr 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the figure of 2000 is from a commission and 3000 from that period too. I was refering to the 3500, which is probably derived from the estimates of "more than 3000."--Fad (ix) 03:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Abdul, this is not about juggling human figures, it's about being accurate. We Armenian editors could use elevated figures (such as 2 million, found in some sources) on the Armenian Genocide page, but we didn't do it--we look at various figures, and evaluate sources. Yes, in any other circumstance we would use a figure contained in a source. But in this circumstance, we have wildly differing numbers--HRW says 3 - 3.5 thousand, the Tadeush dude gives the same estimate, Smith never says that the 12,000 were Muslims (perhaps because he knows the figure has Azeri source). Karimzadeh doesn't use a source, while we have evidence (even by Azeri scholars) stating that the sources is the official Azeri claim. Clearly, this is not the usual circumstance, and we can't use 12,000 as a neutral estimate. If we use it, we need state that it comes from the estimate by Azerbaijani government. And if we do that, we also need to provide the Armenian estimate for the Armenian massacre in September, which is 30,000. And none of that "revenge" stuff, which is POV. The September massacre was part of the ongoing Armenian Genocide--Enver was massacring Armenians everywhere on his way to Baku, and Baku wasn't an exception. But, I am willing not to mention the Armenian Genocide, if we exclude the revenge stuff.

And we should neither portray the massacre as one sided nor lay the whole blame on Dashnaks. Smith, Walker, and others make it clear that Muslim militia was armed, barrickaded in the city, and ready to fight. They also confirm that this was a two sided conflict, and all the leftists forces joined the Bolsheviks in the fights. --TigranTheGreat 02:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The figure of 12,000 comes from Smith and Kazemzadeh. They don’t refer to Azeri sources, therefore we should attribute the figure to them. We cannot include our guesses of what the source for that figure could be, we just refer to those who provide the figures. The figure of 3,000, provided by Altstadt and Swietochowski, comes from Shaumian, a person, who was personally responsible for organizing the massacre and who was not interested in revealing the real scale of the atrocities. As for the role of Dashnaks, the sources make it clear that the massacre of the Muslim population was committed by them. Indeed, Russian soldiers had no interest in intercommunal violence, they were just fighting for power and were trying to keep Baku a part of the Russian empire or the Soviet Russia. Once the Muslim guerilla laid down their arms, Russian soldiers ceased fire, but Dashnaks took advantage of the situation and killed as many Muslims as they could. This had nothing to do with Enver or anyone else, it was a policy of ethnic cleansing, Dashnaks were trying to cleanse the territory of South Caucasus of the Muslims to create their own state. And following massacre of Armenians was a revenge for the March massacre, the sources make that clear too. It is the history of our region, each atrocity led to another one, and both sides were guilty. In this particular case though it was the Armenian side who started this evil circle. Grandmaster 04:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not accurate, we are here discussing human losses after world war I. I propose you to email the 12,000 figure to any military analyst with a bacground in demography and explain that person that it was done in three days. The discussion does not revolve around if Armenians could have commited murder, I think they're human too, unlike your belief on Azeris being special people. The 3000 does not originate from Shaumian, it has been widely used during that period, while the 12,000 was exclusivally brought by the Azeris delegation. 12,000 in three days for such a city and with the military equipment of that period is simply a statistical impossibility without population evacuation and isolation. For the Ottoman to kill that much Armenians during three days it took methods such as forcing an evacuation in the desert and liberating from central prisons criminals and introducing them in the special organization. The only Commission prepared to investigate reported 2,000 Azeris victims, and Smith your own source in a paper he wrote present an entirly different picture as the one you are trying to sell, like presenting the more like battles conditions and the more minor role played by the Dashnaks during that period. Just a comparaison, in Baku probably about 10,000 Armenians were killed, lower than your figure of 12,000 for the Azeris..., but in Baku it happened when the Ottoman forces crossed the border, and they had among them specifically criminals who personally ordered the entire liquidation of the Armenians in the section they were controling in Eastern Anatolia. In Baku Armenians who were killed faced evacuation brought in the vicinities and killed, as it was the only way to effectivally supress and liquidate a population, even the Germans with their military equipments had to evacuate the targeted population. There are German reports of the slaughter, there are various records of that time on the intensity of the killings, much more than(a lot more) than the reported March massacres, but still knowing the region, demography..., I know that it is an improbably that more than 10,000 Armenians were killed. But one thing is clear though, is that according to the reports the massacres of Armenians was clearly in severity worster, it was prepared for weeks as the German General Paraquin reported to his superiors before it happened. The Commission which was used by the British to minimise the Armenian losses and compare them with the Azeris ones, still reported two times more casulties in the Armenian cases. In short the most notable figure and important of that time, was provided by the only commission to investigate it, the 3000 figure was not an Armenian figure, and the 12000 figure had originated from the Azeris delegation. Smith and others who provide figures are secondary sources, by proposing that they haven't take it from the primary source you are suggesting that they may have just fabricated some figure. Primary figure, the first time that figure was used, is what matters.--Fad (ix) 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the question should not be focoused on the numbers, but on the fact that Dashanks clearly did a massacre taking advantage of the caothic situation. The Muslims just wanted peace and even accepted the Soviet's condition in order to avoid a carnage because the Musavat militiamen couldn't resist too much against well equipped and well trained Bolshevik Red Guards and Menshevik People's Guard who even had artillery. And in fact they decided to give up only when the Russian forces started to bomb the muslim quarters, and they surrended because these bombings could kill civilians. The compromise found was that even Dashanaks had to disarm, Bolsheviks and other parties agreed, Muslims trusted on Shaumyan words and gave their weapons to the Soviet's authorities. At that point the Dashnaks, who didn't accepted these terms, took advantage of these situation and started the massacre with Shaumyan apparently doing nothing to stop them. At the third day of the Dashnak slaughterhouse, the vice-chairmen of the Soviet, a georgian socialist named Dzhaparidze and a commissar, a russian bolshevik named Petrov saw that Dashnaks went too far and threated them saying that if they wouldn't stop the killings, the Red Guards and People Guards would have attacked the armenian quarters. Only then Dashnaks ceased the massacre. Dzhaparidze and Petrov acted probably on their initiative because the unstability could damage russian interests in the aerea and Shaumyan was doin' almost nothing. Lenin himself was angry with Shaumyan for these events, because his task was just to steal oil and send it to Russia and not to create instability on the region.(Plato77 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC))
 * It would be interesting if you could source any of the claims you provide here, that is not what Smith write in his paper whch I cited. There were 4000 Armenians serving in Baku by March, under Dashnak leadership, Smith provides the source at page 226. And there were 6000 Bolshevic Russians, the Muslims had according to Bolshevic sources 10,000 among their side. According to Smith, the decision to attack was taken by the Bolshevics under their own claims of Muslim upraising it was for the control of the Streets of Baku (p.226) The Russians seeked vengence on January killing of over a thousand of Russian male who were disarmed by the Azeris which led the commissar Alesha Dzhaparidze to conclude that the Muslims were closing a counterrevolutionary circle around Baku and that soldiers of the Savage Dvision were conspiring to lead a rebellion in Baku. Besides, Smith does not say 12,000, he says up to 12,000. (p. 228) Not to say that this event happened during the establishment of the Bolshevic Commune from March to June, while the later attack against the Armenians was specifically destinated at their total liquidation from Baku, and while the losses of Azeris does not show any demographical anomaly, the one of the Armenians does.--Fad (ix) 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are talking only about the first part of the events who were the fights between pro-Russia Soviet forces vs Muslim militia ignoring what happened later. Let's start again from the beginning. If you read the letter between Narimanov and Shaumyan, you 'll see that the condition for the surrender of the Muslim militiamen to the Soviet forces was that also the Dashnaks has to disarm. And they accepted and went to the Hummet Party ( Muslim marxists close to bolsheviks but pro-Azeri, Narimanov's party ) offices to give disciplinately all the weapons they have. The problem is that after this, when the fights were ended, Dashnak didn't accept the fact they should be disarmed and went on disarmed muslim starting thew massacre. Shaumyan had the task to disarm them but he didn't do and in fact Narimanov was very angry with him because he broke the pact. After a lot of massacres were commited Dzhaparidze and Petrov threated the Dashnaks imposing them to cease the carnage.

Cronology is this one:

1) Bolsheviks, SRs, Mensheviks and so on attack the Muslims.

2) Muslims oppose resestance but they have to give up when Red guards start to bomb the Muslim quarters

3) they found a compromise, Soviet power will be recongized and they'll give all the weapons to it, but at the conditions Dashnaks will be disarmed. This solution was found thanks to Narimanov. Shaumyan ( the head of the Soviet ) agrees.

4) Muslims give all their weapons to Soviet authorities

5) Dashnaks don't disarm and Shaumyan doesn't disarm them.

6) Dashnaks attack the Muslims doing the massacres.

7) Dzhaparidze managed to stop them. (Plato77 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Sources would help, I request sources, but I recieve none.--Fad (ix) 21:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a POV recount of the events (i.e. "Muslims were peaceful, Armenians wanted to kill them"), we should be neutral, as both sides incurred losses and used violence against the other. Indeed sources confirm this. This is from Smith:

Мартовские события начались, по версии мусульманской стороны, когда Бакинский Совет без законных к тому оснований разоружил небольшую группу почётного караула молодого Тагиева и запер её на корабле. Мусульманское население Баку восприняло весть об этом как оскорбление убитого горем Тагиева-отца и новую провокацию: это положило начало конфронтации. Вести о том, что большевистские и армянские отряды только что провели ряд жестоких обысков и арестов в Шемахе, еще больше накалили обстановку. 31 марта многотысячная толпа мусульман собралась у входа в штаб-квартиру Мусульманского благотворительного общества в Баку и потребовала, чтобы почётному караулу было возвращено оружие. Советы проявили сдержанность и выразили готовность вступить в переговоры при посредничестве “Гуммета” и “Мусавата”. Но вооружённые мусульманские отряды уже стремились к конфликту. 

To paraphrase (and note, this is the *Muslim* version), Bolsheviks disarmed an Azeri guard, Muslims tooks this as an insult, and this started the confrontation. News about brutal searches by Bolsheviks and Armenians in other areas of Azerbaijan further heated up the situation. Many thousands of Muslims went to some headquarters and demanded return of weapons. Soviets were ready to compromise. But Armed Muslims were aiming for a conflict.

Here is more:

Мартовские события для Расулзаде были национальной войной, развязанной российскими большевиками против беззащитного азербайджанского народа. В стычках и погроме погибло не менее 12 000 человек. ... Именно так воспринимает их “Мусават”, обвиняя не только большевиков и дашнаков, но и самих себя, бессильных лидеров разъярённых масс.

I.e. for Rasulzade (the Tatar leader), the March events were a national war, started by Russian bolsheviks against defenseless Azeri people. In confrontations (i.e. fights) and pogroms, no less than 12000 died. Musavat blames this not only on Bolsheviks and Dashnaks, but on itself.

Here is from CJ Walker:

A mass meeting was held in the courtyard of a Baku mosque: return the crew's arms to them.

''Then shooting started in the streets; civil war – known as the 'March days' – was soon raging in Baku. Allied with the Bolsheviks were all the other parties – Mensheviks, Dashnaks, Kadets, Social Revolutionaries. The Bolsheviks saw the Musavat defiance as counter-revolution; the Dashnaks in less ideological terms. The shooting intensified in early April, and vast mobs ran riot, killing, burning, pillaging. The two sides that laid into one another with special vigour were the Armenians and the Azerbaijani Tatars, the Armenians having the edge over the Tatars in ferocity.''

So, the Muslims started the fights. They were aiming to fight. A bunch of political parties (including Bolsheviks) participated in the civil war. True, Dashnaks were among the, but were not the only ones. And maybe Dashnaks were more ferocious than Muslims, but the violence was mutual. Neither HRW, nor Smith, nor Walker say anything about Dashnaks starting and conducting the whole massacre.--TigranTheGreat 23:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not like both sides were equally guilty, as Tigran tries to suggest. The sources make it clear that the Armenian militia committed a large scale massacre of the Muslim population. See my sources above, Swietochowski, Altstadt, Kazemzadeh. Even extremely pro-Armenian Walker accepts this, even though he cannot of course do that without slamming Turks: “At the same time the Armenians showed that they were as capable of killing off large numbers of non-Armenians (in this case Azerbaijani Tatars) as the Turks were of killing them”. Russian soldiers fought with Muslim militia, but when the latter put down their arms, they ceased fire. Shaumian even promised that he would withdraw both Muslim and Armenian forces from the city, but when Azerbaijani forced laid down their arms Dashnak forces started killing civilian Muslim population. It is perfectly clear from the sources. And the number of 12,000 as provided by Kazemzadeh and Smith remains in the article, as it comes from reputable sources. Grandmaster 07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting those sources both you and Plato are talking about. It is also funny that you call Walker an extremly pro-Armenian when you in the same sentence provide Altstadt and Kazemzadeh names. Also, I have enough of your manipulations of sources, I repeat again, Smith says 'up to 12,000' the term up to is used when there are different estimates and the author says 'the highest of them is'. You are once more attemptong to sanitise sources which yu do not like and supress the primary source and originator of a figure speifically to pump its credibility. Walker is slamming Turks? How is he doing that?--Fad (ix) 15:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can provide any proof of your claims about sources of Smith and Kazemzadeh, then go ahead and do it. Otherwise it is not worth talking about. Grandmaster 08:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that this is not how it works. You are the one claiming that they have exactly provided independently the figure provided by the Azeris delegation at the peace conference. Smith says up to, which means he does not claim 12,000, but rather that the highest estimate is 12,000. The highest estimate was provided by the Azeris delegation at the peace conference(which is 12,000). You refuse to include the origine of that figure because without it it'll boost the credibility of a figure that including Altstadt doesn't take seriously.--Fad (ix) 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that Smith never says 12,000 were exclusively Muslim--he says 12,000 "people," who died in pogroms and *fights*.--TigranTheGreat 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The origin needs to be proved. We cannot add to the article that Fadix thinks the figure comes from such and such source. Smith says up to, and so does our article. His figure is presented as the highest estimate. Grandmaster 07:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It has, McCarthy personally in his highest range of estimate which is 12,000 provide the origine of the source and the page. Justin McCarthy is highered by Ankara and even him is enough honnest to provide the origine of the figure. Up to, is specifically used when there are different range of figures and that you claim that the highest of them is that figure. The origine also refers to the first time that figure was used, unless there is a table of new estimates a figure could be used independently, if not, its origine should clearly be written, and if you reguse to do that, you are negativally affecting the accuracy of the article.--Fad (ix) 16:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please find a reference to the source you propose in the article of Smith or the book of Kazemzadeh. If you do, I will include it, otherwise it's not worth talking about, we don't inlcude guesses and other original research in the article. Grandmaster 18:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

He already did--it comes from the "Claims of the Delegation of the Republic of Caucasian Azerbaijan Presented to the Peace Conference in Paris," published in Paris in 1919, page 18. Even the Azeri Dr. from the Azeri website states that it comes from ADR's government. Therefore, we will include it in the article (i.e. that 12,000 is Azeri estimate) when it gets unprotected, along with the 30,000 number claimed by Armenian sources for the September massacre.

And by the way, since on the Nakhichevan page you argued that Menteshashvili's numbers shouldn't be included unless verified by primary source data--the same applies to Karimzadeh's figures. Since he is the only one giving the figure, and since its unsourced, and since we have evidence that it came from Azeri sources, it can't be included, unless it's stated as an Azeri claim.--TigranTheGreat 02:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The source of the figure is Kazemzadeh himself. Meteshashvili refers to the authorities of "NKR". Therefore Kazemzadeh will remain as a source of that info. Grandmaster 10:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Menteshasvhili refers to a Russian journal. Kazimzadeh's number is unsourced. And we have sources stating that the number came from Azeri claims. So, we will delete the number. Or we will report it as Azeri claim. Along with the upped Armenian claims.--TigranTheGreat 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Menteshashivili refers to a British parliamentarian, who in turn refers to the authorities of “NKR”. Kazemzadeh provides his own estimates, which we should include in the article with reference to him. And the figure of 3,000 is based on Shaumian’s estimates, who was obviously not interested in revealing the real scale of his crimes. If you want to report Armenian and Azeri claims, you might as well wish to include the figure of Azeri casualties from this official website . It claims the number of 25,000 Azeris killed. Grandmaster 07:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Menteshashivili does no such thing (with respect to the statistics itself). Karimzadeh is not the final word on the number. We never use single source for a fact, we compare sources and come up with an answer. Karimzadeh's number is unsourced and disputed (by HRW). We have 3 sources (two Western, including McCarthy, and one Azeri--the Dr.) who state that the number came from the ADR's official claims. We can't ignore them and instead choose one unsourced, secondary, and disputed information. The Azeri website doesn't claim 25,000, it claims that an "Armenian" named Avanes Apresyan wrote it in his book--I have never heard of the guy, it's a question whether he or his book even exist (they were even brought up by Turks on the Armenian Genocide page and refuted by Fadix), neither he nor the site are reputable to include him.--TigranTheGreat 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to present fantastic Armenian claims that site is as good as any other. As for Kazemzadeh, we don't present his figures as a fact, we just provide the range of estimates by various neutral sources, but make no assertion as to whether any of them is accurate or not. Walker's figure is not sourced either, but still you included it in the article. So Kazemzadeh's estimate shall remain, as that of any other reputable source. Grandmaster 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to present imaginary Azeri losses such as 12,000, you are more than welcome to do so if you identify them as Azeri source. Your site didn't claim that the number was 25,000. Unlike in Walker's case, we do have sources stating that Karimzadeh's reported number came from Azeri side. If you want to keep the number, we should state it as Azeri claim.--TigranTheGreat 00:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The figure comes from a reputable source, and it will remain with a reference to that source. We cannot include in the article personal guesses about its origin. Grandmaster 07:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not waste my time, and I'll leave others doing so. I am a verry busy man and will remain this way for a long time to comme. I will just reiterate my previous statment which you have ignored and had you really cared of accuracy you would not have. Justin McCarthy is very clear in his footnote, which I have related, and I believe with the pages etc., He clearly state from where those figures come from. Kazemzadeh has published in the 50s, at least this was the edition of the book I had gotten when I decided to interloan it(while the Azeris figures were presented at the Peace conference beginning 0f the 20s by the Azeris delegates) 2 years back. I did not pay attention to the figures of Azeris, but rather Armenians at that time, he provides the figures from some Armenian source and then contend if my memory serves me right of about 10,000 Armenians dead. I dispute that Kazemzadeh did not provide a footnote for the figure of Azeris dead, I advance that Adil in his paper from where it was recycled at Wikipedia, excluded the possible footnote of Kazemzadeh which I believe was included in his original work.


 * This, I repeat for the last time, the 12,000 figure has a clear origine, admitted by McCarthy himself who is accused by many of willingly getting granted by Turkey's internal ministry by the intermedary of a so-called interdiciplinary chair of Ottoman history. To this, adds that Tigran has provided an Azeris website which supports McCarthy's presentation for the 12,000 figure. Note that McCarthy also provide Kazemzadeh to support his contention for the massacres, but for the 12,000 figure he does not cut the corners and directly quote the Azeris source in question, had there been an independent estimate in parallel to the Azeris one, scholarity would request, it too, to be included in parallel, for the citating figure, McCarthy hasn't done so, it wasn't because he ignored it, since he plainly quoted Kazemzadeh in the same section. What better to confirm then using Suzanne Goldenberg garbage work, Transcaucasian Bounderies (UCL Press, 1996), while she uses Kazemzadeh in her work elsewhere, for the figure of 12,000 she provides, she source it on page 128 by the following on footnote 57. La République d'Azerbaijan du Caucase (1919, Paris: Delegation de l'Azerbaïdjan à la Conference de la Paix à Paris), 19. This is the only source she provides. Clearly this figure is recognized to be from the Azeris delegation at the Peace conference, and Goldenberg being the most biased in favor of Azerbaijan in the Western Academia (more than Goltz) as well as McCarthy, the most biased with Stanford Shaw in favour of Turkey both present the 12,000 figure to have come from the Azeris delegation.


 * Note that the only reason I am answering here and not elsewhere(say, at the Karabakh page), is I believe that this is a clear cut cases which should not cause any conflicts. First, you have to provide, lets say a secreenshot from Kazemzadeh work, which would confirm that there is no footnote on that figure, and that if there is one, so that we could know from where it comes. I dispute that it is his own number, you first have to show it is his number by providing a copy. At this point, it is clear from where this number come from. I will not add anything else here, neither anywhere else for soon, unlike some, I don't make a penny on the cyberspace. Fad (ix) 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here’s a quote from the article you must be familiar with:


 * The results of the March events were immediate and total for the Musavat. Several hundreds of its members were killed in the fighting; up to 12,000 Muslim civilians perished; thousands of others fled Baku in a mass exodus.


 * Michael G. Smith. Anatomy of a Rumour: Murder Scandal, the Musavat Party and Narratives of the Russian Revolution in Baku, 1917-20. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 211-240 Grandmaster 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Musavat references
I would like to attract the attention of administrators and visitors to this matter. Every time I edit a page, ranging from Musavat, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, Azerbaijan, History of the name Azerbaijan to Safavid Dynasty, User:Azerbaijani keeps inserting "pan-Turkist and pan-Islamist Musavat" referencing a flag website that does not say so, and Armenian sources of Prof. Hovanissian, who is clearly a POV source in case of Azerbaijan. So, please, address the issue. My belief is that the quote is relevant only on Musavat page which gives a long account of nature of Musavat Party. So inserting this grossly misinterpreted and POV quotes on every page is clearly POV attack tactic. I made major contributions to the article with scholarly references few days ago, yet again this gross and out of context quote is inserted. I ask Azerbaijani to justify the placement of this quote with POV references on this page. Atabek 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You do not own wikipedia, and I can insert sourced information where ever it is relevant. Secondly, Adil baguirov asked me to put those sources in.Azerbaijani 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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

As you can see from the above, the owner of the website objects to the use of his website as a reference in wikipedia and states that his resource is not meant as a reference material. He agreed with me that his website should not be used for such purposes. Despite that Azerbaijani keeps on including his claims with reference to that website. It is time to stop, or I will have to contact the website owner, so that he spoke with the wiki admins to put an end to this abuse. Hovanissian is also not acceptable as a reference in this particular article for evident bias. And Roshvald, which also was used as a source, does not support your claims. So Azerbaijani, please stop it already. Grandmaster 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


 * Azerbaijani, please, refrain from attacking users by baselessly calling them sockpuppeteers. This is really non-constructive and does not contribute to improvement of Wiki articles. You seem to have made no contribution to this article in particular, but only involved in reverts, edit wars and insertion of a single irrelevant quote. Now:
 * 1. Please, provide exact quotes from the articles you indicated, where it says that Musavat was pan-Turkist or pan-Islamist. Also, quotes from Armenian authors, such as Dekmejian and Simonian, as well as Hovanissian and Giragossian are not acceptable, as those are clearly POV and are very biased against Azerbaijan or anything related to it. This is told even by Dr. Kazemzadeh, indeed a top expert on ADR period. Michael Croissant, with all due respect to him, falls into the same category as those above mentioned. So your sources must be impartial, and must be scholarly.
 * 2. The program of Musavat is posted on its Wiki page Musavat, thanks to some contributors. No one denies that Musavat played with ideas of cultural Turkism (not pan-Turkism, Musavat did not aspire the creation of Turanic empire, but only revival of cultural Turkism ideas in Azerbaijan). Its program, again on Musavat page, clearly spells that it desires equal rights to all Muslim of the world, no where does it call for creation of Muslim empire either.
 * So your references to pan-Turkic or pan-Islamic do not hold water, as Musavat simply did not have a plan of creation of a super empire of Turkic or Islamic peoples. Atabek 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Musavat again and again
Azerbaijani, I'll undo your edits untill you'll bring a panturkist or panislamist clause in Musavat Covenant of 1917 Elsanaturk 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have brought many sources. YOu obviously have no respect for Wikipedia. You will be blocked again if you continue this way.Azerbaijani 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot block me! I can be blocked by administrators if I'll violate 3rr rule in this disputed content, but I have not violated, and do not think to do so. Aand again I'll undo your THAT edit until you'll bring any panturkist and/or panislamist clause in Musavat Covenant of 1917 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elsanaturk (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Edit warring
Hello! I have protected this page after reports of edit warring on Requests for page protection. Apparently, one Elsanaturk is removing information justified by multiple sources, and continues to question the material even after being presented sources. I'd like to see Elsanaturk speak on his or her behalf. Other comments related to the matter would also be good. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * They don't. I said that Musavat initially supported pan-Turkic (not-Panturkist) ideas, but eventually became an Azerbaijani nationalist party. Moreover, I supported this by sources, which you now try to misinterpret. Also, please explain why you keep on adding milliondollarbabies.com back to the article? The owner of the website told you that you should not do that, he said that I was right by saying that it should not be used. Elsanaturk was absolutely right when he removed it from the article. Grandmaster 16:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are more sources than just the million dollar baby, and your still stuck on that? We can remove that one source, but that does not change the fact that this information will stay and that it is heavily sourced. The Musavat party was Pan Turkist, and Mahmud Rasulzadeh was a pan Turk. Dont forget that he spent the last years of his life involved in pan Turkist activity in Turkey.Azerbaijani 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

"[t]he Azeris did not surrender their brief independence of 1918-20 quickly or easily. As many as 20,000 died resisting what was effectively a Russian reconquest." (p. 116) --AdilBaguirov 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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


 * That's not all you did. You restored sources like "milliondollarbabies.com" and others, so I roll it back. If you object to certain wording, change it, but do not add sources that should not be here. Grandmaster 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats no excuse for a huge revert. Artaxiad 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Although some of my edits, which user:Artaxiad for some reason reverted, have been restored, but not all. First, I don't understand why was this rv'ed: "However, despite Wilson's attitude, on January 12, 1920, the Allied Supreme Council extended de facto recognition to Azerbaijan, along with Georgia, and ahead of Armenia." Not only do I give a more precise date, 12 January, but this wording is preffered to "suddenly" -- why is it "suddenly", when delegations have been working for months to secure that de facto recognition? In native literature, they describe it as "finally", not "suddenly".

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

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

Meanwhile, "Armenian genocide" is not relevant to the text and cannot apply to the massacre of Azerbaijanis in March 1918 in Baku. To begin with, neither the word genocide existed, nor have the Armenian casualties been high till then (e.g., even in 1919 article in the London Times, the leader of the Armenian delegation to Paris Peace Conference, Boghos Nubar, wrote about 300,000 deaths - and no mention of Turkish and Kurdish deaths, or Azerbaijani, for that matter), especially considering that Eastern Turkey was occupied by Russians, with the help of Armenians, until 1917 or so. Neither does Encyclopedia Britannica use that description -- they use my wording, "massacres in Ottoman Empire". Finally, and most importantly, that reasoning was NEVER given by Shaumyan, or any Bolshevik or even Dashnak leader! In other words, there is no factual, verifiable basis for this claim. And while there is a reference to p. 14 of Michael Croissant's book, he is not a historian, and it shows -- he writes: "most of them refugees who had fled the Turkish genocide in eastern Anatolia". As you can see, there is no mention of "Armenian genocide". And Prof. Swietochowski does not use the word "genocide" or 'genocidal' anywhere in his book either, according to a Google search. Hence it makes sense to change this POV to a NPOV wording. --AdilBaguirov 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edits are very POV, the text its self never said Armenian massacres in the ottoman empire POV yourself you have inserted.Artaxiad 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing POV about my edits -- but yours clearly are, as you admit (not that it matters) that both Swietochowski and Croissant don't use the word "Armenian genocide" or even genocidal. Neither did Shaumyan say this anywhere. --adil 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * Grandmaster 06:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I have a source. I'll source it for sure later.Hajji Piruz 16:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added and sourced a sentence saying when the nation got its name and by who.Hajji Piruz 20:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Etymology section comes first. I moved the etymology section above the recognition section.Hajji Piruz 18:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Harayarah is an obvious sock puppet or meat puppet, he joined simply to make reverts.Hajji Piruz 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

--Alborz Fallah 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Esmail khan : " From historical point of view ,since the Baku was the temple of the fire-worshippers in the ancient time, then we chose this name for our new country " Iran : "If we agree that Baku has been the fire-worshippers temple, and you are interested in using that word , then why do you insist in using the term Azerbaijan and not to use the word AZARESTAN ? " Esmail Khan : " That's not a bad idea, and we can talk about this latter ..."
 * And to add the fact that the Rasulzadeh himself and Esmael khan Zeyad khanof ( the representative of ADR to Tehran )admitted that the name was never used for the north of Arass river before that time period and they considered if there could be a change in that name as fallows : ( The newspaper IRAN, 6th Rajab 1337 AH)
 * Iran newspaper: " Since until now that was only the name of an important Iranian province why did you called this part Azerbaijan ? and why do you insist to use this name ?"


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

About the necessity of etymology section in every countries entry in Wikipedia, I checked the following entries : Turkey, Armenia,Georgia and Iran: what's the difference here , not to mention the etymology ?( considering the fact that there where no naming controversy over naming that countries , but there is still a section about their name in Wikipedia ) ...--Alborz Fallah 21:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to check that publication? And also, the name is not an important aspect of ADR, political struggle, military campaings against Bolsheviks and Dashnaks, international relations of the country are a lot more important. The name has been discussed in many other articles, there's even a special article on that topic. What is the point in dupilicating this info in every article about Azerbaijan? Grandmaster 09:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For checking the publication, you can use this book: "Storm over Caucasus: A Glance at the Iranian regional relation with the Republics of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia in the first period of independence 1917-1921 ", Kaveh Bayat (In Persian), ISBN 964 - 361 - 065 - 9, pp 109 - 111.

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


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


 * Alborz, can you provide us with a quote from Lord Curzon via Ernest Orsolle and its relevance to this topic. And can you, please, explain how Viceroy of India and Undersecretary of State who only traveled to Persia for a year, would be more credible than Consul General of Britain in Persia writing for Royal Geographic Society. It would make sense that the second was probably more familiar with geography and history of the region than the first.
 * The Macedonia articles claim that Macedonia region spanned to FYRM, Greek Macedonia and parts of Albania. In the same fashion, historical Azerbaijan spanned what's today Republic of Azerbaijan and South (Iranian) Azerbaijan. This fact is attested by Chardin and Abbott references. So if you insist on irrelevant etymology section to be included in every Azerbaijan-related article, then perhaps, we should NPOV it instead of presenting the position of only one side in this disputed issue. Atabek 07:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lord Curzon was the head of British demlomacy and also especilized in the Iranian topic as to the point of writing a book about the Iran . In 2nd vol of the book Persia and the Persian Question he names under the chapther"Russia's annexation of Iranian lands", the fallowing : " Baku, Derbent, Shirvan,Megrelia,Karabakh,Ganja,Shekin,Abkhazia,Mughan,Imeretia (?),Guria (?) andTalysh".Simply, He does not says "Northern part of Azerbaijan " ...And about Orsolle , the whole book is about his voyage to that region , but he clearly talks about Caucasus and Azerbaijan : as an example in page 305 ( Persian translation , ISBN 964-426-000-7 he says ( beginning of chapter 17 ):"Iranian area is 1647070 Km2 and it's population is about 7655000 ....most of the country is uninhibited except the Azerbaijan that has many rivers that originate from the mountains and the region of ...." , all of the book is about travel in caucus (and Iran ),but he never says anything about Azerbaijan in north of the Arass river : only Caucus ...--Alborz Fallah 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And to add, in Abbot's quote: The country known to the Persians as Azerbaijan is divided between them and Russia, the latter Power possessing about five-eighths of the whole, which may be roughly stated to cover an area of about 80,000 square miles, or about the size of Great Britain; 50,000 square miles are therefore about the extent of the division belonging to Russia, and 30,000 of that which remains to Persia.

The Russian division is bounded on the north and north-east by the mountains of Caucasus, extending to the vicinity of Bakou on the Caspian. On the west it has the provinces of Imeritia, Mingrelia, Gooriel, and Ahkhiska (now belonging to Russia); on the east it has the Caspian Sea, and on the south the boundary is marked by the course of the River Arrass (Araxes) to near the 46 th parallel of longitude, thence by a conventional line across the plains of Moghan to the district of Talish, and by the small stream of Astura which flows to the Caspian through the latter country. In this area are contained the following territorial divisions: - Georgia or Goorjistan, comprising Kakhetty, Kartaliny, Somekhetty, Kasakh; the Mohammedan countries of Eriwan, Nakhshewan, Karabagh, Ghenja, Shirwan, Shekky, Shamachy, Bakou, Koobeh, Salian and a portion of Talish. Georgia is traversed by the River Koor (Cyrus), a stream of no commercial importance, since it is not navigable except by boats. .. The population of Russian Azerbaijan consists of mixed races... The country included in these boundaries and, perhaps a large part, if not all, of Russian Azerbaijan recognized as Medea Atropotena in ancient geography. He used the term Russian Azerbaijan to denote the present areas of the caucus including Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia and also claims that half of Atropatene was contained in the caucus.Abbot makes several huge mistakes. He claims Atropatene was equally shared between the Caucasus and Iran, where as no modern historian says this. That is is blatantly and historically false. He claims major areas of Georgia as Azerbaijan, no other map or source has done that. Megrelia is in northern Georgia : Mingrelia. No other map and source has done this. He claims all of Armenia, no other map has done that. The name Azerbaijani by itself is a ethnonym from the last century in the Caucusus. Even if Armenia had a large Azerbaijani speaking population, at that time they were not called Azerbaijani. He also claims that Russian Azerbaijan is bigger than Iranian Azerbaijan, we know this is not true as the Qajar had only 4 provinces in Iran and one of them was Azerbaijan. Also Mirza Jamal Qarabaghi, a local historian from Qarabagh does not consider part of the caucus as Azerbaijan. Also according to Wikipedia rules, it is up to scholars to summarize primary sources. Diakonoff being a contemporary scholar has much more weight. Qajar's tended to call all of the North Western Iran "Azerbaijan" because they where all under authority of Azerbaijan Baiglarbagi that's the same for Khorasan that they called all regions of the North East Iran as Khorasan, regardless the history and geography : that may mislead some of the westerners to use same naming attitude , but that's not correct and reliable , because then all of the various regions of that place have to be called Azerbaijan , including Georgia and Armenia--Alborz Fallah 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also the same about Chardin: Media, which formerly ruled all Asia with an imperial dominion, at present makes but one part of a province, though the largest in the Persian empire, called Azerbeyan or Asapaican. It borders on the east upon the Caspian Sea and Hyrcania, on the south upon Parthia, on the west upon Araxes and the Upper Armenia, of which Assyria is a part, and on the north on Dagestan, which is that mountanious country that borders upon the Muscovite Cossacks, and part of Mount Taurus. The Persians affirm, that the name of Azerbeyan implies, the country of fire, by reason of the famous temple of fire which was there erected, where was kept that fire which the fire-worshippers hold to be a god. Nimrod is said first to have brought in this worship, and there is a certain sect called Guebres which still maintain it.

During Safavid Iran, because of the powerful centralism , the regional governors named big provinces with only one name and thus the province of Azerbaijan , that was a main peace of Iran , became neighbor of Parthia that tends to be in N.E Iran, that is today some place between Iran and Turkmenistan. Then using Chardin to depict Azerbaijan boundaries is imprecise.--Alborz Fallah 15:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not matter what is precise and what is not. Making original research about sources is not allowed. We just quote it as it is, and both Abbot and Chardin call north of Araks Azerbaijan. That is undeniable fact, but it has nothing to do with ADR. The name section should be deleted from every article other than History of the name. The admin EI C deleted it, and that's the end of the story. Other articles about Azerbaijan also need a clean-up. --Grandmaster 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Imprecisety was shown to stress on WP:UNDUE.But about to mention and/or refer to the naming dispute page in the involved articles or not, that can be achieved via comparison with similar problems ( I mean Macedonia naming dispute) and consensus. Admins are always open to edit for a better edition and the discussion page is built for achieving this goal. --Alborz Fallah 06:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Yes, Ali is correct, but this has nothing to do with that agreement. This is about the Eytmology and usage section, which is highly relevant to the ADR. Once again, as with the other debates we have had regarding this issue, some parties to the dispute refuse to acknowledge the evidence, source, and arguments brought by others. This is a clear cut case: A) undue weight is being violated, B) WP:NPOV is being violated, C) Wikipedia NOR is being violated, and D) sourced information is being removed.

Once again, we keep hearing about Chardin and Abbot, what about the hundreds of other sources that say opposite? Not to mention that both these sources make mistakes, one in particular makes huge mistakes and the other is talking about Media, and that we have yet to see a single map...

Are we really going to have this discussion all over again? User:Thatcher131/Sandbox1 it has already happened and the outcome was clear.Hajji Piruz 22:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if we consider the Ali's opinion as correct, then at least we may show the controversy in choosing this name for the Caucasian republic by referring to such a page ( or entry)in the section Etymology and usage : naming controversy Alborz Fallah 08:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the issue of naming as admins have concurred is to be done in one article. Alborz Jan, I disagree with the approach of putting this issue in every article.  I think this way we can all concentrate on making better Wikipedia articles.  --alidoostzadeh 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

Armenia in east?
Isnt Armenia is in west? Not in east? Mimihitam (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, also Georgia was forgotten, so corrected those now. Atabek (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

1) De jure Soveiet Russia i.e. Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) was internationaly recognased as international legal entity and named USSR only after 1 February 1924, therefor before 1 February 1924 RSFSR was legaly unauthorized to recognise another state or conclude any contract or agreement with other states. 2) De jure non of Allies countries legaly recognised ADR and its borders. Michaeloff (talk)


 * 1) De facto and de jure isn't the same; 2) The majority of population was not Muslim but all officials were Crimean Tatars, i. e. Muslims. Having Muslim authorities is more important here than having Muslim population.77.122.107.222 (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no such thing as Crimean Republic. It was called "Крымское краевое правительство", i.e. Crimean regional government, led by general Sulkevich, future Chief of Staff of Azerbaijani Army. It was not a republic, and Sulkevich became a head of this government on 25 June 1918, while Azerbaijan became independent on 28 May 1918. Grandmaster (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a source in Russian about that. Grandmaster (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, there's an article in Wikipedia about Crimean People's Republic: 77.122.107.222 (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be references. Please cite a reliable source saying that Crimean republic was the first republic in the Muslim world. Here are the sources saying that ADR was the first one:

So stop reverting, and cite sources that support your position. --Grandmaster (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.cidct.org.ua/en/studii/2(2000)/6.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.107.222 (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ua_krtat.html#rep


 * You must provide better sources than those; an academic source that says Crimean People's Republic became autonomous. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can but they won't be in English.77.122.107.222 (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Russian will do. I have many more sources saying that ADR was the first republic in the Muslim world, they are all academic publications. Wiki articles must rely on views, prevailing in the scholarly community. Websites of Crimean Tatar nationalists and online blogs are not reliable sources. Grandmaster (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have written, Azerbaijan was the second Muslim republic - so it is natural that a scholar who doesn't know about Crimean People's Republic (which hasn't been properly researched yet) thinks that Azerbaijan was the first.77.122.107.222 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a Russian source (I think it would be difficult to regard it as biased since Russians often claim Crimea for themselves): http://www.moscow-crimea.ru/history/20vek/zarubiny/glava1_3.html77.122.107.222 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But it does not support what you say. It says that the Crimean Republic was declared by Tatar Kurultay (Assembly), but never materialized and remained only on paper: Крымская Народная Республика не состоялась. Она осталась только в тексте конституции Курултая. So it does not say that there was actually a state called Crimean republic. --Grandmaster (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Bolsheviks came. But they eventually came to Azerbaijan as well. http://www-ki.rada.crimea.ua/arhiv/1991/08/totalitarizm.html77.122.107.222 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your sources only say one thing - Tatar leaders declared independence as Crimean Republic, but it never became a functioning state, as it had no control over most of the territory of Crimea, including its capital. It existed only on paper. You cannot compare it with ADR, which was a fully functioning state with its own parliament, army, embassies in other countries and even had a de-facto recognition from Allies. That's why all the sources say that ADR was the first republic in the Muslim world. Grandmaster (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the sources thoroughly you would notice that Crimean People's Republic had Qurultay - parliament, and an army which tried to seize major Crimean cities in January 1918. And Ukrainian People's Republic de facto recognized Crimean People's Republic.77.122.107.222 (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it failed to become a state. Kurultay had no control over most of the territory of Crimea, so it was an unsuccessful attempt to create a state. Look also here: That's why all the sources say that the first republic was ADR. Even your sources say that Crimean Tatar Republic existed only on paper and never became a functioning state. So far you provided no source saying that Crimean Republic was the first in the Muslim world. And I can cite a lot more sources in addition to those that I already did. According to the rules, the info must be verifiable. Grandmaster (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But when you say "pre-dating Republic of Turkey" - ADR ceased to be before the latter was created. And it had existed for less than two years.
 * Crimean People's Republic was a failed state, yes, but that doesn't mean it was not a state at all.77.122.107.222 (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, how and when was Parliament of ADR elected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.107.222 (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

While I knew the information was wrong, I did not want to be the first one to bring it up. Some users here are notorious for their retaliations. But since it was brought up, I will comment on it. I don't see the need to provide sources in Russian, when sources in English exist. In fact both claims put forward by Azeri nationalists, that Azerbaijan was the first Muslim state and that it was the first to let women vote have been recycled from what was the Crimean Tatar republic. In fact, not only did Ukraine recognize its independence, the Crimean Tatar National Government, which commanded both the Crimean Cavalry Regiment and Crimean Tatar infantry was able to extend its power over the entire Crimea except the military base of Sevastopol which was under the Bolshevik control. (source: National Movements and National Identity Among the Crimean Tatars, 1905-1916, by Hakan Kırımlı, BRILL, 1996). The delegates from whom the members of the government were chosen were chosen on the basis of a broad franchise of all adult male and female Tatars. (source: The Crimean Tatars, by Alan W. Fisher, Hoover Press, 1978) Definitely the first Muslim republic giving women the right to vote was Crimean Tataristan. It was also the first Muslim nation which from its own constitution gave equal right to women and men. (see parts of the constitution on that in The Crimean Tatars: The Diaspora Experience and the Forging of a Nation by Brian Glyn Williams, BRILL, 2001). The election in Crimean Tataristan was much better organized and electoral than the one in Azerbaijan, with several parties. (see the parties and the result of the election here Conflicting Loyalties and the State in Post-Soviet Russia and Eurasia, by Michael Waller, Bruno Coppieters, Routledge, 1998) Crimean Tataristan boders were better defined than Azerbaijan, it also included several ministries, a democratically elected government. Given that the League of Nations did not exist when the republic was formed and that the defeated nations recognition was what it took prior to it, Crimean Tataristan remains the fist Muslim republic and the first which gave women the right to vote. VartanM (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * VartanM, first of all, "Crimean Tataristan" is a made-up name, who else has used it except yourself?
 * Second of all, what criteria are you using when you call a republic "Muslim"? It is the Islam-based political system? But Crimea was not a theocratic state. Is it the main religion of the population? But Crimea was over 50% Eastern Orthodox, with ethnic Russians making up the majority of the population. Is it the year when the ruling party was formed? But Musavat was formed way earlier. I do not see a thing about the Crimean People's Republic that defines it as first anything in the Muslim world. It seemed more like a unifying body for the Crimean Tatar population; an ethnic rather than a nation-state governing establishment. In comparison, Azerbaijan was majority-Muslim in population, ruled by a party that had been formed under the name of Muslim Democratic Party (and whose power extended over the non-Azeri population, unlike the Kurultay's with regard to non-Crimean Tatars), and Islam was one of the three main parts of its national ideology, reflected in the Declaration of Independence.
 * What kind of 'democratically elected government' are you talking about, when voting, as you yourself quoted from the source, was only the prerogative of the Crimean Tatar minority? (Whereas in Azerbaijan, even the Dashnaks had represenation in Parliament, along with a wide variety of Azeri parties, not just one, as you said). And how was recognition by Ukraine a benefit, if Ukraine itself was not a recognised state until after the fall of CPR? Azerbaijan, at least, had seen recognition from several existing countries. Parishan (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ukraine was recognised later - what does it matter? It doesn't mean that this state didn't exist at all before the recognition.77.122.107.222 (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It does matter in the sense that it (the recognition) doesn't matter. :) Ukraine had not declared its full independence until 25 January 1918. Before that it existed as an autonomous polity within Bolshevik Russia, not as a state. See the article Ukrainian People's Republic. And I am yet to hear, what exactly qualifies CPR as a Muslim state. Parishan (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is obvious: the republic was proclaimed by Crimean Tatars. Qurultay and Directorate consisted of Tatars only. Noman Celebicikhan was a Crimean Tatar. The anthem was written in their language and the flag was designed by them. It was a republic of Crimean Tatars - Muslims. And the fact they considered other ethnicities equal with themselves doesn't change that. The majority of population was non-Muslim, but we're talking about the state (i. e. about authorities) and not about the country.77.122.107.222 (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The ethnicity of the political elite does not automatically spread onto the cultural characteristic of the state, especially if that elite does not control the population outside of its own ethnic domain. Current President of Moldova is an ethnic Russian, so is the Prime Minister, but that does not make Moldova a Russian state. Please also comment on Grandmaster's quotes. Parishan (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And this is from declaration by Tatar Kurultay:

So they admitted that Kurultay represented only Tatar people, who were not the majority of population of Crimea, and said that to decide the future of Crimea it was necessary to convene an all-Crimean constituent assembly with participation of all peoples inhabiting the Crimea. So Kurultay was not the authority for the entire Crimea, as they themselves admitted. --Grandmaster (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet another quote:

There are more. Grandmaster (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


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

I offer you a compromise. "ADR, the first successful attempt to create a Muslim republic (Crimean People's Republic had been proclaimed in 1917 but failed to become an effective state)". And the same regarding women's suffrage - leave present version adding: "(Crimean People's Republic had done that earlier but never managed to organize any elections)". 77.122.107.222 (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would work that way. After all, the current version is what all the sources say. I would suggest that in the article about Crimean republic you include a line like "CPR was the first attempt to establish a republic in the Muslim world". In that case there will be no questions. But this article I believe should be left as it is. --Grandmaster (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then this way: "ADR was the first successful attempt...(see also Crimean People's Republic)".

"The first to allow suffrage... (see also Crimean People's Republic)".77.122.107.222 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the given sources the Crimean People's Republic never really achieved independence and its also important to note that the vast majority of the so called Crimean People's Republic was not Muslim but Orthodox Christian. Every major encyclopedia indicates Azerbaijan Democratic Republic as the first democratic and secular in the Muslim world. So the Crimean People's Republic really has no legal ground for its claimings. Baku87 (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grandmaster regarding the compromise as he has a valid point Baku87 (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Never really achieved independence" - that's why I suggest you write "ADR was the first successful attempt". And Crimean People's Republic was in fact Muslim because nobody except Muslims supported it. I agree it was "less a state" that ADR but you tend to completely ignore it which is wrong either. And the sources don't say about Crimean People's Republic just because their authors have never heard about it. Still, it is their problem, not that of the Crimea.77.122.107.222 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quote: "First successful attempt to establish a democratic and secular republic". In what way was it "democratic"? Were elections ever held? And in what way was it "successful", given that most of its energy was spent in wars against its neighbours, and wars against its own people, and that it only lasted 3 years? Meowy 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the parliament of ADR was democratically elected, it even had 2 Armenian fractions, one of them representing Dashnaks. As for successfulness, it was as successful, as the neighboring Armenia was, which spent most of its energy on wars with Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. But this Crimea thing because of which this line appeared there does not make much sense to me. Crimean Republic was not even a state, it did not exercise its authority on most of the territory of the Crimea. According to sources, ADR was the first republic in the Muslim world. Grandmaster (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that neither the Azerbaijan or Armenian republics were successful. If there were elections involving a mass electorate (as opposed to one involving delegates or cummunity leaders) when did it occur? If there was no such election it isn't correct to use the word "democratic" as a description of its parliament (though obviously the word Democratic should continue to be used as the country's title - a country can call itself by whatever name it wants). Meowy 17:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was such election. Only after such elections were conducted the British occupational forces transferred power to ADR and withdrew from the country. I think the book by Tadeusz Swietochowski is the best source about the history of Azerbaijan, and ADR specifically. Grandmaster (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * The building on the picture was built in 1948. ADR parliament was located in another building, which is now occupied by the Institute of Ancient Manuscripts. I agree, the stamps would be suitable illustrations for this article. Grandmaster (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with a stamp image that was already on Wikipedia. Meowy 15:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)