Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic/Archive 3

Conventional and native names
It would be good if there could be a consensus on what the name of the country was. This is a fairly basic fact that should not be constantly changing in the article over the years. There have been numerous changes, almost always without an edit summary, citation, or talk page discussion. Maybe someone knowledgeable could help explain the various terms, and we could make a decsion about how best to present them in the lead sentence and infobox?

There are two English terms used, "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic", and "People's Republic of Azerbaijan". What is the difference? There are two Roman-script terms that correspond to those, Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası and Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti, but previously the article has sometimes used them interchangeably. Finally there are at least two Perso-Arabic script representations.

I looked through the article's history so I could get a sense of what has happened in the past, and what has been stable. Unfortunately it didn't really clarify much for me, and it's kind of long so I collapsed it, but you can read it if you like:

The infobox has parameters "conventional_long_name" and "native_name". These were first added to the article back in November 2006:, as "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic" and Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası, as had been previously above the infobox. However, the lead sentence at the time used Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti as the translation of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. There was no explanation as to the discrepancy.

The "native_name" was changed two months later to Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti, still with "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic", matching the lead sentence:. It stayed this way for a couple of years, until April 2009, when it was changed here:, to "conventional_long_name = People's Republic of Azerbaijan / Azerbaijan Democratic Republic" and "native_name = Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti / Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikasi". The lead sentence remained unchanged, giving two contradicting translations. This situation was stable for about five years.

In September 2014: the lead sentence was changed from Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti to اظریجن خلق جومحریت, and then to آذربایجان خلق جمهوریتی, and the "native_name" changed to اظریجن خلق جومحریت ظریجن دێمکرتک رێسپوبلکس and then آذربایجان خلق رسپوبلیکاسی آذربایجان خلق جمهوریتی. In December 2014, the "native_name" was removed:, and then the lead sentence was changed to Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası by.

In March 2015, another now-blocked editor removed "People's Republic of Azerbaijan" from the "conventional_long_name", and added Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası as the "native_name":. In December 2015, added آذربایجان جومهوریتی to "native_name" and the lead sentence:.

There were more changes in February 2016, ending with the "native_name" as "Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası آذربایجان جومهوریتی", and the lead sentence being "Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası - آذربایجان دمکراتیک جومهوریتی}}) also known as Azerbaijan People's Republic' (Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti - آذربایجان خلق جومهوریتی".

In May 2017, removed the Perso-Arabic script:. There were more changes in July:, , leaving "native_name" as آذربایجان خلق جومهوریتی Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası. This was relatively stable until November 2019.

In the past week or so, has twice changed "native_name" to آذربایجان خلق جومهوریتی Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti:, , again without any explanation.

--IamNotU (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

, I saw that you've reverted the edit that made:. I wonder if you could take a moment to describe what you think is the problem with the edit? Aqşin Abbaslı keeps repeating the same edit - and various other editors keep reverting it - so it would be good if someone could help explain the reason why it keeps being reverted. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well there are two reasons. Firstly, the native name used in the infobox needs to match the one used in the lede of the article and it is important to standardize the romanization to a single form, which is likelly what the editor that originally added this had in mind. Secondly, the category for historical turkic states usually do not cover republic or any other countries whose excistence are primarily during the 1900's. There may be several reasons for this, such as increased independent identities and the fact that some historians believe that the 1900s as a whole are too recent to be considered history. Some also consider the azeris to be a "middle product" between turks and persians which, if true, would mean that the azeris might not be 100% turkic, though this is still debated. Regardless of my reasons though, as several established editors have reverted these edits, they might require concensus on this page before being reinstated, preferably with the two cases separate! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the explanation. I have a couple of questions. I believe that "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic" is the most common name in English, so it's correct that it should be the title of the article, and I agree that it should be matched in the infobox as the "conventional long name". The first sentence also gives an alternative name, "Azerbaijan People's Republic". It's not entirely clear to me whether one or the other (or both), and in which script(s), should be considered the "native name". It would be nice if there was some explanation of this in the article, which there is not. I'm not sure what you mean by "standardize the romanization to a single form" - there are two different names, and three different scripts... The editor who originally added it didn't add a perso-arabic script version; that was not added until a flurry of changes about eight years later. What I do see is that آذربایجان خلق جومهوریتی currently in the infobox transliterates to Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti. So it seems to me that 's edit changing the text below it to reflect that is not unreasonable, though not necessarily the best solution. Finding what reliable sources say about it would be ideal.
 * About the category, I don't see that Aqşin Abbaslı has made any edits about that, and yes, that would be a separate issue. I'd like to address here the ongoing disputes and repeated changes about which name(s) to use, and the lack of consensus about it. --IamNotU (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

on the historicity of name of Azerbaijan
I removed some content which claimed that the lands north of Aras river historically were not called Azerbaijan and this naming was done for pure political reasons. The first two references didn't imply the claim and the latter three references were from anti-Azerbaijani historians.

Instead, I provided references from original and prestigious books on medieval history of middle east: Tarikh Ar Rusul Wal Mulook Tarikh E Tabari and Evliya Çelebi seyahatnamesi. The links are provided to the original books in archive.org.

The first reference is from the renowned medieval historian Al-Tabari, is in Arabic and is written in 10th century during the Abbasid Caliphate. In the referenced page it is clearly mentioned that Derbent(in modern-day republic of Dagestan, Russia) is in Azerbaijan.

The second Reference is written by eminent ottoman traveler Evliya Çelebi in 17th century and is in Ottoman Turkish. In the referenced pages it is mentioned several times that Karabagh is a part of Azerbaijan.

These original material show without a doubt that the lands beyond the Aras were called Azerbaijan for centuries before the establishment of ADR and debunks the claims of aforementioned historians. --Farzin.az (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * All WP:RS references, which you tried to remove, are modern academic sources published by well-known publishers. Labeling them as "anti-Azerbaijani historians" won't get you far on Wikipedia. Your Tabari and Celebi sources on the other hand are severely outdated primary sources, and are not even verifiable to the general audience as they're written in Arabic and Ottoman Turkish, respectively. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment Removing sourced content sounds like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behavior. On Wikipedia, content must be verifiable. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Tatar Republic of Azerbaijan
Interestingly British sources using this name, see: 1, 2, 3. Should we add this as well? Beshogur (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a third name. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  20:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Undiscussed addition of altered coat of arms
Please stop changing the coat of arms to an unsourced version without discussing it here first. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  20:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The use of the name “Azerbaijan”
Prior to the ADR established in 1918, what sovereign, independent state used the word Azerbaijan in its name? Yes, there was the region in northwestern Iran, but in that region there didn't exist a country called Azerbaijan. There was no "Azerbaijan Khanate", there was the Tabriz Khanate, the Urmia Khanate, the Ardabil Khanate, etc. but none of those states ever coalesced to form a united Azerbaijan Khanate. And the Shirvanshahs, the dynasty that ruled the region for centuries, from the Abbasids (800s) to the Safavids (1500s), never called the land they were ruling Azerbaijan, instead, they called it Shirvan. My point is that the last state to use the name Azerbaijan was the province Adurbadagan in the Sasanian Empire in Late Antiquity. Oghuz Turks didn't begin settling the region until the 1000s with the arrival of the Seljuks, so prior to the Turkic invasions of the 11th century, the region was inhabited by Arabs and Iranians. And even after the Seljuk conquest of 1066 and the ensuing Turkification of the region, no Turkic country called itself Azerbaijan, instead, the name Azerbaijan was used for historical purposes until 1918. So how am I wrong to say that no Azerbaijani-speaking state with Azerbaijan in its name existed from 1066 until 1918? Epitome of Creativity (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to cite at least one reliable published source to back up this claim. Your argument above may very possibly be accurate, but we can't accept it (or claims based on it) in a Wikipedia article because of the prohibition on original research.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

First or third?
The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic is the first secular Democratic Republic in the Islamic world (and the Turkic world). Many credible sources confirm that. Whereas there's not enough evidence for the existence of the so-called Crimean Tratar Republic and the other. And even if there is, they are still irrelevant here because they didn't even last for 3 weeks. ChillManChill (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC) And moreover, the Crimean People's Republic was an constituent republic of the Russian Democratic Federative Republic that just wanted much more autonomy. They never really declared independence in the first place. ChillManChill (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You have provided no reliable sources for your assertion (no, saying "many credible sources" does not count), and merely have edit-warred despite receiving a warning about your behavior (and then accusing me of edit-warring for reverting your edit until the Talk discussion plays itself out. You can't decide arbitrarily that if you post something on the Talk page and no one responds in 6 days that you're free to make whatever POV edits you wish.  I know that you are new to Wikipedia, but you should take the rules (and the warnings that you receive) seriously.


 * Leaving that aside, let's talk about your claim itself. The issue of whether the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic ("ADR") was the first (or second, or third) secular democratic state in the Muslim and Turkic world has been discussed on this articke and its Talk page for at least 13 years.  There was a long Talk page discussion in 2008 (long since archived) in which, in my opinion, your view that the ADR was the first had the strongest argument and the most reliable sources backing it up.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic/Archive_1#First_or_second
 * However, the editing community went on to accept the edit that the ADR was the second such state, and later that it was only the third. I am pinging, who was the main proponent of the "first state" view in tbe 2008 discussion and provided reliable sources for his position that are still cited in the article  (and who is still an active editor), to see if he remembers how many years ago the article came to say that the ADR was the second, and then the third, secular democratic Muslim and Turkic state.  The article has provided that the ADR was the "third" such state since at least 2017, and had declared thst it was the "second" such state for several years before that.


 * Given that among the objections to accepting the other claimants to being the first such state was that their attempts were thwarted within a few weeks, I was thinking of suggesting that we end the controversy by modifying the ADR's description as the first *successful* such state, since the ADR managed to exist for a couple of years before the Soviet Union did to it the same thing that it previously had done to the prior nascent states. However, I see that Grandmaster argued against such compromise in 2008, and I would like to hear from him on the matter. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Since I also participated in the 2008 discussion, I would like to add my two cents. At the time, Grandmaster and I insisted that in the case of the Crimean People's Republic, one could not speak of a state as the Crimean Kurultay only claimed to represent the Muslim population of Crimea (see the archived discussions for sources). This falls short of the definition of a state, which ought to be able to effectively control its own territory (and Muslims formed only a third of Crimea's population at the time). The democratic nature of the Kurultay is not being questioned but no one has been able to provide any proof as to the Crimean People's Republic being in fact a state. The same goes for Idel-Ural, which declared itself merely an autonomous entity within the Russian Federation (here is the scan of the proclamation), which once again does not qualify it as a state. Azerbaijan is thus the only Muslim-majority establishment from 1918 that can claim statehood as the first democracy. Parishan (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. It does sound like the article never should have stated that the ADR was the second or third secular democratic republic in the Muslim and Turkic world.  Do you know why the article was later edited in such manner, and why such edits stayed in place for so many years?  The sources cited in the article point to ADR having been the first such state, but the article was edited to say "second" and later "third" such state without adding any new sources, so I thought that there may have been some later discussion. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, back then there was a discussion about ADR being or not being first republic in Muslim world. Some editors referred to other short-lived republics in Russia that also declared independence around that time. But neither of those were successful states, and none of them exist as independent states now. I cited in that discussion multiple academic sources to support the fact that ADR was the first republic in Muslim world. We agreed to add the word "successful" as a compromise, but no academic sources were cited in support of other states being first in Muslim world. Indeed, as noted by Parishan, Crimean People's Republic only represented Crimean Tatar people, and not the entire population of the region. So no other country can claim being first republic in Muslim world in terms of a functioning state. Grand  master  17:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * and, thank you for your input. What would you suggest that we do with the initial sentence of the article to prevent claims that earlier, short-lived Islamic or Turkic "states" were both secular and democratic?  Would adding "successful," as Grandmaster mentioned had been adopted as a compromise (and, I assume, subsequently shelved when the article was edited to change the ADR to "second" and, later, "third"), be acceptable to you?


 * And what do other editors think? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From the arguments provided by Parishan and Grandmaster, it seems to me that adding "successful" and keeping it as the "first state" would solve the problem. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  05:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with this formulation. Parishan (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think adding "successful" would work as a compromise, if there's still an argument about which state was the first Muslim republic. But is there still an argument about that, or just some random person changing "first" to "second" or "third" and citing no sources in support of that claim? Grand  master  17:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article appears to have said "third" for several years, and prior to that "second" for several more, prior to the recent edit that changed it to "first," so I assume that the controversy is still alive and that it isn't merely a random person changing it to "second" or "third" once in a while. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And there's an article about Crimean People's Republic claiming to be the first Turkic and Muslim democratic republic in the world, but citing no reliable sources. Grand  master  09:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the "first," "second" or "third" controversy still rages on Wikipedia, and that there appears to be a consensus in this discussion to put the issue to bed by adding "successful" to the description of the ADR (among editors participating in the discussion, four support the compromise (which, for the record, is not inconsistent with the view that the ADR also was the first secular Muslim republic (whether successful or not), but merely avoids controversy by asding "successful" and making it an incontrovertible statement), I will edit the article by adding the word "successful." This should forestall attempts from editors to change the designation to "second" or "third."  Thank you all for participating in this discussion.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the sentence should just stay as it is. As Parishan already stated, The Crimean people's republic's muslim population at the time (and even now) was a minority and the Idel-Ural republic merely declared itself an autonomous state, not an independent republic. ChillManChill (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see discussion above for the reasons why the consensus is that the word "successful" should be added after "first." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)