Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Old discussions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: I agree with AdilBaguirov well said! Baku87 13:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Map

message: 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)
thread_title: Map issue solved

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Musavat again and again 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  adding Hugh Pope's quote 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've replaced it with a stamp image that was already on Wikipedia. Meowy 15:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs