Talk:Mammed Said Ordubadi

move

Dacy, maybe we can move this page to Mammed Said Ordubadi? Ateshi - Baghavan 18:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page. Ateshi - Baghavan 19:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I made some minor fixes, also South Caucasus is not the same as Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A) There was no "Russian Azerbaijan" until the USSR occupied the ADR. B) There was no Azerbaijan in the Caucasus at all in this time period...What are you and Elsanaturk trying to pull?Azerbaijani 23:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You better check scholarly articles and books, for example Swietochowski. Here we use a term 'Russian Azerbaijan' not necessary in historic sense but in academic to identify a part of Azerbaijan which was under Russian rule.--Dacy69 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Show me one scholarly article from the time that mentions a "Russian Azerbaijan"...Russian Azerbaijan was not a term used then. And I fail to understand how Russian Azerbaijan identifies a "part" of Azerbaijan which was under Russian rule, the Russians never even conquered any of Azerbaijan, they simply conquered the land up to the Aras river...No where on any of the Russian Iranian treaties did it say that Russian takes any part of Azerbaijan, what are you talking about? What are you talking about?Azerbaijani 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool down. First, I told that a term "Russian Azerbaijan" can be used in academic articles like Wiki in scholarly term. This is exactly how T.Swietochowski uses it - check his book "Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920. The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community. Сambridge: Сambridge University Press, 1985" As far as historic meaning, Russians called today's Azerbaijanis "Azerbaijanskiye tatari" (Azerbaijani Tatars). Some Russian writers (for example Velichko) even used term Azerbaijanis and Azerbaijan - check this В.Л.Величко. Кавказ. Русское дело и междуплеменные вопросы. Публицистические сочинения. Том 1, СПб, 1904. - page 154. He wrote "Aзербайджанцев называют татарами, но это совершенно неточно, если относить притом татар к монгольскому племени... Азербайджан дал Персии одну из величайших ее династий, во время владычества которой расцвели в этой державе науки, искусства, земледелие и ратное дело..." - translation: "Azerbaijanis are called 'Tatars' but it is absolutely wrong, if we associate Tatars with Mongol tribes... Azerbaijan gave Persia one of the greatest dynasties during reign of which science, arts, agriculture and military affairs florished... So, these terms used In Russian Empire --Dacy69 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, what are you talking about? In this article, "Russian Azerbaijan" is used as a geographic term to describe this person's area of activity, not as an "academic" term. Also, your Russian source is talking about Iranian Azerbaijan obviously.

No text or map or anything ever mentions a "Russian Azerbaijan" until the Soviets occupied the ADR. Why are you still going to argue about this? You are obviously wrong here, you know this.

Also, this person did most of his work in Tiblisi (as the article itself says, he only returned to Baku in 1918), not "Russian Azerbaijan". It is more correct to put Russian Caucasus, as this person did not do most of his work in "Russian Azerbaijan" and because there wasnt even a "Russian Azerbaijan" at the time.Azerbaijani 17:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To end this silly dispute I put Russian Azerbaijan and the rest of Caucus. The person passwed away in 1950. The article could use more expansion and referencing but there is no need for a NPOV tag over such a dispute. --alidoostzadeh 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I would rather prefer to end this dispute as well but no because of the lack of arguments but definitely because this is old dispute which even does not belong here.--Dacy69 19:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why dont we just put Azerbaijan SSR?Azerbaijani 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Because he started his career earlier before ADR and AzSSR emerged. And Velichko - fyi - talked about Azerbaijan under Russian control which is part of the subject of his book--Dacy69 20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, he started his career before the ADR...can you show me one usage of the term Russian Azerbaijan before the Soviets actually conquered the ADR (I'm talking about primary sources here, from the actual time period)? Thats what I'm asking you to do, if you cant, than just admit your wrong.Azerbaijani 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I just told you about Velichko.--Dacy69 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy who was talking about Iranian Azerbaijan? Where doesnt Velichko mention Russian Azerbaijan? He does, this is according to your translation:

Azerbaijanis are called 'Tatars' but it is absolutely wrong, if we associate Tatars with Mongol tribes... Azerbaijan gave Persia one of the greatest dynasties during reign of which science, arts, agriculture and military affairs florished...

I think you have even confused yourself! Still waiting for you to find one reference to "Russian Azerbaijan"...Azerbaijani 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording is ok. Russian and ussr was also used together. --alidoostzadeh 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We have already established that it is an academic term used today. However, what I and Dacy are debating is a completely different thing.Azerbaijani 23:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Velichko does not distinguish because at that time there was no term like - Iranian or Russian Azerbaijan. But he talked about Azerbaijan which was under Russian rule. So, speaking about Ordubadi - he lived in Azerbaijan under Russia - so we use term Russian Azerbaijan. What is the problem, I can't understand. You want to say that term Azerbaijan did not mean at that time terrirory which is now modern independent Azerbaijan. But Velichko and other Russians used that word. We can put just "Azerbaijan" in the text, if you wish. This page is not about that dispute. We need just to indicate that Ordubadi lived in Azerbaijan which was under Russian Empire. So, then Swietochowski described the lives of Azerbaijanis under Russians he used a term 'Russian Azerbaijan'. So did I. I don't see any problem in principle - why you want to bring problems to that article.So, Russians applied that term to the territory where Ordubadi and other Azerbaijanis lived--Dacy69 01:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Valichko is talking about Iranian Azerbaijan, as the only usage of the term Azerbaijan was for North Western Iran at the time, this is indisputable. He even clearly says that Iran got some of its most important dynasties from Azerbaijan...last I checked, none of Iran's dynasties originated north of the Aras river.

Also, no, Azerbaijan was not used in the Caucasus at all...infact, the Cacuasus was made up of Khanates. Ordubadi could not have been born or worked in Azerbaijan before 1918, as a Caucasian Azerbaijan simply did not exist at the time. Infact, before 1918 this man did his work in Tibilisi, not even in the present day territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani 05:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be back after weekend - on Monday. for sure Ordubadi worked in Tbilisi and Azerbaijan as well. Velichko talked about Azerbaijan which was part of Russian Empire. you can find his book in internet. Perhaps we need to dig other Russian sources. We'll resume that, though I still believe that this dispute does not belong here and as you see I tried to stay out of the dispute on that subject on other relevant pages.--Dacy69 06:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Further - here we mention Russian Azerbaijan once - and it is not about even Ordubadi. I believe you can discuss this dispute on other relevant pages.--Dacy69 14:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere have I seen any mention of a Russian Azerbaijan. What are you talking about? Where does Valichko say Russian Azerbaijan?Azerbaijani 17:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you agree if we put just Azerbaijan. (Velichko wrote about Azerbaijan under Russian rule.)--Dacy69 18:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Besides, I found other sources (addition to Swietochowski) which in its narration uses the term 'Azerbaijan" to present day independent Azerbaijan, which was at the time of Ordubadi under Russsians - for example Austin Jersild, "RETHINKING RUSSIA FROM ZARDOB: HASAN MELIKOV ZARDABI AND THE NATIVE INTELLIGENTSIA", Nationalities Papers, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1999.--Dacy69 22:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way is Valichko talking about Azerbaijan under Russian control? Was he talking about when Russian conquered Iranian Azerbaijan during the second Iranian-Russian War? All I see is you trying to stretch what Valichko says into what you want it to say.

Also, I am not talking about modern sources, I'm talking about sources from the time period. And no, Azerbaijan is not fine either as there was no Azerbaijan in the Caucasus before 1918. How about we say this:

Mahammad Sidgi was well-known intellectual for his enlightment activity in the Caucasus and later the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in the beginning of the XX century.

This is a fair compromise as is a factual reflection of the reality.Azerbaijani 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Velichko is talking about Azerbaijanis under Russian rule and mention Azerbaijan in this regard. Secondly, academic articles and books mention Azerbaijan when talking about people, like Zardobi or even events which were a part of Russian Empire (Swietochowski, Olstatd). Here we can rightfully use the same language. We are not disputing about the term 'Azerbaijan'. There is separate page about that. You confuse the concept of the use of the term in academic articles. In vast number of academic sources there is concept of history of Azerbaijan which includes present day independent Azerbaijan. If you wish you can invite third opinion or try anything else.--Dacy69 13:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does Valichko say Russian Azerbaijan? And how am I supposed to KNOW that he is talking about Azerbaijan under Russian control? From the text you showed me, it seems as if he is talking about Iran, and if anything, the Northern parts of Iran that Russian conquered during the second Russo-Iranian war (in which the Russians conquered Tabriz). This is not about modern academic sources, this is about whether historically there was such a thing as a "Russian Azerbaijan" (which there was not).

Also, my compromise is high acceptable, as he worked most of his life up until 1918 in Tibilisi, which is not "Russian Azerbaijan" and he later moved to Baku with the creation of the ADR. So its only correct to say that he worked in the Caucasus and later in the ADR.Azerbaijani 13:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My task was to give a source - you can check. It is not obscure source easyli found in internet [1] As I told, academic sources use term 'Azerbaijan' with regard to that period, so do we.--Dacy69 15:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No where in your source does it say anything of the sort, why would you blantantly lie? Maybe you think people cant read Russian? The term Azerbaijani was used by the Russians, yes, they were the ones who invented the term. But the Russians never called any of their Caucasian territories Azerbaijan...Your source doesnt even make such a claim.Azerbaijani 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dacy, who do you think you are that you think you can attempt to manipulate people? No where does your source saying anything about Azerbaijan, or even a Russian territory called Azerbaijan. It merely says Azerbaijani to describe the Muslim and Turks of the Caucasus. Infact, Azerbaijani is a term the Russians themselves invented. Your source says nothing of Azerbaijan and nothing of a "Russian Azerbaijan".

My compromise is fair, and obviously, you are not here to make this article better, because you went as far as attempting to lie, which is a bad action on your part. Do not take information out of context on purpose again please.Azerbaijani 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Watch your language. I am not going to argue with anymore unless you will apologize. I never argued about which part of Azerbaijan called as such. (Though Velichko is talking about Azerbaijanis under Russians.) This is about a term used in academic sources. Take your obsession to another page.--Dacy69 23:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Watch my language for what? I noticed your false report on me (which is exactly what several other users have tried to do in the past).

And your source is talking about exactly what you said, Azerbaijani's in Russia, not Azerbaijan or an Azerbaijan in the Caucasus. You just proved yourself wrong. It is a well known fact that the term Azerbaijani was applied to Muslim Caucasians who spoke the Turkic dialect which was also spoken in Azerbaijan (Iran) and who were of Iranian descent. Your source says nothing of a "Russian Azerbaijan" and infact, it reaffirms the fact that Azerbaijan is in Persia, saying that Azerbaijan has given Persia one of its greatest dynasties, the Safavids, who hailed from Ardabil.Azerbaijani 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the title of this book by Tadeusz Swietochowski: Russian Azerbaijan, 1905 - 1920: The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community (Cambridge Russian, Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies). ISBN-10: 0521522455 It is a scholarly publication, and the use of term of Russian Azerbaijan with regard to the discussed period in scholarly literature speaks for itself. Stop POV editing please. Grandmaster 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And please stop attaching baseless tags to the entire article just because of one word. Ali also told you that no tag is necessary. Grandmaster 05:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of the article and I believe you guys are using POV. It doesnt matter what Ali says, as I am my own person. Why are you making such disruptive edits? We are not talking about Russian Azerbaijan as an academic term, we are talking about it as a historical term, and there was no such thing as a Russian Azerbaijan during the period before 1918 (or Azerbaijan SSR).

This is a fair compromise:

Mahammad Sidgi was well-known intellectual for his enlightment activity in the Caucasus and later the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in the beginning of the XX century.

Grandmaster, why is it that you never compromise, but always expect others to?Azerbaijani 13:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The following quotation should end this and many other disputes. It is British source of 1863 (!!!)

Extracts from a Memorandum on the Country of Azerbaijan By Keith E. Abbott, Esq., H.M. Consul-General in Persia . [Communicated by the Foreign Office.] Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of London, Vol. 8, No. 6. (1863 - 1864), pp.275-279.

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, Somelrhetty, Kasakh; the Mohammedan countries of Eriwan, Nakhshewan, Karabagh, Ghenja, Shirwan, Shekky, Shamachy, Bakou, Koobeh, Salian and a portion of Talish...

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. --Dacy69 13:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is the external link placed at the end supposed to be the source used for the article? If so, the unreferenced tag can be removed.Azerbaijani 17:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it is one of his work. But someone removed my previous link to his bio. I would add others--Dacy69 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats not the question, what is the source for the information presented here in this article.Azerbaijani 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I put 2 links--Dacy69 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so the external links you mean? We should probably change that to references.Azerbaijani 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree--Dacy69 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Undo-Weight

See Wikipedia Undo-Weight, which I have already explained to all of you. Russian Azerbaijan is undo weight, so I took it out. I also replaced it with the sentence proposed earlier, which is actually a correct analysis of the reality, and he wasnt even working in "Russian Azerbaijan", he was in Tiflisi, Georgia until he went to the ADR.Azerbaijani 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is your POV--Dacy69 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the rules that I have outlined here: [2] I'm sick and tired of having to teach you Wikipedia's rules. Read them yourself and get familiar with them, then we wont have to go through all this needless debating. NPOV is non-negotiable and absolute, Dacy, your violating Wikipedia's rules.Azerbaijani 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your language is inappropriate.You are violating constatntly Wikipedia rules.--Dacy69 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What inappropriate language? Please do tell, or is there going to be another false report filed against me for a PA?Dacy, please read Wikipedia rules for yourself, atleast once, before telling others to. You know I have read them.Azerbaijani 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, I reported you because you can't respect others' opinion. you push your POV.I don't need teacher like you, at least.--Dacy69 18:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

How predictable.Azerbaijani 18:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You should learn to spell the name of the rule correctly before referring to it. It is undue weight, not undo. It has nothing to do with the term Russian Azerbaijan. Why don't you leave the name issue alone? Your only contribution to Wikipedia is edit warring over the name of Azerbaijan in various Azerbaijan related articles. I'm afraid I will have to draw community's attention to your editing. Grandmaster 04:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, your telling me what to edit on Wikipedia? Everything I edit is Azerbaijani related and I'm perfectly entitled to edit whatever I want. Grandmaster, do you not undertstand what undue weight is? The only people here breaking Wikipedia policies consistently are you guys. I can edit any article I want, this is Wikipedia, its open to everyone and no one owns or is entitled to anything. If my edits are regarding the name Azerbaijan on various article, than that is because I feel that it needs to be addressed, whats it to you? What I see here is bully tactics being used.Azerbaijani 13:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, undue weight applies here, as you are trying to push a minority view point. This guy worked in Tiflisi until 1918, are you trying suggest that Tiflisi was part of "Russian Azerbaijan"?Azerbaijani 18:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There we speak about Sidgi, not Ordubadi. As for Ordubadi - he lived a part of his life in Tiflis. "Russian Azerbaijan" is legitimate term used By Swietcochowski whom you like citing on other pages. And we have historical document on that - it is primary source. your "undue weight" is about academic opinion.--Dacy69 18:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing the term Russian Azerbaijan as an academic term, we are discussing it as a historical term. Undue weight is about minority views, read the rules yourself if you dont believe me:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. [3]

Dacy, I should not have to copy paste the rules for you every single time, just read the article yourself please.Azerbaijani 19:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You shoud stop repeating the same over and over again. We can use a term Azerbaijan both from academic perspective (as description) and from historical (as we have document). Don't agree - ok - I am ready for DR.--Dacy69 19:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes or no question, do you think Wikipedia rules apply to every article and every person?Azerbaijani 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it applies but your interpretation is not.--Dacy69 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats my interpretation, I have posted the rule right here in front of you. You are the one interpreting it the way you want. Tell me how what I pasted above does not apply here.Azerbaijani 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with your interpretation of tiny minority. We will be stuck again in this dispute. There is other opition besieds you-and-me dispute.--Dacy69 20:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Um...there is no need of an interpretation for "tiny minority", its pretty clear what a tiny minority is. Your trying to side step the rules.Azerbaijani 21:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mu...you are trying to push your POV.--Dacy69 21:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

How, you still havent explained. You are trying to avoid the entire conversation about Wikipedia's policies. This is pretty hilarious. Dacy, doesnt all of this technically mean that you are the one using POV and your own interpretation?

I dont even know why this is being debated, NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.Azerbaijani 21:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the problem. How you state your point of view - this is absolute, etc. This is indeed pushing POV.

Regarding Wiki rules - I explained several times. perhaps you are testing my patience. I have it enough. Again - we have both academic and primary sources. For me it is not tiny minority. Swietochowski is not tiny minority. he is quoted on many pages. the document I found is improtant historical document. It is primary source.--Dacy69 21:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you bother reading the rules? Its not my POV: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[4]

This is hilarious, your trying to debate the rules with me and you havent even read them.

Also, its pretty apparent who is trying to use POV here, I'm quoting you: "For me it is not tiny minority." See, you are the one using POV. Its not up to you to decide what a tiny minority is, the sources make it apparent what the tiny minority is.

Dacy, you have now reaffirmed my entire argument here.Azerbaijani 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also not up to you what is tiny minority--Dacy69 23:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First, you tried to prove that I am totally wrong and told that I lie. Then, after appearance of the document you disappeared for a while and came with new wave of attacks and arguments based on your vision of undue weight. This does not require additional comments.I have no intention to argue with you more. You are sure that you are right - there is DR proccess. And learn be civil after all.--Dacy69 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you avoiding the discussion?

First of all, I showed that you did distort Valichko's quote, so you did technically lie. Then, after I kept asking you, you finally found this quote. Your right, it doesnt need any more additional comments because Wikipedia's rules require that this article be fixed, you cant argue with Wikipedia's policies, atleast not here.Azerbaijani 00:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Obsession of some user is not worth of my time--Dacy69 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)