Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:41, 25 January 2007

Azerbaijan Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

hey, who adds that sentence about "apologise"? please cite Rasulzade's article, not Atabeki! Elsanaturk 13:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Atabaki is a professional historian, very reliable. Also, it is the letter that is cited...Azerbaijani 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Elsanaturk, you cannot edit Misplaced Pages based on POV. You cannot remove information you do not like.Azerbaijani 06:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear user this azerbaijani is deleting facts and spoil the article with grammatic mistakes Elsanaturk 16:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Rasulzadeh quote

There is a real problem with this statement: "According to Touraj Atabaki, it was in his exile that Rasulzade admitted in an article that he wrote that Albania (referring to Caucasian Azerbaijan) was different than Azerbaijan (referring to Iranian Azerbaijan) and declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians"."

The problem is, that it is clearly taken out of context and leads us to believe smth, which Rasulzadeh did not say or meant.

Here's the fuller quote, with context, from prof. Touraj Atabaki's book, page 25:

"Adopting the name of Azerbaijan for the area of southern and eastern Transcaucasia soon caused concern in Iran and Azerbaijan . Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh, the founder of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Transcaucasia, understood -- during these early days -- the territory of this new Azerbaijan to consist of "the Baku and Elisavetpol gubernias, the southern districts of the Tiflis and Yerevan gubernias, and the country of Zakatal". Later, when the republic had been toppled by the Bolsheviks and Rasulzadeh had been forced to seek asylum abroad, he admitted that this choice of a name for the new republic had been a mistake. In an article which he wrote on the history of the short-lived Republic of Azerbaijan, Rasulzadeh acknowledges that: "Albania (the former Soviet Azerbaijan) is different from Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan)." Moreover, in a letter to Taqizadeh, he declared his eagerness to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians". However, if the Republic of Azerbaijan, was the name adopted by the Muslim Musavatists, when the bolsheviks established their rule over the region, they did not hesitate to retain the same name. On 28 April 1920, the government of Musavatists was overthrown b ythe revolutionary Bolsheviks, and an independent Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan was proclaimed. "

So, what do we get from this fuller quote? First of, Touraj Atabaki is an Iranian nationalist, and is somewhat partial and sensitive -- he also appears to have a favorable view of Reza Shah, which for a book published in Europe and US in the year 2000, is rather revealing of whom his loyalties are to.

Second, and most importantly, despite discussing such an important and contentious point as naming of a whole country and nation, Prof. Atabaki cites only one source -- both endnotes 59 and 60 are referring to a 1966 book by R.Ramazani -- and he quotes very briefly, with those quotes being clearly taken out of context and misunderstood.

For example, in order to understand what is meant by the offer to do "whatever is in his power to avoid any further discontent among Iranians", we absolutely must have the context. 1) Did Rasulzadeh offer any solutions to choose from? 2) When did he do so, which are the dates, that Atabaki conveniently ignores? 3) Also, what POWER did Rasulzadeh have if he was never a president (this post didn't even exist in ADR), Prime-Minister, minister or judge in ADR? He was only Musavat party chairman -- and the Azerbaijani Parliament had several numerous fractions and parties, including Dashnaks, Mensheviks, etc. 4) Moreover, was this quote even relevant to the name of "Azerbaijan" -- or was it just a normal diplomatic note between two old friends, who wanted to normalize or improve relations between their countries, and thus had some, however limited, tools at their disposal -- like writing letters to someone, and other acts, commonly referred to as "lobbying"? Forgive me, but for lack of context and basic details like dates, which prof. Atabaki for some reason did not supply, I argue that the quote should be removed altogether due to it being misleading, inconclusive and out of context.

The very same concerns are eminating from the former quote, "Albania (the former Soviet Azerbaijan) is different from Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan)". Well, of course Caucasian Albania was different from (South) Azerbaijan! Caucasian Albania is a generally accepted name by which the North Azerbaijan went from IV century BC until VII century AD, albeit at times lands north of Araxes river were included into the geographic and political notion of Azerbaijan. However, since the fall of Caucasian Albania to Arabs in 705 AD, and it being generally named by Arabs as "Arran" (which is a derivative of "Albania" - "Aluank" - "Alpan", although the name of mythical king Aran, founder of Caucasian Albania, is featured prominently in local mythology), mostly only towards the lands between Kura and Araxes river (that is, not including Shirvan, some Mughan, Talish and North Daghestan). As multiple medieval and later sources prove, the name "Azerbaijan" applied well north of Araxes river (e.g., see academician Iqrar Aliyev, prof. Yampolsky, Dr. Sisoyev, Great soviet Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Iranica, and a host of Arab and other scholars).

Hence, by this quote, what is obvious is Rasulzadeh's brief explanation of ancient history of his nation and country, and that for longest times it was not the name of Azerbaijan, but Caucasian Albania that was prevalent. However, after the demise of Albania, everything started to change, most notably in 12th-13th centuries, when a powerful Azerbaijan Atabek State of Ildezids (Ildegoz) was founded and whose powerbase was in Naxcivan (north of Araxes), with capital being in Barda and Naxcivan, and an additional residence in Ganja -- all north of Araxes. It's possible that Rasulzadeh might have not know many of these facts -- he was not a specialist on ancient history.

Thus, I argue that this quote too should be removed altogether due to it being misleading, inconclusive and out of context. --AdilBaguirov 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No POV. Everything you said was POV, especially your claim that we can tell Atabaki is a nationalist from that quote...thats just laughable...Also, from the quote you posted, it does not show that anything has been taken out of context.Azerbaijani 18:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But you have not provide the whole context of Rasulzade's quote. It is just a line taken out of some apparently large text. Can you quote the whole paragraph where the quote was taken from? Grandmaster 19:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it taken out of context? The quote is exactly the way Atabaki has it, that Rasulzadeh said that Albania is different from Azerbaijan. I'm putting it back in. You have to discuss things first before making unilateral decisions.Azerbaijani 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this taken out of context: In an article which he wrote on the history of the short-lived Republic of Azerbaijan, Rasulzadeh acknowledges that: "Albania (the former Soviet Azerbaijan) is different from Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan)."? Please elaborate. Nothing is taken out of context here. Secondly, why do you keep removing the Goltz quote? He is a reliable third party source. Plus, Adil's long essay is all POV and original research, it is no basis for argument.Azerbaijani 19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

user:Azerbaijani, the quotes from Rasulzadeh prove absolutely nothing -- they are taken out of context and misinterpreted by Atabaki, and misused by you. Likewise, Goltz's quote is irrelevant, as he is not a historian, but a great journalist and contemporary witness, chronicler. What happened in 1918-1920, is not his specialty. I wrote everything correctly and logically, and you have been unable or unwilling to offer any proof that these quotes are not taken out of context and not misused. This is why we have this Talk page, and this is why before removing anything, I have provided all the arguments and research. Please follow the Misplaced Pages's format and be constructive. --AdilBaguirov 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A) Goltz is a very reliable source, and B) The quote was not taken out of context. I already caught you in one lie (regarding the Barthold quote) and now you are trying to say this quote was taken out of context. It was not, the quote is put in straight from the book exactly, there is no possibility of it being taken out of context.Azerbaijani 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, here's the full quote from Goltz, which perhaps should be quoted more precisely:

"Rasulzade, meanwhile, was politically long gone. Declining Stalin's invitation to play Quisling in the new order, he was thrown in a Moscow prison for two years before managing to escape (or being allowed to escape) via Finland to Germany. There he remained throughout World War II--another aspect of his career the new nationalists did not like to talk about much -- before retiring to Turkey, where he became involved in the politics of the marginal pan-Turkic movement. He died in Ankara in 1955, a broken man."

As you can see, Goltz's info about, for example, 2 years imprisonment, diverges SIGNIFICANTLY from the info of our Wiki page, as edited by user:Azerbaijani. So why such selective quoting?

Lower on the same page 18, his most important phrase is quoted by Goltz, which must become part of the Misplaced Pages page: "'Bir Kere Yukselen Bayrak Bir Daha Inmez!' or 'The Flag Raised Once Cannot Be Lowered!' was the phrase written beneath Rasulzade's portrait."

As we see, Goltz makes it clear that not only was this towards the end of Rasulzade's life, but the unspecified "movement" was MARGINAL, and was pan-Turkic, not pan-Turkist. Pan-Turkic movement is like pan-European movement -- works towards greater cultural, social, humanitarian, perhaps economic and political, links. Yet in the way user:Azerbaijani misuses it, it sounds different. In any case, the quote must be quoted and cited properly, and in a more appropriate way --AdilBaguirov 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no quarrel by putting that he spent two years in a Moscow prison (when was he put in prison so I could put in in the correct place of the paragraph). I'll put that in myself. Also, Golts clearly said that Rasulzadeh involved himself in the Pan Turkist movement, and our article here says participated in pan Turkist politics, which is the same thing (we can change "politics" to "movement" if that pleases you). Secondly, pan Turkists is the same as Pan Turkic, but again, if you want to change specific words that dont really make a difference, go ahead. Infact, I'll do it myself.Azerbaijani 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I put in exactly what Goltz says, and again, we can add the imprisonment thing also when we figure out what time of his life that happened in (1920 or later?). Also, I did not selectively quote anything, most of the article was not written by mean, I merely sourced Goltz over the subject matter that needed sourcings, likewise, instead of blaming me, you could blame the number of people who also edited the article yet did not put that he was imprisoned for two years.Azerbaijani 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't mean to blame you, user:Azerbaijani, for the article. However, Goltz's whole paragraph is incorrect -- not only does he diverge on 2 year imprisonment with current Wiki page, but also omits to mention Romania, for example, as a country in which Rasulzade lived. There is nothing on his wife either -- and thus special connection to Poland. Hence, Goltz's quote is not well-placed -- please find a more authoritative and correct quote.

Likewise, there is a difference between Pan-Turkist (dominated by Turkey) and Pan-Turkic (equality for all Turkic people). And there is difference between a marginal movement, and more loud and authoritative "politics". For example, I participate in the MoveOn.org movement, but does that mean I am Democrat or otherwise participate in US politics? No. --AdilBaguirov 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You have unilaterally removed sourced information and deleted a well referenced article. I just changed all that to what you said and you reverted me!Azerbaijani 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, you have contributed very poorly sourced information -- I had to go and verify them all, make the quotes exact. Secondly, it is not enough to bring quotes -- they have to relevant and correct. Goltz's is not - his info diverges with Misplaced Pages's page, and omits other important info. Moreover, there is no proof of "broken man" -- seems more like a slang, journalistic jargon, not actually attesting to the financial situation of Rasulzade at the end of his life.

Third, the Atabaki quote is discussed AT LENGTH above, see there.

Fourth, both sections "Exile" and previous "Azerbaijan Democratic Republic" have clear repetitions. I have removed the repetition, whilst you keep on including it -- along with other spelling mistakes of yours. Compare the following:

FROM: Azerbaijan Democratic Republic "but in August 1920, after soviet army crashed the rebellions of Ganja, Karabakh, Zagatala and Lankaran, lead by ex-officers of Azerbaijani army, Rasulzade was arrested and brought to Baku. It was only due to his earlier rescue of Joseph Stalin in 1905 that Rasulzade was released and taken from Baku. For the next two years, Rasulzade worked as the press representative at the Commissariat on Nations in Moscow. He was seconded to St.Petersbourg in 1922 from where escaped to Finland and never returned."

FROM: Exile "In August 1920, Rasulzade was arrested by the Soviets. It was only due to his old friendship with Joseph Stalin, dating back to their revolutionary activity in tsarist Russia that Rasulzade was released and taken from Baku. For the next two years, Rasulzade worked as the press representative at the Commissioner on Nations in Moscow. He was seconded to Finland in 1922 and never returned." --AdilBaguirov 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not write these portions of the article! Why are you blaming everything on me? And no, you did not delete the repition, you deleted the whole last paragraph! Also, as I said above, your comment about the Atabaki quote is pure POV and OR, please read Wiki rules regarding these issues.Azerbaijani 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary of the above arguments against the Goltz and Atabaki quotes in their present shape and form:

1) The Atabaki quotes lack dates -- this is unacceptable and contrary to citation requirements. It is a basic requirement that date should be given when did Rasulzade write anything. At least the year, although month and day would give the full citation.

2) The Atabaki quotes appear to be out of context and misleading. Prof. Atabaki leads Rasulzade's quotes to make his own conclusions -- nowhere does Rasulzade mention he regrets the choice of naming of his nation (?!) and he never did it officially anywhere in his speeches or publications. This is discussed in more details above. This raises serious questions about the validity of the quotes in the context of Misplaced Pages's page on Rasulzade and elsewhere.

3) Neither Atabaki, nor the Wiki page clearly state who Taqizadeh was, nor that Rasulzadeh had no power to adopt or change name of a nation. This brings about the importance of the date of letters even more.

4) Goltz's quote -- not being an expert on history, Prof. Goltz gives more simplistic assessments than scholars and experts on that timeframe and such political leaders as Rasulzade (which I will cite below). Also, prof. Goltz makes several inconsistent, with Wiki page, statement on the same page, such as about 2 year imprisonment of M.E.Rasulzade in Moscow.

Now, to clarify many of the moments and show how wrong much of the information already present on the Misplaced Pages page and advocated for by user:Azerbaijani, here are several scholarly quotes dealing with the period and persons which I collected:

I) On Taqizadeh:

"The radicals, meanwhile, were demoralized and leaderless. Taqizadeh, Haydar Khan, and Rasulzadeh had been forced into exile ." Ervand Abrahamian, Iran Between Two Revolutions, Princeton University Press, 1982, p. 110.

"The prominent left-wing delegate from Azarbaijan, Sayyid Hasan Taqizadeh, then helped form the influential Democrat Party, a coalition of liberals and social democrats, which gained a minority representation of between twenty and thirty delegates in the Second Majlis, out of 111 delegates." John Foran (ed.), A Century of Revolution: Social movements in Iran, University of Minnesota Press, 1994, p. 36.

The relevance of this quote is that both Rasulzade and Taqizadeh were Azerbaijani, both were intellectuals and party activists, both were important, yet both lacked top authority and real power. In other words, even if Atabaki's conclusion, based on incomplete and undated quotes is correct, it is essential to note that 1) nowhere did Rasulzade voice such thought in public and officially, and 2) that he and Taqizade's were either politically unimportant or lacked any real authority, power and position to speak for their nation or change anything.

II) On Rasulzade's and Musavat(ists) orientation -- whether Pan-Turkist, Pan-Turkic, Pan-Islamist, Pan-Slavic, or Pan-Iranian or Pan-Persian:

"All this was much to the anger of the Mussavat ministers, even though it was rumoured that Hajjinsky had the tacit support of Rasulzadeh who cherished bad memories of both Iran and Turkey."(Charles van der Leeuw, Azerbaijan: A Quest for Identity, Palgrave Macmillan, 2000, p. 121. This quote describes the formation of the last cabinet of ADR, on December 22, 1919.

"The Ottoman authorities removed a few political figures from the Azerbaijani scene, among them Rasulzada, by inviting them for prolonged visits to Turkey. Ottoman interference strengthened the tendencies toward Azerbaijani nationalism whithin the political elite. Azerbaijan's relations with Turkey would henceforth be tainted with uneasiness bordering on distrust, and Pan-Turkism would gradually be reduced from a political program to a cultural doctrine". Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russian and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition, Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 71.

"The 1931 suppression of the emigre publications coincided with Rasulzada's expulsion from Turkey, and some saw it all as the result of caving in to the Soviet pressure. In reality, the reason went deep into the complex relationship between Turkey and Azerbaijan, a love story with its ups and downs amidst stormy episodes. Tensions had been growing toward the end of the decade, and by 1930, they had reached a boiling point. In reply to Turkish criticism that the Musavat was neglecting the cause of Turkic unity, Rasulzada published a pamphlet titled O Pantiurkizme v sviazii s kavkazskoi problemoi (Pan-Turkism with regard to the caucasian problem). Among the references to the experience of the 1918 Ottoman occupation, he firmly stated his view: Pan-Turkism was a cultural movement rather that a political program." Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russian and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition, Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 130.

"For the Azeris, notably Rasulzada and his associates, the Polish connection was a welcome circumstance after the expulsion from Turkey. Amin bay took up residence in Warsaw, where he found a group of Azeri students and officers on contract with the Polish army. Here he found also his Polish wife." Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russian and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition, Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 132.

“Musavat had announced its birth with a manifesto that -- despite the radical past of its authors -- ignored social issues. Moreover, the party that would eventually be the main force of Azeri nationalism couched its first proclamation entirely in terms of the 'umma consciousness by appealing to Pan-Islamic rather than Pan-Turkic sentiments. Recalling that "the noble people of Islam had once reached with one hand to Peking...and with other built at the far end of Europe the Alhambra palace," the manifesto deplored the Islamic world's current weakness. In 1912 the Musavat put forward the program of political action that recalled for the unity of all Muslims, regardless of nationality or sectarian affiliation, restoration of the lost independence of Muslim countries, and moral and material assistance to Muslim peoples struggling for the preservation of their independence." Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russian and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition, Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 52.

As you can see, it is very hard to put a convenient "label" on Rasulzade -- he changed affiliations often, like many politicians, was a Hummet leader first, and then, only in 1913 joined Musavat, which at first was Pan-Islamic, then Pan-Iranian, then Pan-Turkic (I argue that Pan-Turkist and Pan-Turkic are different for the reasons I've already stated), and again Pan-Iranian, then Pan-Turkic -- but all the time remaining true to only one Pan -- Pan-Azerbaijanist. As you clearly see, he was banned and exiled from Turkey in the 1930s and 1940s, and even before that, had a dislike to Ottoman and later Turkish policies. Likewise, he was no fan of Iranian central government, shah. Likewise with Russia -- although Musavat before 1917 did see itself as an autonomous part of reformed Russia. Anyhow, as is clear from Prof. Swietochowski, and as I said yesterday, "Pan-Turkism was a cultural movement rather than a political program (Rasulzade's admission)".

III) On the name Azerbaijan for ADR:

"Although the proclamation restricted its claim to the territory north of the Araxes, the use of the name Azerbaijan would soon bring objections from Iran. In Tehran, suspicions were aroused that the Republic of Azerbaijan served as an Ottoman device for detaching the Tabriz province from Iran. Likewise, the national revolutionary Jangali movement in Gilan, while welcoming the independence of every Muslim land as a "source of joy," asked in its newspaper if the choice of the name Azerbaijan implied the new republic's desire to join Iran. If so, they said, it should be stated clearly, otherwise Iranians would be opposed to calling that republic Azerbaijan. Consequently, to allay Iranian fears, the Azerbaijani government would accommodatingly use the term Caucasian Azerbaijan in its documents for circulation abroad." Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russian and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition, Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 69.

This quote shows the MAXIMUM extent of ADR's concession (and thus Rasulzade's, as he and Musavat were at the peak of their authority, however limited) to "please" Iran/Persia was to call Azerbaijan as "Caucasian Azerbaijan" -- which is consistent with what some Russian scholars called it before anyway, and consistent with more modern description of North Azerbaijan vs. South Azerbaijan. Hence, the quote above strengthens my position that Atabaki's quote is misinterpreted and out of context. It also shows that neither Swietochowski -- a top scholar in the field -- nor others I've looked for, have made anything as Atabaki's assessment.

IV) On Iranian claims to ADR and subsequent official recognition of ADR by Iran (actually, Persia, or, dowlat-e Qajar):

“In Paris, the Azerbaijani delegation has done a great job on the question of relations with Iran. As is known, after the founding of ADR, Iran has made territorial claims to Azerbaijan, demanding it to be unified with Iranian state. After the adoption, in London on August 19, 1919, of the British-Iranian Treaty, Iran has relinquished is territorial claims to Azerbaijan. On November 1, 1919, in Paris, Azerbaijan and Iran have reached an agreement on established of diplomatic relations between them. Signing of this agreement was a big success of the Azerbaijani diplomacy on the international arena, which solidified the status of Azerbaijan as an independent state.” Igrar Aliyev (ed.), “History of Azerbaijan”, Part IV “Azerbaijan in modern times”, Chapter XXIII, “Founding of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic”, sub-title: “Azerbaijan on international arena. Paris Peace Conference”, Baku: Elm Publishing House of the Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, 1995 (in Russian). http://www.azerbembassy.org.cn/rus/historical23.html

The original citation in Russian: ИСТОРИЯ АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНА, (ред.Играр Алиев, изд."ЕЛМ", 1995г.), Раздел IV. Азербайджан в новое время, Глава XXIII, ПРОВОЗГЛАШЕНИЕ АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСКОЙ ДЕМОКРАТИЧЕСКОЙ РЕСПУБЛИКИ. Азербайджан на международной арене. Парижская мирная конференция. http://www.azerbembassy.org.cn/rus/historical23.html “В Париже азербайджанской делегацией была проведена большая работа по вопросу об отношении с Ираном. Как известно, после образования АДР Иран выдвигал территориальные притязания к Азербайджану, требуя присоединения его к Иранскому государству. После заключения в Лондоне 19 августа 1919 г. англо-иранского договора Иран отказался от территориальных притязаний к Азербайджану. 1 ноября 1919 г. в Париже между Азербайджаном и Ираном был заключен договор о признании независимости Азербайджана и было достигнуто соглашение об установлении дипломатических отношений между ними. Подписание этого договора явилось большим успехом азербайджанской дипломатии на международной арене, закрепляло статус Азербайджана как независимого государства.”

Another book by the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan (see its full citation, link and original text in Russian below), also cites several archival documents about the signing of a Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed on March 20, 1920, between Azerbaijan and Iran, and opening of respective embassies. Simultaneously, agreements on customs, trade, postal-telegraph and consular relations was also signed. A short while later, the embassy of ADR was opened in Tehran and Consulate General was opened in Tabriz.

The original citation in Russian: Азербайджанская Демократическая Республика (1918-1920), ГОСУДАРСТВЕННАЯ КОМИССИЯ ПО ПРОВЕДЕНИЮ 80-й ГОДОВЩИНЫ АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСКОЙ ДЕМОКРАТИЧЕСКОЙ РЕСПУБЛИКИ. ИНСТИТУТ ИСТОРИИ АН АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНА им. А. А. БАКИХАНОВА, http://www.karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/azerpeople/ap045-6.php "20 марта 1920 года между Азербайджаном и Ираном был подписан договор о мире и дружбе, по которому иранское правительство признавало де-юре независимость Азербайджана. Стороны принимали на себя обязательства по созданию и укреплению дружественных и экономических отношений, а также по открытию азербайджанского посольства в Тегеране и иранского - в Баку31. Кроме того, в тот же день между Азербайджаном и Ираном были подписаны соглашения о таможне, торговле, почтово-телеграфных и консульских отношениях32. Спустя некоторое время в Тегеране было открыто посольство Азербайджана, а в Тебризе начало действовать генеральное консульство Азербайджана33."

This quotes' are simply a reminder that Iran had territorial claims to ADR, but later relinquished them and fully recognized ADR under its name.

Thus, once more -- 1) Goltz's assessment is problematic and trivial, and misplaced. Likewise, 2) Atabaki's quotes must be removed since they contain neither the dates, nor the full citation, nor are consistent with any other findings, nor with any public and official speeches of Rasulzade. If one persists on keeping them -- then 1) dates MUST be provided, 2) position of authority of both Rasulzade and Taqizade must be provided, and 3) I will include then my quotes as well, which will clarify everything. --AdilBaguirov 18:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed Azerbaijan articles
• Unknown-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles