Talk:March Days - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevo327 (talk | contribs) at 09:39, 9 November 2020 (→The lead should be changed: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:39, 9 November 2020 by Kevo327 (talk | contribs) (→The lead should be changed: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the March Days article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Ottoman / Russian & Soviet / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Ottoman military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War I task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia: History / Military Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Azerbaijan High‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Armenia

	March Days is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 30, 2012, March 30, 2013, March 30, 2015, March 30, 2017, March 30, 2018, and March 30, 2019.

Anon edits

First of all, I would like to point out to the anonymous editor 76.191.230.234 that such massive changes to an article must not be done without discussing them first. The edit is reverted until consensus is reached on the following changes and additions.

Nationalism. I feel unsure about the appropriatness of this term. The constant use (I would even say overuse) of the term 'Azerbaijani nationalists' is based on one partisan Soviet source, which could not be expected to label the democratic movements in the Caucasus states any other way for political reasons. There are in fact tons more sources who refer to this so-called 'nationalist' movement as democratic.
Turkish protectorate. In his book Russian Azerbaijan, Swietochowski among others argues that there was a lot more opposition to the idea of establishing Turkish protectorate over Azerbaijan than solidarity. The claim made by the anonymous user, on top of this, is not based on any source.
Shamkhor events. These events were not a direct prelude to March Days. The clashes there took place between supporters of Musavat and remnants of the Czarist Army, whereas the Azeri massacres in Baku were carried out by Bolsheviks and Dashnaks.
12,000 killed. I do not understand the use of the phrase "Azerbaijanis claim that 12,000 Muslim were killed", when there are so many non-Azerbaijani sources providing the same number. So far no scholar has explicitely described this figured as exaggerated or inaccurate. Parishan (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

When Atabay made massive changes without discussions to the point of vandalism, there was no such uproar. The objections above are not serious.

Nationalist is the appropriate term to use when describing the anti-Soviet struggle waged by the Musavat and other Muslim forces against the Soviet. Scholarship identifies the Musavat as a nationalist party. To use the term "Azerbaijani" is misleading because it gives the impression that the majority of Muslims in Baku supported the Musavat when in fact large sections of the Muslim community supported the Soviet forces, while many others were politically passive. Baku during the Russian Civil War was not a struggle about nationality, as suggested in Suny's work. The anti-Soviet side consisted of Azerbaijani nationalists and Russian officers, while the Soviet side was multinational.

You make claims about the presence of the phrase "Turkish protectorate", but there is no such thing in the previous version of the article. Rather, it says that the Musavat with Turkish help wanted to to drive out the Soviets and establish their own regime. Turkish invasions of Russia's Caucasus were an important part of the background of the Baku events. Musavat-Turkish links were demonstrated during the September 1918 conquest of Baku.

Concerning the Shamxor massacre, it's rather disingenuous to try to isolate this incident from events in Baku. Most scholarship on the subject goes into detail about Shamxor when analyzing the background of the Baku events. Shamxor had a significant impact on the psychology of the Soviet leaders and the masses throughout the Caucasus.

Concerning the death toll, this article makes note of how the Azerbaijani nationalist groups at the 1919 conference painted a sensationalist picture of the Baku events with a 12,000 death toll. Other sources, such as the ones cited by Dadayan, say that up to 2000 on the anti-Soviet side and up to 1200 on the Soviet and Armenian sides were killed. There are several estimates of the death toll, and they should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.234 (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the anon IP provides and discusses neutral references prior to making massive edits in the article. The edits made by myself are all based on neutral references, majority of which were already used in the article. With all due respect to the anonymous editor, Shamkhor massacre was not the primary topic of March days events, so devoting overwhelming amount of effort into that topic is distracting from major subject, which remains to be the massacre of 12,000 Azerbaijanis and other Muslims on the territory of Baku Governorate from March 31 to April 2, 1918. Moreover, Dadayan is by no means a neutral author when it comes to discussing Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict or March Days, while Michael Smith, Firuz Kazemzadeh, New York Times are most definitely neutral and reliable references in this regard. Atabəy (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The edits you made in fact amount to providing support for the post-1990 POV from Azerbaijani regime line about a "genocide" and "massacres" committed against Azerbaijanis, particularly the way you try to cover up discussion of the Shamxor massacre. You're doing this under "neutral references" like Michael Smith and Kazemzadeh when in fact they advance their own POV and arguments just like all authors do. For example, Smith argues in his article that Baku went through "less an instance of class war against the Soviet, more a battle of rumors on national terms." Russian historians like Mints as well as western ones like Suny advance arguments very different from this thesis. Your description of Smith and Kazemzadeh as "neutral" authors is false. It is not problematic that historians and primary sources advance their own POV. What is problematic is the way you are promoting certain sources over others. Neutral point of view does not mean that certain points of view can be promoted over others the way you seem to be doing.

Concerning your objection to using Dadayan, there is no justification for this. Dadayan cites an Armenian source for the following statement: По разным данным, потери обеих сторон были таковы: азербайджанцы – 700-2000 убитыми, большевики (русские и армяне) – 300-12001. This is very different from Azerbaijani claims in 1919 about 12,000 massacred Muslims. Since Dadayan's material has been clearly attributed, it is allowed to stay in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.234 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I requested a semi-protection of the page, so that the anonymous IP contributor above can discuss contributions on the talk page, before making massive edits to the article. Again, Dadayan is neither reliable, nor qualified reference to be used versus multitude of established, neutral and WP:RS experts on the March Days of 1918. It is problematic to use non-neutral source in this article. Atabəy (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Dadayan's source says up to 2000 on the Muslim side and 1200 on the other side were killed. The source has been clearly attributed and there is not attempt to state that this is the truth. NPOV and RS does not mean that POV-advancing sources are not allowed, but that they have to be attributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.234 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Aliyev, Victor Serge, Rasulzade, Shahumyan are all cited in this article even though they are not neutral sources. Point is that they are allowed in this article because they have been properly attributed and their thoughts are not presented as fact. By the same standards, Dadayan's claims about the death toll can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.234 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, and ARF member Pasdermadjian says, over 10,000 Muslims were killed. The number is confirmed by Michael Smith, Firuz Kazemzadeh, New York Times and other established neutral sources. So Dadayan's figures do not seem to be real as opposed to reliable scholars and sources. For some reason, Dadayan's claim that 2,000 were killed and 1,200 on other side, does not compel you to adjust the number of ARF/Armenian victims, but only that of Muslims. So your edit is not neutral and does not rely on proper sources. Atabəy (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And using word "Azerbaijani nationalists" is WP:LABEL. According to various reliable sources, ARF is a radical neo-nationalist organization, yet, such words are not used in the article to describe its activity during March Days. Atabəy (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Smith did not confirm that 12,000 Muslims were killed, and he is not in a position to do so. All he did was cite the 12,000 figure from primary sources without going into detail about it. Plenty of other sources refer to Shahumyan's figure of 3000 killed on both sides. It's really strange that you think it's okay to cite Pasdermadjian while at the same time protesting against the inclusion of Dadayan's work. Pasdermadjian was not a party to this conflict and did not have some special qualification to provide his own original estimate of the death toll. This article should not present any death toll as a fact, but should cite the various estimates that exist in the relevant literature.

And again, Musavat ≠ Azerbaijanis. It is completely inappropriate to label the Musavatists as Azerbaijanis when in fact the majority of Azerbaijanis either supported the Soviet or were politically passive.

Yes, Pastermadjian is more relevant reference because he was not a party to conflict, but he was directly involved with ARF at the time of events. Dadayan is completely irrelevant here, and the fact that he used Shahumyan figures (which were not neutral, because Shahumyan was a party of conflict), makes him even less reliable.

Using term "Azerbaijani nationalists" is completely inappropriate POV, violating WP:LABEL. The same way, based on its activity, Dashnaks can be considered a neo-Nazi group, it does not mean that all Armenians are Dashnaks or that such wording can be used in the article. Atabəy (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dadayan did not use Shahumyan's figures and does not cite Shahmyan for the death toll. You don't seem to be familiar with the source. Dadayan is a member of Armenia's National Academy of Sciences and his work is mainstream. It should be included here to show Armenian historians' perspective, just like how Azerbaijani nationalist parties' claims at the 1919 conference are mentioned.

You selectively refer to Pastermadjian because the cherry-picked text seems to support your version of events, but you are adamant about deleting Dadayan's material because you disagree with it. And it seems that Pastermadjian has been distorted because he specifically events in Baku as military battles rather than massacres. He wrote: "the small Armenian garrison of Baku, together with a few thousand Russians, defended Baku and its oil wells against tens of thousands of Tatars, the Caucasian mountaineers, and more than one division of regular Turkish troops which had come to the assistance of the latter by way of Batum."

The way you try to provide support to Azerbaijani claims about 12,000 killed in a massacre is in violation of NPOV and undue weight. This sentence is completely inappropriate because there is the suggestion that Shahumyan's figure is false while the higher figures are true one is true.

The leader of Baku Soviet, Stepan Shahumyan, claimed that more than 3,000 killed in two days. However, in his October 1918 article for the Armenian Herald, publication of the Boston-based Armenian National Union of America... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.234 (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no cherry picking. Karekin Pasdermadjian, member of Armenian Revolutionary Federation at the time of events and the ambassador of the Democratic Republic of Armenia to the United States, would have a stronger say in figures than some Dadayan, member of the Soviet Armenian Academy of Sciences, several decades later. The estimate provided by Pasdermadjian, who was a nationalist, seems to match the figure provided by Azerbaijani (opposite) and independent sources, thus more reliable than some claim by Dadayan.

Also, Firuz Kazemzadeh, Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University and the author of "Struggle for Transcaucasia: 1917-1921", is a more reliable and neutral reference on the subject than Dadayan whose subject of study was not specifically the period of 1918-1921.

Finally, I am not sure why you try to move Bakinskiy Rabochiy reference to the text of the article. It has not been removed in my edits, just moved to the notes section. I actually plan to do that with all quotations, because it makes the text clearer for reading.Atabəy (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Arf logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Arf logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 29 March 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Arf logo.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased and incomplete

It's probably obvious to many readers that this article is more sympathetic to the Muslim side. Although informative and with lots of references, I assume a more balanced description is possible. In particular, there's precious little mention of world war 1, not to mention the armenian genocide just in neighboring Turkey where something like 1.2 M were killed. Search for the word 'genocide' and only one of many refers to the Armenian one. You can't tell me that the Azeri genocide wasn't influenced heavily by the Armenian genocide. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on March Days. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607184434/http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=%2Fdocuments%2Fworkingdocs%2Fdoc01%2Fedoc9066.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=%2Fdocuments%2Fworkingdocs%2Fdoc01%2Fedoc9066.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead should be changed

The lead should be change to better reflect the article and to remove bias, in it's current state the article doesn't mention the savage division entering Baku and shooting military personnel stationed there indiscriminately which led to the civil unrest. Kevo327 (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories: