Talk:March Days/Archive 2

"Massacre"
The story of "massacre" is a dishonest attempt to rewrite history. This was not a "massacre", but was a state of civil war caused by an attempt by Azeri nationalists to unleash a coup d'etat in Baku during which there were casualties on all sides. Kupredu (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many third party sources describing the massacre. Many included in the article, there are more. Grand  master  18:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Third party sources I've seen describe the failed Azerbaijani nationalist coup d'etat as an episode of the Russian Civil War. Talk of "massacre" is really a misrepresentation of history. Kupredu (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no coup d'etat. That was the communist propaganda, but communism is over now. This is how historians describe what happened:


 * Grand master  04:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Template
Fedayee, please, discuss your changes and do not remove the picture that's currently on the page. It's more relevant to the essence of the event - massacre. And observe WP:NPOV in your edits in parallel vis-a-vis September Days, where you claim exactly the opposite. Such position seems to be reflect nationalism rather than contribution to an encyclopedia. Atabəy (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Azeris' like their propaganda to be thick and heavy, the thicker and heavier the better. Meowy 01:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Focus on subject, Meowy. Atabəy (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

HRW about casualties
Now we have in the article this text: In 1995, Human Rights Watch produced a report named "Communal Violence and Human Rights," in which it stated: "In March 1918, in an effort to seize Baku from local Muslim forces, Soviet Bolsheviks made a pact with the Armenian nationalist ARF. In an orgy of violence that followed, between 3,000 and 3,500 Muslims were massacred

The Human Rights Watch refers to the two sources about this number: Let's see the sources: As you see there is a mere mistake in HRW article. Since the article is not an academic source specialised in history and is not peer-reviewed I suggest to remove the text.--Quantum666 (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Altstadt, The Azerbaijani Turks, pp. 85-87
 * 2) Suny, "The Revenge of the Past," p. 29.
 * 1) Altstadt: By Shaumian's estimate more than 3 000 were killed during two days.
 * 2) Suny writes nothing about the number of victims.(At least I haven't found)

Peter Symes
The article refers to Peter Symes' article "The Note Issues of Azerbaijan Part I – The Baku Issues" The article is published only at his own website so the source is self-published material. The author is a specialist in the world paper money but not in the history. According to this I suggest not to use the source especially to show number of casualties which is disputed. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dashnaktsutyun
If an author (Suny as Atabay says) supports a version, it never means, that this is a main version per WP:WEIGHT and must be included in the lead. And I didnt find any text where this Suny says Dashnaks were involved directly, its your POV, he just says some Dashnaks helped Bolsheviks. A consensus is needed. Andranikpasha (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Andranikpasha, I am not sure why so much time is being wasted on proving whether ARF was involved, when every known source on March Days cites Dashnak participation in the ethnic warfare in Baku. Obviously, if ARF armed gangs participated in massacres of ethnic Azeris, and they did, their formal siding with Baku Soviet or approval of ARF decisionmakers is not relevant. But if you are insistent about Suny's quote, read the end of page 41 and beginning of page 42 with the link included: "in Baku, the political center was held by Russian Social Democrats (SDs) and Armenian nationalists, the Dashnaktsutiun (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) in particular. The Azerbaijanis identified Soviet power in 1917-18 with the Christians, and in March 1918, the city Soviet in Baku put down a revolt by Muslims with the help of Armenian nationalists." So as you can see, R.G.Suny defines Armenian nationalists, who he says participated in putting down the revolt, with Dashnaks. Hence is the connection. If you are doubtful, it would be rather surprising, but you can resolve your doubts by researching references. Otherwise, assertion from R.G.Suny, an ethnic Armenian author, seems to be sufficient of a proof that ARF militia were part of massacres, which would not be surprise to ordinary reader anyway, due to numerous sources and the radical nationalistic ideology of this party. Atabəy (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As for me and historians, the radical nationalists are not Dashnaks, but Musavat gangs revolted against official authorities. Related to Suny, he says that "Armenian nationalists" (he didn't say ARF organization itself, rather it's some armed members in Baku, it wasn't party's official policy) helped (not equal to Bolsheviks-organizers) Bolsheviks in putting down the revolt. I dont see any mention about revolt in the lead, while most sources wrote about the events as clear revolt by Azeri radical nationalists. We cant misquote one part of the source and completely left another, so we need add the right term of putted down revolt to the lead. Andranikpasha (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For you, of course they would be, but don't involve historians. The source clearly pinpoints to Dashnaks as stated by Atabey above. So, there is no reason to twist the subject. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 13:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, if you claim that the reference is dubious, provide reference to prove otherwise. I have difficulty to believe that Professor R.G.Suny is a dubious reference on the history of Caucasus, at least you are not in position to make such judgment without references. Please, come up with those references proving that ARF/Dashnak gangs were not involved in 1918 March massacres in Baku before further reverting. Atabəy (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is 21th century and your behaviour with users backing you and aggressive manner of pov-pushing are not allowed here. We're in Wiki not in a market or in the street. People used to be civil here and discuss in a civil manner! Andranikpasha (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do I need to remind you of Civility? Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 13:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So did you read it? Andranikpasha (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You had a doubt and received a proper explanation from another user. I represent not myself, but my opinion and it was reflected on on this page. You can keep doubting the addition all you want, but it doesn't mean it has to prevent the sourced addition of text. Thank you. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 14:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I had and I HAVE a doubt. When there is a discussion between A and B users, it means they are two sides who're trying to made a consensus on something. If you believe A or B are right, it's fine, but it never means the discussion ends as soon as a C user supports one of sides. I still have doubts and you don't want to discuss the matter, but aggressively deleting my tags. It's not a fighting, nor Atabay is so weak to call a 'boy' to back him. If you have opinion, discuss here, all other actions and aggressive reverts are against WP:CIVIL. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, you are engaging in an irrelevant discussion, focusing on contributors, and violating WP:CIVIL, attempting to create edit conflicts where they really do not exist. I only asked you to kindly provide references proving that R.G.Suny reference is dubious. Again participation of Dashnak gangs in 1918 March massacres was never questioned by any scholar on this subject. Since you are not in a position to challenge expert scholars, unless proven otherwise by proof of qualifications, all I ask you is to provide references to your view. I guess this is more constructive than inserting tags that don't lead anywhere. Atabəy (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You didnt answer my questions. What you're adding is a clear misquoting, your personal explanation of Suny. SOme armed people's from ARF helped Bolsheviks in putting down the revolt, it means there wasn't a conflict, but a putted down revolt by Muslim gangs. And your text about "a political power struggle between Bolsheviks and Armenian Revolutionary Federation" is an original research, no sources say ARF were in struggle for political power, historically they never were in political power, they just helped bolsheviks, who included ethnical Azeris, Georgians, etc. You have no sources on nonsense, you're adding, this is not supported by your source. Bolsheviks were the ruling political power in Baku in March 1918, there are hundreds of sources on this obvious fact (the last source also calls the events a suppressed revolt). Noone mentions ARF members as equal (not helping) side. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, no one doubts that Bolsheviks were ruling power, which is why they are mentioned as perpetrators of massacre. After all, Stepan Shahumian, an ethnic Armenian, directly facilitated this mass slaughter of Azeris despite the warnings from his leader V.I.Lenin to keep calm under control. But the massacre was undoubtedly and indiscriminately executed by Dashnak militias. Here is another proof from Thomas De Waal 2010 publication, which I added to the article: I encourage you to accept the fact affirmed by several scholars so that we can remove irrelevant tags and move on to other constructive contributions to this article. Atabəy (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * De Waal, Thomas (2010). The Caucasus: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 62. ISBN 0195399765. http://books.google.com/books?id=6X745rS5Ci8C&pg=PA62. "In the so called March Days of 1918, Baku descended into a mini-civil war, after the Bolsheviks declared war on Musavat Party and then stood by as Dashnak militias rampaged through the city, killing Azerbaijanis indiscriminately"
 * All of this is irrelevant to discussion! Do you know that Shahumian was called by Heidar Aliev "a son of Azerbaijani people" (Алиев Г.А. «Мужественный борец за дело Ленина, за коммунизм: к 100-летию со дня рождения С.Г. Шаумяна». Баку, 1978 г., стр. 26)? You respected them for decades, what happened now? Shahumyan was a Bolshevik, not a Dashnak, and another Bolshevik comrade of Shahumian, Azeri Meshadi Azizbekov was a member of Communa and one of suppressors of Azeri uprising (see an academic source on this ). What pro-Azeri journalist says, rather supports my suggestions, then yours. ARF officially nor formally never participated in these events, only a group of members from Baku possible in their own decision (no parti decision on this). So no need for pov-pushing. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For the purpose of this article, it does not matter what Aliev called Shahumian and emotional debate about who respected whom is irrelevant to the topic. This is an article about March Days of 1918, a.k.a. the massacre (or genocide) of ethnic Azerbaijanis committed by Armenian Dashnak militia and Bolsheviks. I don't see how the membership of Azizbekov in Commune, or Aliev's words on Shahumian, etc. are supposed to change the historical fact expressed by so many scholars over and over. Atabəy (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The myth about "Azeri genocide" is nothing but a propagand by Azeri sources. No any reliable source call it a genocide, but many of them call it a suppressed revolt. This is not Azeri Wikipedia, not a good place for Azeri falsifications and your emotional debates if suppressed Azeri gangs and nationalists were martyrs. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a reliable source by Sergei Markedonov on the myth of "Azeri genocide" . Very useful against Azeri falsifications on "mythical genocide" cited here. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, the fact of 1918 March Azeri genocide (as termed by Azerbaijanis and spelled out so in the article) being questioned by generally pro-Armenian political analyst Markedonov is irrelevant to the subject of our discussion. The primary reason for the debate is your insertion of neutrality or dubious ref tags questioning the fact of Dashnak participation in the massacres. So far you have been proven otherwise with strong references, like Thomas de Waal, hence the tags are irrelevant and should be removed. Unless you can prove De Waal wrong and provide your qualification to question the scholar. Atabəy (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not right. The issue is not only Dashnaks (I putted a NPOV tag for the whole article). The lead is a whole POV and must be rewritten according to represented sources (see the next chapter). Andranikpasha (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, place the tag in specific area where you disagree without being obviously proven otherwise. The intro is full of neutral references to deem NPOV tag inapplicable already. Atabəy (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Massacred vs killed, conflict vs suppressed uprising
The article's lead needs to be rewritten according to reliable sources: The Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa, by Marshall Cavendish, 2006, p. 786) Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war, p. 100) (may be continued) Andranikpasha (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Muslims in Baku revolted in March 1918, but their uprising was suppressed by the city's Armenians". (World and Its Peoples:
 * "The Baku Soviet took the lead in a counter-offensive, the clashes escalating steadily until March 31, when,"
 * "After crushing a Muslim revolt in the city, the Bolshevik-led government, with its small Red Guard, was forced to rely on Armenian troops led by Dashnak officers". (The revenge of the past: nationalism, revolution, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, by Ronald Grigor Suny, 1993, p. 42)
 * "in March 1918 Azerbaijanis revolted against the Baku Commune".(pro Azeri author Thomas de Waal, Black garden:
 * "The oil-rich city of Baku had emerged as a stronghold of Bolshevism shortly after the October Russian Revolution, and friction between the Bolsheviks and the pan-Turkic Musavat party sparked a brief civil war in March 1918." (The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict: causes and implications - by Michael P. Croissant - 1998, p. 14)
 * "Soviet government established in Baku 1918 March: Bolshevik supporters resist nationals in Azerbaijan". (The Caucasian republics - by Margaret Kaeter - 2004, p. 147)
 * "Muslim revolt earlier in March" (A diplomatic history of the Caspian Sea: treaties, diaries, and other stories, by Guive Mirfendereski, 2001, p. 99)


 * Again, no one doubts that Bolsheviks called it a revolt and were perpetrators of massacre. But the executors were ARF Dashnaks. Pay a closer attention to Thomas De Waal's exact wording: Dashnak militias rampaged through the city, killing Azerbaijanis indiscriminately
 * De Waal, Thomas (2010). The Caucasus: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 62. ISBN 0195399765. http://books.google.com/books?id=6X745rS5Ci8C&pg=PA62. "In the so called March Days of 1918, Baku descended into a mini-civil war, after the Bolsheviks declared war on Musavat Party and then stood by as Dashnak militias rampaged through the city, killing Azerbaijanis indiscriminately"
 * Buttino, Marco (1993). In a collapsing empire:underdevelopment, ethnic conflicts and nationalisms in the Soviet Union Volume 28. Feltrinelli Editor. pp. 176. ISBN 8807990482. http://books.google.com/books?id=t5HKjm6vs3YC&pg=PA176. ""Violence increased during the Civil War, with massacres of Azeri Turks - by the combined forced of Armenian Dashnaktsutiun party and the Bolsheviks""

Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "no one doubts that Bolsheviks called it a revolt" - I represented only third-party, reliable sources. I see no bolshevik sources here!
 * the executors were ARF Dashnaks - "Dashnaks" differs from "Dashnaktsutyun", and the "executor" (any sources for this description?) differs from the "side of political struggle". The text you added was not about "the executors were ARF Dashnaks", it's a different accusation.
 * both sources you represent use the "civil war" term. I don't see it in the lead, as well as "suppressed uprisig" term per many sources I represented. The article is one-sided and POV. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

For the purpose of the subject, ARF Dashnaks means members of Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnaktsutiun. I am not sure why this is being debated, as if ARF Dashnaks represent some other party or group. As far as civil war and suppressed uprising wording, this achingly reminds me Armenian Genocide article where, for some reason, usage of such terminology is strictly prevented. Not to mention the fact that, for some reason, the wording used there does not seem to raise concerns on your behalf while being equally part of civil war and uprising. I wonder why it is exactly when coming down to massacre of Azeris the concern is being raised with your repeated denial of facts despite multitude of presented references? Atabəy (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "ARF Dashnaks means members of Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnaktsutiun" - right. Members, not the party. If a hundred of Musavatists killed a number of Russians in Ganja, it is not equal if they were killed by Musavat's decision or by it's responsibility. Some Musavatists killes, not Musavat. Aliev was a communist, it doesn't mean the party was responsible for his behaviour.
 * "usage of such terminology is strictly prevented" - could you cite the relevant wiki rule?
 * "your repeated denial of facts despite multitude of presented references" - all the sources we discussed untill now were adopted by me, I have nothing against their direct citiations, I just object you permanent misinterpretations and "comments". Wikipedia is not a personal site, our understanding of sources is not so important, as direct citations. They must be used in this article per Wiki rules to represent a neutral pov. Andranikpasha (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, again, Dashnaksutiun members participated, and according to Thomas de Waal, spearheaded the massacres of Azeris in March 1918, do you deny this fact or not? If you do not, then it is quite appropriate to say in English that Bolsheviks and ARF Dashnaktsutiun were on one side of the conflict, first driven by political objective, the other driven by pure nationalist hatred. Atabəy (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since when Thomas de Waal is pro-Azeri and what basis do you have to put this in article text! I think your editing is way out of WP:POV and WP:OR, and along with prior violations WP:CIVIL requires administrative attention. Atabəy (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Intro
I modified the introduction of the article, formatting/fixing all references per Wiki templates and added precise Google books links and quotes. I removed reference to NY Times 1918 source, and the later 1920 NY Times source mentions the figure of 12,000, much like all other sources, therefore is more reliable and confident than initial 1918 estimate in AP article. Atabəy (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And Andranikpasha again did a wholesale revert messing up all the formatted references. So much for contribution to encyclopedia. Atabəy (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not remove sourced material and push your pov. Not "few sources", all reliable sources call the events a revolt and civil war. No reliable source on genocide myth by azeri governmnt, and Sergei Markedonovs criticism I represented earlier. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, this is your 5th violation of 1RR/week on this article: Whether 3,000, 12,000 or whatever, whether called genocide, massacre or civil unrest, whether victims are called Azeri or Muslim, it's a fact that from March 30 to April 2, 1918 Bolshevik Baku Soviet led by ethnic Armenian, Stepan Shahumian, in cooperation with armed Armenian ARF Dashnak militia (as proven with multitude of references) have conducted a systematic massacre against civilian Azeri/Muslim population of Baku with the aim of diminishing/annihilating/destroying that part of population to reassert their power. The article is built around this fact. Please, keep it in mind before trying to remove or reword another piece of reference, in violation of 1RR rule. Atabəy (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. The article text clearly says that Azerbaijan considers it a genocide (not other sources), while few (so far only one, non-scholarly Marshall Cavendish source, where you took the text out of context too) claim it part of civil war/unrest. I would, in this case, draw a comparison with Armenian Genocide article, where "genocide" vs. "civil unrest" does not seem to be an issue for you, is it?
 * 2. Markedonov is not particularly an expert on history, though I am not sure what your quoting of him has to do with essence of what we are discussing, let alone be a reason for endless reverts in violation of 1RR rule.
 * 3. Your wholesale revert actually removes some valuable references and formatted material in favor of nationalist WP:POV pushed in encyclopedic article, and for what reason - to deny someone else's loss. All this bickering with numbers, attempts to cook up the lowest available threshold figure of Azeri victims out of any source you can find in scholarship, has a single purpose - deny the fact that happened.
 * Baku during March 1918 experienced civil unrest during which counter-revolutionary Muslim forces e.g. Savage Division and right-wing elements of the Musavat conspired to seize power in the city and displace the Baku Soviet Government, composed of a coalition of Bolsheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, as well as left-wing sections of the Armenian and Muslim communities. In the lead-up to the civil war events, there was the massacre of Russian soldiers in Shamkhor on the railways, aggressive events in Lenkoran and Mugan, and above all the the killing of Soviet representatives by the Savage Division aboard the Evelina. Professor Suny in his scholarly book "The Baku Commune", published by Princeton University, has an entire book chapter about "March Days" that goes into detail about the conflict, which was essentially a civil war between rival actors. This is a peer-reviewed, scholarly book published by a University and written by a leading expert on the region, and is unassailable.


 * It's also a bit of a distortion to cast events in Baku as "massacres" and "genocide" against Muslims when in fact there were ethnic and political divisions between the Muslims, as Suny states. Many Muslims supported the Baku Soviet, represented by the Hummet and Socialist-Revolutionaries. Large numbers of Muslim workers in Balakhany and Romany avoided the battles, while the Persian workers entirely refused to take sides. Suny writes, "It may be said most accurately that the soviet defended itself against the national counterrevolution with the aid of an opposing natinoal group. The end result of this maneuver was to put the Left bloc in power and establish a Soviet commune." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Atabay's personal opinions about a "systematic massacre" of Muslims "with the aim of diminishing/annihilating/destroying that part of population" should not be allowed to creep into this article. This drivel is not supported by any of the cited references. The events have been defined as a civil war that began with a counter-revolutionary Muslim rebellion against the Baku Soviet. Muslims put up barricades, and on April 1 the Muslims attacked Sabunchiny, but were beaten back by the Red Guards. With the use of artillery by Soviet forces, Muslims realized that their position was hopeless and surrendered on April 1. As Shahumyan's report said, 3000 people were killed from all sides during the three days of fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tuscumbia's edit
Tuscumbia's allegation about my removing "massacres" of Muslims is not true. For example, my version has details about the claims of massacres.

"Azerbaijani accounts of the time claim that 12,000 Azerbaijanis were killed during the March events. In 1919, the Peace Delegation of the Republic of Caucasian Azerbaijan presented to the Peace Conference in Paris: 'In that bloodthirsty episode, which had such fatal effects upon the Muslims, the principal part was played by the Armenians, who were then in Baku, clustering as elsewhere around their nationalist party [ARF]... The truth is that the Armenians under the guise of Bolshevism, rushed on the Muslims and massacred during a few frightful days more than 12,000 people, many of whom were old men, women, and children."

Whereas Tuscumbia's reversions deletes the fact of the Shamkhor Massacre against Russian soldiers in January 1918, the aggressive moves of the Evelina in March, the details of interaction between Shahumyan and Dzhaparidze with the Muslim representatives, and the fact that large numbers of Muslims either supported the Soviet or remained passive. This is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Shamkhor Massacre
There is the whitewashing and denial of the Shamkhor Massacre, relying almost entirely on the work of a non-scholarly book by an Kazemzadeh, who was in Hoover Institution and a "consultant to the Department of State". Sources very clearly describe the events as a massacre resulting from an attack on the Russian soldiers:

[http://books.google.ru/books?id=yjIZ6ymyNO8C&pg=PA116&dq=Shamkhor+Massacre&hl=ru&ei=x5I0TYy_DY3GsAPsnZCABg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Shamkhor%20Massacre&f=false Azeris began to form national military units...Lacking other sources of supply, Azeris began to disarm Russian troops to obtain their weapons. In January 1918, they intercepted a troop train at the SHamkhor station on the Tbilisi-Baku rail line. When the troops refused to relinquish their weapons, the Azeris atttacked them, causing neraly a thousand deaths. The event aggravated relations between the Azeri leaders and the Bolsheviks, elading to confrontations later in that year.]

Russian historical works on the Russian Revolution also describe the events:

"In the vicinity of Shamkhor Station armed Musavatist and Menshevik gangs attacked trains filled with unsuspecting Russian soldiers, killing more than 2000 and wounding hundreds. They seized 15,000 rifles, 70 machine-guns and 20 cannon. This massacre sparked a wave of anger...The workers and soldiers demanded the immediate dissolution of the Transcaucasian Commissariat and the punishment of the perpetrators of the crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"Azeri Position"
Azerbaijanis have not had a consistent position on these events. During the Azerbaijani SSR, accounts of the conflict in Baku supported the policies and actions of the Soviet forces, while condemning the Musavat Party as a nationalistic and anti-revolutionary party that was opposed to the interests of the labor movement.

For example, Geidar Aliyev wrote about the fact that there was a revolt against the Baku Soviet Government:

"'In March 1918, the Musavatist anti-Soviet rebellion was raised in Baku, intending to strangle the Soviet Government. Thanks to the firm and resolute action of the Bolsheviks, however, the rebellion was extinguished.'"

But since early 1990s and the nationalist revisionism of post-Soviet regimes, events in Baku have now been portrayed as "genocide" against Azeris by the Azerbaijani regime and its supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Background
In the Background section of the March Days Article there is a following line: "This Shamkhor incident was followed by organized attacks on the Russian population of Azerbaijan[21]". There is nothing in the reference #21 pointing to the fact that there were attacks on Russian population of Azerbaijan. This statement makes it sound like the attacks were carried on civilian population while the context of the actual reference points to attacks on Russian military present in Azerbaijan at the time. Here is the quote from the article:" In January 1918 units of new Azerbaijani national army, including regiment of "Savage" Devision killed up to 1000 Russians on a troop train who resisted disarming. This incident was followed by organized attack on Russians throughout Azerbaijan." Since it is a pure speculation that there were attacks on Russian civilian of Azerbaijan, and that the attacked Russians were anything but transient Russian military force I would like to remove or amend the sentence mentioned in the beginning of this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agilm wiki (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of deaths

 * According to York Times

2,000 killed and 3,000 wounded in straggle between Russians and Mussulmans.


 * According to PLAYING THE "COMMUNAL CARD": Communal Violence and Human Rights:

''In March 1918, in an effort to seize Baku from local Muslim forces, Soviet Bolsheviks made a pact with the Armenian nationalist Dashnak party. In an orgy of violence that followed, between 3,000 and 3,500 Muslims were massacred.''


 * According to Michael Smith

up to 12,000 Muslim civilians perished; thousands of others fled Baku in a mass exodus


 * According to James Minahan,

The tensions and fighting between the Azeris and the Armenians in the federation culminated in the massacre of some 12,000 Azeris in Baku by radical Armenians and Bolshevik troops in March 1918 


 * According to The Newly Independent States of Eurasia: Handbook of Former Soviet Republics:

When the latter surrendered, the Armenians engaged in a killing and looting spree, remembered by the Azerbaijanis as the "March Days", during which more than 3000 people were killed.


 * According to Ukrainian Congress Committee of America

During three days in March 1918 Bolsheviks killed 3000 Azerbaijanians in Baku alone.

Takabeg (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Some people said 3,500, some 30,000. 12,000 is the mostly quoted and researched. No need to finish numbers of killed by cherry picking. Look at google searches for 12,000. Dighapet (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WE must use all Identifying reliable sources. We must behave by sources not by users' POV. -- Takabeg (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, the Ukrainian Congress of America is not an WP:RS source vs. historian scholars like Michael Smith or Firuz Kazemzadeh. And Richard Hovhanissian is not an WP:NPOV source on the subject. As far as the New York Times source, the later, thus more conclusive, publication of this newspaper in 1920 used a figure of 12,000. Atabəy (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Added also an OR tag in Oil Factor section, as it seems to be completely needless or irrelevant to the subject of this article. Atabəy (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, regarding your edit, are you disputing the numbers provided by the Armenian National Committee? Also Kazemzadeh did not question but actually did provide the ANC numbers as well as cited the fact that although ANC is not impartial to the issue (for obvious reasons), the numbers were likely to be true. Also, Alex Marshall reference did not say 10,000 but used the word thousands. Atabəy (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not; but the figure that seems to be the average in our sources is roughly 10,000. But the phrase "whom one can hardly expect to be objective in such a matter" is highly POV and I suspect that someone simply copied Kazemzadeh exact wording without proper attribution. I thus modified that sentence to in the belief that this is the meaning that Kazemzadeh was attempting to convey. But it seems to me that that line is unnecessary and it would be preferable if we just attribute those numbers to the source itself without demeaning the intelligence of the reader by telling him whether a source is impartial or not (especially when its provenance is clear enough).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup and reference "ibid" tags, as they are no longer relevant. Will work on improving the references in the article. In any case, there is no use for factual accuracy tag in the article, as all references are verifiable. Unless the contributor who placed this tag in first place, has something to add. Atabəy (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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.

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 lead 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)
 * What you said is already mentioned in the lead as "Other sources interpret the March events in the context of civil war unrest". This sentence is further expanded in other parts of the article. Leads should be short and to the point per WP:MOSLEAD. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  10:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
I have seen that recently, there has been an edit war over Jews being murdered in this article. While I am a newcomer and do not know anything about this topic, I am simply asking for you to discuss this on the talk page, instead of reverting each other's edits. Just be civil.

Eridian314 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're correct. This should be resolved in the talk page., please discuss and reach WP:CONSENSUS before making any more edits. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  15:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It is simply unacceptable that the Dashnak massacre of 3000 Jews is being reverted, when it is cited as a matter of fact in peer reviewed journals. I cannot help but not that the user who keeps removing that information appears to be an Armenian Nationalist. Furthermore, I would like to note that he referred to Smith's statement as "unsourced jewish propaganda" when it is nothing of the kind. 185.120.124.94 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Have you ever read WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH? The content you are adding keeps getting deleted by me and other users keeps getting deleted because the sources you provide are not up to wikipedia standard. The first one being a WP:BLOG and the smith source was removed by another user for being "unverifiable" as he worded it, which i imagine is because the source can't be opened to check if it actually includes any of the content that is cited from it. Adding multiple WP:VERIFIABLE accredited sources is norm on Wikipedia and not pointing fingers and calling names. Kevo327 (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that you are breaking the article's efn tamplate every time you add stuff.
 * As for me I stopped trying to apply Wikipedia rules here because it somehow makes me "antisemitic".
 * Not to mention that I did you a favour and not reported you for taunting and harassing me on my talk page. Kevo327 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Assume good faith? "jewish propaganda" says it all. Enjoy losing Shusha. I will provide more sources for these horrendous armenian war crimes. 185.120.124.94 (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * and also read WP:NPA and WP:Civility, it seems that I forgot to mention them, and yes all unsourced and unreliable information can be called (propaganda, vandalism, historic revisionism, etc.) And I'll be checking the sources you just provided. I also suggest that you read WP:Verifiability and WP:reliable sources. Kevo327 (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * the sources you added are interviews that express WP:OPINION thus they are unreliable, and a broken link, I'll be removing them. Kevo327 (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)