Talk:March Days/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Factually disputed

You can not start an article based on one man work and suggest it is enough notable to have it's article. And you have simply copypasted the source of McCarthy from a nationalist site. I happen to have read all the books writen by Justin McCarthy, those figures he present are not his calculations neither his figure, he simply refers to Urguhart's figure of 8,000 to 12,000(see his footnote) who was so quick to press the British army out from the region and an eye over the oil fields in Baku, the British version of what the Chestler consession was for the Americans under Bristol. In fact, he mairly recycled Kazemzadeh's estimates, who ironically enought refers to the Armenian commission on 9,000 Armenians having been killed in Baku, which he justified by throwing numbers. Such high figures have NEVER been presented or documented other than the product of Kazemzadeh imagination trying to justify the 9,000 Armenians killed he report in his book. The Armenian massacre of fall 1918 is recorded in various works, the German General Paraquin present reports on what happened there and the plan set the eradicate the Armenian population once the Ottoman troops penetrate Baku. Frederick Lewis Schuman in his work provides the figure of 30,000 Armenians having been killed there as a result. I could write various articles just about this subject which is very well documented. Besides this, the commission reported by the British Consul Stevens doesn't present more than 2,000 Azeris victims in March, 1918. As for 3,000 Jews being killed in Guba by Armenians. Articles are written based on published data, not some poops from a psychotic who use terms like 'monster,' and this a leading figure of the Academia of science, he should learn statistics, he would be hard pressed to wipe himself off if it happens that someone having taken some high school math course realise that numbers don't add when one take into account the 6,000 immigrated Jews in Guba over a century prior to the supposed genocide in Question and the post-period population, this enought would discredit him to the core. What article will be next, The Massacre of Marsians by Armenians? Fad (ix) 23:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadix - a question, do you deny the massacre of Muslims by Bolsheviks and Allied Dashnaks that occured in March 1918, or you just dispute figures quoted? abdulnr 20:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not denying it, first March massacre isen't a proper Wikipedian name, second of, given that the massacre of Armenians in Baku is more notable in 1918, and that the number of victims was higher even according to the investigation initiated by Tartars there is no way that this article can be neutral when it is missing an entire section. German and Austrian records are abound of the massacres of Armenians and what happened when Nuri, Halil, and others have decided to take in command a Tartar army and organize it. As for Guba, there is no single record of Jews having been killed there by Armenians, the numbers don't add up, and it isen't recorded. Those figures are higher than the official investigation made public of the number of Muslims killed in Baku but yet there is not a single record about that. This is my first accounter with Baku87, but I hope this sort of contribution of his is not generalized. Fad (ix) 22:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Its written as Muslim but they mean Azeris as Azeris are the only major Muslim group in the Caucasian. Also this is not a one man view, if you want to deny this then fine, thats your opinion. This massacre is something that did happen and its definitly worth a article. Baku87 22:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87

That range minima is still 3 times the one from the official investigation. And yes, it is one man view, such high figures are the product of Kazemzadeh imagination. One can not rely on a single source dismissing and ignoring the vast majority of estimates. Consider that the massacre of Armenians in Baku is much more notable and an estimated higher figure, yet, I don't think that alone it should have its entry but rather be part of one incorporating the Tartar-Armenian conflict on 1918-1919. Fad (ix) 22:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

the massacre of jews in guba recently came up in azerbaijan news and israeli ambassador stated that israel would help in the investigation~and georgia stated they will help to, offcourse this should also be noted in the article, a citation has been given in the article aswell Karabakh 09:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, a man that use terms like 'monster' can hardly be considered as reliable. I rely on published data's, yet there is no single work notable or else which ever refers to the massacre of 3000 Jews or less in Guba by Armenians. It isen't found in British records which report both Armenian and Azeris incidences in Baku and its seroundings. Also, this alleged claims from the Israeli ambassadors has yet to be confirmed in transcript letters to Israel or informations sent to Israel, pointing to a news source from a country that is on rather the bottom sides of freedom of press and a newspaper who often simply make up news is simply ridiculous. Besides, I could also claim that there has been a mass murder in my street and report it to the police and then make up a big fuss over news that they will investigate about it. Even the village idiot can report something and then from the noises it generate build an article in Wikipedia claiming that it will be investigated. Fad (ix) 00:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Verify

I have added this tag as the article has no sources. - FrancisTyers 17:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis, this is not the only issue, March Massacre is only called by Azeris, there are at least 6 March massacres recorded in history which are more notable and more widely known. Second of all, the claim that McCarthy claims that 12 thousands have been massacred is simply not true, I provided McCarthy's footnote, he simply provides sources with estimates, the official investigation provides not more than 2,000, which was meant to equilibrate the massacre of Armenians in Baku after the Turkish forces crossed it. According to those investigations 2,000 Azeris and 4,000 Armenians were massacres, when there are neutral sources providing as much as 30,000 Armenians, and that the only report, which is even cited by the prime Azeris source, is of 9,000 Armenian killed, which he justify as vengence. About Guba, this is not cite you source material, this is a delete material, for the reported 2,000 Azeris massacred the British report it, but they say nothing absolutly nothing about Jews being massacred. This just pop up by some dubvious member of the Azeris Academia of science and a Parlementarian of Azerbaijan. Wikipedia can not rely on unpublished materials. Fad (ix) 17:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Added {{pov-title}}. - FrancisTyers 18:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here’s an article by professor Michael Smith of Georgetown university [1]. He wrote an article for Sakharov center called "Pamiat’ ob utratakh i Azerbaidzhanskoe obshchestvo/Traumatic Loss and Azerbaijani National Memory", in Azerbaidzhan i Rossiia: obshchestva i gosudarstva/Azerbaijan and Russia: Society and State, ed. Dmitrii Furman (Moscow: Sakharov Institute, 2001). Available in Russian at Sakharov center website here. He says that Bolsheviks and Armenian dashnaks killed 12 000 Muslims in Baku in March 1918, and in retaliation Turks and Azeris killed 10 000 Armenians in September of the same year. He refers to the events in Baku as March events or massacre. There are more sources, but I have no desire to deal with Armenian-Azeri conflict for the moment. So the title does not appear to be POV. Grandmaster 18:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous, of course always claim to have more sources and provide them never. I already cited from where those 12 thousand figure comes from, which McCarthy provides in his footnote, it was actualy a range, from 9,000 to 12,000. Your book doesn't provide any footnotes. Russia and Azerbaijan by Tadeusz Swietochowski provides 3,000 as figure, and is a much more notable work. (p. 66-67) British Consul Stevens cite the official commission, which was 2,000 Azeris killed and 4,000 Armenians killed. To even think that there was more Azeris massacred than Armenians once the Turkish army crossed the border. John Dos Passos in his book published in 1938 (Journeys Between Wars) provides quotations on how Baku felt in the hands of Dashnaks. Edward J. Erickson who relies on tainted Ottoman records, has much to say about the massacres of Armenians in Baku, but noting I have found about Azeris, he even claim that that the Turks did it by claiming it vengance for Turks killed in Erzerum in March 1918 and not Baku. (Ordered to Die- A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War p. 192) There are higher range of Armenians killed in Baku as much as 30,000 (see: International Politics- The Western State System and the World Community by Frederick Lewis Schuman). You have to give up on that Grandmaster, that period is the center of my knowledge about the issue. The large majority of sources provides much higher Armenian victims than Azeris. Fad (ix) 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Give up on what? You dispute the facts in the article, I provided you with the sources. The author is one of the best specialists in the history of Russia. And I always provide my neutral authoritative sources, unlike some other people, who prefer to use unreliable and biased ones. And the article has plenty of footnotes, including the one that discusses the casualties. The article mentions that about twelve thousand died in Baku during clashes and pogroms, and says that it was more than died in Petrograd during revolution. And then the footnote says:

С. Г. Шаумян говорит о 3000 убитых в ходе мартовских событий с обеих сторон (но это - только в самом Баку). Эту цифру принимают Пайпс, Свентоховский и Альтштадт. Азербайджанские источники приводят цифры от десяти до двенадцати тысяч. См.: La Republique de l’Azerbaijan du Caucase. Paris, 1919. P. 19; Государственный архив политических партий и общественных движений Азербайджанской Республики (в дальнейшем ГАППОД), ф. 277 (Дело “Мусавата”), оп. 2, л. 13, 16, 27. Также см. выступления на Втором съезде “Мусавата” (Азербайджан. 1919. № 268; № 270).

Stepan Shaumian talks about 3000 killed from both sides during March events (but this is only within the city of Baku). This figure is accepted by Pipes, Svyatokhovski and Altshtadt. The figures provided by Azerbaijani sources range from ten to twelve thousand. See: La Republique de l’Azerbaijan du Caucase. Paris, 1919. P. 19; State archive of political parties and public movements of Azerbaijan republic.

But the massacre continued in Guba, Shamakhi and other towns and villages of Baku governance, so even if you go with the minimal number of casualties in Baku there were much more Azeris killed in the towns and villages around Baku. And it was dashnaks who committed the first large massacre in the Caucasus in 1918. This is from HRW report:

Russia's Romanov dynasty collapsed under the weight of the First World War, and Azerbaijan and Armenia both declared independent republics. These were short-lived states that by 1920 were reincorporated into the Russian/Soviet fold. During this brief interlude, ethnic tensions flared again fueled by greater political goals. 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. Less than six months later, in September 1918, the Ottoman "Army of Islam" supported by local Azeri forces recaptured Baku. This time an estimated 10,000 Armenians were slaughtered. As the "Great Game" was played out over Transcaucasia and British, Ottoman, Bolshevik, Azerbaijani, and Armenian forces criss-crossed the region, thousands more innocent Armenians and Azeris would lose their lives in communal violence. [2]

Note the reference to the March massacre in the article. The historical part of the report is based on the analysis of the secondary sources, while the part about the late Soviet and post Soviet developments is based on HRW’s own researches. According to the footnotes, the figures of Muslim casualties are taken from Altstadt, The Azerbaijani Turks, pp. 85-87 ; Suny, "The Revenge of the Past," p. 29., while Armenian casualties are taken from Richard Hovannisian, "The Armeno-Azerbaijani Conflict over Mountainous Nagorno-Karabakh, 1918-1919," Armenian Review, Summer 1971. Grandmaster 13:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So most sources are biased? Everyone can build a cases about whatever they want by finding one or two sources and support their points. I could build my cases as well on the claim that 30,000 Armenians were killed in Baku by the source I have provided. What you are doing is to try selling your sausage here too. Historians make a correlative assesment of events, they do not try finding the highest figures they can find. The 12,000 figure is an Azeris source, I already provided the originator of the source. Those figures have been presented as the Azeris position and published in the: ‘’Claims of the Delegation of the Republic of Caucasian Azerbaijan Presented to the Peace Conference in Paris’’ published in Paris in 1919, check page 18, which is the origine. That you can find some who recycle those figures it doesn’t make them any more credible. The commission provides 2,000, others uses 3,000 and slightly over, but the very large majority of sources provide at least 2 times more Armenian victims. I repeat, you are attempting on your own credibility by pushing this on, unlike you, here I can provide non-googled counless numbers of reputable publications. In fact, McCarthy range of 8,000 to 12,000, both the minima and the maxima originate from Azeris sources. The minima is what was submitted to Urquhart, it was submitted to him too that 18,000 Azeris were killed in Elizavetpol. (F.O. 3713301, no. 121685) and the maxima he provides is from the Azeris delegation, it appears that they were not satisfied with 8,000 since it was under the 9,000 figure of Armenians killed which was circulating. You claim that Smith provides many sources, but where is the 12,000’s footnote? It is a statistical impossibility. You were the one wanting to delete depositions and you are the one now that want to have the figures of the Azerbaijani delegation as sole truth when the most reputable figures are in the 2,000 or 3,000 and also from the most reputable figures there was at least 2 times more Armenian victims. So Hovannisian is not credible? Did you actually read any of his works? Do you even know from where he took those figures? If you are attempting to claim that there was more Azeris victim than Armenian in Baku, you are hardly convincing, that works like Rethinking the Middle East by Efraim Karsh doesn’t say a thing about massacres against Azeris in Baku but do cover the massacre of Armenians can hardly be considered as biases. The Armenians and Tartars have been pretty much 50-50 before the Ottoman army crossed the border and which has specifically chosen the butchers of Eastern Anatolia unboard. Unlike what happened in the end of March in Baku after he news of the Ottoman intention to capture it and the reaction of the Armenian refugees in Baku, the September massacre was premedited weeks before. This is confirmed by various reports including Ernst Paraquin chief of Staff of General Halil (who was the commander in chief of the Eastern army during that period). He reported to General Seeckt that there was an intention of massacre by the Tartars and that there was preparation. (Turkei 183/34, 26 September 1918)

Also, I have yet to see any sources about the 3,000 Jews being killed by Armenians in Guba. That too you have defended in the Sumgait article. You have to admit that you don’t have much knowledge of what you are talking about, it is not by googling and searching for any things you can find to support your position that you will help writting an encyclopedic article. Fad (ix) 15:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not actually say anything about credibility of Hovannisian, I just pointed out the sources of the figures in the HRW report. But I’m indeed skeptical about the information coming from Armenian sources, because even professor Smith points out certain things about their behavior (but not only theirs, to be precise). Smith is very critical of both sides of the conflict and the way they represent the events. He says that both sides talk only about being victims of massacres and prefer not to mention the atrocities committed by them. As an example, he points out that:

Neither Rasulzade (Resulzade M. E. Das Problem Aserbeidschan. Berlin, 1938), nor A.Balayev (Азербайджанское национал-демократическое движение. С. 18-19) mention the massacre of Armenians by Azerbaijanis in September 1918. On the contrary, the recent works by Ronald Suny don’t mention the massacre of Azerbaijanis by Armenians in March 1918, (see Suny R. G. The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and Successor States. New York; Oxford, 1998. P. 99-100; The Revolution in Transcaucasia // Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1917-1921 / Eds. E. Acton, V. Cherniaev and W. Rosenberg. Bloomington, 1997. P. 725).

And indeed, the article on the history of Azerbaijan in Britannica, written by Suny, who’s an ethnic Armenian, makes no mention of the massacre of Azeris, but mentions massacre of Armenians. It’s quite strange that Britannica chose Suny to write an article about Azerbaijan. See:

Azerbaijan was declared an independent state on May 28, 1918, but Baku remained in the hands of a communist government, assisted by local Armenian soldiers, who had put down a Muslim revolt in March. Allied with the advancing Turkish army, in September 1918 the Azerbaijani nationalists secured their capital, Baku, and engaged in a massacre of the Armenians. [3]

Britannica is a very reliable source of information, but not always, it depends on who they choose to write about a certain topic. As for the figures from Azerbaijani side, some of them are much higher than 12 000, for example see here, it says 25 000, and some sources even claim that 50 000 were massacred.

As for Michael Smith figures, he does not mention the source of Azeri casualties of 12 000 and Armenian casualties of 10 000. It’s possible that he took them from Azerbaijani and Armenian sources, such as the same Hovannisian. He also mentions other available figures, as I said. Grandmaster 09:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you would claim Suny being biased had you read any of his works. First, Suny is half Armenian, second Suny impartiality has yet to be questioned. You should read his past coverages about Karabakh before saying that he is biased. Claiming biases on the bases that he is Armenian is the same thing as claiming anti-Muslim biases from Lewis part under the pretext that he is a Jew, while many have accused Lewis of pro-Muslim biases the same way that many have accused Suny of pro-Azeris biases. Unlike what you think, Armenian academics are generaly well balanced, even when covering Khojali massacres. You can not rely on a name to question the credibility of a scholar. Raffi Khatchadourian's article published in The Nation, Vol. 277, November 17, 2003 titled 'The Curse of the Caucasus' without reading it would be rejected by you, but I doubt that balatant pro-Armenian and anti-Azeris biases could be found in that work in which he writes: During the fighting, Armenian soldiers (many, it seems, recruited from Sumgait exiles) conducted the worst reported massacre, in the Azerbaijani town of Khojali, where several hundred civilians were slaughtered. How many Azeris scholar could you find that recognize any Armenian tragedies? They even deny the Armenian genocide, and more ardently than Turkish historians at that.

Indeed, there is no mention of the massacre of Azeris, and not only Armenians exclude it, there is no confirmed extent of such massacres, this is why you will find various works which include the massacre of Armenians and not Azeris. There is as well the fact that Halil who escaped the court martial and an organised exist from the prison in which he was on custity and who announced having killed 300,000 Armenians and attempting to kill the Armenians to the last individual run that mission on the Caucasus, transcaucasus and finally to Baku. There is no way that there could have been anywhere near as much Azeris killed in Baku and on its suroundings as there were Armenian killed. The Tartars got the support of an army which specifically was attempting to kill every single Armenian on that region. While the March massacre was initiated by the Russians, who opened Baku's door to the Armenian refugees who survived and who were manipulated by fear after March anouncement of the Ottoman attempt to penetrate and unite the Tartars, and on top of that Brest-Litovsk on March and still Baku's unclear juridiction, which has left Armenian refugees fate with uncertainty and the resulting probable evacuation had the Ottoman a higher hand.

If you realise how much people is 12,000 and how short a period is three days, and how many Armenians at max could have been involved there, it is simply not only an unlikely number, it is a statistical impossibility. It would mean 4 thousand people per day, while most available men were trying to secure Yerevan and that the Turkish forces cut Alexendripole like butter and that with this capability it would represent near 20% of the Armenian effectif lost in Baku killing 4,000 Azeris per day. It wasn't the first time there was confrontation and massacres between Tartars and Armenians and this continued later, but you can not compare this with Halil's army who was aiming at killing every Armenians he came accross, this is why the massacre of Armenians in Baku is of relevance and that those massacres perpetrated by Armenians and Tartars(during the period which they had no Ottoman support) are considered to have little relevance.

Right now, we must rely on what most sources say and not try finding the highest possibly figures. Also, this article alone has no place to exist, what you will call it? Baku massacre? This refers to the massacre of Armenians and you can check works about this. There should definitly be an article refer to this massacre, but it should be an article relating to the regiomn during that period.

As for Guba Jews massacre, this should definitly go, it is simply crap, not recorded in any archives neither works. We rely on published materials. Fad (ix) 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Suny, it’s not me, it’s professor Smith who blames him of not mentioning the massacre of Azerbaijani people in Baku. As far as I can see Smith is absolutely right, Suny indeed does not mention the fact, while other reputable historians, such as Swietochowski, Altstadt, Pipes and others do.

I included the references to the intro, stating all available figures from reputable sources. All other facts stated in the article should also be properly referenced, so the tags should remain until that’s done. This event is indeed referred to as March massacre or March events by various sources, who deal with the history of the region, but is very little known to people, who don’t take any interest in the history of the region. Grandmaster 12:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't knew Pipes was a historian. As far as I am concerned there are as much evidences to consider Pipes as credible as ones country nationalistic historians.

You aren't convincing, Smith place that as the worst event ever in that region, while he provides no sources. And what you are doing is simply dishonest, Justin McCarthy uses figures which he provides in his footnote, which I have provided, this must be cited, you can not delete the source of the figures. Also, the minima range is not 3,000, but rather the commissions 2,000.

Also, that you like it or not March Massacre is not encyclopedic, there are at least 6 march massacres which are way much more notable like the March massacre against the Taiwanese.

Comming to Suny, Grandmaster, beside Swietochowski, the rest of those you have used (not much), are populist 'historians,' Suny works are well much researched and analytic, and once one understand him, there isen't much to say about his exclusion. (And like I said he isen't the only the excludes what you call the March massacre) Many things happened in 1918, the Turkish invasion on the Caucasus to the so-called Muslim detachments on the name of Turkdom and the Ottoman Empire union fought against the Baku Bolshevic armed forces in which Armenians were dragged and recuted in March 1918, (see for example: The Legacy of History in Russia and the New States of Eurasia by S. Frederick Starr p. 243, he too doesn.t mention much of this march massacre). Shahumian along with twenty six commissars were put to death by the so-called conter revolutionaries to the fall of Baku in September and the massacre of Armenians, which like it or not from most works left at the very least two times more deaths. There is as well the continual attempt by the Azeris side to get Zangezour which was later made possible once Karabakh passed under a local Azeris juridiction temporarly. The Azeris following it have rejected the August peace agreement and attacks culminating with the torching of the Shushi's Armenian quarter and the killing of its bishop and what went in Shosh village and what followed in other villages.

An analytic assesment would either include all or include the most relevant, Baku massacre of Armenians was done under the Ottoman army's, which diferenciate it with the conflicts between Armenians and Azeris.

And finaly, as I said, this article alone is delete material, there is no March massacre alone covered as an independent entity in any known reputable work, either it is included in an article, either it is delete material. Also, I have yet to see any records about the massacre of Jews. Fad (ix) 18:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's really sad and yet amusing when one considers how much time you azeri members spend pushing your POV. You go to great lengths to distort the truth, never understanding that there's 20 other editors who know your edits for what they really are.--Moosh88 05:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Retraction

After reading Michael G. Smith paper: Anatomy of a Rumour: Murder Scandal, the Musavat Party and Narratives of the Russian Revolution in Baku, 1917-20 (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 211-240 ), I retract my implying of him being a populist historian. Clearly he is much more analytic than Altstadt, and unlike Altstadt doesn't seem to be engaged in symplistic analysis. His coverage of what he calls 'March Event' is pretty much in correlation with some other works I have read. He also uses 12 thousand as figure, but says that up to that number (doesn't footnote it). He covers the Muslim and Bolshevic and Dashnak fightings in March and what followed after the Bolshevic propaganda's about a Muslim revolution, which according to Smith was exagerated. We definitly here have a very relevant paper wich depict the situation and which coupled with few other ones I have found could be used to write an article. I suggest creating an article titled: 'Bolshevic Revolution in Baku' to replace this article. I could email Smith's article to those that want to contribute. Any comment? Fad (ix) 05:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I’ll get back to this a little later, I’m looking for more material for the moment. And please email me the article, if you can. Grandmaster 19:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

I decided to move this article from "March Massacre" to "March Days" for two reasons:

1. The name "March Days" has been used by many historians to describe these events including Michael P. Croissant and Audrey L. Altstadt. Meanwhile, I haven't seen the term "March Massacre" used outside of Wikipedia. The only historian who seems to use a slightly different name is Michael G. Smith who refers to it as the "March events."
2. The name "March Massacre" is too broad as it can describe just about any massacre that occured in March during history.

I also decided to revert this article to its earlier NPOV version. This version excludes certain passages that under Wikipedian standards would be considered POV. These include pieces sourced by the Azerbaijani media and the extremely pro-Turkish Justin McCarthy (who, I might add, denies that the Armenian Genocide ever occured and has been used to push the agenda of the Turkish government as recent documents have shown). Croissant, I believe, provides the number 20,000 for a possible higher Armenian death toll in the subsequent September Days incident that followed. -- Clevelander 00:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Croissant source doesnt have a link to it, its only a line but nothing is backing it up? The other source says 10,000 Baku87 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Croissant source is a book. This particular information, if I'm not mistaken can be found on page 15 and is referenced. Although it is not an eBook, it does have an ISBN which is the closest thing you'll get to an online link. -- Clevelander 21:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's suggestion

User:Khoikhoi suggested that we merge both this article and September Days into one article called the Baku massacres or 1918 Baku massacres. Any thoughts or suggestions? -- Aivazovsky 13:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Khoikhoi. I think that would be a good idea to have both articels merged and in the articel talk about both of those terrible events. ROOB323 01:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. These are two separate events, which both deserve separate coverage. --Tabib 13:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion

It is my understanding that one user is continually reverting essentially the same block of text. I took a look at the removed text, and the only portion which should be removed is:

The telegram shows that Lenin, with his genius for appreciating people, felt the rashness of Shaumyan. Lenin's advice about diplomacy was nothing but a warning to be more careful and less provoking.

This reads like speculation. However, the other parts of the article which are continuously reverted should be kept. They are very well-cited and not, to my reading, POV. I encourage the involved editors to respond here. Srose (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now i guess. Nareklm 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Srose, the text you quoted above is taken as is from Dr. Kazemzadeh's book with a page indicated. FYI, Dr. Kazemzadeh is a Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University, recently headed U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedoms. He is an author of several books on Iran, CAucasus and the region. The book quoted here is his PhD thesis with introductory letter from Harvard Professor. So I deem everyone who disputes the wording of a man with such qualifications, to have comparative qualifications in the science of history. Thanks for your contribution. Tengri 18:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone knows this person. Nareklm 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote preceding my italicized quotation appears to be found in the book you have cited, but the italicized quotation which concerns me draws a conclusion from the quote FOR the reader, and can thus be construed as POV. Unless that statement appears in its entirety within the book, it should not be included. If it is included, it should be written with the introductory phrase, "According to Dr. Kazemzadeh." Srose (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement appears in its entirety on the page of the book indicated in reference, which is page 70, in the section titled "March Events". If you wish, we can add the words "According to Dr. Kazemzadeh". Actually, can you explain me how to cite the same reference in different parts of the text on Wiki, without having to repeated the whole reference in reference section? Thanks. Tengri 18:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's all right then. I can only get certain pages through my online sources. If it's a direct quote, it should be in quotation marks (") with the citation directly following in any case. It should appear: According to Dr. Kazemzadeh "(quote here)" [reference]. I'm actually not sure how to cite the same non-Internet reference without having it repeat itself, I'm sorry to say. :X Srose (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Srose, I have no problem with that particular edit. If you don't mind, I would also like to get your opinion on the quote in Aftermath section: "Although not an isolated incident, given the participation of the Azerbaijanis during the Ottoman offensive on Armenia in early 1918" which is uncited and used by Nareklm. This quote is absolutely untrue, I would like Nareklm to provide reference exactly to this quote in the book cited at the end of paragraph with section and line number.

If he can't provide the reference, this part of sentence should be removed. In return, I will provide exact quotes on events of September 15, 1918 and number of victims as quoted from the Armeinan National Council by Kazemzadeh and several other references.Tengri 18:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I haven't gotten to go sentence-by-sentence yet. I think, at this point, everything that isn't cited should be removed from this article. Usually it's okay to have a {{fact}} tag on something in an article for a week or two, but as this is such a disputed article, we should probably just rid ourselves and the article of anything needing such a tag for the time being. Srose (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all i did not put it, i see your trying to do everything in your power to get rid of things like this and it will stay so don't worry. Nareklm 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm merely trying to get rid of unsourced statements, so that the accusations of POV can begin to clear. Srose (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my complain was that Nareklm just blindly removed a big chunk of text. Now, we can work on the citation, texts and proves.--Dacy69 17:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nareklm, perhaps, if you were really interested in history of your own nation, Armenians, instead of making endless rv's removing references, you would know Dr. Kazemzadeh. And what was the purpose of RV, to hide the truth of killings, why? Dr. Kazemzadeh actually provided a good coverage of historical events, which you call "September Days" in his book, which I will add in coming days. And I am sure you will be sorry for not knowing him well or not appreciating his references. Tengri 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care about hiding the "killings" i can't hide it its already happened, theres nothing to worry about since the massive amount of pogroms, genocides, massacres and human rights violations come from Turkey or Azerbaijan against Christian minorities or Armenians. I don't know if this person is bias or not, or against certain types of people. Nareklm 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Killings in a war don't come from single side. But I won't argue on that endlessly. Let's rather leave the truth to references, if you're unable to handle it on your own. Thanks. Tengri 18:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's wonderful to see how quickly this was resolved. I really encourage both of you to communicate here for an improvement of the article. :) Srose (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Croissant's bubble quotes moved out of context

Nareklm, before putting quotes out of context, you should seriously review the referenced material in Reference section. This quote:

"The brutalities continued for weeks. No quarter was given by either side: neither age nor sex was respected. Enormous crowds roamed the streets, burning houses, killing every passer-by who was identified as an enemy, many innocent persons suffering death at the hands of both the Armenians and Azerbaijanis. The struggle which had begun as a political contest between the Musavat and the Soviet assumed the characters of a gigantic race riot."

actually is in Firuz Kazemzadeh's book, p. 73, paragraph 1, word-to-word and pertains to March events not to September ones, like you did imply by putting it at the end. Kazemzadeh's book was published in 1951. If Michael Croissant republished this paragraph without reference, it should be shameful of him as a scholar. My apologies if he did reference Dr. Kazemzadeh. However, my concern is also about Croissant's rough 10 - 20,000 estimate bazaar about Armenians killed during September events. It seems to me that he counts people as watermellons without any serious research whatsoever into roots of the conflict or any documents related to it. Same goes with his irrelevant and maleducated quotes like "Azerbaijanis participated in Ottoman attacks on Armenia". The question is which Azerbaijanis, private individuals, society, country, army? I doubt Croissant can answer this question with serious research. Another genious one, "Armenians were taking revenge for genocide". Croissant probably has no idea that Azeri-Armenian conflict first flared in 1905, 10 years before the events in Ottoman Empire, and it has nothing to do with Ottoman Empire. Again Croissant is a failure as an unbiased expert of any kind on Armenian-Azeri conflict.

I presented the exact quote by Dr. Kazemzadeh, quoting Armenian National Council and Ishkhanian. Please, do not modify my quotes, get the originals of references before referring to them. If this continues I will request again protection of the page, which was imposed by my request but lifted against my will today. Tengri 11:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead request protection, i never modified your posts. Nareklm 12:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Which sentence in this material do you see as POV? The events related to the liberation of Baku by Azerbaijani and Ottoman forces from the forces of Baku Soviet, Dashnaks, British and other related Russian groups should be separately discussed on September page, with appropriate quotations. The events although pertaining to the same year and the same city, were different in nature and timing. The information on Aftermath section, actually is a clear example of material that would pertain more to September page, rather than here. But even here it creates a visible image of objectivity and unbiased balance of references and wording as a whole about the March events. Atabek 02:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalization by User:Aivazovsky

The site has been vandalized by User Aivazovsky with paragraphs of text removed with valuable sources. This is surprising as the site was clearly balanced reflecting massacres by both sides. It's very sad that Aivazovsky is not able to provide even an explanation for what he has done and blocked the page. Atabek 11:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no explanation for removal of major part of text and reinserting the recent biased, reference-lacking, and clearly POV version by Aivazovsky. Pending further inability of the blocking user to provide any explanation for his single-sided editing and practical vandalization of the article's references and text, the block should be lifted. This is given the fact that the page gave an objective account of both March and September events from major NPOV sources. Interestingly, the version was even accepted and edited by Nareklm. The edit, which was removed by Aivazovsky, even included the precise figure of Armenian losses in Baku as cited by Armenian National Council. So it's rather incomprehensible why user Aivazovsky reverted to the disaster that is currently displayed on this page without any consulting. Atabek 07:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is blatant vandalism. I second that opinion. A big chunk fo the text has been removed. It was well-sourced to several books, articles and documents.--Dacy69 22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek's new addition

Do you want to explain why you added such a big chunk of text without discussion? Vartanm 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

...and under the sock User:Tengri? -- Aivazovsky 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes the mediation invalid. Reverting back. Lets talk about it first. then we can add the text gradually.Vartanm 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What? We're here to write an encyclopedia. Content doesn't hinge on talk-page sockpuppetry allegations. Picaroon 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I just thought it was very strange that he would revert the article to a mediation version. In which he used a sock User:Tengri.--Vartanm 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can we please build upon my version? I removed every bias detail, also just because there historians doesn't mean there NPOV since most references i read said they were clashes or etc, no massacres or that much bloody detail because what Atabek added is obviously POV my version was neutral and it had sayings for both. Artaxiad 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot remove anything without valid explanation. You deleted sourced info, please explain the reaona for that. Saying that it is POV is not enough, you should provide a valid reason. Grandmaster 11:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, number one its too long it seems Atabek is writing a book here, second the description given is basically very POV, I removed everything that was POV, hopefully other Armenian editors won't revert again and would be satisfied with this version since I slightly edited it. Artaxiad 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

ANC references

Artaxiad, you should not be modifying the text of Croissant's reference. Also, I added back the precise numbers from Armenian National Council about Armenian deaths in Baku in September of 1915. This is an important and relevant reference, in light of rough speculation of numbers by Michael Croissant, who is not a historian. Atabek 00:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you own this article? now, I have the right to modify it, not every historian is reliable or NPOV.Artaxiad 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove large sections without properly substantiating your actions on talk. Thanks. Grandmaster 07:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm attempting to Neutralize this article because, I am not happy nor Vartanm or Aivazovsky, thats 3 users, we are aloud to do this, it seems as though we are writing a book but not adding encyclopedic entries. Artaxiad 11:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You should explain deletion of every reference on talk. Please do so now. Grandmaster 11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, you should not edit mediated article without proper discussion. All you're doing is removing sources to valuable scholarly articles and book references. Explain in detail which reference you do not like on the current page, engage discussion and prove your point perhaps with another mediation. Wikipedia is consensus based, so whether you have 3 or 53 users on "your side" is really irrelevant. Atabek 20:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check the "diffs" everything I removed I am in disagreement in obviously. Artaxiad 01:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:War crimes in Azerbaijan

Please provide a citation (or several) for the fact that this was a war crime before readding Category:War crimes in Azerbaijan. Thanks. Picaroon 18:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Can we get third party sources? to make the article more neutral please.

Regarding these references, can I have some information on them how reliable they actual are? and also get a source from a third party.

Since these are Armenian and Azeri sources.

References from page:

1. Suren Shaumyan. "Бакинская Коммуна 1918-го года", Пролетарская Революция, No. 12 (59), 1926, p. 78.
2. Tchalkhouchian, Gr., open citation, pp. 85-86
3. B. Ishkhanian. Великие ужасы в городе Баку, Tiflis, 1920, pp. 28-30 as quoted by Firuz Kazemzadeh, "Struggle for Transcaucasia", p. 144.
4. Stepan Shaumyan, Статьи и речи, Baku, p. 224

These above are all Armenian, who are they? please give us information, on there credibility.

Regarding this link, [4] some info again I request, since there are POV information from there referenced here. Artaxiad 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, you have been explained before that the fact of you not speaking Russian language is not yet a basis to claim a source unverifiable. You should also get the English-language book by Firuz Kazemzadeh, published by the New York Philosophical Library, and available in many school and university libraries and check the references before claiming them unverifiable or otherwise bring some scholarly qualifications to judge a Yale history professor as an unverifiable source. The tag will be removed now. Atabek 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

These are not third party sources. Artaxiad 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

By Kazemzade you mean this [5]? Your dear friend Adil wrote an article about March Days. I see he likes to quote him alot. Of course there is nothing wrong about writing articles. Vartanm 20:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Firuz Kazemzade is 80+ year old scholar, Professor Emeritus of History from Yale University. What does Adil or his article have to do with what's written on Wiki page. March Days are known and recorded events in history and in the books and articles. Atabek 02:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek your intro is wrong, here is the reference where is the Armenian massacres? or the Dashnak, no where it says "massacre" does it

The estimation of events To rasulzade, which pereklikayetsya with the fact that the eyewitnesses write in their memoirs, he speaks faster about a feeling of weakness and desperation, which the Moslem elite experienced, than about any national will or about the dull chauvinism. It recalls, as all left parties they took up arms against "musavata", which, allegedly, brought the matter before the nightmarish events of March of 1918 . "if we would obediently incline the heads before the enemies of freedom, possibly, nothing similar it occurred". In other words, Baku council drove in "musavat" and its series members into the angle and helped to finish them there, after granting the Baku Moslems of the "bacchanalia" of violence. March events for To rasulzade were the national war, untied by Russian Bolsheviks against the defenseless Azerbaijan people. In the skirmishes and the pogrom not less than 12 000 people perished. On the streets of Baku and its environments during these days perished more people, than in always it was combat in Petrograd during February 1917 or during the "bloodless" Bolshevik revolution during October. If we proceed from the number of victims, March events were one of the most terrible episodes in the course of Russian revolution. Specifically, so receives their "Musavat", charging not only Bolsheviks and d$dashnakists, but also itself, powerless leaders of the infuriated masses. Artaxiad 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, Kazemzadeh (American scholar of Persian origin) uses the words massacre, so does Armenian B. Ishkhanian in his book. If you have a problem of accepting the word, here is the definition which will make it easier:

The word massacre has a number of meanings, but most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or without any reasonable means of defense, that would often qualify as war crimes or atrocities.

So if the Armenian massacres in Anatolia is labeled with not yet recognized definition of "genocide" on this Wiki page, then I don't see a reason why, March Events, which according to scholars was termed as "massacre", should not be called so. Atabek 02:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reference does not state it your making up things they usually only say clashes or March events. Artaxiad 14:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Your source does not say Muslims

2) Your source does not say massacre.

3) Your source does not say dashnaks.

4} Your source says pogroms. Artaxiad 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Really?

1.My main source F. Kazemzadeh "Struggle for Transcaucasia: 1917-1921", new York Philosophical Library, 1951, says clearly massacres on page 73. Also,

As far as the massacre of the Muslim civilian population was concerned, Arbishop Bagrat denied that the Armenians had anything to do with it. (Jean Loris-Melikov, "La revolution russe et les nouvelles Republiques Transcaucasiennes", Paris, Felix Alcan, p. 115-117).

So knowing some French in addition to Russian maybe helpful in analyzing all relevant references.

2. F. Kazemzadeh, p. 71:

But it was neither the Kadets, nor the Mensheviks, nor the S.R.'s who saved the Soviet during the March Days. It was the Dashnaktsutiun with its military organization that tipped the scales in its favour.

As I told you earlier, get the book, read it and then argue. Fighting off the reference without reading it is not quite constructive or useful. Thanks. Atabek 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

F. Kazemzaden is not Third party he is Iranian-Azeri. Artaxiad 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Really again? :) Introduction to the book by Michael Karpovich (Professor of History, Harvard University) says:

Dr. Kazemzadeh has been particularly well-fitted to undertake this investigation. A native of Iran, the son of a Persian father and a Russian mother, he began his education in Moscow (where his father was stationed for years as a diplomat), and he completed it in the United States (at Stanford and Harvard). To his personal knowledge of Russia and the Middle East he has added a thorough training in history. Above all, he has diplayed in his study that degree of detatchment which one is entited to expect from a historian.

Do you want to say that Harvard history Professor Michael Karpovich was wrong, and User:Artaxiad is right? Good luck. If you like, we can invite a mediator to decide between Karpovich (Harvard), Kazemzadeh (Yale) and User:Artaxiad :). Atabek 17:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about Armenians again, these sentences are not clear and are not properly referenced.Artaxiad 05:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, are you arguing for the sake of argument or actually following the thread of discussion. It seems to be the first. You said, "Kazemzadeh is not third party, he is Iranian Azeri", and I proved you otherwise. Now, as I told you before questioning the reference, grab the book, read it for yourself. The information provided on the page right now is quite impartial, the numbers for September events are mentioned even from such POV source as Armenian National Council. While technically September events are not related to March Events, they're still there. So what is that you dispute without an end and without a concept? Concretely, please. Atabek 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The source stated on the article does not say that, don't present your references here than use it on there, reference it properly. Artaxiad 19:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It has that in the aftermath section, big chunk of text highlighted in italic. It seems that you haven't even read or understood the content of the page. Atabek 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the intro. Artaxiad 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is March Events page, the major suffering party on those particular events (in March) were Muslim Azeris, not Armenians. I don't understand what relevance does "Armenian Genocide" have to do with Baku March events, when no Turkish army was there in March 1918, it was only Shaumian with Dashnaks, SRs and Kadets vs Musavat. Atabek 04:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the events in Turkey were absolutely unrelated to Baku events, and Artaxiad should stop deleting the word "massacre" from the article. It was a massacre according to sources. Grandmaster 05:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The word is not NPOV its from a Azeri perspective, tons of other scholarly and historian references only said clashes or pogroms. Artaxiad 06:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no word "pogrom" used in the scholarly lingo around 1918, it was massacre. Artaxiad, you have been provided tons of evidence with reference to Western scholars. Why don't you contribute to this talk page a single sentence from similarly NPOV source that proves your not quite well defined points. Otherwise, your comments and activity on this page look nothing other than POV pushing. Atabek 10:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is word pogrom now scholars and historians may use you are also mis-referencing which I bolded above instead of presenting your references fix them on the article. Artaxiad 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why word "pogrom" should be used, when more prominent and credible scholars used the word "massacre". According to your logic, we should also call events of 1915 in Anatolia as Armenian or Turkish "pogroms". How about that? Atabek 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I say this? no, if it was a massacre I'm sure it would have been called March massacre. Your mis referencing is not impressing me, and your accusations reference your work properly. Artaxiad 23:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It was called a March massacre by Yale scholar as well as by Armenian scholar Ishkhanian. Also, your making up of number 30,000 from the source that says 10,000 is not acceptable. I am correcting this and reporting your POV pushing in ArbCom immediately. Thanks. Atabek 23:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, I was still in the process of adding references. Artaxiad 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

HRW is not an expert source on history in general, but Kazemzadeh and Smith are. Both cite the number close to 10,000, with Kazemzadeh even giving the precise figure from the Armenian National Council, shown in the Aftermath section. So clearly your attempt to put unsourced 30,000 in there was a needless disruption. Atabek 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay? I will add it back when I get the references okay? the number was 10-35 thousand. Artaxiad 23:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No additions without discussion on talk page. I am sure that number 35,000 is similar to your previous disruption as well as so called 300,000 (1930s) -> 600,000 (1960s Brittanica) -> 1.5 million to now -> 2.5 million (authored by Fadix) victims of Armenian massacres in Anatolia. Professional forgery and inflation of numbers, failing to understand that massacre and genocide are not termed by number of victims but by content of crime. Atabek 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This above speaks volume. Fad (ix) 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Artaxiad 00:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, there is an ArbCom injuction that asks you to discuss your edits on Talk page before making them. You have been warned. Atabek 01:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are for only reverts buddy. Artaxiad 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We will let the ArbCom or ANI decide that, when you make such edit. Please, refrain from using personalizing terms. Thanks. Atabek 20:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay? those aren't "personalized" terms, I was about to add the references if you did not revert it so quickly, theres no rules against this. Artaxiad 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Kazemzadeh

Atabek wrote: A native of Iran, the son of a Persian father and a Russian mother,

Persian is another term equivalent to Iranian, specially during 1951. This does not prove his ethnicity. Artaxiad 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The book clearly makes reference to Azerbaijanis as well as Persians. So if he was Azerbaijani, it would be written so. But in any case, I wish you good luck proving that Artaxiad is more credible than Yale Professor Emeritus, former head of U.S. Committee on Religious Freedom and head of U.S. Bahai organization :). My suggestion though, instead of trying to prove identity of major U.S. scholar on the region, why don't just make an effort to read his book once. You will learn more about your own country, Armenia, to which Dr. Kazemzadeh devoted a whole chapter. I am sure that after reading the book you will find very little ground to claim Dr. Kazemzadeh being unsympathetic to Armenian side.Atabek 04:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know the books full name or details. Artaxiad 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The book's full title is presented in reference section of the March Days page, which I wish you would read at least once before attempting to edit... Atabek 09:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I pretend to assume good faith now, can there be any explainations that while most source provide 3,000 as number of victims, the "up" to is given such a significance when it was the figure presentated by the Azerbaijan's delegation (for example see Justin McCarthy footnote for that figure). The investigation presented by the British was of 2,000. Need I to provide the records again? And this is only the introduction. Fad (ix) 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Smith paper, available on Jstor, which I provided the title above, does not report massacres on Massacre on 30-31 March, 1918. It report them on April. And here, I did not even read the rest. The only thing I did was to check the intro the the titles of sections, and found mistakes right there. Can I expect those two being fixed anytime soon? Fad (ix) 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting an answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Atabek wrote: A native of Iran, the son of a Persian father and a Russian mother,

Persian is another term equivalent to Iranian, specially during 1951. This does not prove his ethnicity. Artaxiad 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The book clearly makes reference to Azerbaijanis as well as Persians. So if he was Azerbaijani, it would be written so. But in any case, I wish you good luck proving that Artaxiad is more credible than Yale Professor Emeritus, former head of U.S. Committee on Religious Freedom and head of U.S. Bahai organization :). My suggestion though, instead of trying to prove identity of major U.S. scholar on the region, why don't just make an effort to read his book once. You will learn more about your own country, Armenia, to which Dr. Kazemzadeh devoted a whole chapter. I am sure that after reading the book you will find very little ground to claim Dr. Kazemzadeh being unsympathetic to Armenian side.Atabek 04:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know the books full name or details. Artaxiad 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The book's full title is presented in reference section of the March Days page, which I wish you would read at least once before attempting to edit... Atabek 09:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I pretend to assume good faith now, can there be any explainations that while most source provide 3,000 as number of victims, the "up" to is given such a significance when it was the figure presentated by the Azerbaijan's delegation (for example see Justin McCarthy footnote for that figure). The investigation presented by the British was of 2,000. Need I to provide the records again? And this is only the introduction. Fad (ix) 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Try harder, assuming good faith can be useful. It's for the same reason that I included numbers cited by Kazemzadeh from Armenian National Council (obviously a POV source) to show Armenian victims in September. Perhaps, if you now question Kazemzadeh and Smith on 12,000, we should also remove numbers on the Armenian victims in September (indeed different from the month of March), which, considering the annual "inflation" of "Armenian genocide" victims, was probably 1/10th of that reported by ANC. Atabek 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Smith paper, available on Jstor, which I provided the title above, does not report massacres on Massacre on 30-31 March, 1918. It report them on April. And here, I did not even read the rest. The only thing I did was to check the intro the the titles of sections, and found mistakes right there. Can I expect those two being fixed anytime soon? Fad (ix) 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1920 New York Times magazine reference I just added cites also March 1918. Firuz Kazemzadeh (who is weighter authority and is cited by Michael Smith througout his papers) on pages 69-76 of his book mentions the word massacre in regards to March Events. Also this is from Michael Smith. "Anatomy of Rumor: Murder Scandal, the Musavat Party and Narrative of the Russian Revolution in Baku, 1917-1920", Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 36, No. 2, (Apr. 2001):

The Caucasus front now joined Baku politics with disastrous consequences, culminating in the notorious "March Events" of 1918. (page 225) -- no April here

The basic elements were now in place for the infamous and contentious "March Events", when Russian Bolshevik and Armenian Dashnak troops vied with armed Muslim units for control of the streets of Baku. For the Bolsheviks, the March Events begain with a rumour on 30 March that the officers and solders of the Savage Division aboard the steamer, Evelina, were conspiring to lead a rebellion in Baku and were preparing to set off for Lenkoran to gather more forces. (pp. 226-227)

The results of the March Events were immediate and total for the Musavat. Several hundreds of its members were killed in the fighting, up to 12,000 Muslim civilians perished; thousands of others fled Baku in a mass exodus.(p. 228).

Turkish military forces and Azerbaijani militias carried out severe pogroms against the civilian Armenian community, vengeance for the March atrocities just a few months before. (p. 229).

Now, Fadix, with all said above, if we are refusing to call a deliberate atrocities against 12,000 Azerbaijani people a massacre, I don't see why should we call Armenian victims of World War I caught up on a battleground between Russian forces, Armenian militia and Ottoman forces as "genocide". Atabek 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, we are writing an encyclopaedia, NOT another one of Adil websites. There is nothing that makes me angrier, when one insinuates that I am lying by purposely removing from Smith work parts. Smith work makes it clear that the massacres happened in the beginning of April, you are distorting Smith. I won’t waste my time typing all the part which place things in context, but I will be doing only this.

This was a civil war that, quite by coincidence in the Soviet version, also turned into the murderous ‘national war’ between Dashnak and Muslim forces between 1 and 3 April. The Bolsheviks freely admitted their inability to prevent the anti-Muslim pogroms that were perpetrated by renegate Dashnak troops and that spread to nearby cities and villages.

…

Muslim sources contest these prejudices. They portray the March Events instead as initially an act of rather reckless violence, instigated by Muslim crowds frustrated by Baku Soviet’s real policies of exclusion and patriarchy, angered by potent rumours that it was preparing to disarm and suppress them.

…

Then he continues, I already told Grandmaster that I agree with Smith description of the event. BUT!!! The March event does not relate to the massacres, it relates to the events of the last days of March which later at the beginning of April lead to the massacres. In any case on March there was no massacre. And I hope you won’t force me to quote the rest, this of course for you it won’t be necessary, but for the potential readers who don’t have access to the work and who might be fooled by your misleading allusions it just might. And no, for your information I did not deny the massacres, what I did was against turning this article into the article which Adil Baguirov has written about the event, which it has become thanks to you.

Many things happened in 1918, the Turkish invasion on the Caucasus to the so-called Muslim detachments on the name of Turkdom and the Ottoman Empire union fought against the Baku Bolshevic armed forces in which Armenians were dragged and recruited in March 1918.

True, Smiths provides up to, but most sources use 3,000 as source. The upper limits comes from ‘’Claims of the Delegation of the Republic of Caucasian Azerbaijan Presented to the Peace Conference in Paris’’ published in Paris in 1919, p. 18, as McCarthy source it. British Consul Stevens cite the official commission, which was 2,000 Muslims killed.

Doesn’t Tadeusz Swietochowski in his “Russian and Azerbaijan” on p. 66-67 provides 3000 as figure? Doesn’t Altstadt use about that figure? Doesn’t Pipes use that figure? “Up to” is clearly not encyclopedic tone at all. Ranges are. Fad (ix) 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting your reply. Fad (ix) 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

new source to add: Peter Hopkirk

It's ironic to see how some here try to show that only 2,000 (?!) Azerbaijanis were killed in March Massacres of 1918, and rename March massacres into smth else. NEver mind that best-selling British journalist and narrative historian, who published extensively on region, calls it "genocide". FROM: Peter Hopkirk, “Like hidden fire. The Plot to bring down the British Empire”, Kodansha Globe, New York, 1994. ISBN-10: 1-56836-127-0

“’We were now alone and unarmed,’ wrote MacDonell. ‘Liaki [near Gabala, several hours away from Baku], the last stronghold of the enemy [Azerbaijanis], lay ahead of us, and it was there that we would have to take in water for our engine. We were by now many hours behind the troops, and we steamed slowly towards Liaki not knowing what we were going to find.’ All seemed quiet as they rounded the last bend. The station was deserted – ‘the first we had seen not in flames,’ MacDonell noted. Leaving the driver to take on water, he and Noel walked into the nearby village. ‘It was a ruin,’ MacDonell recalled, ‘with the dead lying in the streets and the dogs sniffing at their corpses.’" (p. 273)

“Only now did he discover the reason for his seizure. The Jungalis, he learned to his horror, were planning to try him for genocide. Shortly after Noel’s departure, Baku had erupted into bloodshed. The Jungalis, it appeared, now held him personally responsible for the massacre of several thousand of their fellow Muslims at the hands of the Armenians.” (p. 281).

“Russian gunboats in the harbor, whose crews were mostly sympathetic to the Bolsheviks and their leftists allies, joined in against the Muslims, mercilessly bombarding their quarter of the city, and wreaking terrible carnage and destruction. But it was the Armenians who decided the issue. … Under intense pressure from the Dashnaks, an extremist Armenian nationalist group, their leaders joined forces with the Bolsheviks against the Muslims. It was a decision they would pay for dearly before six months were out. ‘For three days it was touch and go as to who would get the upper hand,’ wrote MacDonell. ‘But at last he Tartars [Azerbaijanis] and the Savage Division were beaten back, and by the fifth day not a single Muslim of any importance was left in the town, and few of their houses were left standing.’" (p. 283)

"One British witness to the slaughter was Ida Dewar Durie, the wife of a British officer serving with the military mission in Tiflis. … She was staying in the Hotel d’Europe, anxiously awaiting word of her husband Robert, when she found herself caught up in the battle for Baku, which she watched from her bedroom window. In a letter to her family she described what she, and another Englishwoman sharing her room, saw as the battle ebbed and flowed in the streets around the hotel and shells from the gunboats shook the town. … All the wounded delivered to the hospital appear to have been Bolsheviks or (end page 284)

(begin page 285) Armenians, for Mrs Dewar Durie makes no mention of seeing any Tartar casualties, except for the dead, who were strewn about the streets in scores. Indeed, periodically search parties would comb the hotel ‘hunting for Tartars who had eluded them,’ and once she witnessed two Muslims being dragged roughly along by a party of Bolsheviks. ‘As I looked, and without a second’s warning, the group halted, and the prisoners were shot in the head.’ Their executioners then wrenched off their boots and tossed their corpses into the gutter, where they remained for two days.

…

By now the Muslim leaders could see that they had no hope of overthrowing the Bolsheviks and their allies and seizing control of Baku. They had unwisely taken the Armenian declaration of neutrality at face value, and had also been badly taken aback by the savagery of the naval bombardment. (end page 285)

(begin page 286) “Urged by Lenin to show restraint towards the ethnic groups whom the Bolsheviks sought to win over to their cause, Shaumian agreed to a ceasefire. But the Armenians, seeing that at last they had their ancient foes on the run, were now out for vengeance. The fighting thus continued, until virtually the entire Muslim population had either been driven from the city or been slaughtered. By the fifth day, although much of the city was still ablaze, all resistance had ceased, leaving the streets strewn with dead and wounded, nearly all of them Muslims.

From her window, Mrs Dewar Durie watched grimly as the corpses were collected from where they lay and flung unceremoniously on to carts. ‘Some of the bodies’, she wrote, ‘were practically naked after the looting. Officers could be seen roughly searching their pockets, snatching out notebooks and papers soaked in blood, their own hands and arms red to the elbows.’ Although the shooting was now over, the worries of those in the hotel were not. In the Muslim quarter, its flames fanned by a gale which had suddenly sprung up, a huge fire was raging out of control. Mrs Dewar Durie was told that it had been deliberately started by the Bolsheviks and Armenians in order to drive the Muslims out of their positions.

…

With the collapse of the Muslim revolt, the Baku Soviet had been saved. Shaumian reported to Lenin: ‘For us the results of the battle were brilliant. The destruction of the enemy was complete. We dictated to them the conditions, which were signed without reservation.’” While Azerbaijani (end page 286)

(begin page 287) sources claimed that as many as 12,000 Muslims, including old men, women and children, had been killed, Shaumian insisted that no more than 3,000 had died. But he admitted that the participation of the Armenian units ‘lent the civil war, to some extent, the character of a national massacre’, adding that ‘the Muslim poor suffered severely’. However, he went on to reassure Lenin that those Muslims who had not fled Baku ‘are now rallying around the Bolsheviks’.

…

It was immediately after the crushing of the Baku Tartars that Captain Edward Noel found himself accused by his Jungali captors of being personally to blame for the slaughter. Arraigned before three judges at a sort of revolutionary court martial, he demanded proof of this wild claim from his accusers. ‘To my dismay,’ he wrote, ‘my judges turned on me triumphantly with the counterfoils of my cheque-book which had been removed from my pocket after my abortive attempt to escape in Enzeli.’ This was the cheque-book which had been used to pay British subsidies to the Armenian units who continued to resist the Turks. Although the money was secretly channeled to them via the Russian military authorities, the stubs revealed the damaging truth only too clearly.” (begin page 320) “Because he enjoyed good relations with the Armenian leaders, it would be MacDonell’s task to bring he Armenians in at the right moment. As for the Muslim population, they were no longer a factor, for those who had not been killed in the recent massacre had mostly fled into the countryside ready to welcome the advancing Turks.” --adil 23:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

British role in financing Armenians in 1918

also from Hopkirk's book:

(begin page 262) “To try to avoid becoming entangled in the region’s bitter internecine wrangles, the British decided that the money should be distributed to their chose candidates by general Lebidinsky, the Russian officer still nominally commanding the Caucasian army. … The most obvious candidates, as we have see, were the Armenians, who were still holding out against the Turks in their ancient homelands around Erzerum and Trebizond. One million roubles were therefore paid to them via General Lebidinsky – supposedly in great secrecy. But news of the payment quickly reached the ears of their (end of page 262)

(begin page 263) principal rivals, the Georgians and the Azerbaijanis, who were furious. MacDonell blamed the leak on ‘the chattering tongues of the Armenians … [as in text] who boasted that the primary object of the British mission was to assist them.’ To try to placate the Georgians and the Azerbaijanis, they too were offered funds if they would continue to man the Turco-Caucasian front alongside the Armenians. … The Azerbaijanis, for their part, turned the British offer down flat and withdrew their remaining troops from the front. They had no wish to fight their co-religionists and ethnic cousins, the Turks, whose help they might very soon be glad of. Their immediate concern was to protect their territorial interests against those who threatened them. For a start that meant the Bolsheviks, whom they saw as merely yet more Russian colonialists in a new guise. Already the Bolsheviks, led by Stepan Shaumian, the ‘Caucasian Lenin’, had virtual control of Baku, the richest and largest city in the Azerbaijani heartland. To make matters worse, Shaumian was an Armenian, and already there were alarming signs that, at his instigation, Armenian nationalists and Bolsheviks in Baku had reached an accommodation clearly directed against the Azerbaijanis”.

(begin page 264) “By now MacDonell was travelling regularly back and forth between Baku and Tiflis on what he called ‘my little train’. This consisted of three carriages – a sleeping car, a dining car and another for his official escort. On the Baku-to-Tiflis run he carried large quantities of roubles for eventual distribution to the Armenians and others. These were skillfully concealed behind mirrors, inside ventilators and in various other nooks and crannies. For MacDonell was anxious to keep all knowledge of what he was up to from the Azerbaijanis.”

(begin page 266) “’On the following day,’ wrote MacDonell, considerably relived, ‘we were allowed to continue our journey to Tiflis.’ For buried among his dirty clothes were no fewer than two million roubles.” --adil 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil stop your distortions (Fadix, stop yours!)

First, the title of the work is not what you claim, it is "On Secret Service East of Constantinople- The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire. Why did you try to pass a chapter of the book as its title. Second, he DOES NOT CALL IT GENOCIDE, he refers to Jugalis, more exactly Kuchuk Khan's Jugalis. Should I add what are in the "..." or the rest? I really don't have much to waste right now, but I will as soon as I have time, again expose how you purpously distort sources. Fad (ix) 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, the definition in the book says "genocide", and that's what is referenced. After all, we have several people deliberately attributing some words to Hitler and using it for justifying the title of "Armenian genocide". So you stop it. If you have references to oppose, present them. Atabek 01:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Jungalis, he learned to his horror, were planning to try him for genocide. Show me WHERE in this quote, does he say ANYWHERE that it was a genocide? Where??? As for Hitler quote, throw your irrelevencies out from here. Fad (ix) 01:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting you show me where he calls it genocide. Fad (ix) 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, there is no mistake -- the US edition, which I have, is called "LIKE HIDDEN FIRE. The Plot to bring down the British Empire", whilst the British edition, also published in 1994, is called "On Secret Service East of Constantinople- The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire". This is noted in the book itself. I can scan both the cover of the book, and the copyright pages to prove it. I also included the ISBN. It's easy to verify. But to avoid confusion we can add the second title as well. Meanwhile, I quoted the paragraph ENTIRELY and it is CLEAR that it's Peter Hopkirk who classifies the murder of Azerbaijanis as "genocide", because, to begin with, the word didn't exist in 1918, and hence Junglis could not have used that word, and secondly, because it is not in quotes (""), showing that he is not quoting Jungalis, but expressing his expert opinion. Frankly, all subsequent quotes (about virtually no Muslim being left in Baku) only prove it. Meanwhile, if you are so familiar with the book, why didn't you quote it before?--adil 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, fine, now post what is in the (...) Fad (ix) 01:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And waiting Adil. Fad (ix) 14:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits again, this is not classified as a genocide you can keep thinking that POV, keep your thoughts to your self please a few POV sources mean nothing especially from the government. Artaxiad 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, I had to revert (for the first time) your removal of references from the article without discussion. You're unable to present counter evidence to body of references presented above and are only resorting to an edit war. Please, discuss what you have to put against the references presented before accusing people of POV. Atabek 01:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's POV nuff said, keep your self-opinioned nonsense to your self this is not a genocide, not even close. Artaxiad 01:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack and ad hominem, and you don't demonstrate any desire of editing without emotions. The references are provided, and following by "your example", I added the word alleged in front of genocide of Armenians as well. It will be removed, only when the labelling in front of Azerbaijani is removed. Atabek 01:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure, keep on thinking every post someone makes is a personal attack.... Artaxiad 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And that's all you had to present against Peter Hopkirk and Michael Smith references? :) Thanks. Next time you attempt to rv and remove scholarly source, again read the text of the page through the end, and try to spot couple of references from library and read those too in order to have any kind of NPOV in the discussion. Atabek 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my version is what Smith write on his paper, your's is Adils paper on the subject. I am waiting Adil to be Humble enough to post us this (...) Fad (ix) 01:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no your or my version. I added the reference to the "Anatomy of Rumor" by Michael Smith to the article. I don't understand what you mean by Adil's paper, he only presented a reference to the book, but I expect you to still present references opposing 12,000 figure as well as those alleging that it wasn't in March. Atabek 02:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You know to what Adil paper refers too. There was no massacre in March, I quoted Smith above. Most sources provides 3,000. This too I have sourced. What I meant by my version, is to depict the event the way sources describe it, this article does not represent the event as it is written in sources. Fad (ix) 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, I think nationalism is really blurring your understanding of the basic terms and respecting the suffering of other people. Here is the definition of a Massacre provided from the Human Rights Group of the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

• "A massacre shall be considered the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state."

So, whether it was 5 people or 12,000 people, the March Days were a massacre. The Yale professor, whom Smith quotes, calls it a massacre. Do you have arguments to put against it? You haven't sourced your figure, number 3,000 is the one spelled by Shaumyan, who was the main person responsible for the massacre, all other independent sources cited 10,000 to 12,000. But as shown even figure does not have much to do with definition. Atabek 10:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Look who's talking about nationalism. Good try, again for the xth time, I DID NOT DENY it was a massacre, WHAT I SAID was that THERE WAS NO MASSACRE in MARCH but in APRIL. How many time am I supposed to write that to you? All the works I have read talk about a confrontation on the streets of Baku in the last days of March, which relates to the March event, which latter, at the beginning of April led to the massacres and pogroms. But there was NO massacre on March. As for independent sources, the three sources I have provided are known to be pro-Azeri, and the fourth is a British one. You claim all neutral sources? You must be jocking, the 12,000 figure was presented by Azerbaijan representatives at the Paris Peace Conference as an opposition to the recognition of the republic of Armenia, McCarthy in his upper range represent that figure while in his bibliography he presents the works which used that figure, he still for once is honest enough to recognize that the figure comes from Azerbaijan's delegation, it was used as a counter answer after the Armenian delegation accused the Tartars of having killed over 10,000 Armenians. It is not a neutral source. Aslo, the next time you call someone a nationalist, take a look at yourself, I'm not the one who denies a genocide only for nationalist and perverted patriotismic reasons. Fad (ix) 14:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, and you're incorrect, as presented in Smith's article that I cited above, the conflict started out on March 30th. Also Kazemzadeh, obviously a more authoritative source on the topic than Smith, says that by 6 p.m. on March 30th Baku was a battlefield. And frankly with Smith, Kazemzadeh, possibly even Suny, and other sources citing it as March Events or Days, I don't understand what point you're trying to make with April? Also,I have NYT Source in there, which is actually quite pro-Armenian, which cited the figure 12,000. And generally, you have to substantiate that the source is pro-Azeri, so far all we see is whatever does not fit your interest, even if a realiable Western source, suddenly becomes POV. Yes, you're do show nationalism affecting heavily your editing, because you're the only who targets Azeri editors only, you do try to deny crimes committed against Azeris, while trying to prove that Armenian massacres are more important and should be genocide. To my knowledge, Armenian massacres in Anatolia had no relations to Baku events whatsoever, so the only reason they appear on this page is because of your and Artaxiad's POV. Atabek 17:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the massacres went on for 5 days, and only started in March, but the bulk of them went on in April. However, scholars adopted the name March Massacres or March Events, etc., and there is no need to try to change that to "April Massacres", for example, or "March-April Events". The rest of your POV is original research. --adil 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OR, again original research, both of you have made this article seem as the one you have edited, the claim that the massacre was on March 30-31, is the one written on your article. Neither Smith neither any author claims that it happened in March. March Event relates to the events of the last days of March, which later at the beginning of April led to the massacres. March days does not relate to the massacres. It has to cover the events, also, Smith present it somehow objectivally, why do you selectivally pick from the authors? I am again waiting you to add the sentences you have removed. Fad (ix) 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You are probably very tired today, and have trouble expressing your thoughts clearly. Haven't understood the point you tried to make above. --adil 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You undertood it very well. This article does not represent what is said about the event, it represent what your article, the one you wrote represent about the event. And I understand more now why Atabek created Tengri to edit it, for the same reason he did not want it to be known he created it. I am waiting that you document that there was massacres in March 30-31. Go ahead, the entire section about March 30-31 does not say anything such about anything on March. This article interpretation is the one of yours. Fad (ix) 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, you are probably the only one in a bad mood and with a heavy head today, because the rest of us on this forum seem to be OK, and have trouble understanding what you mean, what point you try to drive across (aside from personal attacks) and what exactly you disagree with from among the quotes? --adil 17:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting you provide any sources that the massacres happened on March. Your intellectual intimidations, like I said won't work on me. Oh and, stop considering Wikipedia as a forum. Fad (ix) 18:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, your purpose on this talk page is to spoil the article or somehow question the authors. The only reference you try to use so far is the fact that Smith said that massacres continued on April 1 through 4th. Of course, it wasn't like massacres which according to Smith also, started on March 30th suddenly stopped at 11:59PM on March 31st. They did continue. But Smith and other authors DO CALL IT MARCH EVENTS! Everything else above that you write neither expresses your clear point nor it does address any concern you have with current version. Atabek 17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, the "only references" is a logical falacy. An events occurence is not there by default. March event does not relate to the massacres, we both have Smith paper, don't force me to type the entire sentence. March event relate to the events which led to the massacres on April, I see nothing in Smith paper about massacres on March, show me where. On March 30, there was a confrontation at the streets of Baku, by April 1, it become out of control and led to a pogrom, and then massacres, from April 1, which lasted about 3 days. So unless you provide any records, papers, works which have any notability, the claim of March 30-31 has to be removed, this claim is only supported by Adil paper on the subject. Fad (ix) 18:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, can you read at all?:

• "By 6 p.m, 30 March, 1918, Baku was filled with fighting." (Tchalkhouchian, Gr. Le livre rouge, Paris, Veradzenout, 1919, pp. 85-86)
• "On 31 March 1918, the ultimatum was issued by the Baku Soviet to Musavat, with the term of compliance set at 3 p.m. on 1 April, 1918. (Tchalkhouchian). Although Musavat accepted the ultimatum, the fighting was uncontrollable on the streets of Baku" (F. Kazemzadeh, "Struggle for Transcaucasia", p. 75)
• "The results of the March Events were immediate and total for the Musavat. Several hundreds of its members were killed in the fighting, up to 12,000 Muslim civilians perished; thousands of others fled Baku in a mass exodus." Michael Smith. "Anatomy of Rumor: Murder Scandal, the Musavat Party and Narrative of the Russian Revolution in Baku, 1917-1920", Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 36, No. 2, (Apr. 2001), p. 228.
• " The mass funerals fore-shadowed still greater ethnic violence, most immediately a further round of the Baku Armenian-Muslim clashes known as the March Days of 1918." ("The Russian Revolution as National Revolution: Tragic Deaths and Rituals of Remembrance in Muslim Azerbaijan (1907–1920)," Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, vol. 49 (2001)).

If you have further comprehension problems, we can address this separately again. I would like to remind you also that so called "Armenian Genocide" is marked on April 24th, while the actual massacres and communal warfare happened over the period of 5-10 years. So why don't you go first and dispute that and then come back to March Events, which are confirmed by several scholars. Thanks. Atabek 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your delusions about the Armenian Genocide keep them out from here or keep them on your websites. The only thing I see above is that there was fighting on March, I already quoted Smith, and for massacres he relates to April 1 and what followed. Pick any neutral contributor and I'll sand him Smith paper for him to read it, and see the differences between this article(which is a copy of Adil and his co. article about the subject) and what Smith writes about the topic. Fad (ix) 18:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't know which website you're referring to, and there is enough of harassment, incivility and personal attacks from you as documented by ArbCom. Yes, "Armenian Genocide" (I mean the "genocide" wording) is alleged as long as no large body of historians can substantiate it, except for Armenian or their paid political activists. It is used for nothing other than political and territorial claims or simply harassment of Turkey. Others, like Bernard Lewis of Princeton, Stanford Shaw of UCLA, Justin McCarthy who deny the word, were subjected to attacks, some even were subjected to bomb attacks and stalking by some Armenian radicals. So Fadix, all you're trying is to stone the article, while not having any evidence to oppose facts but to only create useless discussion and dispute out of NOTHING! What do you dispute in the article, can you define your point? What is that you want on this page? There is big list of references that says "MARCH" events, INCLUDING SMITH!!!, there is a list of references that says 12,000 INCLUDING SMITH!!!, so you can call anyone you like, I will provide him or her with all the references INCLUDING SMITH!!! and more authoritative Kazemzadeh, Yale Professor Emeritus of History, whom Smith himself quotes. You're only for mixing your political and national stance with truth and references. And I am telling you now, that on this particular page, you're just wasting your time as you do mine. Besides the fact that Smith says March and says 12,000, he is not the most authoritative source on the subject. There are other scholars. Atabek 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Stick to the topic, and yes, you perfectly know of what websites I am talking about. If you want to talk about the Armenian genocide, go in its talkpage. Your psychosis have no place in this article. March events relate to the events which led to the massacres. I told you pick any neutral user and I will send in the work, and he shall decide if in fact you are distorting. The March events, or March massacres are all terms relating the the whole situation which lead to the massacres, which happened on April. Speaking of Kazemzadeh, here we have another of your distortions, you have first bolded the figures, I don't get why you are repeating him countless numbers of time and present his presentation of the Armenian figures, and suggesting that they are exagerations when he say: The September massacre was greater than that of March. [6]

The British investigations were 2,000 Muslims 4,000 Armenians. Also, Smith say up to, and the source of that figure was the Azerbaijan republic representatives at the Paris Peace conference, it was the origine of the figure. Fad (ix) 19:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, you have been warned enough for personal attacks, so this one was the limit. You can repeat it as much as you want, the fact is it's called March events by scholars, and massacres whether on 30, 31, 1, 2, or 3 are related to March events. You have missed the point, the book I provided is the edition from New York Philosophical library, 1951, as opposed to the one you present which is 1947. So obviously 1951 edition was more up-to-date. "British investigations were 2,000 Muslims and 4,000 Armenians"? - stop joggling with numbers of dead, provide the source. There are four references so far indicating 12,000 from Kazemzadeh, Smith, NYTimes and Croissant. As for your repeated references to "Claims of Azerbaijan", obviously scholars considered them legitimate to claim in their papers and books. After all we have some Western politicians running around with 1.5 million allegedly now 2.5 million Armenians massacred in 1915 based on "estimates" of Armenian sources only.Atabek 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I told you, if you have a problem with the Armenian genocide article, bring it there. You have no clue of what you are talking about, the 1,5 million figure was recycled from 3 confidential German reports attached to the War Intelligentia bureau through the German representives of the war effort stationned within the Ottoman, supported by the official Ottoman investigation presented on the table of the Minister Enver, 2,5 million is only your creation, neither I have seen it presented here, neither have I seen it presented on any works, stop it with that. Stop bringing this on every given occasion. If you think you could even compare the neutrality of an event, which has hundreds of books published about it, with some event, which not a single book on the West exist which specifically deals with it. Good try. As for missing the point, no actually, you missed the point. Read carefully, I did not say it is not called March events, I said the massacres did not happen on March but on April, it is called "March" but it did not happen on March. I am waiting you to choose a neutral contributor for me to send him the PDF for him to decide if this article covers it the way it is covered in works. As for the book you had, he still say it. He clearly say the September event was worst. Sources? Fine, here. [7]

Some sources actually said 30,000 15-30 etc. Artaxiad 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. And which are those "some sources". Artaxiad, read the article, at least here. You still don't get the point but continue arguing. This page is about March events, not about September events, so your POV pushing here has no other purpose but to attack Azerbaijan.Atabek 10:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already provided a neutral source which says 35,000. But in any case, from both sides, it is a statistical impossibility that more than 10,000 have perished. Fad (ix) 20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, actually that was Artaxiad inventing the figure 35,000 based on HRW source which said 10,000. Fadix, are you saying now that you have provided us with Artaxiad's "number", or perhaps, you two are confused which one of you actually presented 35,000 invention. Again this page is about March events, not about September events, so your POV pushing here has no other purpose but to attack Azerbaijan.Atabek 10:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

MY mistake, the figure was actually 30,000, provided by Frederick Lewis Schuman in his International Politics: The Western State System and the World Community.Fad (ix) 14:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well according to that book you showed it says, the Armenian National Council indicate that 5243 persons were massacred in three days, so it obviously is much higher probably. Artaxiad 20:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And as shown in later, 1951, edition that number from ANC was closer to 9,000. Artaxiad, again read the page once through the end, please. You comment on the talk page without any idea what's written and referenced on the main page. Atabek 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"In the summer of 1918 Muslim rioters killed an estimated 4,000 Armenians, the killings stopping only when British troops occupied the port and oil facilities in Baku in July. Turkish troops supported the Azeris in their reconquest of Baku on 15 September 1918, and two days later the government to city. Attacks on Christian Armenians began again, and over 8,500 Armenian residents of Baku were killed." - Source, One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups - Page 76 by James B. Minahan this one is 8k. Artaxiad 20:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"the massacre of 20,000 Baku Armenians in September 1918 by Azerbaijanis." this one is 20,000, Source: Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History - Page 200 by Ronald Grigor Suny. Artaxiad 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

R.G. Suny is Armenian. Very "NPOV" indeed. Again both you and Fadix miss the point, massacre is anything over 5 people, so number joggling of victims by two of you contributes to nothing, but only weakens and immoralizes your point. Atabek 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Suny is an established scholar, Jews overrepresent in publications by their population to a ratio of 4 to 1, and have write most major Works regarding the Holocaust, politics of Israel etc., So what? What damn differences should that make? Works value are based on their content and not their ethnicities. Suny was never accused in the reviews of his works for biases, in fact, he was accused by many Armenians of pro-Azeri biases. I am still waiting you provide that the "March Event" relate to massacres on March, only Adil paper about that claims this. Fad (ix) 14:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Suny is an established scholar, but he was accused of bias in reporting the March days. See Michael Smith:

Neither Rasulzade (Resulzade M. E. Das Problem Aserbeidschan. Berlin, 1938), nor A.Balayev (Азербайджанское национал-демократическое движение. С. 18-19) mention the massacre of Armenians by Azerbaijanis in September 1918. On the contrary, the recent works by Ronald Suny don’t mention the massacre of Azerbaijanis by Armenians in March 1918, (see Suny R. G. The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and Successor States. New York; Oxford, 1998. P. 99-100; The Revolution in Transcaucasia // Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1917-1921 / Eds. E. Acton, V. Cherniaev and W. Rosenberg. Bloomington, 1997. P. 725). [8]

Например, ни Расулзаде (Resulzade M. E. Das Problem Aserbeidschan. Berlin, 1938), ни А. Балаев (Азербайджанское национал-демократическое движение. С. 18-19) не упоминают о резне азербайджанцами армян в сентябре 1918 года. Наоборот, в последних работах Рональда Суни не упоминается резня армянами азербайджанцев в марте 1918 года. См.: Suny R. G. The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and Successor States. New York; Oxford, 1998. P. 99-100; The Revolution in Transcaucasia // Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1917-1921 / Eds. E. Acton, V. Cherniaev and W. Rosenberg. Bloomington, 1997. P. 725).

Also "March days" refer to the events that started in March with armed confrontation and ended in early April with massacre of Muslims. We can start an article “April massacre” to reflect the massacre of Azerbaijanis, if you wish. Grandmaster 14:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you are not following me. I did not say the article should not talk about the massacres, I said that the article should cover the event as it is covered in published works. The category about massacres on March 30-31 should be changed. For this litle single remark, Atabek has gone to load with various sources, which BTW supports my affirmation. On March 30-31 there was a conflict on the street of Baku, which degenerated and on April 1, a pogrom led to the massacres. This is how it is recorded and I had no problem with that. As for Suny, no, as he is not the only who covers the event this way, I have already provided other references, one of which has been reviewed to be "pro-Turkish" and revisionist. Fad (ix) 15:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor source from Stalin

Here are somewhat relevant excerpts from Stalin's Pravda article, published on May 23, 1918 [9]:

"А центр мусульманства, Баку, цитадель Советской власти в Закавказье, сплотив вокруг себя всё восточное Закавказье, от Ленкорани и Кубы до Елизаветполя, с оружием в руках утверждает права народов Закавказья, всеми силами старающихся сохранить связь с Советской Россией."

("While the center of Mulims, Baku, the citadel of Soviet power in Transcaucasus, unified around itself the entire Eastern Transcaucasus, from Lenkoran and Kuba till Elizavetpol, with arms in hands is asserting the rights of people of Transcaucasus, who try by all forces to maintain a link with Soviet Russia").

"Нам сообщают из Тифлиса, что корпусный командир турок под Карсом при сдаче Карса армянами заявил что считает неизбежным отправку турецких войск для занятия Баку и спасения мусульман в Бакинском районе...."

("We are being told from Tiflis, that corps commander of Turks under Kars, after the relinquishing of Kars by Armenians, said that he thinks it is inevitable for the sending of Turkish forces for taking over Baku and saving of Muslims in Baku region...") --adil 03:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That is bogus, I already provided the German records and that is absolutly not what they say. Fad (ix) 14:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What is bogus, and what do "German records" have with Soviet and Russian dictator Stalin? What are you even talking about? Even theoretically, how can any German record disprove the existence of this Stalin's article in Pravda? --adil 16:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Who told you I was answering the bolded text? I was answering the last one. Fad (ix) 17:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am worried about you, Fadix, are you OK? It is not easy to understand what you mean -- your second statement is even more puzzling than the first one. What do you think your "German records" would disprove in Stalin's statement, that Turks will soon cross the border and move through Caucasus all the way to Baku?! I'd be delighted to see that "disproving" "German record" - is it prepared by Aram Andonian, the well-known forger of official documents? --adil 17:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep your intellectual intimidations out from here. Fad (ix) 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

????! --adil 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You were almost quite there. Fad (ix) 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Preceding Events

After reading the Smith's article, provided from Sakharov center, I found interesting facts, which I incorporated into the article. Apparently the division led by Talyshinski arrived to honor the funeral of son of the notorious Azerbaijani philantropist Haji Zeynalabdin Taghiyev, killed in fighting with Dashnak and Russian forced in Lenkoran. The arrest of this division's staff members by Baku Soviet and disrespect toward the funeral was a clear provocation, with an aim of eliminating Musavat from the political scence, and became a reason for March events. Atabek 10:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how you selectivally provide from Smith what goes there. I am waiting you fix what I have said. Fad (ix) 14:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Selectively? Why don't you take the article, read, translate and interpret it for us. Thanks. Atabek 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Look who's talking about nationalism: It must be noted that these figures were gathered by the Armenian National Council, whom one can hardly expect to be objective in such a matter You even bolded the word Armenian. Fad (ix) 15:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So your claim is that Armenian National Council's figures are objective? --adil 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement is not mine it's from "Struggle for Transcaucasia". Bolding was meant to emphasize that Armenian National Council could hardly be considered objective on presenting Armenian casualties. But I will remove the bolding and replacing it with italics. Atabek 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bolding it, makes it clear of your intentions. Fad (ix) 17:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bolding it is indeed inappropriate for an encyclopedia, however, are you then claiming that ANC's figures are objective and reliable? --adil 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it up to the editors to decide if the Armenians were lying? No, so why is in the text? Unless there's a reference, then that sentence goes.--MarshallBagramyan 21:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you sohuld familiarize yourself with POV/NPOV policies to better understand why would ANC be considered POV and unreliable. --adil 06:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"To make matters worse, Shaumian was an Armenian"

Indeed, that clearly sends siren signals through my mind. Shahumyan being an Armenian clearly meant that trouble was going to come. This isn't even half as bad as this line "It must be noted that these figures were gathered by the Armenian National Council, whom one can hardly expect to be objective in such a matter".

I think I will be not be too crass if I am to suggest the possibility that someone is going to justify these pathetically POVish, not to mention original research-like sentences...--MarshallBagramyan 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That quote, "to make matters worse, Shaumian was an Armenian", is directly from Peter Hopkirk, not smth any of the editors wrote. Just a clarification, to clear up any possible confusion. --adil 16:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad removing "massacre" quote

Artaxiad, please, stop removing the "massacre" quote from Kazemzadeh. I added it back with page reference, although this wasn't necessary, that paragraph was taken from the page 73, so I didn't have to add citation at the end of every sentence. Before you make your next edit of the page, read it completely through the end, and comment here on what particularly you disagree with rather than hastily removing references. Atabek 10:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And also the gov decree is a fact, as is Hopkirk's words, not placed in any quotes (quotation marks), thus showing his take on the events. --adil 06:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your additions since Wikipedia or its related sites may not be sourced together. Artaxiad 23:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, too bad, as you have neither qualifications nor credibility to question scholars like Hopkirk or Kazemzadeh. So you should not be removing references without any demonstrated scholarship ability. Atabek 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't own this article your tone acts like it though. Artaxiad 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

True, I don't own the article. But unlike you, I don't delete legitimate references. Atabek 05:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out since I know, sources have to be NPOV, third party etc, and go along with Wikipedia rules. Artaxiad 03:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you do, except your definition of NPOV is another POV. Atabek 06:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem thats your assumption. Artaxiad 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing Artaxiad's Quote to September Days

I just opened the referenced book by Michael Croissant, and there was no quote saying "September Days" on page 14. So this self-invented POV must go. The quote to numbers shall stay though.Atabek 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your last edit do not remove sourced information, its very informative especially in the intro [10]. Artaxiad 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It maybe informative and I kept it in the Aftermath section. But it's not relevant to March Days, this happened in September 1918, so it should not be in introduction but in aftermath. Also there is a repetition. Atabek 21:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's important there was obviously a reason why tens and thousands were killed, leave it as is all this time now you decide to take it out. Artaxiad 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a repetitive text in two places in the article, one of the two must go to avoid redundancy. Since this is about March events, and September is a different month and unrelated to the topic, the right place for it is Aftermath section, where it is. Atabek 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Genocide

Classifying or saying March Days is a Genocide is POV regarding the references, Peter Hopkirk is a journalist no areas of expertise, second we don't need references from Azerbaijan goverment. Artaxiad 21:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this part was already address by Khoikhoi, it's a reference to the fact of the decree issued by Azerbaijani government, not a viewpoint of Wikipedia editing. Also "genocide" reference, shall be kept, just like any dubious reference to "Armenian Genocide" is utilized on every page. Tom de Waal is also a journalist. Atabek 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas de waal is a regional expert who is third party he definitely qualifies and is more reliable than Peter Hopkirk, focus on direct content I am talking about and not to compare others with this. The "Azerbaijani government" has alot of POV out there they are no where near NPOV. Artaxiad 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And how qualified are you to decide if Peter Hopkirk is more/less important/relevant than Tom de Waal. Pending such demonstrated qualification, both references shall be kept. Atabek 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you see me using myself as a reference? Artaxiad 22:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, you're confusing yourself. As thread above shows, you're questioning Hopkirk references, because he is a journalist. I brought you example of another journalist, Tom de Waal, whom you wholeheartedly use elsewhere. Then you start arguing that Hopkirk is not an expert, while de Waal is. And I am telling that to make that "argument", you have to have certain qualifications for judgement, and you do not. So pending those demonstrated qualifications, the references to Hopkirk shall stay, just like references to de Waal stay on other pages.

If your objective is simply to remove scholary reference of the word "genocide", just because victims were Azerbaijani, then, for fairness, we have to question also the legitimacy of references to so called "Armenian Genocide". You should clearly understand that "genocide" or "massacre" terms are usually based on scholarly source spelling the intention of the crime. Neither term is usually based on number of victims or the content of the crime. Atabek 23:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I can care less if there Armenian or Azeri but you obviously do, I was saying Thomas de waal was a regional expert not Peter Hpkirk, I think I know that I am not deciding whether peter is reliable or not, he is a simply journalist or unless otherwise you can show he is not. Artaxiad 23:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopkirk is not Azeri

Eupator, I am not sure why you insert the quote Azeri sources, when it's clear that Peter Hopkirk is not Azeri. Your error will be corrected at once. Thanks.Atabek 07:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The book says that the Jungalis wanted to try Britsh Captain Edward Noel for genocide for massacring Muslims. He doesn't even explicitly state that it was or could be classified as one.--MarshallBagramyan 01:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure it does:

"The Jungalis, he learned to his horror, were planning to try him for genocide. Shortly after Noel’s departure, Baku had erupted into bloodshed. The Jungalis, it appeared, now held him personally responsible for the massacre of several thousand of their fellow Muslims at the hands of the Armenians." (p. 281).

"‘To my dismay,’ he wrote, ‘my judges turned on me triumphantly with the counterfoils of my cheque-book which had been removed from my pocket after my abortive attempt to escape in Enzeli.’ This was the cheque-book which had been used to pay British subsidies to the Armenian units who continued to resist the Turks. Although the money was secretly channeled to them via the Russian military authorities, the stubs revealed the damaging truth only too clearly.” (end page 319).

As you see, the evidence and the author show the massacre as genocide (indeed, complete genocide, as Bolsheviks and Dashnaks attempted to annihilate the entire Muslim population not only of Baku, but other cites under their control), and Captain Noel admits his role with "to my dismay" admission, whilst Hopkirk concludes: "revealed the damaging truth only too clearly". --adil 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No. "Trying him for genocide" is not the same as calling the event as genocide, this is a very weak source to infer to the event as such. Try something else. --MarshallBagramyan 03:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a good source, whilst your attack on it is weak. Try something else to do. --adil 03:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

PACE declaration

Here's another European source that lists massacres that make-up the Azerbaijani Genocide [11], a written declaration from the members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). We should add it to the article. --adil 04:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, you cannot even lie well. Let's take a look at the names we have here on the list:

-Aliyev İ, Azerbaijan, EDG, Akçalı, Turkey, EDG, Akgönenç, Turkey, EDG, Aliyev G., Azerbaijan, EDG, Gül, Turkey, EDG, Gülek, Turkey, SOC, Gürkan, Turkey, SOC, Hajiyeva, Azerbaijan, EPP/CD, Huseynov R., Azerbaijan, EPP/CD, İbrahimov, Azerbaijan, UEL, İrtemçelik, Sağlam, Turkey, EPP/CD, Turkey, EDG, Seyidov, Azerbaijan, EDG and so on.

Again what does this say? Azeri sources. Toss this into the gutter; this is a partisan bill supported by few 3rd party groups and isn't even a binding resolution. It doesn't even come anywhere close to the 3rd party support the Armenian Genocide bill got [12]. --MarshallBagramyan 04:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You've have the audacity of calling someone a liar? Not only do you insult and show once more your incivility, but you are completely incorrect when in your edit summary you declare: "The PACE functionaries are all either Turk or Azeri, how can you can even think you can fool ppl with this?)"[13]

To begin with, Turkey and Azerbaijan are two different and independent, yet fraternal and allied countries, bound by common historic, linguistic, cultural, etc., links. Secondly, this is not about the Armenian massacres or your grudge against Turkey and Turks, but about the Azerbaijani Genocide. Third, what about 10 of third-party, independent MPs who signed up:

• Begaj, Albania, SOC
• Davis, United Kingdom, SOC
• Dokle, Albania, SOC
• Glesener, Luxembourg, EPP/CD
• Iwınski, Poland, SOC
• Loutfi, Bulgaria, LDR
• Položhani, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, EDG
• Saele, Norway, EPP/CD
• Taylor, United Kingdom, EPP/CD
• Jones, United Kingdom, SOC

How's that for "all either Turk or Azeri" allegation? Certainly, far more than the EP MPs who wanted to visit Naxcivan. --adil 05:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bagramyan, PACE stands for Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Your claim of it as Azeri source is absolutely baseless. Hopkirk the same, the fact that he documented the word genocide in his article, establishes a good base to reference him. And he is not Azeri as told above. Atabek 05:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's supporters are still majority Azeri or Turk. Note as to how the AG bill has no Turkish or Azeri supporters. This resolution does not state the official position of PACE. Just because 400 US Representatives vote for a non-binding resolution, it still isn't worth anything when it comes to the position of the US government. Other Azeri users introduced this document and it was shot down for the same reasons.--MarshallBagramyan 05:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bagramyan, it does not matter who supporters are. It matters that PACE, the non-Azeri organization, has accepted it for its resolution. And unlike some French parliamentarians, well campaigned by Armenian groups, trying to make "Armenian Genocide" a "fact", PACE is not an organization directly affiliated or financially engaged with politics of Azerbaijan. Atabek 07:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

While you are right that this is not an official position of PACE or US Government -- no one even claimed that and the resolution says it clearly -- at the same time it is a major organization, with a written document that has been co-sponsored by dozens of MPs, it is verifiable, and as such, it will be part of Wikipedia article, and your attempts to "shoot it down" just because of your clear bias and incivility will be fruitless. --adil 06:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My bias should not be an excuse for your lack of thinking skills when it comes to skewering the integrity of articles.--MarshallBagramyan 16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.Thanks. Atabek 07:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

İrtemçelik, a Turkish representative, prepared that draft two days after Jirousova, from Czech Republic prepared the Armenian Genocide draft. It does not qualify as a reliable source to support the "some" that you insist on having. If you think it is "some" sources, then it shouldn't hard to provide "some" sources other than Turkish/Azeri ones. And Adil, you do not decide if "it will be part" of this article or not, you do not WP:OWN this article. - Fedayee 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to make anyone believe that Jirousova wrote the draft by herself, or in fact, had any role in writing the document. Meanwhile, the Armenian document is not the point of discussion here, but the Azerbaijani one. And nothing you do will hide the fact that it is an official document, presented at European organization PACE, and co-signed by some 30 MPs, of which 10 are European and only 6 are Azerbaijani. --adil 06:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not qualify as a reliable source...political advocates are not reliable sources, the PACE document was prepared by a Turkish representative (İrtemçelik) as a counter-answer to a draft prepared by a neutral party, the names of those preparing the draft are in bold. And you have yet to present any evidences that justify the "some" word. You tried to use Hopkirk above but he does not even say it was a genocide! The usage of PACE, when stating of facts, are political sources and see what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources says about those...the attribution is on the person who wrote it, in this case a Turkish representative who counter-answered the April 24 draft by coming up with that one, which was mostly signed by Turkish and Azerbaijani people. I have no problem with saying some Azeri sources, but it is incorrect to use "some" alone when the only source you have provided is a non-"some" source. I just want sources for the "some", if it is really some, it shouldn't be hard to find them. - Fedayee 15:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted per Fedayee and other users who have shown how this is not accurate, and Atabek you don't need to tell me what I remove every day Because I know. Artaxiad 02:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, next time when you're back reverting and removing people's edits without proper discussion, please, read the article completely as well as some books and articles referenced there to be at least remotely familiar with the topic. Atabek 06:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, removing fully sourced, verifiable and authoritative info is not gonna work. Quotes from Hopkirk and PACE are appropriate and should be part of the article. adil 07:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Adil removing fully sourced, verifiable and authoritative info is proper if the references are questioned or not NPOV. Artaxiad 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, you're not in position to question Peter Hopkirk, an author of the book, as NPOV. You clearly do not have qualifications to do so, hence you need to stop removing the legitimate references. Atabek 23:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And what qualifications do I need to remove it? none. Artaxiad 01:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopkirk reference

As I understand that users Artaxiad, Fedayee, Eupator and Bagramyan are going to keep removing the Hopkirk reference about Azerbaijani genocide. In that case, as to keep the balance, I propose to remove the reference to so called "Armenian Genocide", as it's based on dubious references as well. It will be a fair solution if both massacres, which were inhumane, are cited the same. Otherwise, there is no way to interpret the actions of these 4 users as being driven by their nationalist POV. Atabek 00:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable, the latter is accepted by a wide range of people as a fact whereas the former is not. Type in Armenian Genocide on Amazon.com and you'll get dozens of sources. Type in March Days Genocide and you get nothing. Comparing this to the Armenian Genocide is like comparing apples to oranges.--MarshallBagramyan 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Armenian Genocide" made a big hype in media, thanks to the defamatory efforts of the related community, further fueling [Turcophobia]. It does not establish a basis though to call one as "apple" and another as "orange". It is clear that March massacres did happen, it's clear that Armenians did massacre Azeris, it's clear that genocide and massacre are not defined by number of victims but by intention of the crime. So, I don't see why "Armenian Genocide" remains on this page, when it actually has no relation to March massacres in Baku, while valid scholarly reference to March events is being purged out. Atabek 03:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't have a single edit in the mainspace of this article. Stop accusing others of being driven by nationalism...respect civility and good faith. It has been pointed out numerous in this talk page that no, Hopkirk does not call it a genocide, he merely says that the Khan considered it that way. You are merely going around in circles. I don't mind using Hopkirk but don't just twist his words into the POV you want it to be. You have yet to support the "some" sources you claim exist. Again, some Azeri sources is perfectly fine, "some" alone is hypocritical unless proven otherwise. It shouldn't be hard to find the "some" anyway, if they do exist... Regarding your comment on the Armenian Genocide, the term is the second most used term regarding genocide in the world. Go to http://www.oxfordjournals.org/ , go to google books, go to whatever search engine you can find and see how many results you will get. Anyway, you know all this and your tactic of mentioning the AG won't justify any misleading addition like that. If you think it does, mediation will be the only possible solution. - Fedayee 03:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do I have to go anywhere, when it's clear that reference you're trying to claim Azeri, Hopkirk, is not Azeri. I am not going to get involved in yet another discussion on credibility of "genocide" claim with the new 2007 invented number 2.5 million victims, when there were only 1.5 million Armenian inhabitants of Ottoman Empire according to census of the end of 19th century. This kind of joggling of numbers, with "bigger better" attitude, only falsifies the claim itself. But the communal warfare in Anatolia is not the issue in this article. It strictly deals with March Events in Baku, which is not in Anatolia. So while Hopkirk reference, directly relevant to March Events, is being persistently removed by few contributors, it's not quite clear why those contributors can't accept the fact that so called Armenian "Genocide" has nothing to with March events in Baku.Atabek 11:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are not going to get involed, then maybe it would be a good idea for you to stop bringing this up... It has been repeated multiple times by 3 different users that Hopkirk does not call it a genocide. What Hopkirk says is the Khan's position regarding it, the Khan represented the Azeris. Therefore the claim of genocide was the claim of the Khan, Hopkirk is merely repeating it by saying Azeri representatives considered it as a genocide. Also, you won't achieve anything by bringing the Armenian Genocide up over and over again, there is no such "invented" claim of 2.5 million deaths Atabek. Any issues about the Armenian Genocide should be brought to its talkpage. As for March Events, Baku received many Armenian refugees from the Ottoman Empire...Russia's mistake true, and on March, there was an attempt at NK penetration, which the Dashnaks have used to stir up the refugee population's fears of the possibility of other upcoming Ottoman atrocities. In this context the Armenian Genocide is relevent. - Fedayee 04:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, since you're so well aware of Hopkirk reference, why don't you bring us the whole paragraph quote from the book. Have you read it to suggest a strong opinion on what was written there? As for Armenian "Genocide", indeed, I fully agree with you that "genocide" discussion has no place here, as no Armenian "Genocide" quotes have any place in this article. March events had nothing to do with causes or content of events in Anatolia. Roots of Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict which started in 1905 were different from Armenian-Turkish one, and the region was not controlled by Ottomans until brief period between September and November of 1918. So if we agree on that, we should perhaps, remove the "g" word competition at least from this article. Atabek 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, then stop talking about how fake the Armenian Genocide is if you think it is irrelevant. Marshall quoted the relevant sentence in which the term "Azerbaijani Genocide" was used. He does not say it was genocide. The Armenian Genocide is used in the paper Fadix sent me written by Smith, which you quoted above. It is related..."The Spark that ignited the powder keg of Nagorno-Karabakh came in string of 1918, when the pan-Turkic "Army of Islam" invaded eastern Armenia." This was also when Brest-Litovsk was forced upon Armenians on March, during which time friction between the Bolsheviks and the pan-Turkic Musavat ended up with the March event, "Equating the Musavats with the Turks, the Armenians set out to take revenge for the persecution and genocide suffered at the hands of the Ottomans." You can find those quotes in the book called "The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict, Causes and Implications", by Michael P. Croissant.

Firuz Kazemzadeh writes..."The brutalities continued for weeks. No quarter was given by either side: neither age nor sex was respected. Enormous crowds roamed the streets, burning houses, killing every passer-by who was identified as an enemy, many innocent persons suffering death at the hands of both Armenians and the Azerbaijanis. The struggle which had begun as a political contest between the Musavat and the Soviet assumed the character of a gigantic race riot."

Croissant placed this in this context.."While not an isolated incident in light of the Azerbaijanis' participation in the Ottoman Turkish offensive against Armenia in early 1918, the "March Days" played a major role in bringing pre-existing inter-communal tensions to the surface of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations."

And I did read the paragraph...those British testimonies included in the Hopkirk book were attached to the report which was presented by the British Consul Stevens and the figures were 2000 deaths, but also reported by him are 4000 Armenian deaths. - Fedayee 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The connection of March days in Baku with massacres in Anatolia is not something the scholars are in agreement on. We cannot present opinion of Croissant as a fact, because there are different opinions about the motives of the Armenian forces:

Just as Turkey was poised to become the dominant power in the region, the Baku Dashnakist forces, which included many of the refugees from Anatolia, staged a sudden and unprovoked massacre of the city's Muslims. The debacle lasted from March 31 until April 2 and resulted in at least 3,000 fatalities, many of whom were Iranians. Armenian historians do not offer an explanation for the political calculations behind this move, which was bound to entail terrible retribution, and they hint rather at an uncontrollable emotional outburst. Such an interpretation would confirm the view of the weakness of the Armenian leadership, which had just concluded an agreement with the Muslims on neutrality in their coming confrontation with the Bolsheviks, and they proved to be unable to restrain the rank and file. Likewise, it would confirm the lack of coordination with the Armenian efforts at putting together the Transcaucasian Federation. The immediate beneficiary of the Baku March Days were the Bolsheviks, who seized the opportunity to institute in the city a dictatorship of the proletariat under the name of the Baku Commune. The local Sovnarkom (Council of People's Commissars) was headed by a prominent Armenian Bolshevik, Stepan Shaumian, who proclaimed its undivided loyalty and subordination to Soviet Russia. In the Azeri mind, the Baku Commune became the bitter symbol of the Bolshevik- Armenian collusion born out of the March Days bloodbath.

Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683

Grandmaster 06:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the line added by Fedayee, because it is about all Muslims of Russia, and not Muslims of Baku: Here's the full context of the quote:

Nevertheless, when the civil war started, most of the Moslems allied themselves with the Bolsheviks, as the other side seemed even less attractive. The majority of anti-Bolshevik Russians marched under the banner of Rossiya yedinaya i nedelimaya (Russia One and Indivisible). The religious conservatives, the Naqshbandis in the North Caucasus and the Basmachi in Turkestan, fought against all infidels, red or white, and for Islamic independence.

Grandmaster 07:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Muslims in Baku allied themselves with Bolsheviks cannot be true, as it contradicts other sources. Alstadt quotes British vice consul, who says that most Muslims had to leave the city:

After the Azerbaijani representatives accepted the terms, the Dashnaks took to "looting, burning and killing in the Muslim sections of the city". By Shaumian's estimate, more than 3,000 were killed during two days. The Armenian soldiers became more brutal as resistance subsided, and for a day and a half they looted, burned and killed. Thousands of Azerbaijani Turks fled the city. The British vice consul in the Baku, Major A. E. R. MacDonnell, wrote, "not a single Musulman of any importance remained".

Audrey L. Altstadt. The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity Under Russian Rule. ISBN-10: 0817991816

It would be improbable that Muslims of Baku would support the Soviets after being forced to leave the city. There were just a few Muslims left in the city. Grandmaster 07:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. I will make the proper addition, but you didn't need to remove the entire sentence as it doesn't mention Baku at all. - Fedayee 16:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Factual discrepance on Hummet's involvement

It would be better to verify some sources because the fact that Hummet took part in the massacres is a complete nonsense and it even contradicts the article itself. It is sufficient to read the words of Sultan Efendiev ( who was a memeber of Hummet himself ) reported in the article with a source as a witness of the events, to understand that Hummet on the contrary was very critical. We also know that Azizbeyov tried to stop the massacres as well, Narimanov had a stroke when he knew about the events. I think that if one sources contradicts another the fact must be considered as disputable. (Limonlimone 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

If you read the quote by Efendiev carefully, he condemns the Dashnaks and the Dashnaks only. He condemns them because he accuses them of being allied to pro-Capitalist Azeris and because he accuses them of killing all the Muslims, not the Musavatists alone. The source provided says pro-Bolshevik Muslims from the party participated so regardless of what the Sultan felt, it is still very possible members of the party participated. Wiki policy is to note all verifiable sources and a book by a third party PhD holder is notable and credible. You should've placed the credit of the claim and your justification is beyond Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, what is your logic of placing the Dashnaks before the Bolsheviks when according to Smith it was 5,000-5,000 and that it was under Bolshevik order? - Fedayee 03:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Narimanov also condemned actions of Shaumian and even said that Muslim people would never forgive those who committed the atrocities in the city, and he mentioned Shaumian in particular. It would be good to know who exactly were the people of "Hummet", who took part in the massacres. I think we need to find the quote from Narimanov and add it to the article. Also, Cohen was refering to Muslims of the whole Russia, not Azerbaijan. I fixed that, but I don't know how that is relevant here. Grandmaster 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, if "the book by third party PhD holder is notable and credible", then I will go ahead and back Hopkirk reference in introduction, which was removed by some other contributors and called "Azeri sources". Regarding your other comment, it's very clear from all references that Dashnaks were the leading element in massacres, since they were the only party poised to eradicate Azerbaijanis in Baku. Hence, it's undoubtedly correct that they're placed ahead of Bolsheviks in this context. Atabek 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Added few references and rewrote couple of sentences in Introduction and Preceding events, to show that key responsible were Bolsheviks led by Shaumyan, while ARF were more of an executors. Suggestion for Fedayee, please, read the page carefully, before making comments. Atabek 17:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How many times do people have to repeat to you that Hopkirk does not call it a genocide? Suggestion for Atabek, please, read what has been explained time and time again before making further comments and additions. Of course, your biased ways have completely written off my sourced addition of Muslims as well. Also, Shahumyan's name does not need to be mentioned in the intro, it's excessive . - Fedayee 21:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, the word genocide is referenced in Hopkirk's book. I don't know why you remove the Hopkirk reference Nth time in a row, just because it does not fit your POV, and actually violating your revert parole on this page. And before calling me "biased", please, review WP:AGF and possibly WP:NPA. I don't remember removing any of your sources, but if that's your position, the so called Armenian "genocide" unsourced link to March Days should be purged out of this page. Atabek 23:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, you still don't get it. I will quote myself from above to refresh your memory: What Hopkirk says is the Khan's position regarding it, the Khan represented the Azeris. Therefore the claim of genocide was the claim of the Khan, Hopkirk is merely repeating it by saying Azeri representatives considered it as a genocide. And please get your facts straight before claiming stuff. I have never removed your Hopkirk prior to the one time I removed now. That does not make it the "Nth time in a row", it makes it the 1st time. Of course you did not remove my source, because clearly, someone else did the job for you. Unsourced Armenian Genocide link? I must be hallucinating that Michael Croissant source then... - Fedayee 00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, yourself and few others, have been explained dozen times here that Hopkirk is not an Azeri source! Your major misunderstanding is sourced in a simple fact, the word genocide and massacre in Azeri and Turkish languages are the same word - "soykirim". So if Hopkirk presented English translation of it as "genocide", that means it's him who used exactly this word in English and not just the person he referenced. And you don't have to requote yourself, as you're certainly not a scholarly source here to use your statements in the article as a matter of fact. As you have been told earlier, you must come to consensus on pages you edit, and the compromise at this point is - either Hopkirk reference is added back as "some sources claim" or Armenian "Genocide" quote goes away altogether. The latter wording is not legally accepted yet to be used in encyclopedic article in any case, not to say that Croissant does not represent any authority on history of Azerbaijan or Armenia, especially comparing to such prominent researchers as Michael Smith, Firuz Kazemzadeh, and even R.G. Suny. Atabek 08:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, why do you insist on putting Hummet between those who took part in the event when the fact is still totally disputable? And why you are so interested in listing them and not for example the SRs, the Mensheviks, the Kadets and the Denikists who for sure supported the anti-Muslim front? I think I know why.Can you plz copy here the part when Cohen talk about it? Imho the Dashnaks must be putted before of the Bolsheviks because according to all sources they were the material executors of the massacres, but I think that the intro must be reverted on Atabek version because it talks about all the pro-Russia parties ( leftists and rightists ) who took part in the event while you strangely want to list only the Hummet which partecipation is covered by doubts saying nothing about the parties which partecipation is proved by all sources. It would be good also to understand which parties had an effetive militia force. From the sources taken into account, it seems that many parties of the Baku Soviet supported the anti-Musavat fight just politically but had no militia, they used the regular army of the Baku Soviet ( composed mainly by Russian and Armenian conscripts ), which soldiers had no political colour ( and when the Soviet fell and was substited by a pro-British dicatorship the soldiers were always the same ones ).It seems that the only parties who had militiamen were the Dashanks and the Musavat, the other forces loyal to the Soviet counted just on the regular army that was "red" when the Soviet was in power and became "white" when the Soviet was toppled by Central Caspian Dictatorship.I think that about this fact would be good to make some resource. Also I completly agree with Grandmaster on the fact that the sentence about Muslims supporting the Bolsheviks in Russia is totally irrelevant here, because has nothing to do with Baku situation. In fact the Muslims supported the Bolsheviks when they had to choice between Reds and Whites ( Chechens and Mountaineers supported the Bolsheviks against Denikin white volunteers for example ), but in Baku case, they have to choice not between Reds and White but between Bolsheviks and Musavat, that was not a "white" party at all ( it was a pro-Turkish anti-Czarist socialist oriented party ), so the Muslims in Baku were mainly Musavat supporters.(Limonlimone 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Just I add another line because unfortunately due to the lack of free time I can't follow this debate in these next days, so I ask you to excuse me if i won't be able to answer. I hope that the moderation and the efforts to search the truth will prevail on the partisan aspects of both "sides" in order to make an objective article. Good work to all.(Limonlimone 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Because the March Days is the actual event of the massacre. People who planned and participating in attacking and massacring. If you want to add those groups you named, do them, I will not object. And I can ask you a similar question: Why are you so interested in not mentioning the Hummet and totally demonizing the ARF? I think I know as well to both questions. The intro I have proposed is very neutral, it states all the parties involved without allying one party with the other so that we go into another conflict over it. I will gladly provide a link to you Cohen's book although it is widely available [14] Regardless of what Cohen means from which Muslims, it gives the reader a good impression on what the general feeling for Muslims was outside of Baku, where the feeling was the opposite. - Fedayee 23:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cohen is the only source on this planet who says that Muslim Bolsheviks were involved in the massacre of Muslim people. Plus, he makes rude mistakes in the two lines that he dedicated to these events. He says: Three thousand Azeris were killed, after which the Commune of Baku was established. However commune of Baku existed before the March massacres. Anyway, this is a minority view, which cannot be presented as fact and cannot be given an undue weight according to the rules. Grandmaster 04:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromise version

As this became a subject of disagreement, I propose the following wording for Hopkirk reference: "According to Hopkirk, March events were termed as a genocide". Let's discuss this and come to agreement on Introduction section, otherwise, the false wording of "according to some Azeri sources" is not agreeable at this point. It would be a good idea to move both Hopkirk's "genocide" reference and Croissant's link to "Armenian Genocide" to Aftermath section. The Introduction should state only the essence not interpretation of the events. Atabek 10:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I kept the introduction as is, and added back the wording in "Preceding Events" section which had reference to Allan Wildman's review of R. G. Suny's book. This reference shows clearly why Bolsheviks allied with ARF, and I don't think there would be a major disagreement on this reference. Please, review and comment here. I reverted back to Bagramyan's last version after my edit for now. Atabek 10:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, introduction should be short. Most of info and references should be included in the main text. Grandmaster 10:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I brought some quotes from St. Shahumyan himself, from his letter to Council of People's Commissars. It is pdf is also downloaded and is here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/Shaumyan_Letters_Yerevan.pdf

I also changed "Suren Shahumyan, brother of Stepan Shahumyan" into "son", because Suren was his son, not brother, right? --Ulvi I. 07:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ulvi, thanks for this contribution. I reformatted your quotation to fit the rest of the article. As for Suren Shaumyan, I think he was referred to as brother of the notorious commissar by some sources, we can check on this. But that's irrelevant to the fact that Suren Shauyman was the author of the book on Stepan Shaumyan activity. Atabek 07:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I formatted some quotations. For other editors, please use ref name feature if you're repeating the reference throughout the article. This will avoid redundancy in the reference list. Also, avoid using Dr., Professor, etc. in references. I realize some would like to highlight the importance of it, but most of references here are from PhDs, Drs, etc. And including titles is not quite a scholarly way of referencing.Atabek 07:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Massacres in other regions of Azerbaijan

This article pretty much only refers to the massacres in Baku but it forget the massacres in Naxcivan, Guba, Neftalan and other regions of Azerbaijan. This should be expanded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.83.1.6 (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

The Description: Revolt or massacres?

"The March Days or March Events refer to an inter-ethnic warfare during the Russian Civil War, which resulted in the massacre of up to 12,000 (no sources!) Azerbaijanis in the city of Baku and other locations of Baku Governorate.[1][2][3]" And what these 3 sources are asking? No any quotation!! Also these 3 sources are mostly discussed by others, for example:

1. "The defeat of the anti-Soviet revolt of the Mussavatists at the end of March 1918 consolidated Soviet power in Baku. A meeting of the Baku Soviet on April 25 set up the Baku Council of People’s Commissars, which besides Bolsheviks included some Left Socialist-Revolutionaries. Shahumyan was made Chairman of the Baku Council of People’s Commissars and Commissar for Foreign Affairs. The Council launched a number of socialist projects. In April and May 1918 Soviet power was established over a considerable part of Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijan workers’ and peasants’ struggle for the victory of socialist revolution was waged in an extremely complex situation. The German-Turkish intervention had begun in the Transcaucasus and Turkish troops had invaded Azerbaijan. On the other hand, the British Command in Iran had made contact with the Baku Dashnaks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, in the hope of using them to take over Baku and overthrow Soviet power in the city. Lenin therefore instructed the leaders of the Baku Council of People’s Commissars to be extremely flexible in taking advantage of the contradictions within the imperialist camp and within the nationalist parties", Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, [1976], Moscow, Volume 35, page 332,(Comment on Lenin's letter)

2. "Azerbaijan was declared an independent state on May 28, 1918, but Baku remained in the hands of a communist government, assisted by local Armenian soldiers, who had put down a Muslim revolt in March. Allied with the advancing Turkish army, in September 1918 the Azerbaijani nationalists secured their capital, Baku, and engaged in a massacre of the Armenians". Britannica Students Encyclopedia: Independent Azerbaijan article, http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Allied+with+the+advancing+Turkish+army%2C+in+September+1918+the+Azerbaijani+nationalists&fr=yfp&fp_ip=RU&u=www.britannica.com/ebi/article-44299&w=allied+advancing+turkish+army+september+1918+azerbaijani+nationalists+nationalist&d=bRyihf4-PN2R&icp=1&.intl=us,

3. "Azerbaijani national armed forces collected at so called "Wild Division". Based on it, Azerbaijani bourgois-landowner's circles rised up against the Baku Council of worker-deputies in mart 1918". "Азербайджанские национальные вооруженные силы были объединены в так называемую "Дикую дивизию". Опираясь на нее, азербайджанские буржуазно-помещичьи круги подняли в марте 1918 г. восстание против Бакинского Совета рабочих депутатов. Anastas Mikoyan, (in Russian) Микоян Анастас. Так было http://biblioteka.org.ua/book.php?id=1121020105&p=7,

4. March 30, 1918- the uprising of Mousavatists in Baku, O. Shatunovskaya, (in Russian), 1918 30 марта - Восстание мусавата в Баку Шатуновская О. Г. Об ушедшем веке. Рассказывает Ольга Шатуновская / сост.: Д. Кутьина, А. Бройдо, А. Кутьин. – La Jolla (Calif.) : DAA Books, 2001. –c. 398, etc. etc. And also very important role of some Azeri authorities (Communa members) in defeating March Days events must be added to the article: especially about Meshadi Azizbekov (commisar of Baku guberny, "participated in savaging of the musavatist anti-Soviet uprising" Great Soviet Encyclopedia, article Azizbekov) .Andranikpasha 17:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Britannica article is written by Armenian scholar Ronald Suny, he is being critised by other western scholars for his bias in this issue. The other 3 are all communist, of course they support Bolshevik - Dashnak aliance. Grandmaster 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Its an opinion. What we need are the facts! After that we can decide anything. Also pls represent even one source asking about massacres of Azerbaijanis and about the number 12,000 of killed Azerbaijanis. Again: Its a very important topic and I cant find even one quotation related to the description. Pls add! Andranikpasha 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We are evaluating reliability of sources. Communists were one of the sides of the conflict here, therefore their sources are partisan. One cannot expect them to be objective about Musavat. And all the sources are there, check the discussions above. 12,000 is a number provided by Michael Smith. Grandmaster 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Communism is an ideology. Pls dont claim all the communists be partisans in March days! Russia and Azerbaijan were different countries with different authorities! so you're not right! also you cant prove if Britannica SE's author is Prof. Suny and if it is he, he is a partisan!!! Smith seems to be the only source about the number (he's a cooperator of "Sakharov-fund", Bonner and Cox, pls do not use references you're trying to prove are partisan, OK? Ill add a more reliable source about the number (3000-3500) later (also about the Azizbekov who was the commisar of Baku and region in that time). thanks! Andranikpasha 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranik, the 12,000 figure was provided in reference cited. This article has been at peace as a result of consensus for several months now. There is no need to remove information which relies on sourced articles. Atabek 20:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

At first, lets do not call each other with short names ok?:) Then pls provide a quotation as I have some others asking about 3000 (Im waiting to see if add both or only referenced one). Sorry I dont know about any consensus, Im just a reader and editor of Wiki, and only thing Id like to see in the article or here- quotations from reliable sources asking it really was a massacre not revolt as you see several sources (mark, with direct quotations) which call it a revolt. Andranikpasha 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andranikpasha. I am an administrator here at Wikipedia. Please use caution before removing material from articles without first seeking general agreement (consensus) on the talk page of the article. Read the article mentioned below on consensus and ask me if you need help.--JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi JodyB! Im not going to delete material from here but add some more! And as a administrator pls see: the user Atabek added genocide term to the article while he is marking 3 non-historical non-reliable sources (Hopkirk is a journalist, Aliev is the Azerbaijani president and the third is a political declaration by some PACE members)? Is it ok for a consensus? Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha 23:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is a procedure for editing articles, especially where conflicts exist. Also follow ArbCom principle, recently issued on this [15]. Here is the references to 12,000 figure from Michael Smith [16]:

• Другими словами, Бакинский Совет загнал “Мусават” и его рядовых членов в угол и помог добить их там, предоставив бакинских мусульман “вакханалии” насилия. Мартовские события для Расулзаде были национальной войной, развязанной российскими большевиками против беззащитного азербайджанского народа. В стычках и погроме погибло не менее 12 000 человек.

Michael Smith is clearly more neutral source on the topic that Roland Grigor Suny, citing the figure 3,000.

By the way, I am going to insert another quote from Peter Hopkirk, citing the events as a genocide. Atabek 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello JodyB, thanks for addressing this issue. Prior to edit by User:Andranikpasha, the article went through lengthy debates, edit warring, agreements, mediation, etc. before all references were agreed upon and consensus existed since June. So User:Andranikpasha must provide more elaborate justifications prior to inserting POV tag in this article. Absolute majority if not all references in this article come from non-Azerbaijani sources, and figure 12,000 was also cited by New York Times article. In this light, since User:Andranikpasha did not provide strong arguments for the tag, I would like to request it to be removed. Atabek 00:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi JodyB, Andranik made the right decision; that wording is plainly inaccurate, this was discussed and the only way to stop edit warring was for those opposing Atabek wording to leave. There was no consensus. If you read the discussion you will see that the official British figures were of 2,000 and that most sources provide 3,000. The 12,000 is from p.18 of a booklet prepared by the Azerbaijani delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Up to 12,000 is misleading since most sources provide 4 times less victims and from reading the article no one would have guessed that a minority figure is given precedent over the more consensus. - Fedayee 00:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee and MarshallBagramyan, in the edit that MarshallBagramyan just removed [17] I provided a source to New York Times article which cites 12,000 Azerbaijanis being killed. Can you provide the explanation as to why the source was removed. I will repost this removal at JodyB's page as well for information. Atabek 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Given I have experienced your history of misrepresentation of sources and misquoting, I will request a scan for that claim (New York Times). Thanks. - Fedayee 01:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, I have the scan and will send it to your email, as well as to JodyB. Then we will discuss your assumption of bad faith. Thanks. Atabek 22:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

About the figure of 12,000:

The results of the March events were immediate and total for the Musavat. Several hundreds of its members were killed in the fighting; up to 12,000 Muslim civilians perished; thousands of others fled Baku in a mass exodus.

Michael Smith. "Anatomy of Rumor: Murder Scandal, the Musavat Party and Narrative of the Russian Revolution in Baku, 1917-1920", Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 36, No. 2, (Apr. 2001), p. 228

--Grandmaster 08:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you mark "Several hundreds of its members were killed in the fighting; up to 12,000 Muslim civilians perished". Does fightening mean a massacre? And are the "Muslim civilians" and "Azerbaijanis" the same term? So pls do not remove POV tags as its because of description of the events as massacres not because of the number (pls read above description for POV tag)! Andranikpasha 10:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What other Muslims do you know in Baku other than Azerbaijanis that would form absolute majority of what's known as Muslims. Also below, I provided link to 1920 NYT article, which clearly says "Azerbaidjanians". Similarly, the massacres in Eastern Anatolia involved representatives of various Christian and Muslim confessions, nevertheless, those are assumed to be "Armenian Genocide". So whether you call those 12,000 as Muslims or Azerbaijanis in both ethnic and religious context in Baku, it's absolutely equivalent. Atabek 23:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"What other Muslims do you know in Baku other than Azerbaijanis that would form absolute majority of what's known as Muslims." We need to use right terms from references: is there any need to change the terms used by sources just because we think they are the same? If anyone of us can prove that most of them were Azerbaijanis we can add that most of that Muslim citizens were Azerbaijanis. Muslim and Azerbaijani are not the same terms (for example, Avar, Talish, Chechanian, Persian and other citizens are also Muslims). "I provided link to 1920 NYT article, which clearly says "Azerbaidjanians". -Sorry I cant open this link at your page, pls provide a citation here or ask an official URL (and if it asks Azerbaijanis, lets use this one as a reference, as Smith wrote Muslim citizen). "Similarly, the massacres in Eastern Anatolia involved representatives of various Christian and Muslim confessions, nevertheless, those are assumed to be "Armenian Genocide"." -what you mean? There were genocides not only of Armenians, but also Assyrians (Assyrian Genocide), Greeks (Greek Gencide), but its off our topic! "So whether you call those 12,000 as Muslims or Azerbaijanis in both ethnic and religious context in Baku, it's absolutely equivalent."- any fact? and if there are absolutely equivalent then OK, lets use the right term used in the referenced sources!Andranikpasha 12:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This same author Michael Smith calls these events a massacre of Azerbaijani people. Grandmaster 07:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it a historical research? any citation? Does he write that all 12000 were Azerbaijanis or he write that killed up to 12000 Muslims but most of them were Azerbaijanis?Andranikpasha 12:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a dedicated historical research by a professional historian, professor at American university. The quote has been provided above. Grandmaster 13:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Genocide issue has been discussed

Atabek, you have been caught distorting Hopkirk on this talk page before; only Azeri sources call the event genocide.--Marshal Bagramyan 00:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Peter Hopkirk would be an Azeri source. And please, assume good faith, per ArbCom principle and the policy. Thanks. Atabek 01:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I never called Hopkirk an Azeri source. Regardless of which, he never calls it a genocide - something me and the other editors painstakingly attempted to show you all the way back in April and from the looks of it, you ignored it completely. Good faith in this debate flew right out the window when we caught you distorting the sources so it's advisable that you adhere to those same guidelines you eagerly point to us.--Marshal Bagramyan 04:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bagramyan, assume good faith. Again, both "genocide" and "massacre" in translation to Azeri are the same word "soyqirim". So if Hopkirk chose to translate it into English as "genocide" rather than "massacre", it was clearly his choice and decision to do so. And that's exactly Hopkirk's interpretation of events, not that of Azerbaijani he interviewed. Thanks. Atabek 22:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopkirk is not historian, he is a British journalist and writer [18][19]...Andranikpasha 12:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

His book is a dedicated study of the history. Grandmaster 12:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Any journalist who wrote a book on history can not be marked as a historical source (especially if its the only one)! We need reliable sources from the specialists! Andranikpasha 12:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is an authoritative source, Hopkirk is a well known specialist on the topic. Grandmaster 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

well known by whom? Andranikpasha 13:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is all red herring Andranik. Regardless of whatever position Hopkirk holds , he doesn't support any genocide thesis; it's just another a willful distortion of a source on the part of Atabek. We tried explaining this to him months ago in April but apparently he didn't understand it. I'm going to await Atabek's next response which will inevitably contain the words "incivil" and evil person :)--Marshal Bagramyan 20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving of references

Atabek, please do not move references from one part of article to another to prove anything (and then asking Im deleting references while I just returned them to the previous place). Anyways if you think the references you moved to prove the description are good enough (despite quotations at talk page marks other number and some of them call the events a revolt), maybe to ask for an arbitration? Andranikpasha 08:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the procedure is to ask for mediation not arbitration. The scan of the quote from NYT Current HIstory Journal, which MarshallBagramyan was removing from the article and Fedayee is questioning, has been submitted to JodyB. It's also uploaded to my page: [20]. It clearly shows that 12,000 people perished during the struggle of Bolsheviks against Azerbaijanis in March 1918, and which ended up with victory of Bolsheviks. So remove the fact tag, it's dubious. Atabek 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I cant open this link at your page, pls provide a citation here or ask an official URL. Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha 12:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, you need Adobe Acrobat, freely available, to open the document. It's accessible. And if you require "official link" to a 1920(!) article, then why don't you also provide us with official links to all references you used so far. Atabek 20:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, I have an Acrobat, but ther're problems of downloading. I didnt demand especially an official link (as I know NYT has an archive of very old issues, but its not important), why you didnt represent a simple sentence here for everyone (also for other users in future to not ask the same questions as me)? As you see all the time if I want to prove anything I represent a quotation or at least an official link. I think you demand from me the same when you're asking for a quotation (also as you know a personal page cannot be considered as a reliable source).Andranikpasha 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence was presented here [21] by me, and was removed [22] by User:MarshallBagramyan, now misinterpreting it below. Atabek 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The source says 12,000 people. Are these people Muslims? Tatars? Azeris? Turks? other Russians? The source also says March 17; doesn't this article claim that massacres began March 31? Might as well toss this one out along with the others. --Marshal Bagramyan 20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep exactly and en plus, the source says that According to statements from Azerbaidjan representatives the Armenians aided the Bolsheviks. - Fedayee 23:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bagramyan, here is the quote:

• "Early in the Spring there had been clashes in Baku between the Bolsheviks and the Azerbaidjanians, and on March 17 a four-day struggle began which resulted in the killing of about 12,000 persons, many of them women and children, and in the total defeat of Caucasians by the Bolsheviki."

I believe the sentence above is well connected to understand who were the 12,000 persons killed, if Bolsheviki won the struggle. The fact that Bolsheviks led by Stepan Shaumyan were aided by Dashnaks, also here:

• "This three-day massacre by Armenians is recorded in history as the 'March Events' and thousands of Muslims, old people, women and children lost their lives." (F. Kazemzadeh, The Struggle for Transcaucasia (New York, 1951), p. 69) Atabek 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

pov

For Andranikpasha - thsi article is replete with many neutral sources, so pls. justify your POV tag--Dacy69 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious quote

I added a dubious tag to the Peter Symes website. His personal page and article has nothing in common with history scholarship. This person specializes in Bank Notes, what does that have to do with March Days or history? Also, NY Times, as provided, says those killed were Azerbaijanians not just Muslims. There was and is no other Muslim majority in and around Baku in any case. Atabek 21:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I added dubious tag to NYT article because it says 12,000 people not Azerbaijanis and not Muslims. You are more then welcome to use the NYT source but you can't misquote and add OR to it. --VartanM 18:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, this is the PDF of the article and it says:

• "Early in the Spring there had been clashes in Baku between the Bolsheviks and the Azerbaidjanians, and on March 17 a four-day struggle began which resulted in the killing of about 12,000 persons, many of them women and children, and in the total defeat of Caucasians by the Bolsheviki."

Besides this one, all other sources say that Azerbaijanis/Muslims were defeated and killed en masse. Based on your interpretation, we shall also then question the number of Armenian victims during massacres in Anatolia and September events in Baku, don't we? Atabek 20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, I have seen and read the NYT article (Thank you for the scan). But you know better then me, that if you're using a reference it should correspond with what that source is actually saying. In this case you added a source to confirm that 12,000 Azeris died during the March Days, while the source says 12,000 persons. This could of very well been the total number of killed on all sides. After all the source says "total defeat of Caucasians" Either we use this source as a total number of people killed during the March days or we don't use it all. Also please stop WP:SOAPboxing about Armenian Genocide on each and every talkpage. I'll say the same thing I said before, if you have a question with a certain article voice it on that articles talkpage. Each and every event is different and can't be compared to another one. --VartanM 01:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, I provided another reference below, which says 12,000 Azeris. This reaffirms that the figure provided by NYT applies to "Azerbaijanians", and that's exactly what "Caucasians" means in NYT quote above. And before accusing me of soapboxing, please, WP:AGF, and recall that it's you who appears on talk pages of March Days, Khojaly Massacre, etc. pages questioning or arguing against the number and identity of massacred Azeris, and on Kirovabad Pogrom, Sumgait Pogrom, etc. doing exactly the opposite, inflating the number of victims. I was only making comparative analysis, that in case of Anatolian massacres, the victims were of Armenian, Assyrian, Greek, Kurdish and Turkish origins, nevertheless the figure (1.5 million) is applied to Armenian victims only, because it was a major armed party in the war. Same applies in this case. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, and here is another quote [23]:

• 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 (James B. Minahan. Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States, Greenwood Press, 1998, ISBN 0313306109, p. 22)

Based on the above, and the fact that Peter Symes is a dubious quote, we should get rid of figure 3,000 as well as dubious tags now. Atabek 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, first of all, there was no ethnic group called "Azeris" at the time. It's still a matter of academic debate whether such a group exists today--the word "Azeris" refers to a conglomerate of descendants of diverse ethnic groups of Turkic and Iranian origin with a weak sense of identity. Hence the source is clearly biased. Second, the numbers range from 3,000 to 12,000, with Aldstadt stating taking the lower number, and stating that the victims were of Iranian origin.--TigranTheGreat 21:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, for all practical purposes, the Turkic-speaking Shia Muslim group called Muslims/Caucasian Muslims/Azerbaijani Tatars/Azeri Turks/Azeris, then and now, inhabitting the neighborhoods of Baku is the one and the same ethnic group known today as Azerbaijanis. Ethnic groups take centuries to form, and there are 8 million citizens of that country out of which a bit over 90% are known as Azeris. If you mind, you may refer to CIA World Factbook, Britannica and other related sources. We are discussing here the applicability of the number to victims of certain origin known today, this is not a discussion of historical origins of those victims. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but prior to 1930's the "ethnic group" of Azeris hadn't formed yet. Many Turkic tribes hadn't even settled--they used mountains in the winter and plains in the summer. You can't have a nation with tribes. It's still dubious whether the ethnicity has formed up to this day. Any author talking about so called "Azeris" prior to 1920's cannot be taken seriously.--TigranTheGreat 20:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that argument is irrelevant and baseless given the fact that Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was established in 1918, same as Georgian and Armenian republics. Atabek 20:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in March of 1918. So, if after May of 1918 "Azeris" MIGHT mean "citizens of Azerbaijan," in March the term would be meaningless, as there was no such ethnicity. Cornell talks about so-called "Azeris" prior to 1918 too. And we know why--he is deeply involved with Baku oil interests and is a partner with Azeris. Minahan can be no more credible.--TigranTheGreat 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, again, I don't see the basis for claiming Minahan being "not" credible reference. Azeri is a unique ethnic identity, with a well defined linguistic, cultural and other specifics. The fact is there were 12,000 people who perished in massacre, and the fact is those were Azerbaijanis/Azeris/Azerbaijani Tartars/Muslims - same identity.

And before questioning Cornell, as an example, please, take a look at sources in the reference section [24] of Armenian Genocide article, including: Dadrian, Hovanissian, Balakian, Danielyan, Oskanyan, and Sarkisyan. If all those references and authors are neutral on that topic, there is no reason to believe Cornell or Minahan could even remotely be non-neutral on March Days subject here. Thanks. Atabek 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, if it is fact for you that Azeris and Muslims are the same identity than whats the reason to change the term used in the sources? The authors of sources prefer the term Muslim citizen (which means Tartars, Iranian Citizen, Dagestanis etc.) and you prefer to change it into Azeris.

Also lets to not compare the Armenian Genocide with March Days or September Days, etc. The Armenian Genocide is internationally recognized act of genocide so there the details (not the first phrase of article: see the first seven references of really high-class reliability) can be referred to the respected researchers of Armenian descent.Andranikpasha 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, I brought a source above from Minahan, which says 12,000 Azeris. New York Times mentioned Azerbaijanians, not any other Muslims there. And Armenian massacres were not recognized internationally and legally within the U.N. genocide convention interpretations by any country. But that's absolutely irrelevant in this discussion, I was not comparing massacres, I was comparing the referencing style and reliability/neutrality of references used in two articles. Thanks. Atabek 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha and Tigran, here is another reference citing the identity of those massacred:

• Violence increased during the civil war with massacres of Azeri Turks - by the combined forces of Armenian Dashnaktsutiun party and the Bolsheviks - in Baku in March 1918, and of Armenians in September 1918 - by units of the Turkish army seconded by Azeri detachments.(Marco Buttino. In a Collapsing Empire: Underdevelopment, Ethnic Conflicts and Nationalisms, Feltrinelli Editore IT, 1993, ISBN 8807990482, p. 176) Atabek 00:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

..."Armenian massacres were not recognized internationally and legally within the U.N. genocide convention interpretations by any country". -Sorry, what you mean? Atabek are you seriously comparing March days to Armenian Genocide? Andranikpasha 07:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, as I told you above, the discussion about the massacres in Anatolia (massacre and genocide are terms based on the intent and the target not numbers) and their political interpretation are not a place for this page. Only referencing style was compared to Armenian Genocide article, which is quite appropriate in March Days context.

In any case, I believe the disputed wording has already been addressed with references. So, please, discuss what references and why you're disputing in March Days article, and we shall address them further in a comparative manner with reference examples in other articles. If you have no further disputes, then the NPOV tag shall be removed. I should mention that as opposed to Armenian Genocide and September Days article, no Azeri references were used in this article to enlist the facts of the massacre, while actually even Armenian references were used here. Atabek 16:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Without any doubt the majority of people killed in March were Azerbaijanis, as they were the most numerous Muslim people of the city. On the other hand, there could be Muslims of other ethnicities among the victims, so I changed the line to "12,000 Azerbaijanis and other Muslims". That should resolve the dispute. --Grandmaster 07:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an article from NYT on March days: "2000 killed and 3000 wounded in struggle between Russians and Mussulmans. Mussulmans and Bolshevist forces are engaged in a deadly conflict at Baku, on the Caspian Sea.... Various parts of the town, including entire streets and the Persian bazaar, are burning." Baku in flames as battle rages (Associated press) // New York Times, May 20, 1918. This article once again justifies NPOV tag: they mark the number of killed people 2000 not mark they all were even Muslims as a struggle (not massacres) took part between Russians and Mussulmans (again not Azeris). Then they call it again a conflict, not massacres. And about Muslim citizens: no Azeri or Tartar name are marked in the article, but marked that Persian bazaar were burning (its about so called "other" Muslim citizens in Baku).Andranikpasha 20:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, there are 3-4 articles citing figure 12,000 (one of them from NYTimes by the way), and only one article that you claim says 2,000. Apart from the fact that your attempt to find any figure below 12,000 has absolutely no effect to the content of massacre, you also do not properly reference the source and do not provide justification for the POV tag. Again, what's your claim against neutrality? Do you deny the sources already presented? Why is NYT not neutral? Why is Minahan not neutral, but the source you found from NYT is somehow more neutral than the other one? Can you provide answer all these questions, or else the tag should go.

Will you also be so kind to provide us now with the copy/link of the article, exactly as you have been provided with one above? Also, similar discussion should now start at September Days, which, as opposed to this article, does use non-neutral references. Thanks. Atabek 21:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek didn't we prove you that the 12,000 figure was referring to persons and not Azeris? or Muslims? VartanM 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, scroll above and read again the message addressed to you:

[25]:

• 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 (James B. Minahan. Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States, Greenwood Press, 1998, ISBN 0313306109, p. 22)

Thanks. Atabek 22:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek any source that calls Armenians "radicals" is clearly biased and can't be used in this article as a neutral source. --VartanM 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Why and who says that? ARF Dashnaktsutiun is a radical party and it was leading in the massacres. If you dispute they're radicals, here is the source:

• The same is true of terrorism in Turkish Armenia, where the radical Dashnak Party (or Armenian Revolutionary Federation) of the 1890s had close organization and personal ties to Russian Armenia...(Steven Gary Marks. How Russia Shaped the Modern World: From Art to Anti-Semitism, Ballet to Bolshevism, Princeton University, 2003, ISBN 0691096848, p. 28)

Now also, VartanM you were brought NYT reference, you say it does not fit, now Minahan is POV, how many references to 12,000 Azeri/Muslims you need to be provided before you accept the fact and we move on? Read another reference above I brought from Marco Buttino yet again indicating the nationality of those massacred during March events. Atabek 22:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice move Atabek, now they became terrorist. VartanM 22:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No VartanM, it's not me who says that, it's the source that says so. Also, there are 7 other sources that I found, calling ARF a radical party. I added those on ARF page, you're welcome to discuss them there, though I guess they will be reverted soon. As for here, we have established 12,000 Azeris and other Muslims, and the fact that ARF is a radical party. Though the latter fact is relevant only to affirm the neutrality of the source which you question, we were discussing number and ethnicity of victims. Atabek 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek calling a group 'radical' is obviously POV and will not be accepted in Wikipedia. Please do not interpretations and unreliable sources because they may not be used here. I'm sure if the source was saying 'radical azeris' killed thousands of Armenians you would not stand for it, please look at it from a neutral stand point thank you. --Murat45 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA does not list the word "radical" as unacceptable. In addition, not one but 7 sources claim so. Are you to deny 7 scholarly references from neutral Western sources? Atabek 23:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Do you deny the sources already presented? Why is NYT not neutral?" - Some of them are non-neutral (for example, Azeri ones) or asking about different things you want to prove. The citation from NYT below is off course neutral and must be added to article! "Why is Minahan not neutral, but the source you found from NYT is somehow more neutral than the other one?" We already used other one as a source, and will use also second one, as the same newspaper represent 2 different numbers of killed peoples from both sides.

"How Russia Shaped the Modern World": the name seems to be very neutral and scientifical...

Also another point for the POV tag: if there were any Bolshevik-Dashnak co-operation... The whole bio and printed works of Shaumian were fighting against traditional Armenian parties especially Dashnaktsutyun: "In April, 1918, after the suppresion of Musavatist contr-revolutionary revolt all the power in Baku rayon comes to the Council.... All the activities of Baku bolsheviks leaded by Shaumian in 1918 are full of heroical struggle against the foreign intervents and contr-revolutionary parties - mensheviks, esers, dashnaks and mussavatists." (in Russian, S. Shaumian, Literaturno-kriticheskie statyi, Moscow, 1955, preface by "Pravda" editorial, p.6). Also at the pages 68-70 of the same book Shaumian criticizes the dashnak's policy and ideology called them non-socialists etc. All the Soviet researchers and some nowdays Russian publications call these events a revolt. They also write about continuous conflict between Bolsheviks and Dashnaks, no cooperation. We must add to the article that there is a variant of events from a large number of respected researchers who can'not be called unneutral just because some of them (not the all) supports the same Communist ideology...Andranikpasha 09:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, I am going to address your claims one by one:

• "some of them are non-neutral (for example Azeri ones):"

- there is only 1 Azeri source, that's the Decree of President of Azerbaijan taken from Wikisource. It's a decree (a fact), there are no historical claims in this article referencing this decree as a source.

• ""How Russia Shaped the Modern World": the name seems to be very neutral and scientifical... "

- I fail to see your argument (based on which policy?) against the author or the authenticity of reference

• "The whole bio and printed works of Shaumian were fighting against traditional Armenian parties especially Dashnaktsutyun"

- True, Shaumian was a Bolshevik and ideologically against radical Dashnaks. However, he used them for suppressing Musavat, this is a fact affirmed by any source in the article. The fact is that Dashnaktsutiun did participate in March Events, do you deny that? There is a reference to Lenin's works about March events even saying: "Shaumian prevratil Baku v Armyanskiy kuryatnik" (Shaumian turned Baku into Armenian-operated slaughterhouse). But we don't include it here, since it's irrelevant and Shaumian's use of Dashnak forces to massacre Azeri Muslims is already established by magnitude of other sources.

• "We already used other one as a source, and will use also second one, as the same newspaper represent 2 different numbers of killed peoples"

- We can only when you provide authentic source, with page number and scan, just like I did above.

• "We must add to the article that there is a variant of events from a large number of respected researchers who can'not be called unneutral just because some of them (not the all) supports the same Communist ideology"

- Please, list references from the current list that you consider unneutral prior to generalizing. Also, remember that dubious evidence and lengthy discussions around them will not justify the POV tag for a long time. So present your facts concretely, using bulleted points and references, or else we will have to seek mediator/admin attention. Thanks. Atabek 12:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, to discuss something pls at first read the previous addings as a lot of questions asked earlier at the same page. I dont want to copy all my posts below and re-add here. Also pls when you're marking anything (for example Lenin's words) give a reference as I do. Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha 12:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, since you haven't again provided references as to how you dispute the neutrality of article content or sources, the tag must now go away. Please, address within the next 72 hours one by one every single source that you dispute in this article, and provide counter arguments with references. Else the tag will go, because it's baseless, and your further reverts will be reported to AE. Perhaps, your assigned mentor User:VartanM can also explain to you that dragging discussions without references is not the way to make encyclopedic contribution, achieve consensus or justify tags. Thanks. Atabek 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

About NYT: despite by the Wiki rules my quotation below is good enough (we dont need to add the page numbers or PDF files from reliable newspapers, just quotations), Im adding also some details: "2000 killed and 3000 wounded in struggle between Russians and Mussulmans. Mussulmans and Bolshevist forces are engaged in a deadly conflict at Baku, on the Caspian Sea.... Various parts of the town, including entire streets and the Persian bazaar, are burning." Baku in flames as battle rages (Associated press) // New York Times, May 20, 1918, Monday, page 2.

About POV: many times I marked the sourced justifications for POV tag below, off course its preferable to add that sources to the article and delete POV tags. The only purpose of discussion: we must change some things and add for example version of fightings/revolt, participation of Azizbekov, Fioletov and others, clear up if there were Bolshevik-Dashnak cooperation or no, finish to discuss the sources for number of 2000-3000 and who were killed. Atabek, if you agree that discussions is finished, Ill add the sources we discussed earlier to the article within these 72 hours and OK, lets delete POV tags. Sorry I think this POV tags are not just for me, but also for you, as you're discussed my sources and addings. if no there isnt problem! Andranikpasha 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You can add NYT source, only when you provide a link, or else it will be tagged as dubious upon addition, because you fail to verify it so far. Also, NYT source from May 20th, 1918 (2 months after massacre) obviously could cite 3000, while true estimates were already posted by NYT in 1920. Just like the initial 1960 Britannica estimates of Armenian massacres in Anatolia were at 600,000 with gradually growth to 1.5 million in 1990s.

Youre continuing to compare these events to the Armenian Genocide... Then pls see the common wiki practics. Pls open the article and see there the number of massacred Armenians. You can find your numbers there! I dont had to provide a link for an reliable source (whats this, have you links for all of your reliable sources)?

You're welcome to discuss Azizbekov and Fioletov's participation here.

I discussed earlier, and I asked you to discuss it below.

The Symes reference will also be removed, because it's absolutely irrelevant and dubious. A person with a blog specializing on money is not a proper reference for description of historical events. Atabek 13:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He's a historian, and the refernece as you can see is not from a blog!

Symes does not specialize in history of Azerbaijan, Armenia or the region. He is a money historian. Check his webpage again. Atabek 13:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, here are some sources must be added, if you cant find them below: , , , , . Thanks! Andranikpasha 13:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• a) Anastas Mikoyan is a neutral source?

Off course, no! He was one of the officials of Baku Communa and his memories (as Azeri official's opinion) must be added as the opinion of another part of fightings.

• b) Comment on Lenin's letter - whose comment?

Its a comment of official scientifical publication of Lenin's works. If its important who's the editor (despite we can ask its an official Soviet opinion or even statement) I can look up.

• c) Britannica reference does not say anything about massacres, a fact already established by multitude of other sources, including the ones you are trying to add above.

Yes while few references call the events massacres others call them fightings and suppresing of revolt. I asked earlier we need to represent this sourced version.

• d) Again provide a link to AP/NYT article. It's OK, even if it's a restricted database link, I can open it. Atabek 13:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry I already answered to this question! No such a rule for Wiki to have all the reliable sources at Internet... I made a quotation its enough! Andranikpasha 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also we need to delete the quotation from Hopkirk. At first, Shaumian was a communist and his Armenian ancestry is not important here. He co-operated with a large number of commisars included many Azeris, Russians, Georgians, Jews who helped him to put down the revolt. Also he co-operated with some Dashnak party members (not Armenian nationalists as it is a common term). Hopkirk is not a historian, there is a historical research by N. Smirnov ("Ushedshie v bessmertie", Moscow, 1986) who is well-known specialist of Baku communa history, we need to add results of his research. Andranikpasha 10:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the quotation from Hopkirk is quite relevant and scholarly, while quotation from Symes is not. Symes, finance expert, is not an expert on history, while Hopkirk, a journalist, citing historical references, does qualify so. Dashnak party is radical ultranationalist (according to over 6-7 references), and terrorist according to at least two, so that may have to be incorporated in this article as directly relevant information.

Further, please, bring information from Smirnov that you would like to be incorporated. Meanwhile, I will compile all sources on the nature of Dashnaktsutiun, which quite clearly explains the reasons for engagement of this party in massacre of 12,000 Azerbaijanis. Atabek 13:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, first of all: pls affraide of to call a ruling party of a recognized, democratic country as ultra-nationalist and terrorist. I think you can find such "sources" about any ruling party of any country, especially if that party has History of 117 years, faced with Sultanic and Tsarist despotism, Genocide, massacres, wars, difficulties to create one of the most democratic republics of the region during 1918-20, Soviet pressings and denial of Armenian Genocide! These "terrorists" as you trying to call them are recognized members of Socialist international, are co-operating with and recognized by many democratic institutions in the world and ruling parties in USA and Russia, have seats in the recognized state's parliaments! Also Im not ready to discuss the "ultra-nationalists", "terrorists", "bloody killers" etc vulgar anti-encyclopedic terms at Wiki!Andranikpasha 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference to one of the questioned words, which comes from Russian source, referenced also at the end of the same sentence. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another source

Andranikpasha, what do you think of this source about March events citing an Armenian participant of March events:

"I killed Muslims by every means possible. Yet it is sometimes a pity to waste bullets for this. The best way is to gather all of these dogs and throw them into wells and then fill the wells with big and heavy stones, as I did. I gathered all of the women, men and children, threw big stones down on top of them. They must never live on this earth" (A. Laloyan, “Revolutsionniy Vostok” (Revolutionary East), No 2-3, Moscow, 1936. Quoted from Richard Hovannisian, “Armenia on the Road to Independence”, Berkeley, 1967, p. 41-42

Perhaps, this should also be incorporated into March days article? Atabek 14:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see a source (called by Grandmaster unreliable) cited another source where unknown person asks he killed Muslims and describes how... Who, whom (what the Muslims), where, when? Who is Liloyan- the author of that words?, or just a citator? (if he is the author, is it means after all he done he received rights to publishe an article in a Soviet journal). what is this? Andranikpasha 15:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, I cited a source per Wiki policy as well (see your own comment above). This will be incorporated into the article, just like NYT source you're claiming above. Atabek 16:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Discuss and add to absolutely any article at Wiki if you think thats right and OK. You are responsible for your addings not me.Andranikpasha 19:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis?

The introduction, in its current form, states "massacre of 3000 to 12,000 Azerbaijanis and other Muslims". An "Azerbaijani" is a citizen of Azerbaijan. The republic of Azerbaijan did not yet exist (it was only establised in May 1918), so none of the participants could be called "Azerbaijani". Meowy 20:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence also disagrees with the sources that are claimed to support it. source two says "2000 killed and 3000 wounded in struggle between Russians and Mussulmans" and source 4 says "3,000 people were killed, with most of them being Muslims", i.e. these figures that are being quoted in the introduction are figures for the total numbers killed - not figures for one particular political party or religious or ethnic group. The introduction needs to be rewritten. I propose this: The March Days or March Events refer to a struggle for power between Bolshevik and Musavat supporters that degenerated into an inter-ethnic conflict. It took place in Baku during the Russian Civil War and resulted in the death of between 2000 [2][3][4] to 12,000 [5][6][7] inhabitants of that city and other locations of the Baku Governorate.[8] Modern Azerbaijani sources call the event a "genocide" in relation to the conflict's Muslim casualties. [9][10] Meowy 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the regiments of Savage division was Azerbaijani (or Tatar, as it was called then). Other regiments were made of other Caucasian Muslims. Grandmaster (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See this:

The division had been formed as a non-professional, 'wild' volunteer unit in 1914 - originally composed of the Chechen, Cherkess and Tatar (Azerbaijani) cavalry regiments and an Adjar infantry battalion – to serve in the first world war as part of the Third Cavalry Corps. But the name of the division, partly a term of chauvinist abuse and partly a badge of local honour, also called to mind nearly a century of wars for the conquest of the 'wild,' mountainous North Caucasus, fought largely between the Russians and the Chechens and Cherkess.

Michael G. Smith. Anatomy of a Rumour: Murder Scandal, the Musavat Party and Narratives of the Russian Revolution in Baku, 1917-20. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 2. (Apr., 2001), pp. 211-240. Grandmaster (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the intro, the sources provide the number of 12,000 Muslims, killed during the March events, many of them were civilians. The casualties among Bolshevik and Dashnak forces are not known.

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 (James B. Minahan. Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States, Greenwood Press, 1998, ISBN 0313306109, p. 22)

The results of the March Events were immediate and total for the Musavat. Several hundreds of its members were killed in the fighting; up to 12,000 Muslim civilians perished; thousands of others fled Baku in a mass exodus.

Michael G. Smith. Anatomy of a Rumour: Murder Scandal, the Musavat Party and Narratives of the Russian Revolution in Baku, 1917-20. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 2. (Apr., 2001), pp. 211-240.

And struggle for power is not an accurate description. Musavat did not try to take over the power in the city, but it refused to submit to Bolsheviks. Grandmaster (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I will need to see a credible source that says there was such a thing as an "Azerbaijani regiment" within the Savage Division. Azeris are Tartars, but not all Tartars are Azeri. Nor does your quoted source use the word "regiment" and it is well known that the Savage Division recruited from areas north of the Caucasus. I assume that the "(Azerbaijani)" bit is in the actual quote, and has not been added by you? If it is not, please say so now. By credible source, btw, I mean a proper military history, such as Muratoff and Allen, whose book "Caucasian Battlefields" is the standard work. Meowy 15:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the sources, you have not answered my point that sources 2 and 4 give total casualty figures - they do not differentiate between the political, or ethnic persuasion of the casualties. You cannot use them to indicate only Muslim casualties. Struggle for power is a correct description for the initial phases of the event. For example, here is a quote from "The Day We almost Bombed Moscow" by C. Dobson and J. Millar, London, 1986, p85, "There had already been violence in Baku in March of 1918 which had started as a struggle for power between the Bolsheviks and their left wing allies and the bourgeois Musavat party but which had degenerated into a race riot..." Meowy 16:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote is accurate, you can verify it yourself. I did not add anything. The author indeed says "Tatar (Azerbaijani)". Savage division was made up of Mislims of Caucasus, and Tatar regiment consisted of ethnic Azerbaijanis. This regiment returned to Azerbaijan in 1918, and many of its members returned to Baku. The March days started when Bolsheviks disarmed a group of officers of the Savage division. As for struggle for power, not all the sources agree with that. And the number of Muslim casualties should be shown separately, as they are available. The sources say that between 3 - 12,000 Muslims died. If the number of casualties from the opposite side is available, it could be included as well. Grandmaster (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources 2 and 4 DO NOT state Muslim casualty figures, so the introduction cannot remain written in its current form using those references. From those I have seen, the majority of sources do explain the March events as starting as a political conflict between rival ideologies (Bolshevik vs Musavat). But even if it were only a minority, that still should be included in the introduction.
As for the "Savage Division", I haven't seen any source apart from the one you have given that suggests the existence of actual regiments composed of individual ethnicities within the larger Savage Division. It doesn't seem to be a very sensible thing for the Russian Empire to have done, militarily speaking. Muratoff and Allen do mention ethnic Azeri officers within the Division (but the oficer class would be different from the rank-and-file). Probably it is the sort of thing that can easily be checked if we were to find someone knowedgeable of Russian military regiments. BTW, there is no such thing as an "ethnic Azerbaijani" in 1918. Ethnic Azeri, or ethnic Azeri-Turk, or ethnic Azeri Tartar, yes. Meowy 20:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It could be written as estimates of casualties on both sides, but Muslim casualties are estimated in the range of 3,000 - 12,000, so they need to be mentioned separately. So you can say that some sources include casualties on both side into the figure of 3,000, usually referring to Shaumyan, but generally Muslim casualties are estimated as 3,000 - 12,000. The intro does not need to explain what was the reason for the conflict. If there are conflicting theories, they can be described in the main body of the article. The intro needs to explain what is called March days and what were the results of those events. As for Savage division, in fact, Russian government used military units composed of ethnic Azerbaijanis quite often. There was famous Karabakh regiment, consisting of Azerbaijanis from Karabakh, which distinguished itself in the war with the Ottoman empire. Russian poet Pushkin wrote about it. And Savage division did have an Azerbaijani regiment, I cited my source, if you have sources claiming otherwise, please cite them. As for the term Azerbaijani, it is used by academic sources to refer to Azerbaijani people before 1918. I cited many sources about that. Grandmaster (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, the references to Azerbaijani regiment in that paragraph comes from the book by Dr. Firuz Kazemzadeh, the author of "Struggle for Transcaucasia: 1917-1921", Professor Emeritus of History at Yale, and Former head of U.S. State Department's committee on Religious Freedoms. You may want to browse that very important book which provided impartial analysis of events in Caucasus between 1917 and 1921, endorsed and cited by other prominent researchers on the subject. And I doubt your POV coordinated with VartanM in attempt to erase any instance of "Azerbaijani" from Wikipedia isn't quite constructive and/or neutral, and will contribute to fuel another conflict along national lines. So assume good faith. Atabek (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And here is the source:

• Kazemzadeh, Firuz. "Struggle for Transcaucasia:1917-1921", New York Philosophical Library, 1951, p. 69: "On March 9, 1918, there arrived in Baku the staff of the Azerbaijani Savage Division". Atabek (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I have looked at Kazemzadeh's little book - but a long time ago, maybe 15 years. I remember finding it a juvenile work, extremely amateurish compared to Muratoff & Allen's work which contains, in parts, similar material. The introduction will need to be rewritten to remove the blatant POV that is currently within it. I think a RfA is appropriate for the "Azerbaijani" question. Meowy 21:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that you're not quite familiar with Kazemzadeh's works. Namely the fact that he was among the first to cite ANC official statistics about Armenian casualties during the liberation of Baku by Ottoman and Azeri troops in September 1918, unlike many other later authors who tended to use self-invented and rounded figures. His work cites a variety of material ranging from newspapers written during the time to extensive books and articles from Armenian, Georgian, Russian, Turkish and Azerbaijani sources. And it's not a little book, it's about 360+ pages, which isn't small for covering history of 4 years in a very small geographical region. Finally, before calling as amateurish the work of Professor of Emeritus of History from Yale, you should at least demonstrate having equal or better scholarly capability. Moreover, you should also read Kazemzadeh's reviews of works of George Bournoutian. I am not sure what POV in introduction you're talking about, when it summarizes numbers from a variety of sources. Atabek (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of Kazemzadeh's "Struggle for Transcaucasia" book, though it is, as I said, a long time since I read it - and it is a small book compared to the 600-odd pages of densly-packed text in "Caucasian Battlefields", the book that I was comparing it to. The latter book covers a much wider time-period and does not go into incidents involving the various local ethnicities to anything like the same depth as Kazemzadeh. However, at the points where both books are covering exactly the same topics, the limitations in Kazemzadeh's book does become clear. The literature available about Baku for this period seems quite plentyfull compared to that of other locations in the caucasus, so I don't think there will be much difficulty in finding neutral sources to counter the stream of Azerbaijani historiography that currently flows too freely through this article. Meowy 17:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Azerbaijani sources in this article do not exceed 1/10th, while there are several Armenian sources (Shaumian, Ishkhanian, Tchalkhouchian, etc.) incorporated in it. This comes in contrast with POV fork September Days started by Armenian contributor, which cites primarily Armenian sources only. So I am not sure what exactly you're challenging as "stream of Azerbaijani historiography" questioning neutrality in this article, when you should be actually defending neutrality in September Days, if neutrality is truly your intention. I would agree for example, with removal of PJ Symes reference from this article, which seems to be amateurish blog, and was inserted just to force a flavor of Armenian POV. Without further discussion over irrelevant topics, I think provided a strong, specific and relevant reference to the usage of Azerbaijani with respect to regiment that arrived in Baku, we should remove the tag which you placed there. The reference is provided above. Atabek (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Musavat1917 Flag.gif

The image Image:Musavat1917 Flag.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Omission of Preceding Events

Baku proclaimed soviet power only 6 days after the victory of the Russian Revolution in Petrograd. The Musavat party took advantge of the Revolution to form its own "government." The nationalist counterrevolutionaries carried out forcible disarming of Russian troops and killed over 1000 Russians on a troop train who resisted this disarming. Organized attacks on Russians throughout Azerbaijan followed. At the end of February 1918, the Azerbaijani nationalist forces invaded Lenkoran and overthrew soviet power there.Kupredu (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)