This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
September Days article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Please cite any source that refers to these events as "September days". Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 10:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You can't dismiss every single source whose author has a last name ending with -yan or -ian as unreliable and partisan. You'd be hard pressed to find sources on this encyclopedia, used on FA articles even, that are completely non-partisan -- such a concept virtually doesn't exist. Either critique him for factual accuracy or something more germane to the argument of why he should be discounted or not at all. -- Marshal Bagramyan 19:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"However all third party sources mention both". -All? Many third party sources represented in this article (included Britannica) say nothing about March days! Andranikpasha 14:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
UPD- Is the Dadrian the only one? For example, a quotation from the Britannica Students Encyclopedia: "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". [1] Andranikpasha 16:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Its not a problem as Britannica received and published the article under its name and even without marking of the author. Its a Britannica SE article from their official site without even notification of Suny's name. PS- Grandmaster, any time when we marks about the critics by the intl scolars and so on, anyways sources needed! Maybe you know that sources but if you want to prove something, pls add that reliable sources for the discussions too! Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha 11:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but the Britannica Encyclopedia and Britannica Student Encyclopedia official site seems to be different sources... thanks for the quotation, at last! although its only one, not "plenty of" (note, cited by you from a Sakharov-fund publication:). What he is wrote: "the recent works by Ronald Suny ....(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): no Britannica is cited! Or do you think if one researcher (an American PhD) criticizes 2 works of another researcher (an American Prof.), its means all of his books, articles (even without his name on it) are not neutral?? Andranikpasha 12:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"It is the same Britannica article".- citation needed!! Anyways Smith didnt mark not Britannica's article, nor BSE's one. When BSE publishes an article without a name only BSE is responsible for it! You know when we make citations from encyclopedias (especially from Britannicas or Microsofts family), we never mark who is the author, as more important if the Encyclopedia accepted it. Andranikpasha 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC) PS.-It seems to be interesting to use Bonner's fund's publications (of a conference, also organized by her fund) as a reliable source in the time you're tring to call her pro-Armenian... Sorry I cant understand the principes you differ for yourself which one reference is OK and which one is not good enough! Andranikpasha 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it important if the texts are identical, if I referenced to another source "BSE" where authors are not marked? And is researcher (G. Melvyn Howe) pro-Armenian? And is even prof. Suny pro-Armenian? Pls prove! Andranikpasha 11:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Are the logics (or our opinion) a reliable source for Wiki? Pls prove by reliable sources that: "BSE"'s cited articles author is Suny? And is researcher G. Melvyn Howe signed the whole article in another source is pro-Armenian? And is even prof. Suny pro-Armenian (pls prove by a source!)? Andranikpasha 13:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
References
As there're also other non-partisan sources used Massacre for September Days tragedy, maybe to move this article to Baku Massacre, 1918 and put a redirect from the "September days"? Andranikpasha 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"We have previously discussed whether to create March massacre and September massacre articles, but finally settled on the existing titles". -So your question "Please cite any source that refers to these events as "September days"" is not actual now? I dont know if by Wiki rules we need a third party source related not only to the topic and "terms in the name" but to the "full name" of the article. In that case we must call this article Massacre of the Armenians, September 1918, Baku, and searching a term for "March days" (if such a term exitst)... Andranikpasha 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"There are plenty of sources refering to March events as a massacre." -see my answer below! Please add the quotations (like me) to discuss them. B/c at first you asked "all third party sources" when I make some quotations you change it to "plenty of sources". And what they are saying? Are they reliable or no? Andranikpasha 11:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
the only one, not "plenty of"... see below! Andranikpasha 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a talk list to discuss the topics and sources. Any additional Wikipedia article is not a reliable source! The discussion list is for represention of sources (to prove something you asked). When you want to prove something here its necessary to use sources not links to any Wiki article! Andranikpasha 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"said to belong"... see above! "cited Armenian National Council statement": its a partisan source! Andranikpasha 11:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"added tag per Andranikpasha's dispute of ANC/Kazemzadeh source, as well as per Dadrian, Suny and Kayaloff being non-neutral sources"- Atabek, please be more careful while using my name as a source to edit or editwarring different articles. I never disputted Kazemzadeh, as well as Dadrian,Suny and Kayaloff! No such a fact so its not true! Please check carefully and then add my name (despite I think in any case my behaviour and disputs are not common rules for Wiki as Im just a person, user). Once I disputed Armenian Nacional Council as its a partisan organization. Nothing more... Andranikpasha 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, Atabek, I asked that Armenian NC is a partisan organization. Thats fact! if Kazemzadeh, anyone else (even the most prominent researchers) use their numbers and citing them, its never mean I discusse all these reseachers. Its their right to use any sources and mark from where it is. Pls never write if I diputed anyone if its you "dispute Dadrian, Suny and Kayaloff, those are non-neutral references in this case". Ill not delete the POV tag as I hope you will justify why you're think they're not neutral in this case. The March Days mostly called Baku Revolt and Fightings (see the talk page- its a different article), and pls do not delete the terms of references and then discuss them (all these references call the events massacres not September Days and you didnt add any justifications and sources why these sources are not neutral). Andranikpasha 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, as we see, the March Days mostly referred as supprising of revolt and fightings between Bolsheviks and Mussavatists. Is it not better to use the most common name for an event? Andranikpasha 21:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"it is not known who initiated the fighting." anyways it is not so important for description (it can be used for History part). Fightings are fightings... Do you mean that the revolt iniciated by Bolsheviks? i think we must use more commonly used and sourced name for these events as the hronology (what followed to what) is a detail for background, pre-history, not a base for the name disputing. You say we cant use the term Baku Massacres for the both events but directly in the description of March Days you mark their another description as "genocide". Would I delete the term especially if the references are partisan, Azerbaijani sources? Andranikpasha 11:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Two sections are based only on the primary sources:"Local testimony" and "Austrian testimony". They must be improved so I put the tags. -- Quantum666 ( talk) 08:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I just copied this from the article's text. Follow its logic and it becomes clear that March Days had little if anything to do with the September massacre: "A terrible panic in Baku ensued once the Turks entered the city.The Armenians crowded the harbor in a frantic effort to escape the fate that they knew always accompanied a Muslim victory.[10] Regular Ottoman troops were not allowed to enter the city for two days, so that the local irregulars – bashibozuks – would conduct looting and pillaging, a practice in accordance with Muslim tradition for cities that resisted.[2][10] Despite this order, regular Ottoman troops participated alongside the irregulars and the Azeris of Baku in the plundering, who then turned their fury against the city's Armenian population." Sprutt ( talk) 01:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
They succeeded in compelling the small British force which was in Baku to evacuate that town on 15th September, 1918, and a two days' massacre of Armenians followed, as a reprisal for the Armenian massacre of Tartars in March, 1918.
okay 172.58.171.81 ( talk) 13:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
September Days article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Please cite any source that refers to these events as "September days". Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 10:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You can't dismiss every single source whose author has a last name ending with -yan or -ian as unreliable and partisan. You'd be hard pressed to find sources on this encyclopedia, used on FA articles even, that are completely non-partisan -- such a concept virtually doesn't exist. Either critique him for factual accuracy or something more germane to the argument of why he should be discounted or not at all. -- Marshal Bagramyan 19:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"However all third party sources mention both". -All? Many third party sources represented in this article (included Britannica) say nothing about March days! Andranikpasha 14:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
UPD- Is the Dadrian the only one? For example, a quotation from the Britannica Students Encyclopedia: "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". [1] Andranikpasha 16:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Its not a problem as Britannica received and published the article under its name and even without marking of the author. Its a Britannica SE article from their official site without even notification of Suny's name. PS- Grandmaster, any time when we marks about the critics by the intl scolars and so on, anyways sources needed! Maybe you know that sources but if you want to prove something, pls add that reliable sources for the discussions too! Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha 11:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but the Britannica Encyclopedia and Britannica Student Encyclopedia official site seems to be different sources... thanks for the quotation, at last! although its only one, not "plenty of" (note, cited by you from a Sakharov-fund publication:). What he is wrote: "the recent works by Ronald Suny ....(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): no Britannica is cited! Or do you think if one researcher (an American PhD) criticizes 2 works of another researcher (an American Prof.), its means all of his books, articles (even without his name on it) are not neutral?? Andranikpasha 12:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"It is the same Britannica article".- citation needed!! Anyways Smith didnt mark not Britannica's article, nor BSE's one. When BSE publishes an article without a name only BSE is responsible for it! You know when we make citations from encyclopedias (especially from Britannicas or Microsofts family), we never mark who is the author, as more important if the Encyclopedia accepted it. Andranikpasha 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC) PS.-It seems to be interesting to use Bonner's fund's publications (of a conference, also organized by her fund) as a reliable source in the time you're tring to call her pro-Armenian... Sorry I cant understand the principes you differ for yourself which one reference is OK and which one is not good enough! Andranikpasha 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it important if the texts are identical, if I referenced to another source "BSE" where authors are not marked? And is researcher (G. Melvyn Howe) pro-Armenian? And is even prof. Suny pro-Armenian? Pls prove! Andranikpasha 11:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Are the logics (or our opinion) a reliable source for Wiki? Pls prove by reliable sources that: "BSE"'s cited articles author is Suny? And is researcher G. Melvyn Howe signed the whole article in another source is pro-Armenian? And is even prof. Suny pro-Armenian (pls prove by a source!)? Andranikpasha 13:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
References
As there're also other non-partisan sources used Massacre for September Days tragedy, maybe to move this article to Baku Massacre, 1918 and put a redirect from the "September days"? Andranikpasha 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"We have previously discussed whether to create March massacre and September massacre articles, but finally settled on the existing titles". -So your question "Please cite any source that refers to these events as "September days"" is not actual now? I dont know if by Wiki rules we need a third party source related not only to the topic and "terms in the name" but to the "full name" of the article. In that case we must call this article Massacre of the Armenians, September 1918, Baku, and searching a term for "March days" (if such a term exitst)... Andranikpasha 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"There are plenty of sources refering to March events as a massacre." -see my answer below! Please add the quotations (like me) to discuss them. B/c at first you asked "all third party sources" when I make some quotations you change it to "plenty of sources". And what they are saying? Are they reliable or no? Andranikpasha 11:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
the only one, not "plenty of"... see below! Andranikpasha 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a talk list to discuss the topics and sources. Any additional Wikipedia article is not a reliable source! The discussion list is for represention of sources (to prove something you asked). When you want to prove something here its necessary to use sources not links to any Wiki article! Andranikpasha 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"said to belong"... see above! "cited Armenian National Council statement": its a partisan source! Andranikpasha 11:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"added tag per Andranikpasha's dispute of ANC/Kazemzadeh source, as well as per Dadrian, Suny and Kayaloff being non-neutral sources"- Atabek, please be more careful while using my name as a source to edit or editwarring different articles. I never disputted Kazemzadeh, as well as Dadrian,Suny and Kayaloff! No such a fact so its not true! Please check carefully and then add my name (despite I think in any case my behaviour and disputs are not common rules for Wiki as Im just a person, user). Once I disputed Armenian Nacional Council as its a partisan organization. Nothing more... Andranikpasha 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, Atabek, I asked that Armenian NC is a partisan organization. Thats fact! if Kazemzadeh, anyone else (even the most prominent researchers) use their numbers and citing them, its never mean I discusse all these reseachers. Its their right to use any sources and mark from where it is. Pls never write if I diputed anyone if its you "dispute Dadrian, Suny and Kayaloff, those are non-neutral references in this case". Ill not delete the POV tag as I hope you will justify why you're think they're not neutral in this case. The March Days mostly called Baku Revolt and Fightings (see the talk page- its a different article), and pls do not delete the terms of references and then discuss them (all these references call the events massacres not September Days and you didnt add any justifications and sources why these sources are not neutral). Andranikpasha 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, as we see, the March Days mostly referred as supprising of revolt and fightings between Bolsheviks and Mussavatists. Is it not better to use the most common name for an event? Andranikpasha 21:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"it is not known who initiated the fighting." anyways it is not so important for description (it can be used for History part). Fightings are fightings... Do you mean that the revolt iniciated by Bolsheviks? i think we must use more commonly used and sourced name for these events as the hronology (what followed to what) is a detail for background, pre-history, not a base for the name disputing. You say we cant use the term Baku Massacres for the both events but directly in the description of March Days you mark their another description as "genocide". Would I delete the term especially if the references are partisan, Azerbaijani sources? Andranikpasha 11:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Two sections are based only on the primary sources:"Local testimony" and "Austrian testimony". They must be improved so I put the tags. -- Quantum666 ( talk) 08:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I just copied this from the article's text. Follow its logic and it becomes clear that March Days had little if anything to do with the September massacre: "A terrible panic in Baku ensued once the Turks entered the city.The Armenians crowded the harbor in a frantic effort to escape the fate that they knew always accompanied a Muslim victory.[10] Regular Ottoman troops were not allowed to enter the city for two days, so that the local irregulars – bashibozuks – would conduct looting and pillaging, a practice in accordance with Muslim tradition for cities that resisted.[2][10] Despite this order, regular Ottoman troops participated alongside the irregulars and the Azeris of Baku in the plundering, who then turned their fury against the city's Armenian population." Sprutt ( talk) 01:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
They succeeded in compelling the small British force which was in Baku to evacuate that town on 15th September, 1918, and a two days' massacre of Armenians followed, as a reprisal for the Armenian massacre of Tartars in March, 1918.
okay 172.58.171.81 ( talk) 13:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)