Talk:Armenian Revolutionary Federation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Missing section: Russia

For an organization established in Russia, by the way Tiflis in 1892 was within Russian boarders, there is no information about the activities until the establishment of Democratic Republic of Armenia. I was hoping there would be a section devoted to that period. But I guess clamp down on Armenian activities (1903) did not effect the ARF !--OttomanReference 05:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done and OttomanReference, when you make a big edit, do not put MINOR edit, it does not make sense when you add a section and put minor for the edit...lol. And please be a little civil on your sarcastic accusative comments. Fedayee 08:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

I see no outstanding problems with the article -- a lot of hard work has obviously been done here.

As far as I can tell with my limited knowledge, the article meats all GA criterias. The only one I can not be sure of, is whether it covers all important aspects and is completely neutral and unbiased. To ensure that, I recommend a peer review.

Fred-Chess 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Nice job everyone especially Fedayee. Next stop: Featured article :) -- Davo88 01:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Specially Fedayee. OttomanReference 03:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

Do we need to start NK transferred/left discussion all over again? Why cannot we choose some neutral wording? Grandmaster 13:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me how on earth did you decide that without settling the qustion in the NK article you can impose your version here?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can ask the same question to you. Why you decided to introduce your version of events, when there are conflicting views on the issue even among pro-Armenian sources. I don’t insist on my version, as long as we can find a compromise wording. Grandmaster 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't written a single word in this article. I merely reverted your additions based on my recollection that the discussion on the NK page is still ongoing. Have you noticed that you designate all non-Armenian sources that don't agree with your pov as pro-Armenian? Somewhat provocative if you ask me.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember I labelled only Walker as such, and it is not just my opinion. I have sources on that. The discussion on NK page with regard to that issue finished, the article on NK has a compromise wording, and so should this one, in my opinion. Grandmaster 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the discussion in the NK page but I don't see how the CIA site could not be trusted or be wrong about it. The CIA is more notable than other sources. It wasn't even me who wrote about it or added the source...it was there and sourced when I first read the article. In any case, it is true that Moscow officially handed NK to Azerbaijan to please Turkish authorities, so that Turkey would turn to communism. - Fedayee 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the Kavburo resolution. And I presented 3 sources stating that NK was left in Azerbaijan, and not transfered. I suggest to use compromise wording to end the dispute, as it will grow much bigger and involve many people. Grandmaster 07:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop it!!!

Stop spreading edit wars to this article. The CIA is as credible as it gets and that version will be the one included. The CIA itself works on intelligence who multiple sources so what it says is most probably the truth. Why else would the population be 90% Armenian at the time yet be under Azeri control? It was handed, stop these edit wars when the issue has been talked over a thousand times in the NKR article. And that addition by Dacy was nothign but vandalism to purposely de-stabilize the article. Stop this nonsense. - Fedayee 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My reference goes to Armenian scholar. It is well-known fact - I mean terrorist activity of ARF - you can find it in works of other Armenian scholars, for example, G.Libaridian. So, don't throw accusation. I remain civil.--Dacy69 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the party, not the view of an Armenian that is all of a sudden accepted as scholar because it suits Azeri POV. I guess all those other people against Azeri POV are not notable at all. I guess the CIA are mindless idiots who gather false intelligence. I have already stated that they possibly participated in assassinations, I have mentioned that there are claims of ties to JCAG (a known guerrilla organ operating vis-a-vis of ASALA). Let the reader judge for himself if these are acts of terrorism. We do not need to feed them what some scholar thinks of its actions as. You should very well know the saying: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Stop disrupting this article. - Fedayee 03:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For you every scholar is idiot, if it does no match your POV. I told you it is not one scholar - several. And what Papazian is actually saying is that about ARF revolutionary activity - let's exactly a reader judge - what was it - freedom fight or terrorism. I give facts - well-known facts--Dacy69 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It takes a little satisfaction for some POV pushers to use Papazian to support a point. You have no knowledge of what you are talking about so it is best for you to come clean and stop this revert war. In the 30s, a war of world has engaged between the Dashnaks and Armenian bolshevists. Papazian work from the first pages makes it clear on the purpouses of the work itself. While in the 30s Armenian intellectuals in the West have started publishing pressures requesting the intervention of the West and the revival of the possible reinsertion of Armenia back on the table for a possible liberation and respect of the allied promesses after the war. (See Turkey reference to Montreux convention and its blockage to it) As a result Bolshevic Armenians with co-authoring gimmiks have published works having attacked the ARF and claiming Bolshevism to be the only way Armenia has been liberated.

On p. 55, this is what Papazian writes.

"The patent criticism leveled by the Dashnagtzoutune at the present Soviet Armenia is that, it is not independent, and it is a communistic and not a national government. These criticisms have no ground to stand on. The Dashnags themselves, while they were at the helm, tried to place Armenia under the protection of some great Power -- the United States for one -- through the League of Nations. The mandate of any great Power, if it had materialized, would have meant a limitation of Armenian independence.

Armenia has now secured its political existence, not by accepting the mandate of a great Power, but by joining hands, as one of the federated republics, with the great commonwealth of nations known as the Soviet Union."

Papazian answer, with the book was during his time a current event, an answer to Western Armenian intellectuals who were trying in the 30s to bring back the independent Armenia from ashes.

So stop edit warring; and you are hardly convincing in your pretention that this is about removing sources, as Papazian work is known and recorded to be a bolshevic propaganda, the worst way the Bolshevics have found to vilify in the 30s. Fad (ix) 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And what about Libaridian and other works. Of course, it is also "propaganda", in your view.--Dacy69 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't have a clue of what the hell you're talking about. What I know though, is that you have no idea of Armenian history, beside your stupid: "Hit on them," and your intellectual masturbation, to make it sound as if you are simply adding sources. Don't push me to retaliate, because we both know that there is hardly any single Azeri article which is not tainted and that between both uf us, you're the one who has most to lose. But if you think you can outsmart me, go ahead be my guest. Fad (ix) 17:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to know anything about the ARF and Armenian history beyond what I read in this article, but I would still like to make a few comments:

Though I am really impressed by the work that has been done on this article, I am going to have to side with Dacy69 to a certain extent here. There are still some POV issues in this article, as it is pro-ARF and pro-Armenian. And if there are notable sources calling the ARF terrorists then that should be mentionened in the article, even if they are only propaganda or whatever, that way the reader can in fact decide whether they are in fact freedom fighters or terrorists. Again, I don't claim to know whether or not these sources are in fact notable, but if they are their view should be mentioned per WP:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."--Carabinieri 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carabinieri, aside from POV issues, Dacy69 intrusion has nothing to do with this. I don’t care about ARF, like all other political affiliations like the Hinshaks or Ramgavars. What I can comment on, is that Dacy69 has copypasted the stuff he found from the web, when he didn’t even know the material he has pasted. If he had the book written by Papazian, it would be even worst, because he would have quoted en connaissance de cause, which would mean that he would have used a bogus material knowingly. The work in question has not been criticised in a positive way by the academia in the time. Not only among Armenians. George F. Gracey critic of the work is one such example (published in International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1931-1939) Vol. 14, No. 4 (Jul., 1935), pp. 584-586).

Coming to the terrorist word, the modern concept of terrorist/terrorism was used first in 1947. A work published in 1934 can not support the usage of a word, when the modern notion did not exist. Beside, like I have said, Dacy69 has no knowledge of the ARF, his purposes here is simply introducing such bogus sources he fished from dubious sites. If you pay attention to the quotation from the work I have provided. The work claims that an Independent Armenia would not have been free, while a Soviet Armenian IS free. Without knowing the Armenian situation of the 30s, one can not post such a quote there.

Here a historic for you. In the 30s, Armenian intellectuals highly supported by the ARF have brought back “The republic of Armenia” to be discussed. It was very harshly answered by Bolshevic Armenians in the press.

In this context, Papazian write in that work.

The patent criticism leveled by the Dashnagtzoutune at the present Soviet Armenia is that, it is not independent, and it is a communistic and not a national government. These criticisms have no ground to stand on. The Dashnags themselves, while they were at the helm, tried to place Armenia under the protection of some great Power -- the United States for one -- through the League of Nations. The mandate of any great Power, if it had materialized, would have meant a limitation of Armenian independence.

Armenia has now secured its political existence, not by accepting the mandate of a great Power, but by joining hands, as one of the federated republics, with the great commonwealth of nations known as the Soviet Union.

It failed, at the end of the 30s, with the threats of the World war, the negotiations stopped, on such threats; Armenians have turned from the request for an independent Armenia, to the request on Western Armenia which was since the Treaty of Lausanne attached to Turkey. Armenia requested to the center government of the URSS for a representation, Georgia jumped in too. It was waited until 1945, when the world war ended, and the claim was officially submitted and rejected on May 30, 1953 (see: A Calendar of Soviet Treaties, 1917-1957 by Robert M. Slusser, Jan F. Triska; Stanford University Press, 1959 p. 298) on the basis of the Montreux convention.

There is a long history of word wars, between two Armenian factions in the press, which ended up in the 50s, and in a lesser extend in the 60s. Papazian was a Bolshevic Armenian, Darounian himself engaged on such war himself with his works. Yeh, the famous author who also accused members of the US government during WII with collaboration with the NAZI.

While I have engaged in Armeno/Azeri historic stuff there, I can confirm that my knowledge of Western Armenian in comparaison to Eastern Armenians is on the ratio of about 5:1, while Dacy obvious has very little knowledge of Eastern Armenians, and NO knowledge of Western Armenians.

The edits now about Nagorno Karabakh, this is also one other example. Do you side with Dacy there too? In all fairness, how am I supposed to assume good faith there? Check the diff. This article is about the ARF, and things are written this in mind. The section of Nagorno-Karabakh is not about the history of NK, when it was established, but rather the role of the ARF in connection to the NK. Which means, that even in the NK, the subject is the ARF. So OBVIOUSLY, the article has to start with the ARF xyz in NK. But Azeri users, concerned with every single Armenian related article, would be using this article too with such an edit on the purposes of giving this impression: “Remember it was established in the Azerbaijan SSR” and this PASSING before the business that the ARF had to do in NK. Fad (ix) 18:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed going along with what Carabineri said, I would like to provide at least one reference, which should be reflected on this page:

By the late 1970s, the diaspora and Soviet Armenia achieved a modus vivendi in their relations. With communism in the Armenian SSR becoming more and more tolerable to diaspora (in part because after 1965, the Soviets allowed commemorations of the genocide), and with a new generation of diasporic Armenians demanding greater militancy in the struggle for genocide recognition, the Dashnaks shelved their anti-Soviet orientation and entered a new phase in their national crusade. Armenian terrorism (primarily against Turkish targets) won international attention for their cause and helped to rally the diaspora to demand international recognition of the genocide, albeit mostly via diplomatic efforts (Yossi Shain, Aharon Barth, "Diasporas and International Relations Theory", International Organization, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Summer, 2003), p. 468). One scholar notes that "the true audience of Armenian terrorism [was not Turkey and its NATO allies but] the Armenian diaspora, whose fraying culture is constituted to a remarkable degree by old stories" (Khachig Tololyan, "Cultural Narrative and the Motivation of the Terrorist", Journal of Strategic Studies, 10(4), 1987, pp. 217-233 as cited by Yossi Shain and Aharon Barth above). Atabek 18:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the reference about ARF, ASALA was a recognized terrorist organization. The terrorist acts were comitted by ASALA which has its own article. Where are the quotes about ARF and terrorism. Fad (ix) 18:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's highlighted right above: Dashnaks shelved their anti-Soviet orientation and entered a new phase in their national crusade, preceded by sentence on militancy and followed by the sentence on terrorism, which falls right into the context. I will bring other quotes in a few. Thanks. Atabek 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The link between the two phrases is yours. The authors are making a historic of what happened in the 70s. The Tashnak were anti-Soviet, where are the Soviet targets? What you are doing is called distortion. Fad (ix) 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote above is a whole paragraph from the article by Yossi Shain and Aharon Barth, without omissions in between. So the sentences are brought exactly in the order listed in the publication. Please, read the article, before making presumptions. Thanks. Atabek 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote comes from a resumé of the events in the 70s, and from a section regarding the Diaspora. The Armenian terrorism allude to ASALA, "their" refers to the Diaspora. Stop insulting readers intelligence. Fad (ix) 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Some refreshment on English might be helpful: Dashnaks shelved their anti-Soviet orientation and entered a new phase in their national crusade. Clearly your objective is to object to any evidence provided, hence I have no interest of arguing further, the quote is presented in its entirety, so I will let the audience input their opinions. Atabek 20:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have that paper you cite.

You are for sure distorting it. It only takes to post the paragraph preceding and the one following the one you have pasted, to see that my interpretation is the correct one.

Within the Soviet Union, a semi-autonomous Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic ASSR was created on onesixth of the territory of historic Armenia. With time, the ASSR developed into the most homogeneous of all the Soviet republics. With the city of Yerevan emerging as the Armenians’ “cultural center of national identity,” ASSR leaders claimed to speak for the “authentic homeland” and the Armenian people as a whole. This claim was not readily accepted by segments of the diaspora, especially by Dashnaks who rejected the Soviet Armenian regime. Yet even the Dashnaks had to accept the fact that Soviet Armenia was a homeland base, however truncated, and had to adjust themselves to Moscow’s domination. The exiled Dashnaks also faced the strong desire of other genocide survivors to keep the Armenian people unified despite their divisions and dispersion. Soviet propaganda manipulated the ASSR, as the source of Armenian national pride and peoplehood, in mobilizing diasporic financial assistance. Recognizing that Armenian independence was a distant dream while diasporic life would be long lasting, diaspora activists shifted to an emphasis on identity retention focusing primarily on the memory of the genocide ‘over-here’ in the diaspora at the expense of national aspirations ‘over-there’ in the ASSR. Assimilation and the fading memory of the genocide were seen as the “white massacre,” while “knowing Armenian and some rudimentary facts about Armenian history became the new license to diasporic leadership.”

By the late 1970s, the diaspora and Soviet Armenia achieved a modus Vivendi in their relations. With communism in the ASSR becoming more and more tolerable to the diaspora in part because after 1965, the Soviets allowed commemorations of the genocide, and with a new generation of diasporic Armenians demanding greater militancy in the struggle for genocide recognition, the Dashnaks shelved their anti-Soviet orientation and entered a new phase in their national crusade. Armenian terrorism primarily against Turkish targets won international attention for their cause and helped to rally the diaspora to demand international recognition of the genocide, albeit mostly via diplomatic efforts. One scholar notes that “the true audience of Armenian terrorism was not Turkey and its NATO allies but the Armenian Diaspora, whose fraying culture is constituted to a remarkable degree by old stories.”

In the two largest Western centers of Armenian diaspora—the United States more than a million and France roughly 500,000—activists focused their efforts on keeping and spreading the memory of the genocide, in the face of Turkey’s refusal to take responsibility for the atrocities or even to admit they ever happened. Because 80 percent of diasporic Armenians were descendants of genocide survivors, the memory of this atrocity became the most important vehicle with which to trigger a national identity dynamic. The Armenian Church also provided an institutional structure for group cohesiveness and ethnic mobilization. Tens of millions of dollars were raised to sustain Armenian day schools, churches, and other institutions in their efforts to nourish a viable diaspora. Millions were also channelled to family members in the ASSR, especially during the 1988 Armenian earthquake.

The CAUSE in question has nothing to do with terrorism. The authors note that the terrorist activities gave an international coverage of the Dashnak backed diaspora’s cause. Nowhere in this article by its entirety, does it say ANYWHERE that the Dashnaks committed acts of terrorism. The ASALA committed such acts, and those acts did have a huge media attention, in that the Armenian causes was then known in the press. I am sure that you are enough intelligent to know that it has nothing to do with what you are alluding to. The article itself is a very good text to read, and I agree with the authors 100%, an article which is very well researched. ALSO, the authors are also VERY SYMPATHIC to the Dashnaks, and you should be very well aware of it since you viewed yourself the text in question. Now if please you could stop distorting and stop wasting my time with this. It will be fine. Dashnak has nothing to do with ASALA. The Dashnaks even harshly slandered the ASALA, even with various memorandums. Fad (ix) 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, I am glad you recited the paragraph I brought above, including the much argued relation of the sentence about Dashnaks to rest of the text, which quite fits the context of terrorism. About your comment, the cause and activity are two different things. For instance, Nazi's cause was the national socialism, while their deed was the World War II and the Holocaust. Yet another reference, more direct and from Armenian source:

President of Armenia L.Ter-Petrossian suspended the activities of the "Dashnaktsutyun", having accused it of maintaining within this Party a secret terrorist service "DRO", involved in international drug business and illegal economic activities (Suren Manukian, "Республика Армения: органы власти, хроника событий, политические организации, биографии", Moscow, Panorama, 2000, p. 95)

Besides this many moderate Diaspora Armenians do admit that ARF has rather radical and terrorist agenda. Not to mention that leading members of ASALA were members of ARF. If you really have doubts about this one, I would suggest you to read the famous book by brother of Monte Melkonian. Thanks. Atabek 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You are interpreting. Aliev was accused of drug trafiking, a leader of a mafia group, the party which established the first Azerbaijan republic has a militia unite called the "Savage Division," its members had a close role in the establishement of the first nationalistic Azeri SRR government. They all have a much worst recorded history than the ARF which has an established long history. Fitting the context of terrorism is an interpretation. The term "terrorism" has already been discussed on various articles like in regards to the PKK and there is an overal concensus on its uses in articles. Go ask Francis and many other administrators and see what they will answer. You are wasting my time. Fad (ix) 22:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The stuff above on Aliyev, "Savage Division" or PKK is irrelevant. There is sufficient bipartisan and objective information with references provided by myself and others on relevant Wiki pages about the first Azerbaijani government and the party that established it.

We are discussing the activity of a completely different medium, ARF, so stick to the topic and provide counter arguments on the activity of the party independent of POV attacks. I am sorry, but yet again I will have to ignore your repeated "you are wasting my time" statement. First of all, this is a public discussion page, and I am not aware of your ownership of this or any other Wikipedia page. Secondly, I am here to contribute to discussion on ARF and its activity, and if people, while responding, consider their time wasted, it's not really problem of myself or any of the readers. That's the reason why this is called a "Talk Page". For the rest, follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. I, for one, will simply ignore any future comments like those mentioned. Thanks.Atabek 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

LOOK!!! The usage of the term terrorism has been discussed in various other articles, a concensus on its usage was attempted to be reached. The ARF in an organization, which has among them various members and adherents. We don't call Turks terrorist because of the murderers of Dink. The comparaison with the articles was not made by me by many users, including Turks, Greeks, Kurds, Georgians, Russians etc., and various administrators. THERE IS A CONCENSUS on its uses and you are breaching it. And there is no one you gonna convince me that by throwing the foundation of the NKO at the lead of NK, you were turly doing this for accuracy, neither by adding some quote you fished from a racist site like tallarmeniantale.com you were acting in good fate. Ganging with other members and by meatpuppeting you won't achieve anything. If you pay attention Albanian-Udi, check the decision taken. Fad (ix) 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, we don't call Armenians as war criminals because of what some of them did in Khojaly either. This is really out of topic here, as is Albanian-Udi as are many other topics, which are irrelevant. Please, fall into line of ARF-related arguments only, or be ignored. Thanks. Atabek 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Noone is saying the article should call the ARF terrorists, this discussion is about whether the voices that do call the ARF this are notable enough to be mentioned. While that paper quoted above does seem to imply the accusation that the Dashnaks committed terrorist acts, that is hardly enough for a mentioning in the article IMHO.--Carabinieri 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Carabineri, more references will be provided in this regard in coming days. Thanks. Atabek 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Carabinieri, the article doesn't imply that. It says that the terrorist acts helped the ARF in their cause. If you want me to email you the article, I will. The article in detail covers the cause in question, which was about awaken the Armenian causes and get media attention. This media attention was obtained by the terrorist acts commited by the ASALA. Say that someone is on a waiting list for treatment, and that the person before him get killed, the killing helped the one following to get the treatment more quickly, it doesn't mean he killed the other guy. The other comment by Atabek about Ter-petrossian just show that Atabek didn't even read the article, since the article covers it. Fad (ix) 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to be part of this discussion. However, Is there a terrorist organization which performed "terrorist acts" in the name of doing "terrorist acts"? Isn't that all terrorist organizations that do "terrorist acts" because "it helps their cause"? OttomanReference 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, you must be pretty damn gullible or just plain blind to believe the horse manure that Dashnak members were actually conspiring to kill members of the Ter-Petrosyan cabinet in 1994. Ter-Petrosyan's government was wallowing with low public opinion ratings and they knew that ANM members were going to be unseated by the Dashnaks. Not even Libaridian, the guy who presented the evidence against them, believed they were guilty. It was obviously to prevent them from gaining the seats and you're honestly using nonsense as proof that the ARF has connections to terrorism? --MarshallBagramyan 00:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Marshal Bagramyan, please, keep your personal attack such as "you must be pretty damn gullible or just plain blind". You have been warned! Now, the opinion about Ter-Petrosyan's reason for Dashnak's closure is not mine it's quoted from Suren Manukian as indicated. Thanks. Atabek 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Suren Manukyan is wrong. When you have the main person involved in preparing the evidence against them, a historian and special cabinet adviser to the President, doubting the veracity of the same documents he introduced and casually admitting that they could have been embellished, then that casts a doubt into their prosecution and essentially exonerates them.--MarshallBagramyan 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

papazian work

Information about ARF activity in Russian Empire should be restored. It is well-known information. Previous comments and insults by Fadix are just self-explanatory to show bias and desire to clean up. It is also unsubstantiated claim that Papazian work was pro-Bolshevik. His work was published in Boston in 1934. --Dacy69 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good try, most Armenian users involved on Wikipedia involved with such threads know pretty much well how I don't have any political, either ideological affiliations, nor like any sort of "ism" be it Dashnakism or what have you. Accusations of biases is clearly against assume good faith, but much like the slanders I have recieved fro your compatriotes I won't lower myself to some levels by reporting members just to shut them. Papazian was a known adherent to Bolshevism, the quote I have provided was one example, from the cover to cover allusions on how Bolshevism has liberated Armenia and how a real democratic Armenia would not have been free. But again, do push your accusations of biases and my alleged protecting of the "Dashnaks." Neither had I any interest to even participate in this article nor such group involved articles, which are too much ideological driven for my rational mind. But that you have here to brought an edit war and dragged a member (Ferdayee) who was minding his own business creating an article, into a revert war and worthed his first ever block, say much of your purpouses on jumping in, in an articles which subject you totally ignore about. You are obviously out of your league. Anyway, you've got interested me in contributing on Heider Aliev article. Which I will be doing as soon as possible. Fad (ix) 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, nothing can be restored because of you and I would like to congratulate you on successfully stopping a good article like this one. And did you not read the essay Fadix composed so you at least get some info on modern Armenian history (which you obviously lack). What does it matter that it was published in Boston? (which I don't even know if it's true) There were bolshevik minded Armenians outside the USSR just like there are Armenian communists right now (see Bob Avakian, chairman of the USA's communist party). Read the history Fadix showed you and stop playing dumb. And about the much earlier quote by you that "this is not a battleground, wiki does not need "fidayins"" yess true, we all know what happened last time fedayees stepped on the battleground against the Azeri army ;) - Fedayee 02:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ARF activity is covered not only by Papazian but by other, including Armenian authors. You can't win arguments by insults and threats. About fidayee - yes, I've seen what they reached in Turkey when stirred a situation.--Dacy69 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What insults and threats?? You told me that wiki does not need fidayins implying I was acting as if this was a battlefield when you have been negatively assaulting and affecting 3+ Armenian articles. I commented on Nagorno-Karabakh war, not a genocide. Please do not start with the Armenian Genocide topic, what you said right now is clearly genocidal. Stop your pan-turkism as well. - Fedayee 22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is you who raised the issue of Armenian-Azerbaijani war. Don't accuse me of pan-turkism - in my comments there is nothing about that. And watch your language - see above. I see no reason to continue arguments with users like you and Fadix, who just insults opponents. I am filing complain to Arbitration. --Dacy69 17:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Some statements from prominent ARF member

Below are the statements from Vahan Hovanesyan, ARF member and Deputy Speaker of Armenian parliament, which not only reveal the terrorist but also plainly fascistic and intolerant nature of this leading ARF politician. Quotes are from interview of Vahan Hovanesyan to Armenian Russian-language newspaper "Novoye Vremya", published on March 16, 2004:

- "I am proud that in the Karabakh war we killed 25,000 Azeris and only 5,000 Armenians were killed"

- "I am proud that in 1915 my people resisted the Turks and Kurds, who were carrying out genocide, and while dying took such a big number of enemies with them that till today they say that representatives of their peoples were also killed."

- "I am proud of those Dashnak teams which in 1918 in Baku did not let another genocide be carried out." (pride of Dashnak participation in March massacres in Baku, when 12,000 Azeris were slaughtered).

- "if we do not complain about the behaviour of Azeris, ordinary people or the elite, in that case there are no factors to prevent Karabakh being within Azerbaijan"

Do we need more evidence? Cheers. Atabek 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this all you could provide? Full text of the interview? Actually, Its Baku today translation, I want to see the original of that, and don’t ask us to check, it is actually to you to post it.

Here is why I doubt the translation is accurate.

"I am proud that in the Karabakh war we killed 25,000 Azeris and only 5,000 Armenians were killed"

If he has used the qualifier “we” in one side, and no they on the other, there is a logical fluency problem.

Either it was:

"I am proud that in the Karabakh war we killed 25,000 Azeris and they have killed only 5,000 Armenians."

Or it was:

"I am proud that in the Karabakh war 25,000 Azeris were killed and only 5,000 Armenians were killed."

Or, it could have been.

"I am happy that in the Karabakh war 25,000 Azeris were killed and only 5,000 Armenians were killed."

Or, better yet, in this sense.

"I am happy that in the Karabakh war 25,000 Azeris died while only 5,000 Armenians have died."

The third quote with the parenthesis you have added. The only official investigation in British records talk about 2,000, and even pro Azeri authors either use 3,000 or 3,500. This has already been discussed. The Dashnaks were able to keep the front in Baku, against the penetration of the Turkish army, this is a recorded history, and once they have penetrated, there was at the very least the double of the numbers of Armenians killed than Tartars previously. German records on the preparation of the Armenian massacres in Baku abound. The rest of the quotes are of no relevancy. If you have better material, go ahead, if not stop it. Fad (ix) 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How exactly are individual members of the Dashnak Party representative of the views of the Party itself? There are many stupid things Democrats or Republicans say which are clearly out of line with the Party's stance but do we hold them synonymous because its a minority view?

As far as I have been able to count, Dacy's (and yours to Atabek) pernicious POV edits have spread to at least 3 Armenian-related articles where administrators have been forced to lock them due to disputes with the apparently sole aim of tarnishing the individual or the topic in the article, one way or another. This is hardly the way Wikipedia works. I suggest you guys re-read 5 pillars of Wikipedia once more and then return back. This is hardly constructive and your edits have hardly enriched the articles themselves. --MarshallBagramyan 02:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice try [1]. I'm sure Bakutoday is veryyyyyyy unbiased about Armenians. I'm sure all your news agencies post real and unbiased news too such as denying a sniper death of an Armenian officer [2] or this one a week or 2 ago [3] (how did they die then? friendly sniper fire? lol) or i like this one alot [4] (pure azeri propoganda, something you are trying to promote here in wikipedia, possibly doing a favour for your azeri government?) BESIDES, even if those comments by Hovanessian (not Hovanesyan) were true how does that define what the party stands for? What terrorism are you talking about? That the Armenian successfully won the Nagorno-Karabakh war? That they tried their best to resist/stop genocides? (inflated azeri numbers btw) And what do these comments have to do with the development of this article? How can someone assume good faith out of all this. Adn your comments on Ter-petrossian thing CLEARLY shows you have a)not read the article b) dont give a rat's ass but to vilify it. It is mentioned in the article (read MarshallBargramyan's comments on ter-petrossian-ARF related incident) and it is also mentioned in the article that they have sometimes been linked to JCAG (despite no proof that they are the same). Dashnak and ASALA have NOTHING to do w/ each other, they never saw eye-to-eye, Dashnak is primarily nationalist while ASALA is leninist...the same Leninists who threw the ARF out of Armenia in 1920. Read ASALA article to learn more about them. - Fedayee 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ASALA's and ARF's views greatly differ, even in the most elemental things. For example, ASALA supported the unification of Eastern and Western Armenia as part of the Soviet Union, as opposed to the ARF that supported a "Free, Independent, and United Armenia". -- Davo88 02:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not Bakutoday but Novoye Vremya, Armenian newspaper, that published the original interview. You can scroll the link that you provided from Bakutoday to see the full text of interview. If you don't trust Bakutoday, you're welcome to find the same article on Lexis-Nexis or another archive database. And you're telling me that opinion by ARF leader, who became a Deputy Speaker of Armenian parliament based on party's position in Armenian politics, do not reflect the party's stance? Well, then we should have seen at least public rejection of the hatemongering comments by ARF press release, which is nowhere to be found.Atabek 11:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is still an opinion, it does not dictate the party's stance. He openly says "I feel proud"...it's his own feelings and emotions, it is a personal interview and not an interview on the part of the party. If I recall correctly, when the Azeri soldier Ramil Safarov AXED Gurgen Markaryan in his sleep, he got alot of praise by various officials in Azerbaijan, that is their personal opinion and I doubt that represents most of Azerbaijan or who they represent/work for. [5]

Anar Mamedkhanov, MP

"I always tell our officers who study in Turkey: 'You are needed in Karabakh. They [Armenians] must be killed in Karabakh not in the other countries' " Does this represent all MPs in Azeribaijan?

Dr. Akif Naghi, Head of the Organization for the Liberation of Karabakh

"I make Mr Safarov a honorary member of the OLK. He is a great lad and fulfilled his duty under the conditions under which he found himself" Someone saying such a statement is normal? And who says this represents the entire OLK?

Elmira Suleymanova, the Ombudswoman of Azerbaijan

"R. Safarov must become an example of patriotism for the Azerbaijani youth." What about her?

Hovanessian states that: Moreover, we should fight for the democratization of Azerbaijan. It is strange, but this is our task. We should always draw the world's attention to what is taking place in Azerbaijani propaganda, the press. This is a task for our public, human rights organizations, but not a "witch-hunt" in their native land. Yeah this is terrorism too huh.

If they settled those refugees in flats taken from Armenians, the problem would be settled. But as those flats were mainly good ones, the Azerbaijani elite occupied them, not only Aliyev's elite but also late President Abulfaz Elcibay Elchibey's, which is in opposition today. That is, the Azerbaijani elite inherited what they took away from the Armenians and did not share this with these unfortunate people. Hmmm...

Anyway he also talks about how Turks and Azeris are not racist and other stuff. Of course, I had to fetch this myself in order to see it. All those comments you highlited above are again his personal opinion and have zero trace of terrorism for reasons I have states in my other batch of comment. Take Marshall's example on the Democrats and Republicans as well. - Fedayee 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is about ARF - get into relevant subject.--Dacy69 22:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you read? The entire thing is to show that one person's (Hovanessian, ARF member) comments cannot reflect an entire group of people's. And don't tell me what this page is about, I wrote the entire page. - Fedayee 22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it is written a way to clear up the activity of ARF. If we use (like on page Urartu) reference to Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia I see no reason why we can't cite Papazian. Besides, even it is bolshevik POV, we have other evidence about ARF militant activity. Vorontsov-Dashkov, Russian 'namestnik' in the Caucasus wrote about ARF militant activity (I'll supply reference tomorrow, on Monday). Again, you'll argue that it is POV too. So, only your view isn't? Malevskiy also wrote about Dashnak militant activity (again on Monday I'll put reference) Libaridian in his book 'Modern Armenia: People, Nations, State" wrote that until 1903 ARF abstained from military confrontation in Russia (p.108). But after 1903 ARF activity is notable. I mean, there is plenty of evidence about ARF militant activity in Russia and other places, and links with terrorist activity as well. Whatever rivalry was btw Ter-Petrosian and ARF we have reference to ARF clandestine activity in Armenia. I have a bunch of other sources (eg Patrick Brogan, World Conflicts, etc) Atabek gave also enough information. You can't just throw away them because you think that they all are POV. Here in Wikipedia editor's task to give information - verifiable, based on reputable resources. Reader will judge. No historical event or process has one-sided coverage. Experts argue about the Columbus discovery as well.

I am not going to argue here anymore without third party involvement. I was insulted enough. I compiled relevant request, and I hope this will sort out who are wrong, who are smart and punishment will come who can't conduct a decent dispute.--Dacy69 05:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dacy, using the Bolsheviks to cite the ARF is like using Azeri sources to cite Armenian or vice versa. You can't take an opposing side because there will be POV as we have all agreed upon w/ Armenian-Azeri articles, such as Nagorno-Karabakh war, citing the opposing side. Bolsheviks and ARF have despised each other in history. Bolsheviks threw the ARF out of Armenian SSR. As you know, the USSR was totally against nationalism...you don't get more nationalist than the ARF. ARF worked for yearssss to get an independent Armenia, don't you think this would irritate the USSR and the bolsheviks. The ARF did not have a prescence in Armenia until the collapse of the USSR. Didn't Fadix explain you the history previously a little up from here? We're going over the same things over and over again... And why do you keep victimizing yourself? And what's up with the word "punishment", you're talking as if we are criminals and I don't appreciate that. - Fedayee 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, Hovanessian is a high level representative of ARF. So if he makes fascistic comments, and ARF does not officially disassociate itself (in a written PR) from these, it's quite normal to attribute the opinion of a high-level party functionary to the whole party's position. Of course, Hovanessian cannot express the position of Armenian parliament in any case, unless he was explicitly authorized to do so, but he can definitely represent ARF as a party. Same goes with your example of Mamedkhanov, who is MP, he does not represent the entire Azerbaijani parliament, but if he was a member of a particular political party, he would certainly represent its view by his comment.

Regarding Elmira Suleymanova's comment above, you're taking it out of context. She did say "Ramil Safarov became an example..." as a statement of a fact, not as an expression of her personal or political opinion, neither did she express the position of the state.

Akif Nagi is a war veteran and independent group leader. They openly state their position and do not deny it. But they're neither representatives of government nor parliament, unlike ARF is.

Also, when Hovanessian cites few Armenian flats in Baku taken over by angry Azerbaijani refugees from Armenia, he seems to suffer from amnesia that about 200,000 Azeris were deported from Armenia in 1988-1989 bringing the percentage of Azeri population in Armenia (which in the beginning of century according to George Bournoutian was at 80%) down to 0%. And continuously citing Sumgait?? With 26 dead against hundreds or thousands of Azeris butchered?

So the policy of Hovanessians and ARFs was nothing more than ethnic cleansing and intolerance. And they still dare to point their blood-stained fingers to Azerbaijanis, yes, those same fingers that were scalping the Azeri child in Khojaly 15 years ago, cutting its eyes out, and now fighting to deny it all over the world. I am sorry that Armenian people follow such fascists and feel pride for them. Atabek 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, if Hovanessian was attributing what he said to the entire party's stance, he would've used the words : "The Dashnaktsutyun, the ARF or the Dashnaks is/are proud" He would not have said I am proud. You cannot interpret his words the way you want them to be as I know that the ARF is despised by Azeris and Azerbaijan. If he would've said "the party" or any of the above, then the comments are the party's stance. Check here, current ARF leader Hrant Markarian being interviewed, he clearly says "the ARF" etc when representing his party's stance [6]. And the interview does seem to be badly translated by Bakutoday (See Fadix comment earlier).

>With 26 dead against hundreds or thousands of Azeris butchered?

Your choice of words scare me...dead for Armenians, butchered for Azeris...hmm, and you are getting too emotional when stating stuff. That death toll of 26 is understated by the Soviets and it does not mention the rapes and pillaging of Armenians businesses etc.

>So the policy of Hovanessians and ARFs was nothing more than ethnic cleansing and intolerance. And they still dare to point their blood-stained fingers to Azerbaijanis, yes, those same fingers that were scalping the Azeri child in Khojaly 15 years ago, cutting its eyes out, and now fighting to deny it all over the world. I am sorry that Armenian people follow such fascists and feel pride for them.

This remark has nothing but POV and is your own personal opinion. The ARF is not the army, the ARF holds 11 seats out of 100+ seats in the Armenian parliament, it does not have a personal army or anything. Your claims are nothing but Azeri POV towards the ARF which is hated. You have so much POV in your words and you want to contribute to this article. The ARF is not Mussolini, it is not Nazi, if it was, it would've been longgg exterminated before. It is insulting you consider Armenians fascists. Btw you forgot to deny on Hovanessian's want to help Azerbaijan become more of a democracy and help its human rights...very fascist indeed. - Fedayee 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the whole talk started from the opinion that ARF was associated with militancy and terrorism, which is quite well proven by the facts presented above from various sources (including wealth of Armenian ones), as well as by statements of its prominent member. About fascism, Fedayee, I don't consider all Armenian people as fascists, there is scum in any nation. Not all Germans were Nazis either but they followed Nazis. It's funny how the person who is proud of killing 25,000 Azeris can desire to help build democracy in Azerbaijan, and someone who is proud of taking out human life can desire having human rights for those same people. Hovanessian should concern himself first with abysmal human rights in Armenia itself, but it's hard to do for someone who is driven Machiavellian thoughts and whose hands are stained with blood of blinded Azeri child, the picture of which became a chilling symbol of Khojaly Massacre.

Apart from these, ARF page was blocked because of edit war with standard (though false) Armenian claim that Karabakh was handed over by Stalin in 1923. Given the fact that no Kavbureau decision text on establishment of NKAO says so, the quote has no basis. NK was established within Azerbaijan SSR. If you have counter arguments, please, present the text of Kavbureau decision from 1923 in full for discussion. Thanks. Atabek 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

>Well the whole talk started from the opinion that ARF was associated with militancy and terrorism, which is quite well proven by the facts presented above from various sources (including wealth of Armenian ones), as well as by statements of its prominent member.

We already responded to all those POV Bolshevik links, which is the equivalent of an Armenian source to cite Azeri stuff and vice versa. The article deals with links to guerrilla organization JCAG (which can be viewed as a terrorist group) so I don't know what else you are all looking for by going through all this trouble. I did not say you consider all Armenians fascist but the ones who are sympathetic w/ the ARF. The ARF is huge, it has links worldwide, how can such a "fascist movement" not be banned, persecuted etc by any country in the world (including the leader of the War on Terrorism, the United States, where the ARF is big). Your claim is only your POV and possibly most of Azerbaijan's POV. The badly translated comments on the Karabakh war is his opinion as explained above which I will not go through again because this will be kicking the dead horse. Human rights in Armenia, Human rights in Azerbaijan, check em out. Hovanessian cannot be held responsible with the tragic deaths in Khojaly, that is anti-ARF labelism from you.

Despite it being a source directly from the CIA factbook, the same factbook news agencies use, the factbook from the CIA which I guess gathers wrong intelligence, despite its use in other Azeri articles, I am willing to settle for this which is being used in the NKwar article: These factors lead the committee to reverse its decision and award Karabakh to Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921, and later incorporated the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923. - Fedayee 18:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

CIA is not the best source on this, historical facts are not intellegence information. And the opinions of historians differ on this issue, while Kavburo clearly stated that NK was to be left in Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, NKwar article also provides inaccurate and biased information with regard to this issue, like on many others. I"m attaching a tag until the dispute is resolved. Grandmaster 16:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The dispute was over on that page, it was even promoted to FA. I think this dispute is over as well. Please don't start putting the tag just for one sentence. Just because it was accepted there doesn't mean you have to try and change it in other articles. - Fedayee 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not accepted anywhere. All Azerbaijani editors voted against that article, so clearly there was no consensus on that article, it got promoted because of votes of Armenian and Iranian users. The tag shall remain until the dispute is resolved. Grandmaster 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If there was no consensus, it wouldn't have been promoted. It will stay in accordance with the FA article. This is a simple attempt at creating a revert war and to stopping the advancement of this article. - Fedayee 17:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The way wiki works articles get promoted without consensus. And you do not own the article to decide if it should stay at present version or not. Btw, why don’t you include the wording from Nagorno-Karabakh article? It has consensus, while yours does not. Grandmaster 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You tell me I don't own this article and then tell me to add another version like I am the owner of this article, like it's something you couldn't have done if that version has been reached upon by consensus. Of course you wouldn't because you are being a dick and you will do all you can to eliminate the word "awarded" from there. Anyway I will change it to the version Khoikhoi suggested which seems fair enough. I don't see why this article about the ARF should be tagged and stopped because of a widely sourced sentence that certain people don't agree upon. - Fedayee 18:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, mind WP:Civility. I did not insult you, you should not make personal attacks either. Second, when the sources differ, you don’t choose one reliable source and ignore others. You either select a middle ground or provide for all existing points of views. Khoikhoi’s version is OK by me, it does not support any of interpretations and allows for all existing points of view. I do not object to removal of tag either and consider this dispute to be resolved. Grandmaster 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You falsely accused me of wanting to own this article, something I have never claimed. I don't see any personal attacks man...all I see are wikipedia rules. Anyway, Khoikhoi's looks good. - Fedayee 19:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not accuse you, I just stated a fact that you do not own the article, same as nobody else does. Let's consider this matter settled, I'm not gonna make an issue of that and I hope you will stay cool in the future. Good luck. Grandmaster 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am cool, there is nothing to make an issue out of anyway. Spare me of your blackmail, if you are reffering to my choice of words, I simply used a wikipedia rule in effect. - Fedayee 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Affiliate Organizations

Just wondering? Shouldn't the AYF (Armenian Youth Federation) be mentioned as falling under the umbrella of the ARF? Just a thought--KingVegeta2000 08:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It already mentions the AYF. The AYF isn't simply an umbrella organization, it is a integral part of the ARF, just like Badanegan. _{At least, that's what I understood!} -- Davo88 12:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I did not mean to say it in a way to minimize the AYF after all I am a novice in the organization lol. I just meant to say it in a way that the AYF stemmed from the ARF thats all and that the ARF has some say in AYF activities, this is what I meant by under the umbrella of the ARF, if I was misunderstood I apologize.--KingVegeta2000 07:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ARF activity in Russia

We had a long dispute over my edit of ARF activity in Russia. Some editors questioned my reference to Papazian as a pro-Bolshevik opinion. I am going to make new edit based on other - primary and secondary sources. I hope they alltogether can not be questioned as pro-bolshevik because it includes Russian tsar's envoy Vorontsov-Dashkov, apparently royalist and pro-Armenian Russian bureacrat.--Dacy69 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

MarshalBagramian - you continue diong massive rv without discussion and you have removed text with 5 references. You should be reported to Arbcom.--Dacy69 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What you have added has been discussed over and over again previously, Marshal was part of the discussion. - Fedayee 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I added 5 new references which has not been discussed. He is blindly removing them. It is not going to continue this way.--Dacy69 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I will make a formal offer for mediation to both users, and proceed from the results of this offer.--Dacy69 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why mediation will be pointless...you, like user:Atabek, have not changed a bit. You made changes without discussing them, and then when reverted, you reverted again, without discussing the content. When reverted again you claim wanting mediation. Didn't Fadix and even I explain to you what was mediation? You view mediation as something to enforce your version. You are not willing to discuss the reasons of your changes now, and you want to convince others that you'll do it during mediation?

Your first source does not belong anywhere in this article; it is not a credible source. You make a statement of fact right there and then introduce a non-credible source to make your point, that is, your POV. Then the second source...don't bring the conflicts you have on Russian Wikipedia about the 1905 event. That is what you are currently doing. Various sources contradict this, one example being Fire and Sword in the Caucasus by Luigi Villari [7] one or two sources does not amount to a statement of fact. About the British source...the only thing I have found from the web of that source is a link to Russian Wikipedia, and you were the one having added it. Quote it, go ahead, quote it.

This is about it, I would have thought that the arbitration would have changed your behaviour. - Fedayee 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I hoped that you have changed. first of all, I left a comment here before edit. I put references and your job is disaprove them which you still fail to do.

The quotes are perfectly reliable. I have nothing added.

Luigi Villari's work does not contradict what I inserted. Villari is actually might be considered one-sided too.

For quote of a British source - if you looked at Russian Wikipedia - on relevant talkpage you can find the quote.

And I am ready to give other sources about the role of Dashnaks:

• Kaufman, S. Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001
• Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920. The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community. Сambridge, cambridge University Press, 1985
• Audrey Altstadt. The Azerbaijani Turks. Power and Identity under Russian Rule. Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, 1993

All these by all standards is reliable sources. You are just desperately trying to protect this page from truth. I understand mediation is refused. Ok. There is another step.--Dacy69 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not changed? Check my overall contribution, it always was and is, just before and after the arbitration, just the same, contributing on many articles most not having anything to do with Azerbaijan, positive contributions, such as putting an effort to enhance the grammar of articles. After the arbitration you came back soon on the Khachkar destruction article, and again on the Armenian Revolutionary Federation article. Every single contribution on Armenian articles is always only in negative light.

>Papazian is not a reliable source, never was and never will be, it is a political source, which is considered per guidelines as non-reliable. You can add Bolshevik, everything, but that book remains what it was and is. Read Villari before claiming it does not contradict what you have inserted, read it! It does not place the blame of the massacres on the ARF, but Tartar groups instigating Armenians.

>Your British source...don't ask me to go read in the Russian Wikipedia, interwiki is per rules not acceptable to justify an addition, re-quote it here, in this talkpage.

>Kaufman...I just checked his book, from pp. 49-53, the chapter titled: Karabakh and the Fears of Minorities (the only chapter that it mentions anything about Armenians). Where exactly does it support what you claim? The book does not even use the term Dashnak...not once, neither does it say anything about the ARF. It doesn't say anything in the entire chapter about this role you talk about so much.

user:Atabek quoted Yossi Shain, Aharon Barth paper: "Diasporas and International Relations Theory", International Organization, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Summer, 2003). It is indeed a reliable source, but that source doesn't support your claims either, it actually supports the opposite.

I have decided and tried to remain OUT of trouble and, assuming good faith, I did not accuse you of anything at all, but you still continue to bait me. "You are just desperately trying to protect this page from truth." You still continue after the arbitration with your accusations, stop baiting me. - Fedayee 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1Papazian work might be political but if other sources support that we can use. But ok, let's assume we will jettison Papazian

2Second source is a primary source of pro-Armenian Russian Envoy - first hand account of bureaucrat who regarded Armenians as reliable element for Russian policy. So, his remark is objective, and at least primary and per guidance we can use that.

3Since you have brought here Russian Wiki, not me, then you should go and look for quotation. However, since this source is mentioned in my edit - I quote:"I have during the last four weeks had many opportunities of discussing the recent disturbances which still continue to disquiet many parts of the province of Elisavetpol and which reached their climax at Baku; and, though I cannot, of course, pretend to be in a position to pronounce a final opinion on a question of such complexity, I have obtained enough information to justify an attempt to deal with the general aspect of the situation, especially as the accounts of it which have hitherto reached England appear to be of a fragmentary and imperfect character. ... I found, somewhat to my surprise, that at Shusha, as well as in other towns, the Tartars were unanimous in ascribing the collisions which had taken place to the activity of the Armenian committees, and I was assured also by many witnesses who might claim to be considered impartial, Russians and Georgians, that the charge was true. It is noticeable also that at Baku the general opinion of non-Armenians, whether Russians or foreigners, inclines to hold the Armenians responsible for the outbreak and for the continuance of the hostilities". There is plenty of other sources which indicate dashnaks as one of major forces, at least in the continuation of the hostilities.

4Kaufman piece you overlooked. On page 57 he wrote: "In the Tatar-Armenian War, however, Azerbaijan were faced with a well-organized opponent in the Armenian nationalist party Dashnaktsutiun, or Dashnak, giving them impetus to form their own organization, aptly named Difai... The collapse of the Russian and Ottoman Empires in 1918 gave the nationalist their chance to form independent state, but the nationalist point was really driven home in that year's "March Days" when chauvinist Armenian Dashnak allied with the Bolsheviks carried out pogroms against Muslims in Baku" (perhaps for the second part of quotation we should create new chapter on ARF page - about its role in March Days, and link it to the relevant Wiki page)

5There is also another source of Libaridian was removed. Agains you will tell that it is politically driven - but it was written before his appointment in Ter-Petrosian's government, and Libaridian is considered as authoritative scholar on Armenian history.

6Since you are not willing to work on compromise - not willing to accept mediation, I see no other remedy than Arbitration again.--Dacy69 14:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the other sources do not support it. And you confirmed it. There is no such thing as pro-Armenian Russian Envoys, you are making allusions and those allusions are yours and not from the work provided. Russians stirred the Armenians and Tartars and turned both one against the other for decades, Russia was considered the prime responsible entity of all the havoc that went on in 1905-06 and this is recognized by most sources. The events of 1905-06 were not located in one particular region...it spread to many areas. For various years, Russians kept Armenians away from owning shops, businesses and markets, because they feared competition and then when things started to move, they stirred both groups one against the other to later control them. The only thing about Armenia or Armenians Russia was ever interested with, was Armenia, and Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky's words about Armenians was what always best characterized the Armenian-Russian situation when he said that Russia wants Armenia without its Armenian population.

It is very convenient for you to quote from officials of the side which is accused by most, including pro-Azerbaijani authors, of being the prime responsible side. When Russia stirred the Tartars, the first targets were Armenian shops which were purged to which the committee reacted very harshly.

Third, no, it was for you to quote per my demand. And I will request more than what you provided, I want his entire report, and I don't want cuts replaced by "..." since the worst massacres did not happen there and I am sure that the British source is covering them, I want to see the section in which it covers it.

Kaufman...you were right, google books did not show that part, I forgot to press for more hits on the pages. It still does not support what you claim.

Libaridian is totally a different story. That problem has already been discussed, and he is already used as footnote in the article. This article can still be improved, but your additions were not improvement.

As for mediation, I will accept it when you understand its uses. - Fedayee 21:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Participation of Dashnaks in the massacre of Azerbaijanis in Baku is very well known fact, verifiable from many authoritative sources. Dacy69 cited Kaufman, I can bring many more references. It is a verifiable fact that should be included in the article. Grandmaster 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee - You don't know the history of that period well. Russian envoy was considered pro-Armenian and it is apparent from his letter to the tsar. Further, Armenians has many privileges in Russian Caucasus. You need to get acquianted with 2 works of Altastd and Swietochowski on the subject. Several sources support each other. You don't know that either. It is true that Russian authorities manipulated with both ethnic communities and faciliatted to clashes. Perhaps, they would have never fight if they had lived out of colonial rule. But the role of Dashnaks is notable and negative. I will get rid of Papazian but the rest quotes are reliable. Regarding mediation - it is up to you now. My task was to work towards solution. You don't want - I don't care.--Dacy69 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That sort of intransigent attitude doesn't score points with anyone. What sort of concessions are you willing to make, ignoring the Papazian source which doesn't even count? Armenians resisted the Russification phase of the late 1890s and early 1900s and they lost almost complete favor by the Russians by 1903. Alstadt isn't a reliable source; Bournoutian picked out her gross manipulative errors in her use of statistics [8] which leaves us only w/ Swietochowski.--MarshallBagramyan 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

1.Well, how Armenian origin author Bournatian is reliable. But even Swietochoski alone is ok for me. 2.Armenians was in disafavor of Russian for a very short period. In 1905 with appointment of Vorontsov-Dashkov things turned in their favor. (See Swietochowski work - pages 42-43) "the pro-Musulman posture of tsarist authorities did not last beyond initial period of the fighting; already in may Russian troops were under orders to fire at the 'tatars'... instances of cooperation between tsarist authorities and the dashnakists were an open secret, and even the prime minister, P.A.stolypin, reproached Vorontsov-dashkov for his leniency toward the Armenian revolutionaries" 3. Here we are not to put blame on Armenians, Russian or Azeris as a whole. This page is about ARF which stood behind hostilities, terroristic acts, armed struggle and the extermination of civilians - claims which is supported by various sources and reputable scholars. I am willing to work on common language but apparently you and Fedayee are not going to accept anything even it is based on good references. Otherwise you would accept mediation. In that case, Arbcom should make its judgement. On other pages, Urartu, similar situation happened and finally my edit was approved by third party.--Dacy69 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Thatcher131 advised me to use other DR - request for comments - and I will follow his advise. Afterwards, taken that you both refused mediation - I was advised to bring this case back to Arbcom - certainly, I will do - and if no compromise reached. I am ready to get rid of some sources which you think are politically charged.--Dacy69 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: ARF in Russia

The content dispute is related to ARF activity in Russia.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute (I suggest to keep initial comment short; deliberations will be made when third party editor will respond.)

I have made edit based on 5 references [9]. Opponents think that some sources are politically charged. I agree to remove some of them - like Papazian. But the opponent editors seems are not willing to accept any edit in this line from me. The ARF's activity in Russia, and particularly during so called March Days in Azerbaijan is well-documented. I brought the quote from Stuart Kaufman. There is other works and quotes from other sources which I am willing to bring to the attention of third party neutral editors.--Dacy69 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a behavior based on dispute, not content; Dacy's sources do not even remotely support what he says. From the 5 sources he provided, 3 do not support what he claims (Baku history not only doesn't make any mention of the ARF but says the complete opposite: that the Tatars instigated the violence), and two Russian sources are unreliable because Russian officials during those years intentionally attempted to turn the Tartars against the Armenian population. If he does have those "various" reputable sources he should quote them; Atabek would do the same thing.

I cannot accept his sources because he is making things up; the sources do not match the text. But since he placed this for RFC, I am willing to tell other editors what was my problem with his edits.

You claim that you are willing to work on common language yet I have not seen you do that. You come, edit, add what you want, then on the talk page claim you have added 5 sources, and then when reverted, you claim that we were suppressing information and that it is sourced and you add it back once more. Discussing does not mean either accept my version or go to hell. It means to discuss before making such changes, discuss what the sources are really saying, discuss on the language and tone of a proposed version and attempting to acquire consensus. This is what Fedayee did when he requested to have this article to be reviewed and your last statement was exactly my point: “On other pages, Urartu, similar situation happened and finally my edit was approved by third party.” Keep thinking that mediation is meant for approval of ones version which does not get consensus. I will be willing to accept mediation when you understand what it really is

First, on Papazian. Dacy nows says he is willing to exclude it, he is not making any concessions as the quote didn't even have to do with Tsarist Russia, it was a political source which, per guidelines, isn't reliable. When Fedayee described to Dacy the situation above, Dacy started again claiming that Fedayee was ignorant, while he hasn't accused him of anything, he continsue with his baseless accusations directed at those who disagree with him. He continues commenting on the editor while refusing to address directly the criticism leveled at his version. There was no such thing as a pro-Armenian Russian envoy in 1905 as Fedayee told Dacy; he is selectively quoting. First he claims Villari is not neutral and asks that we should accept James D. Henry. I am all for that, but I have followed the discussion Dacy has had with Fedayee and Dacy used selective quoting which changed the entire message of the report. The book does not place the blame on the Armenians. I checked the work and found that Dacy has selectively chosen parts from the September 27 report, which was to cover the Tartars complaints; it is indeed confirmed from the first passages of his September 28 report: "In my letter of yesterday's date I mentioned the main causes of complaint urged by the Tartars against the Armenians,…"

The work and reports describe exactly what Fedayee has written, that the Armenians answered back after decisions regarding their properties. "…blow delivered at Armenian nationalist spirit and it was the one which turned the Armenians of the Caucasus against the Government and converted them into an army of revolutionists…" It was only after the sequestration of church properties as the source describes Armenians started targeting officials (not Tartars but Russian officials). The source states: "…it would not be difficult to count ten officials who have been killed within the short space of ten months." Dacy is labeling Vorontsov-Dashkov, the Russian envoy, as a pro-Armenian; Armenians were targeting Russian officials as counter measures of the Russian authorities' decisions of the sequestration of Armenian properties while simultaneously turning Tartars against them. All this while Dacy is claiming those targets were pro-Armenian.

The Russians counter the Armenians by spreading rumors amongst the Tartar population to manipulate them. Continuing from the text: "…Below is a Tartar version which must be read in connection with the revelation of the action of the military authorities in arming the Tartars and leading them to believe that the Armenians intended to blow up the arsenal, sack the city, and murder the Mussulmans." What was first Russian abuses against Armenians turned out to spread and involve the Tartars. The ARF had no role in this, the work nowhere supports Dacy's assertions, the source nowhere matches what Dacy claims the work to say, as the quote provided by Dacy represents a report, which the same source says being the Tartars' claim and later the same source says that the Tartars were manipulated into believing the threats stirred by the Russians. The source continues:

"It is a fact, and one which has never been officially denied, that it was given out by the authorities that the Armenians had attempted to bribe the officers in charge of the arsenal in order to get control of the guns and ammunition stored there for the defence of the city. This started a strong feeling of unrest. Believing that the movement had a political character, so far as the Armenians were concerned, the authorities took sides with the Tartars, telling them that the Armenians were preparing to attack. Undoubtedly, the Mohamedans became scared and told their fears to the Governor, who, it was not denied, supplied them with arms and ammunition, while the few troops in the city made no attempt to stop them, once they started to massacre…"

This is how the massacre started. Where in this book does it say the ARF was in anyway responsible (better yet, there is no mention of them)? The ARF had nothing to the with the Armenian-Tatar clashes, the two Russian sources are political sources a, but also by Armenians and Tartars were accused of being the instigators of the Armenian-Tartar classes, when they placed (covered in the book cited by Dacy) a policy against Armenian properties, when the Armenian church's properties were seized, the Armenians started targeting Russian officials, who answered with propaganda by arousing rumors and fear among the Tartars which brought an anti-Armenian sentiment and the massacres started; Armenians counter their actions elsewhere and this is the origin of that clash.

How can I continue to expect good faith edits from Dacy when even he is unable to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and resorts to dishonest arguments. Enough is enough...--MarshallBagramyan 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You continue to make personal attacks, instead of focusing on content itself.--Dacy69 14:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my reply to you comments above.

Volume of your quote from James Henry books gives various explanations of causes why Armenian-Tatar massacres started. It does not disaprove the involvment of Dashnaks or its absence. In my quote from the very book it says that "the Tartars were unanimous in ascribing the collisions which had taken place to the activity of the Armenian committees, and I was assured also by many witnesses who might claim to be considered impartial, Russians and Georgians, that the charge was true. It is noticeable also that at Baku the general opinion of non-Armenians, whether Russians or foreigners, inclines to hold the Armenians responsible for the outbreak and for the continuance of the hostilities"." Even other part of the book may put blame on Tatars, or Russian authorities, this quote stands for what it witnesses.

Second. There is no reason to question Vorontsov-Dashkov as a source, even it was affiliated with the government. He was pro-Armenian "namestnik" (envoy). T. Swietochowski writes (I quoted above and is doing it again)pages 42-43: "the pro-Musulman posture of tsarist authorities did not last beyond initial period of the fighting; already in may Russian troops were under orders to fire at the 'tatars'... instances of cooperation between tsarist authorities and the Dashnakists were an open secret, and even the prime minister, P.A.Stolypin, reproached Vorontsov-Dashkov for his leniency toward the Armenian revolutionaries". Now I see no reason to question Voronsov-Dashkov account about Dashnak.

Now to prove ARF involvement I quote further Swiietochoski writes: "The first outbreak of Muslim-Armenian violence occured in Baku. The immediate cause was the murder of a Muslim by the Dashnakists" (p.41). "The blow suffered at the hands of the Dashnakist fighting squads proved a catalyst for the consolidation of Musulman community of Azerbaijan" (p.42) Here I am not proving that Armenians were guilty in the massacres. It is not the topic of discussion. Let's even assume it was Tatars. I am just proving that ARF was a part of massacre, participated and led fighting. My edit was balanced - it gives that information but also gives another persepective. I kept it short because it is not page about Armneian-Tatar clashes, it is about ARF.--Dacy69 14:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

rolls eyes: Talk about personal attacks, you're the one here who is intentionally fomenting a war between the two sides right after the ArbCom placed you on a revert parole for a year; I'm just about had it up to here to tolerate your relentless and scurrilous accusations. Do you do anything else on Wikipedia asides from peddling your your churlish comments on Armenian-related articles?--MarshallBagramyan 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop distorting James Henry! Amazingly enough, you're accusing Marshall of personal attacking you... I think re-quoting all the insults and baseless accusations you have directed at me just in the last days should refresh your memory on who is doing all the personal attacks! Marshall has quoted the stuff that followed your selective quote, that you provided from the book, from the report of the day later. The activities described from the work itself have nothing to do with attacking Tartars, it has to do with what followed after the Russian officials were targeted and the measures taken by officials to turn the Tartars against the Armenians. This is what you claimed when providing that British source: "A British source also claims that the ARF played a negative role in 1905-1906 clashes." Firstly, it never mentions the Dashnaks specifically, so now it's clear that those were your words and not the source's like you claimed it to be. The book itself places the blame more on the Russians and Tartars than the Armenians which also does not contradict what Villari said, who you claim to being one-sided.

And this was what you wrote alongside the Papazian reference: "Armenian pro-Bolshevik scholar Papazian noted in this regard that many Armenians get tired of the ARF who terrorized their own people, extorting money from wealthy Armenians. A terrorist faction had developed within the party and gained domination of the whole." Papazian accusations directed at the Dashnaks were what he claimed to be Dashnaks purpose within the Ottoman Empire. How are Papazian's accusations of the Dashnaks' role within the Ottoman Empire related with "Tsarist Russia"? And if you had that many sources, you would not need to use things that say next to nothing of what you claimed in that edit of yours and you would not need to attribute them to sources which do not even remotely support your claims.

Pro-Armenian "Russian envoy"? Vorontzov-Dashkov was not pro-Armenian...he was sent strategically to cool down Armenians. Russia was never really pro-Armenian.

"It was curious that Russian, from whom in 1895 the question of Armenian reforms had been distasteful, should now be the protagonist of such reforms. ...The real Russian motives are more obscure, and there was apparently a conflict on policy within Russia itself. ...The internal reasons were connected with the attitude of the Russian government toward its own Armenian minority in Transcaucasia. Until 1905 Russian policy had been one of ruthless repression, which reached its height in that year with a government-provoked Armeno-Tartar war, and the confiscation of all Armenian ecclesiastical property. This resulted only in increased revolutionary activity by the Armenians against the government. After 1905 a new governor of the Caucasus, Vorontzov-Dashkov, inaugurated a conciliatory policy which gave results and put an end to the Armenian separatist drive. Peace, order, and justice were given the Armenians, as well as some nationalist rights, although at the same time Vorontzov made efforts to colonize Russians in Transcaucasia. The Armenians were still, however, a thorn in the Russian side." The Armenian Crisis, 1912-1914, by Roderic H. Davison, The American Historical Review, Vol. 53, No. 3. (Apr., 1948), p.486

Kaufman does not support your assertions, the only scholarly author who supports your claims (and not entirely) is Swietochowski, who is a specialist in Azerbaijani history. The author also has used Stanford Shaw and Ezel Kural's denialist work of the Armenian Genocide to support his controversial affirmations. He asserts unconventional positions...and correct me if I am wrong but didn't he write the pieces from Colombia Encyclopedia about Azerbaijan which are controversial... - Fedayee 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments (For third party opinion)

Is there a resource which I can lookup for Armenian-Tatar massacres of 1905-1906, besides the Thomas De Waal. I do not know the period, but it seems there are couple of issues going on at the same time. It may be better to develop the story(s) of the period than using current "one liner" arguments. It seems there is a fight over who was going to be on the control of ARF in Russia. It seems that ARF wanted to bring his authority (as a relatively new organization) over the Armenian population. These are expected. They are stages in organizational development. How these are link to the massacres are not very clear. Did ARF wanted to prove to Armenians that it is a dependable organization and they can trust it with their protection??? How did ARF gained the trust of Armenians? how did it prove itself as a viable authority?? Sincerely "I'm good-You'r bad" should be left behind. The section needs more facts. --OttomanReference 20:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

These three books has section about Armenian-Tatar clashes and March Days:

• Kaufman, S. Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001
• Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920. The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community. Сambridge, cambridge University Press, 1985
• Audrey Altstadt. The Azerbaijani Turks. Power and Identity under Russian Rule. Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, 1993

Should I go ahead with quotations from this books? There is also other source published on Armenian website (but apparently not neutral): Luigi Villari [10]. However, we can accept it as written by third party. Then we should accept also "James D. Henry,. Baku An Eventful History (With many illustrations and a map) London, Archibald Constable & Co. Ltd 16, James Street, Haymarket, November, 1905, which I quoted above. For ARF role in March Days just click link. --Dacy69 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 says "Should I go ahead with quotations from this books" The positions in the section you want to introduce are very sharp positions. It is not about if they are correct or wrong, but how these historians reach to these conclusions. The text covers (a) multiple time periods (b) multiple issues. Your text presents very little support. Credibility is build by the number of supporting events. Not having a common ground (collection of events) to support these claims is the reason you have problems with these users. I 'm going to pull these books from library sometime (summer :-) ). I'm sure these books gives factual support to their arguments. You might need to use them to develop factual support. This may take time. Hope you are willing to take this task. I like to read the arguments developed while you are doing that. That should be very interesting. Instead of fighting over a single summary par which claims ARF terrorized the Russia, develop a history of Russian Armenia as a background to issues. Otherwise the role of ARF becomes controversial. Thanks for your efforts.--OttomanReference 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• it is very difficult for a third party to enter and express an opinion on this RfC, you should make the argument more clear. How can I state my position on "The content dispute is related to ARF activity in Russia"? What do you want us to comment? Thanks. --giandrea 22:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Rules require to keep it very short on RfC page. (I have expanded it after your comment) I gave explanation here in the introductory remark. I made edit - this is diff[11] and my opponents oppose it. They argue that this information is incorrect and sources aren't reliable. Besides, there is also emerging dispute about the role of Dashnak in March Days. I am willing to provide additional sources which confirm the role of ARF in Russia related to extermination of civilians, armed struggle and terrorism. --Dacy69 23:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I see, certain editors try to suppress information about involvement of ARF in terrorist activity and massacres of Azerbaijani population in the beginning of 20th century. The comment is required with regard to whether or not it is OK to suppress such info. Grandmaster 06:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith Grandmaster, your accusations will only further poison the atmosphere. What Marshall and I are opposed to was this...to which now, even Dacy69 does not support (it's clear from his above replies). - Fedayee 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OttomanReference - the issue here is not to write history of Russian Armenia. Actually, many ARF activities occurred on the territory of modern day Azerbaijan - well-known history. The topic of Russian Armenia will deviate us from the current topic. Here is the problem - I made edit, opponents questions its reliability. I am ready to prove it. That's it. I have 5 references. I am ready to stand behind them and support them with additional references. This issue should be discussed, (not the whole history of the region, which I am ready to do, but it will be redundant, and as I said, will deviate discussion). I have put the quote from Swietochoswki - you don't need to go to the library in summer. Please look at my deliberation above, in reply to user:MarshallBagramyan comments--Dacy69 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 says "deviate discussion" O.K. I'm catching on. You are saying that there is a Russian Armenia, and there is a Russian Azerbaijan. You want to concentrate on the activities of ARF in a specific region where they "were not" dominant at the time. However, I could not find the Russian Azerbaijan article so that I can have a better understanding of these boundaries. These positions needs a lot of work such that I have seen articles (pieces of text I say) that claim Armenians have never been dominant in Russia to claim a land. The subversive activities in your par may "not" be happening where the Armenian dominance unchallenged. The responding authors "may be" responding using this unchallenged region. Let me tell you my experience. Ottoman history and Armenian history has the same problem. These historians do not exchange info. When you listen both side arguing about the same concept (same events) there are small nuances which makes big differences. It is not an easy task, but there are a lot of nuances that you need to work out. Beginning from the end (where your arguments are at the moment) is not going to be easy. At the end wikipedia is not a place to solve any historical issue, only presents the views on these issues (sides) as a big story book. Summary: You say "I made edit, opponents questions its reliability". My solution: step back and begin to develop materials that has more factual info in them. Define the terminology. Create the articles that we can go and learn the events. Help people like me to understand the differences, such as the one you pointed. And then present your position by pointing the the concrete events. Wikipedia is not a war. The people who thinks it is a war is in mistake. It is an exchange, it is understanding. You have the responsibility to present the information that they can accept and understand. Other wise they will come and delete. If they do not understand and accept, even if your statement is placed in this article HAS NO VALUE. (Assume user:Grandmaster managed to pass through his/her position and this "one liner" added; so what??) This way the people who oppose you, who are coming from their own view of the period, have chance to read and learn that there is another interpretation of the same events. That is the main goal, otherwise why do we exchange this information. I have my history books, you have yours, and they have theirs. At the end your hidden argument is, "During their national fight, (their "sovernty"), they cause many sufferings on other people". Hope you can find a meaningful way to solve this issue, my position is that You have a valid point but "You need to develop a background info to make this edit stick in this page." Thanks for your civilized exchanges. --OttomanReference 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I fully agree that Wiki is not battleground. However, you can see that mere my presence here is under attacks. You need to see Arbcom page on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles: evidences [12] and desicion[13]. Certain users strongly oppose the editing by Azerbaijani users of Armenia-related pages while they are not questioning their own editing on Azerbaijani ones. I myself have no problem with both type of editing. This is free encyclopedia, open to anyone with relevant knowledge. However, not all think likewise and draw watershed along ethnic lines.

Dacy69 says "ethnic lines" I know, but you do not have to play the game with their rules. This problem does not need to be solved today. --OttomanReference 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Second. So, I understand, you wish that I will put some background info about situation in the region during that period. Ok. What length would be advisable? I will provide it. --Dacy69 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 says length would be advisable? These things do not have length. Do not try to prove anyone anything. If you enjoy reading about this period, read and summarize (do not plagiarize) Use citations about where this summary is coming from. It as a long race. It does not have to end next month. You do not have to end it either. Truth has a way to come out. Instead of dealing with highly controversial conclusions now, begin with a general history. Think about all the arguments that has been presented to you. Thanks. I will read about the period, and use the references you have presented. -- OttomanReference 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BACKGROUND (Ok. let's start with little early period. I'll try to be short and give various perspectives.)

By 1828-29 Russian fully conquered the South Caucasus as a result of its war with Iran. Russian authorities developed policy of incorporating those territories in compliance with Russian administrative division, particularly area populated by Moslems. (Firuzeh Mostahsari. On the Religious Frontier. Tsarist Russia and Islam in the Caucasus, 2006, chapter 1,2) Further Russian resettled many Armenians in the Caucasus ( I am not going to dwell in this issue which might be a cause of dispute. Armenians say that migration was insignificant. Let's even assume that) Russian favored them as a reliable element. "Armenians were granted many exemptions and privileges, and admitted into the ranks of the Russian army and public service, while commercial colonies of them were established in all the chief towns of the Empire. Peter’s successors followed a similar policy, and the immigration of Armenians continued and increased." (Liugi Villari p.145 [14])

However, later, in the end of XIX century Russian favoritism turned against Armenians, as Russian authorities feared the growing revolutionary sentiments among Armenians as well as their plan to develop autonomy. Here, in 1890 ARF came into existence. It developed various strategies to reach autonomy (and eventually independence) which included also armed struggle and terror (Libaridian, I mentioned his work in my ediit, which was removed). Basically, ARF were focused on Armenians lived in Ottoman Empire. But ARF also started its activity in the South Caucasus. Russian envoy Golitsin disfavored Armenians, confiscated the property of Armenian church - ARF attempted to kill him, but was unsuccesful. But the period of bad attitude from Russians towards Armenians was short and ended in 1905 with the appointment of Vorontsov-Dashkov (Swietochowski, I quoted him above). He returned the property to Armenian church.

In 1905 Armenian-Tatars massacre started in the Caucasus, first in Baku. Most observers blame Russian authorities for instigating these massacres. Many western sources blame also Tatars (wrong Russian name for Azeri Turks (in some sources Musulmans, nowadays Azerbaijanis) but acknowledge they were victims of Russian conspiracy too. Some observers say that Dashnaks (in some sources just 'Armenian committees') are responsible for outbreak or, at least, continuation of the massacres (Swietochowski, quote above in my comments). Here I made edits which points to the role of Dashnaks - I confine myself to the role of ARF because, as I said above, this is page about ARF. The latter said that it helped organize the defence of Armenian population (which I also put in my edit). ARF killed several Russian officials blaming them in instigating the massacres, for example Baku governor Nakashidze. Dashnaks might be right in pointing to the Nakashidze's guilt, but this is what we call today terrorism or at least armed struggle. They might be right or not, just like some Palestinians say now to justify terror, but all these should be reflected on ARF page. Further, ARF took part in massacres of Azeris in Baku in 1918 ( I have not yet made edit on that, but I believe as soon as I will do it, my opponents will delete it). March Days has a wide coverage - you can click on it. (Some good reference - Swietochowski, Olstatd and some other books. I made my quotes, references. If you think I need to suport some other points with additional refrences, pls, inform me, I will do it.)

So, my summary - whether Dashnaks right or wrong (or Azeris, Russians, whoever right or wrong), this page omits important information about ARF activity. This party always stand for radical approach (not to say extremist) and took part in many armed fightings. In 1990's it was banned in Armenia (this information is reflected on page), some of its members like Mourad Topalian organized terrorist acts (in New York, for example). This party has its history which is distorted and polished in the current version of the page. It resembles political pamthlet rather than academic article. We might reword my edit, change references, etc, but in the essence it is NPOV and based on historic facts--Dacy69 19:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop soapboxing Dacy69. - Fedayee 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks and engage in discussion. I was responding to questions, as you see from above. Then I was advised to move background information to an article space, which I am working on with discussant--Dacy69 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing has nothing to do with the current dispute; it is soapboxing. - Fedayee 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 it is not o.k. to develop a content in a talk page. This is not a form. You need to move this information to an article space. First ask this question. Are you going to develop "Armenians in Russia", "Armenian-Tatars wars?" or [[March Days]?. You can present all this information as a background to March Days or ARF. However, you need to slow down. Is there an article which explains how "Russians resettled many Armenians in the Caucasus". You need to create this article. Tell us where they were settled. What was the demographics before they come etc... Then link this article to March Days. Give us more information on Why Tatars had conflicts with Armenians. Who supported the Armenians. Where did they found the resources to fight against Tatars. You can put a link from this article to March Days. And use all these pages as a link in ARF to support your arguments. Just take your time. O.K. --OttomanReference 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

These and many other issues are reflected on page related to Nagorno-Karabakh and others. Question of settlemnt is not important here (I just briefly mentioned it - we can omit it at all). You are driving this discussion to other areas. (I don't think that if I want to put information in the history of World War II about American-British bombing of Drezden, I need to write the history of the city, rather I should concentrate whether it occur or not, and whether we have reliable refrences for that). In the meantime, I appreciate your suggestion and tips to work on other articles, which somehow in the future probably I will do. But it is not neccessary for this dispute here. --Dacy69 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the info about the role of ARF in the March days is easily verifiable and should be included in the article. There’s no way to avoid it, if we are going to provide objective description of the party’s history. See the following quotes:

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.

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

After the Azerbaijani representatives accepted the terms, the Dashnaks took to looting, burning and killing in the Muslim sections of the city.

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

The collapse of the Russian and Ottoman Empires in 1918 gave the nationalists their chance to form an independent state, but the nationalist point was really driven home in that year's "March days," when chauvinist Armenian Dashnaks allied with the Bolsheviks carried out pogroms against Muslims in Baku. The turn to nationalism failed, too, of course, when the Bolsheviks marched back into Azerbaijan in 1920.

Stuart Kaufman. Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. ISBN-10: 0801438020

Grandmaster 05:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I remind you again that this was the subject of the dispute. Before accusing Marshall and I of this you should have carefully read what the dispute is all about. The disputed edit was not about March Events. Dacy69 re-used Papazian source and then distorted a British source to later open the subject of March Events, which wasn't even the subject of the edit. You cannot accuse us of doing something which we didn't even discuss about; it wasn't even included in Dacy69's edit. If you want to discuss about March Events, I’m alright with that, but this is unrelated with the RfC as the matter of the dispute was an edit unrelated with it. - Fedayee 11:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you do not object to inclusion of info about March days in this aticle. I have more quotes, including leader of Baku commune Shaumian. As for 1905, Dashnaks were involved in terrorist activity, and it is also verifiable info. They killed a number of Russian officials in the Caucasus, including the governor of Baku prince Nakashidze. Why is it a problem with inclusion of that info? Grandmaster 11:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

About assassination of Baku governor, who was representing the Russian tsarist rule:

By the time the violence had subsided, almost everyone involved was blaming the Russian government and particularly Russian officials like Baku Governor-General Prince Nakashidze, whom the Dashnakists assassinated in May 1905, for inciting both sides against each other.

Houri Berberian. Armenians and the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 1905-1911: The Love for Freedom Has No Fatherland. ISBN-10: 0813338174

The Dashnaks organized the Armenians, arming the villagers, imposing revolutionary taxes, creating quick-response defence forces and terrorist attack squads. The Governor of Baku, Prince Nakashidze, was assassinated in late spring by Dashnaks, for what they viewed as his complicity in the February pogroms.

A. Holly Shissler. Between Two Empires: Ahmet Agaoglu and the New Turkey. ISBN-10: 186064855X

The Dashnaks remained true to their word and in May of 1905 took responsibility for the killing of the Baku governor, Prince Nakashidze, by a bomb thrown at the Hotel Metropole. In the proclamation they issued taking responsibility for killing the governor, they addressed the Armenian people: “Nakashidze is no more.... The Baku governor of the days of 6-9 [February] is no more; only justice is eternal, and this time it was delivered by the hand of the Armenian revolutionaries.”

Firouzeh Mostashari. On the Religious Frontier: Tsarist Russia and Islam in the Caucasus. ISBN-10: 1850437718

Grandmaster 12:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no distortion of Henry book. In this book we have various version of reasons of the massacres. And I quoted one of them. We can put another. There is no distortion in quote. Secondly about Papazian I am ready to drop in the spirit of compromise. (as I told you, his writing does not contradict what other sources say about revolutionary activity of ARF but since it is question on the ground of his political affiliation)Vorontsov-Dashkov and Libaridian have every reason to stay in the article. Moreover I brought quote from Swietochowski, which have even reason to be included - it is neutral (it is purely academic with no political afffiliation at all). About March Days and ARF - yes, it is a little separate issue - we can have another discussion, but I expect the same attitude. It was a suggestion from a RfC contributor to develop story of the situation in the region of that time. But, I suppose it will open dispute even wider.--Dacy69 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break and admin response

It is my feeling after reading many of the complaints and the entire RFC that MarshallBagramyan is probably more responsible for creating and maintaining this conflict than Dacy69. Whatever the merits of the edit that started this latest conflict, it was clearly a good faith attempt to add some information about the ARF role in Armenian-Tatar violence backed up by multiple sources. Reverting this edit was rude, at least.

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.[15]

It would have been greatly preferable to question the sources without first reverting, and try to work out a way to fix the section rather than simply removing it. The discussion after the revert is useful to me as an outsider and a scholar; I'm not sure it has been useful to the participants, because I get the feeling that their opinions are pretty much fossilized. That is an unfortunate impression to convey if untrue, and even more unfortunate if true.

On the matter of personal attacks, any statements questioning an edit or comment, especially statements that denigrate, deprecate, or dismiss a comment, based on the ethnicity or ideology of the editor is probably out of bounds. Certainly these comments do not contribute to a good environment and will eventually be seen as disruptive enough to block an editor or ban an editor from this article for a period of time. There is also a massive failure here to assume good faith. None of you seems to be willing to accept that the other might have something useful to contribute. Whether "you're the one here who is intentionally fomenting a war between the two sides" or "You are just desperately trying to protect this page from truth" these comments will also eventually lead to either blocks or article bans.

On the matter of "soapboxing" statement by Fedayee, that was particularly unhelpful, as OttomanReference had asked for background on the dispute and Dacy provided it. There is no general prohibition against developing article content on the talk page first; in fact that might be a good thing to do in some cases.

On the matter of content, there seems to be reasonable scholarly support for stating that the ARF participated in anti-Tatar (Azeri Turk/Azerbaijani) violence during the Armenian-Tatar massacres, and there are also sources that state the ARF only acted in defense. As an editor, my approach would be to mention this in the article about the ARF with enough background to provide necessary context, and also link to a more fully developed article at Armenian-Tatar massacres.

The arbitration committee did not specifically authorize admins to ban editors from particular articles for disruption, but I believe that is already within the discretion of individual admins. Certainly an article ban would be less harmful than either protection (which bans everyone from editing the article) or blocking (which bans an editor from every article). The discussion here shows signs of being productive and useful as long as editors are open-minded and willing to cooperate. Are you? Thatcher131 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Further Deliberations by Editors Involved

"Whatever the merits of the edit that started this latest conflict, it was clearly a good faith attempt to add some information about the ARF role in Armenian-Tatar violence backed up by multiple sources. Reverting this edit was rude, at least." Not whenever the sources were dubious, did not correspond to what was written in the text and were placed just to get editors from the other side fired up. In the final objective, at least Dacy succeeded. I never joined Wikipedia to get into pissing matches with others. I minded my business, ignored hurtful comments on for months and succeeded in authoring 2 whole FA articles, numerous GA and DYK articles.

Dacy's intention on this article was never rooted in good faith. From the onset in February, what were the only things he focused on? The alleged terrorism aspect of the ARF. He misinterpreted the ARF's arrest by the Armenian government in 1994-1995 as a clear sign of Armenian terrorism when even the sources used in the article clearly disputed this (the Armenian government did not want the ARF to win the parliamentary elections) yet he clung on to it, saying that it was proof of the ARF's terrorist activity.

So naturally, yes, I was skeptical of his edit and duly checked his sources, Papazian, the Briton, the Russians and it was obvious they were distorted from the beginning. The Briton's words did not correspond to what he wrote in the text, the Russians were not a reliable source and even Dacy conceded to remove Papazian. From the beginning, he accused Fedayee of POV: For you every scholar is idiot, if it does no match your POV. Why would I expect anything different from him when he himself did not change in methodlogy? What was the purpose of wording the text so malignly? "Their bands would attack the Muslim and often exterminate the population of entire villages" whereas Henry doesn't even make any mention of the Dashnaks in the first place. I can understand if my own skepticism exacerbated the matter but find me instances in my editing history where I have intentionally went on to other articles and fished on people's nationalities to directly provoke a nationalist battle with them.

I worked fine with users like GM, Parishan, and even Baku87 who has been gone lately, but when Atabek, Adil and Dacy showed up they poisoned the well right from the start and attacked Armenian-related articles every which way. In other words, compromise and discussion are easy, the Nagorno-Karabakh article is an example of this and has been having more or less productive discussions for almost two years now, there hasn't been little to no instances of ill faith by the editors. Articles that used to have GA status were thrown into a whirlwind of edit wars by the trio. This enmity all stems from the fact that Armenians won the Nagorno-Karabakh War and who still continue to hold the region; all you have to do is take a look on YouTube to see the language that it has spurned [16]. I'm sorry for the long response and for going a little off topic, but this is directly where the enmity stems from.--MarshallBagramyan 16:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is unfortunate you have not changed your attitude. Anyway, I will contunue to work and hope for resolution. Just I would like to point to some of misinterpretations.

1 - "He misinterpreted the ARF's arrest by the Armenian government in 1994-1995 as a clear sign of Armenian terrorism when even the sources used in the article clearly disputed this" - Wrong - I never said a word about their arrest. I just only said that ARF was banned in Armenia.

2 - "I was skeptical of his edit and duly checked his sources, Papazian, the Briton, the Russians and it was obvious they were distorted from the beginning" - Wrong - Papazian told that ARF extorted money from Armenians. Now please read Luigi Villari (whom you brought here) "The revolutionary committee displayed great zeal in collecting money both from the Armenians and the foreign firms who paid it blackmail, and in smuggling arms and explosives into the town from Moscow." [17] ("Rev. Commitees" at that time refered to "Dashnak" in multiple sources) Ok, we will drop Papazian - not because he was wrong but because you think that it is non-academic, political source and we will use L.Villari.

3 - "Their bands would attack the Muslim and often exterminate the population of entire villages" - this quote from Vorontsov-Dashkov, not British source. As far as the latter is concerned, it gave two perspectives, and Thatcher131 advised us to give both.

4 I gave quote from Swietochowski. What about that? What about Libaridian? What about other quotes brought later by Grandmaster?

I never touched other nationalities; some users (Fadix, Eupator, Fedayee) started doing that with regard to me from the very first day in Wiki when I edited page Urartu - the edit which was affirmed by neutral users.

It is better to drop any prejudice and involve in editing. Apparently your last comment about the actual war is not in line with that. At least - we have admin's judgement on this case and should follow this guidance to finish the dispute asap. I will propose new wording with a text, giving various perspectives, as per Thatcher131 advise, and then we can discuss that.--Dacy69 19:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Thatcher, Papazian was already questioned over two months ago and this same source has caused the article to be protected. When user:Dacy69 added Papazian he knew we had questioned it before and that it had caused a lockage of the article...that it will cause revert warring and he never followed the previous discussion from which a removal of that source was justified. In light of that, before adding back the source which was reverted, Dacy69 should have discussed with us knowing fully that stuff like that is controversial and him knowing first hand what the source had done to the article beforehand, yet he preferred not to do that! And lately, he is claiming that he is ready to leave Papazian out, which is good but it is...only now. On the soapboxing comment, the background has no relevancy on the content added by Dacy69, this was what was reverted, March Events and other sources were not. Most of what is in the background has very little to do with that edit.

Now about the multiple sources that Dacy69 provided in that edit, which are supposed to back what he claims. The Papazian quote was about the Ottoman Empire and not Tsarist Russia (the section in hand to begin with) and the reason why it should be removed is because it is political propaganda published as a counter-measure against the liberation movement in the 30s and 40s. The context in which that was said was to accuse the Dashnaks of the Armenian Genocide by turning the Ottoman authorities against the Armenians. The author in the book does not hide his intentions on the goal of his book. The credibility of this source was already discussed in the past and besides, it wasn't even about Tsarist Russia anyway...

Now about the British source...Thatch, the source doesn't even once mention the words ARF, neither does it mention Dashnak...not once. The work places the blame of all the turmoil on the Russians and then, the Tartars. Dacy69 then provides two Russian sources from the period that are from officials. And finally, the last book he has provided is already used in the article; it is not like we are suppressing anything like he accused us of trying to do.

And Btw, Dacy69, I have never ever edited the Urartu page, never even discussed anything about it, in fact I pretty much never had contact with you until the ARF edit...false acusations - Fedayee 22:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1 - I reintroduced Papazian because his information was not unique My other references supported a point about ARF activity. Later I supplied another source (Villari) which claim almost the same. But I told that I will remove Papazian.

2 - Now it seems you both engaged in discussion of sources. I have never said that what I initially edited is ultimate truth. I left a message that I will introduce new edit. It is not up to Wiki rule to explain everuthing before edit. You make edit, someone question it - and you explain and support your point. The problem was - and Thatcher131 pointed to it - it was removed without discussion.

3 - In order to reach consensus I am ready to remove questionable sources like Papazian. You raises concern about British source. Technically it mentiones Armenian rev. committees, which is Dashnaks. But there is no 'word' Dashnak or ARF in the text. Any historian knows what we are talking about and how sources of that period termed ARF. But Ok, I will remove it as well.

Dacy69 says " Armenian rev. committees" Most of the Ottoman documents (now Turkish, too) use these words to ARF when they want to point to party and/or organization. Dashnaks (instead of Armenian I guess) was used when they want to refer to individuals. I have not seen a document that claimed there was another organization which has the words revolutionary and/or committee in its name. Also I have never seen an Armenian organization (except the officially recognized Armenian National Assembly) developed a unified structure (over these organization) and has the name federation. If there is no objection (such as a proof that three was another organization besides the ARF in the region) I do not see any reason not to associate it ARF. --OttomanReference 14:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

3 - Libaridian source is different and it is mentioned on the page with regard different information. So, my reference of Libaridian should stay.

4 - As I told, I will submit revised version (after the week-end) based on Villari, Switochowski, Libaridian, and others.--Dacy69 14:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Marhsall, comments like: “Dacy's intention on this article was never rooted in good faith” are not helpful at all, as Thatcher rightfully noted. You should judge the edits by their own merits, and not dismiss and revert them only because they were made by a certain user. Blind reverts will not help improve this article. The same thing happened on Urartu article, and third party mediators acknowledged that Dacy was only adding accurate info, which was reverted without any good reason. And I have the same problem with certain users on Paytakaran article, where they revert all my edits no matter what they say or refer to. This article in its current state looks like an advertisement for ARF, while the real picture is very different. ARF is known for its extreme nationalist views, one third party source, Kauffman, even called it “chauvinist”. ARF was involved in terrorist activity in both Turkey and Russia, and it is well documented. I cited a number of sources about ARF’s role in assassination of Baku governor, and it is just one example. ARF’s militants killed a number of Russian officials in the Caucasus, in addition to their role in Armenian-Azeri massacres. As of now, ARF makes territorial claims to 3 neighboring countries: Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. This aspect is reflected in the article, which is good. But the history of the party should also be presented objectively. I’m surprised that this article became a GA, when it has serious flaws. Grandmaster 06:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

user:Dacy69's edit was not made in good faith...he added the same source which previously caused the protection of the article. It was not a blind revert and this was explained time and time again, stop with those baseless accusations. And what happened on the Urartu article? What is its relevency...you guys keep mentioning Urartu over and over again. Dacy69 even accused me of being part of it while I have never ever made any edit to that article, let alone have had any contact with Dacy69. If you want to see an advertisement check the Geydar Aliev page. His history as a criminal is much more recorded and known...where have you said anything about it? Now that is an advertisement article. The assassination of the governor of Baku was not considered "terrorism", this is your interpretation to it. The Baku governor is accused by most sources of being one of the main people responsible for most of the massacres. He was known as being strongly anti-Armenian and as someone who distributed arms to the Tartars and turned them against the Armenians. Where is the ARF role in the Armenian-Azeri massacres? The sources speak of the killings of Russian officials, but their role in the Armenian-Azeri massacre is your interpretation. The ARF makes the same claims as other Armenians do, those claims you talk about is the re-establishment of the Treaty of Sèvres, which is not an ARF treaty btw. This article became GA because it is a GA article. I can go and visit Azeri GA articles and can question why they made it to GA status too. You still even think that the Nagorno-Karabakh War article should not have become FA. Those are your impressions and you have the right to have them. - Fedayee 20:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless if Russian governor was good or bad, his assassination was an act of terror. Plus, he was not the only Russian official killed by ARF. ARF's role in Armenian - Azeri massacres is also well documented. I don't see why this information cannot be included here. I understand that you can question the quality of certain sources, but that’s not the reason to delete all sources used without any discussion. Grandmaster 05:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit

Ok, perhaps we should not use sources which causes controversy like Papzian and British sources. I will act further in spirit of compromise. Upon Thathcer131 comments ARF activity is confirmed by multiply sources. And we should give both perspectives. So, taking into account this I suggest the following revised version of my edit:

During Armenian-Tatar massacres in 1905-1906 the ARF was involved in armed activities. Most observers blame the Russian authorities for inaction during the massacres and moreover, for instigating intercommunal violence. The first outbreak of violence occurred in Baku in February 1905 and caused by murder of a Muslim by the Dashnakists. The ARF held the Russian authorities responsible for inaction and in May 1905 Dashnakist Dro Kanayan assassinated Russian governor Nakashidze. Russian Tsar's Envoy in the Caucasus Vorontsov-Dashkov noted that ARF bore a major portion of responsibilities for perpetrating the massacres. Their bands would attack the Muslim and often exterminate the population of entire villages The ARF, however, argued that it helped to organize the defence of Armenian population against Muslim attacks. The blows suffered at the hands of the Dashnakist fighting squads proved a catalyst for the consolidation of Muslim community of Azerbaijan. During that period the ARF regarded an armed activity, including terror, as necessary tool for achievement of political goals.

Since this page about ARF I have not dwelled on the massacres and kept it short. The separate edit should be made for Dashnak role in March Days, sources concerned Grandmaster put forward. --Dacy69 15:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry is this an attempt at compromise? it looks virtually the same as the same edits you put in the first time. You haven't even changed the POV wording--MarshallBagramyan 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69, revert yourself please. We haven't reached a compromise. It seems that except for your exclusion of Papazian, not much has changed in your proposed edit. I suggest you implement more thoroughly WP:NPOV to your proposed edit and stop trying to insert weasel words. And why was the British source removed? I consider that British source to be pretty credible...perhaps there is something inconvenient in it? - Fedayee 17:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me you have objected to British sources from the beginning. We can include it - both parts which you and I put forward. I put my comments here 2 days ago and waited for comments. No one replied and I edited. MarshallBagramyan - you again acted without reasanoble explanation. I changed references - you should first object to those references (Swietochowski, Libaridian). I feel that someone wants just to prolong the dispute. There is no POV wording or weasel word. Everything is 98% of quoted sentences. --Dacy69 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem is not just the sources but also the wording. Without any quotations or citing any figure, the text presents a scenario where a political party is going around and essentially committing genocide. If it is a quotation, it'd be rather nice if we actually saw the quotation marks. We're still stuck on square one whether you accept it so or not.--MarshallBagramyan 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I quoted Switechowski and others above. So, if we follow your logic all Wiki articles we should put in quotation marks. But anyway, I see no problem to put quotation marks or to say that this is according to .... actually, the edit say for example,Vorontsov-Dashkov maintained... bla-bla... Is it what you want? Ok. let's deconstruct:

• 1st Sentence - During Armenian-Tatar massacres in 1905-1906 the ARF was involved in armed activities (This is intro which is supported by information below.)
• 2nd sentence - Most observers blame the Russian authorities for inaction during the massacres and moreover, for instigating intercommunal violence. (It is actually not about ARF and summary of many opinions)
• 3rd The first outbreak of violence occurred in Baku in February 1905 and caused by murder of a Muslim by the Dashnakists. (pure quote from -
• 4th sentence - The ARF held the Russian authorities responsible for inaction and in May 1905 Dashnakist Dro Kanayan assassinated Russian governor Nakashidze. (this is well-known fact which you can read from many websites for example [18] or even armenian website [19]
• 5th sentence - Russian Tsar's Envoy in the Caucasus Vorontsov-Dashkov noted that ARF bore a major portion of responsibilities for perpetrating the massacres. Their bands would attack the Muslim and often exterminate the population of entire villages (exactly in line what you want - I can put even according to Vorontosv-Dashkov)
• 6 sentence The ARF, however, argued that it helped to organize the defence of Armenian population against Muslim attacks. (for that you should give a quoate :-))
• 7 sentence The blows suffered at the hands of the Dashnakist fighting squads proved a catalyst for the consolidation of Muslim community of Azerbaijan. (exact quote from
• 8 sentence - During that period the ARF regarded an armed activity, including terror, as necessary tool for achievement of political goals. (taken from that )

So, I hope explanation is exaustive. --Dacy69 21:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

::sigh:: Ok, I think you should read the difference between a quotation and a citation. I'll consider the rest and reword it where necessary.--MarshallBagramyan 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not opposed the British source...what I have opposed is your interpretation of it. The first acts of violence did not happen directly because of the murder of a Muslim. In the collection of historical accounts on history presented during the Unites States Congress, it included the event and it says: "In February 1905, the Tartars of Baku and elsewhere began their unprovoked onslaught on the Armenians ..." (United States Congressional Serial Set Par United States Government Printing Office, United States Government Printing Office, 1919 U.S. G.P.O). Villari, who witnessed what happened in February wrote: "The body of Babayev was carried in procession through the Tartar quarter, and exposed to view. Had Prince Nakashidze wished to prevent trouble, he would have stopped the procession; the sight of the murdered man roused the Moslems to fury, and on the 19th of February they proceeded to massacre every Armenian they came across. The Armenians defended themselves as best they could, but the Tartars were much more numerous and better armed. The authorities remained absolutely passive, and to the frenzied appeals for help which Prince Nakashidze was constantly receiving from hard-pressed Armenians besieged in their own houses, he replied that he had no troops and could do nothing, although as a matter of fact he had 2,000 men."

During that time the Dashnaks did not intervene, as Charles van der Leeuw writes: "At the same time, not only the authorities but the Bolshevik movement, weakened after the failed general strike and uprising the previous year but still well organised and most of all well armed, did not intervene either – nor did the Dashnaks." (Azerbaijan: A Quest for Identity, Charles van de Leeuw p.146) It will be only after that, that the Dashnaks will finally intervene...the same author says that the Tartars did the job for the authorities to fight against the Armenian bourgeois. Stephen F. Jones writes: "The city duma-which had helped administer the city's educational, health, and police establishments since 1876, due to the high tax payments (fifteen hundred rubles) required for membership-consisted of the city’s financial elite. The overwhelming majority were Armenian." (Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1997, p. 176). Leeuw also writes: "In the decade that followed, both indigenous and émigré Armenians confirmed their reputation as shrewd traders and speculators in Azerbaijan, mainly where property and valuables were concerned. This raised concern in the Russian parliament, in particular among the handful of Azeri nobelemen who represented their homeland there,..." The Dashnaks could not have been responsible for having started anything. You removed the British source which is accurate and which supports the other neutral records but you went on and kept Russian officials' sources, when they were accused of being the main responsible cause. You don't expect them to admit their guilt or something? Swietochowski's more recent work published in 1995 doesn't say anything about it being started from the killing of a Muslim. (Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition). But out of fairness if you want to use Swietochowski, an expert of Azerbaijani history, you should also be willing to use an expert on Armenian history. Swietochowski is definitely pro-Azerbaijani...he cited in the past Stanford Shaw to support controversial assertions regarding the Armenian Genocide, a minority view among Western academics. Just for an example, you should check the date of the funeral of the Muslim killed by an Armenian and check when the first clash happened. For example, Charles van der Leeuw says: "What exactly triggered of the first inter-ethnic clashes is not known." And Leeuw is considered to be a pro-Azerbaijani source. - Fedayee 02:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll make further comments after weekend on Monday.--Dacy69 06:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

1 OK - You argued much about a British sources therefore I removed it. I will reintroduce my part - you - yours.

2 Fedayee - with your level of knowledge it would be better not to make such argument about Swietochowski. He wrote 2 different books "Russian Azerbaijan" and "Borderland in transition". We can't compare it - they have different scope, structure, etc. Moreover, "Russian Azerbaijan" was republished in 2004 (check amazon.com) Van der Leeuw book is weaker than Swietochowski - he is not even academician, he is journalist. And please don't measure everything with Genocide issue - it is even weaker argument. Academics are measured by merits of their scholarly work, not by their view on certain issues.

3 I have other sources which mention the involvement of ARF (even Villari mention that though he say Armenian denies that), you have your sources which deny it. The best solution will be if we reword the edit in a way which will state for example: "Some sources say... Other sources deny..." That will end this dispute, I hope.--Dacy69 14:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked Van der Leeuw - on page 145 he writes "In Baku murder of a Muslim bussinessman called Babayev by Dashnak militiaman provoked an outburst of rage". Please quote carefully and fully, Fedayee. Perhaps, you should have not brought Van der Leeuw at all. His credibility is under question by an Armenian author. See [20] but this is Armenian POV--Dacy69 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)