Misplaced Pages

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 knew 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 bee criticised in any positive way by the academia in the time. Not only among Armenians the work in not credible. 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)