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 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 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)