Talk:Armenian Revolutionary Federation

Searches for Dashnaktsutiun, Dashnak Party and Dashnak should redirect here.

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)