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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]